Although rare to back Labour (they did under Blair), I believe they have backed Lib Dems past two elections so well open to backing a centre left party, just not the Corbyn view of the world. Brexit lost their support for the Tories.
The betting markets on election night could be quite volatile if the exit poll puts Labour materially below their polling figures. They could get 33-4% of the vote but still win a huge majority.
Only if Redfield is right and the Tories get 19% and Reform 18%.
If however JL Partners is right and the Tories are back up to 25%, then 33-34% for Labour could mean a hung parliament
Via @wethinkpolling, 6-24 Jun. Changes w/ GE2019 Notional. Yum yum
Yikes.
That's fascinating. Not much Labour organisation in the seat at all (though a very keen candidate, Isabel Oakeshott's sister). LibDem posters and leaflets everywhere. And yet the above.
If it's accurate then the Blue Wall starts getting very messy.
If its accurate the Tories may hold seats like Witney, Tunbridge Wells, Chelsea and Fulham, Surrey Heath, Chelmsford and Wokingham and Chippenham which are in the latter part of the LD target list merely because the rise in the Labour vote is bigger than the rise in the LD vote. Similar happened in 1997 where the LDs got a lower swing to them than Labour in Tory held seats
Indeed. The biggest threat to the LibDems' ambitions in the South of England is people voting Labour in non-Labour targets.
Cynically I suspect Labour would rather have a weakened, in-fighting Tory party as its opposition than a newly invigorated LibDem party attacking them (at times) from the left.
Uncrossover with Redfield Labour leads the Conservatives by 23%.
🇬🇧 Westminster Voting Intention (26-27 June):
Labour 42% (–) Conservative 19% (+1) Reform UK 18% (-1) Liberal Democrat 11% (-1) Green 5% (-1) Scottish National Party 3% (–) Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 21-24 June
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…
This is a 5000 sample poll so not a Mega poll but what you would call a Half Mega Poll. Very little movement and all within Margin of Error. It will obviously please the Conservatives to be back in front of Reform - the actual split is 19.1 versus 17.7 so a little over 1%.
The gender voting is interesting - only 4% of men are DKs but 11% of women.
The age tranches are also interesting - Reform are running second among the 45-64 age group but the Conservatives are four points ahead of Reform among the 65+ cohort though they trail Labour in this group 32-23 (the gap in 2019 was 17-64) so that's a 28% swing in the 65+ age group. Those numbers are very different to More In Common who for example who had 40% Conservative among the over 65s but that goes a long way to explaining the difference in Conservative VI.
This is our tax base disappearing. This is a catastrophe - and I very much doubt that Labour will fix it
And of course all the lefties on here will yelp: “let them go we don’t need them”. Or the alternative: “no they won’t go. They’re lying” even as they go
Millionaires are leaving the UK faster than any country in the world other than China, new data shows.
According to the Henley Private Wealth Migration Report, 9,500 millionaires, defined in US dollar terms are leaving the UK this year. Only China - which has more than twice as many people with seven-figure net worths - saw more millionaires leave.
This is a new record outflow for the UK, with London expected to be especially hard hit. The top destinations for millionaires leaving the UK include Paris, Dubai, Amsterdam, Monaco, Geneva, Sydney, and Singapore, as well as retirement hotspots such as Florida, the Algarve, Malta, and the Italian Riviera.”
Who would have thought high taxes, end to non-dom status, high levels of shitty crime in London etc would be a turn off.
The problem as I have said in the past is that it is ever easier to run businesses in countries you don't even live in, and some countries know this and making it very attractive offers.
I've spent the last couple of weeks eyeing up my options, should my tax bill double. There are some ridiculously cheap ways of leaving the country for example the D7 visa for Portugal only requires a passive income of €705 a month and comes with substantial tax breaks for the first decade of living there.
45% of capital gains taxes are raised on disposals of greater than £5m, so leaving to avoid the difference in a 20% rate (fairly average) vs a 45% rate (one of the highest in the world) makes sense to almost half the tax base currently paying the tax. 20% of £5m is £1m, but 45% of it is £2.25m, and there are places round the world you can pay 0%. Heck, you can pay 0% on the Isle of Man if you're really determined. But Dubai etc will welcome you with open arms.
While there's been no research done on 20% -> 45% HMRC's own forecasts have suggested that a 10% raise in the higher rate (28%) would be net negative to the treasury by £1.1bn in 2025-2026 and negative £2.1bn the year after.
For these reasons I hope Rachel Reeves will be sensible and avoid the calls from within her own party to tax CGT as income. However I suspect with a supermajority, the clarion call to bash the rich will be too great to resist. It will end up harming both the country, and the economy.
Avoiding the difference between 20% and a hypothetical new 45% rate by messing about with domicile is not an option. Anyone sitting on a big gain taxable at 20% in my view wants their head feeling if they don't sell at least a big chunk now. CGT is going up, very possibly in an emergency budget To Save The NHS before end July, and it is not coming down till next time there's a con majority with a thriving economy and the deficit under control 2095?
It's too late anyway to be clever about this. You have to bugger off and be resident abroad and *then* sell your asset, and anyone now resident in the UK is resident here till next April cos da man at da revenue doesn't recognise part years. So even if there's no budget till autumn that doesn't really help
Yep, I would be looking at leaving on April 6th 2025 for precisely that reason.
Via @wethinkpolling, 6-24 Jun. Changes w/ GE2019 Notional. Yum yum
Looking at the data tables for this (available from here), the raw numbers are: LAB 160 LDM 64 CON 130 GRN 20 RFM 26
So there's some hefty weighting going on to arrive at the percentages above. Can anybody who understands these things take a look at the supplementary questions asked, and work out what has motivated the weighting? (It's not just "likelihood to vote" - I looked at that myself.)
No, not really and I'm not sure where you are seeing those figures.
The interesting tables are 13, 14 and 15. 13 is the baseline so all those sampled and it comes out Lab 95, LD 95, Con 93.
But in table 13, 95/95/93 is the weighted base - the unweighted figures are 160/64/130. My question is, on what criteria has the weighting been done ie if they only found 64 people actually saying they would vote LD, what caused them to up-weight that number (and down-weight the others)?
They've found a remarkably 2019 Lib Dem light sample, statistically improbably so.
. . . in case you missed this story from the Great White North . . .
CBC News - Conservatives win longtime Liberal stronghold Toronto-St. Paul's in shock byelection result Stunning result raises questions about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's future
Conservative candidate Don Stewart has won the longtime federal Liberal stronghold of Toronto-St. Paul's, a stunning result that raises questions about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's future.
Stewart's victory is shocking because the seat has been held by the Liberals for more than 30 years — even through the party's past low points, such as the 2011 federal election that returned just 34 Liberal MPs to Parliament.
Before Monday's vote, a Conservative candidate hadn't been competitive in Toronto–St. Paul's since the 1980s. The party hadn't won a seat in urban Toronto since the 2011 federal election. . . .
. . . Stewart, a consultant, claimed victory with about 42 per cent of the vote against Church, a former Parliament Hill staffer and lawyer, who took roughly 40 per cent of the ballots cast.
The Liberals' poor showing in a stronghold like this could prompt some soul-searching for Trudeau, who has seen his popularity plummet as inflation, the cost of living crisis, high home prices and surging immigration levels drive voter discontent.
This Conservative upset is likely to lead to some anxiety in the Liberal caucus because such a dramatic vote swing could put other supposedly "safe" seats in play for the Conservatives in the next general election. . . .
Trudeau won't be springing for an early election this time!
The Canadian Liberals are a far more mellow bunch than the UK Tories. If a PM was getting those kinds of results and polling at Trudeau levels they’d be long gone by now. In fact, if Rishi hadn’t called his GE I have a strong suspicion we might actually have had that summer leadership contest…
The betting markets on election night could be quite volatile if the exit poll puts Labour materially below their polling figures. They could get 33-4% of the vote but still win a huge majority.
Only if Redfield is right and the Tories get 19% and Reform 18%.
If however JL Partners is right and the Tories are back up to 25%, then 33-34% for Labour could mean a hung parliament
I do admire your chutzpah. There is no straw too thin for you not to clutch.
Though seriously, I think you know that your party is doomed this time round and, unlike some on here, you take it with good grace and dignity.
. . . in case you missed this story from the Great White North . . .
CBC News - Conservatives win longtime Liberal stronghold Toronto-St. Paul's in shock byelection result Stunning result raises questions about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's future
Conservative candidate Don Stewart has won the longtime federal Liberal stronghold of Toronto-St. Paul's, a stunning result that raises questions about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's future.
Stewart's victory is shocking because the seat has been held by the Liberals for more than 30 years — even through the party's past low points, such as the 2011 federal election that returned just 34 Liberal MPs to Parliament.
Before Monday's vote, a Conservative candidate hadn't been competitive in Toronto–St. Paul's since the 1980s. The party hadn't won a seat in urban Toronto since the 2011 federal election. . . .
. . . Stewart, a consultant, claimed victory with about 42 per cent of the vote against Church, a former Parliament Hill staffer and lawyer, who took roughly 40 per cent of the ballots cast.
The Liberals' poor showing in a stronghold like this could prompt some soul-searching for Trudeau, who has seen his popularity plummet as inflation, the cost of living crisis, high home prices and surging immigration levels drive voter discontent.
This Conservative upset is likely to lead to some anxiety in the Liberal caucus because such a dramatic vote swing could put other supposedly "safe" seats in play for the Conservatives in the next general election. . . .
Trudeau won't be springing for an early election this time!
The Canadian Liberals are a far more mellow bunch than the UK Tories. If a PM was getting those kinds of results and polling at Trudeau levels they’d be long gone by now. In fact, if Rishi hadn’t called his GE I have a strong suspicion we might actually have had that summer leadership contest…
The Russian Liberal Democrats are much more entertaining than our lot.
This is our tax base disappearing. This is a catastrophe - and I very much doubt that Labour will fix it
And of course all the lefties on here will yelp: “let them go we don’t need them”. Or the alternative: “no they won’t go. They’re lying” even as they go
Millionaires are leaving the UK faster than any country in the world other than China, new data shows.
According to the Henley Private Wealth Migration Report, 9,500 millionaires, defined in US dollar terms are leaving the UK this year. Only China - which has more than twice as many people with seven-figure net worths - saw more millionaires leave.
This is a new record outflow for the UK, with London expected to be especially hard hit. The top destinations for millionaires leaving the UK include Paris, Dubai, Amsterdam, Monaco, Geneva, Sydney, and Singapore, as well as retirement hotspots such as Florida, the Algarve, Malta, and the Italian Riviera.”
Who would have thought high taxes, end to non-dom status, high levels of shitty crime in London etc would be a turn off.
The problem as I have said in the past is that it is ever easier to run businesses in countries you don't even live in, and some countries know this and making it very attractive offers.
I've spent the last couple of weeks eyeing up my options, should my tax bill double. There are some ridiculously cheap ways of leaving the country for example the D7 visa for Portugal only requires a passive income of €705 a month and comes with substantial tax breaks for the first decade of living there.
45% of capital gains taxes are raised on disposals of greater than £5m, so leaving to avoid the difference in a 20% rate (fairly average) vs a 45% rate (one of the highest in the world) makes sense to almost half the tax base currently paying the tax. 20% of £5m is £1m, but 45% of it is £2.25m, and there are places round the world you can pay 0%. Heck, you can pay 0% on the Isle of Man if you're really determined. But Dubai etc will welcome you with open arms.
While there's been no research done on 20% -> 45% HMRC's own forecasts have suggested that a 10% raise in the higher rate (28%) would be net negative to the treasury by £1.1bn in 2025-2026 and negative £2.1bn the year after.
For these reasons I hope Rachel Reeves will be sensible and avoid the calls from within her own party to tax CGT as income. However I suspect with a supermajority, the clarion call to bash the rich will be too great to resist. It will end up harming both the country, and the economy.
Avoiding the difference between 20% and a hypothetical new 45% rate by messing about with domicile is not an option. Anyone sitting on a big gain taxable at 20% in my view wants their head feeling if they don't sell at least a big chunk now. CGT is going up, very possibly in an emergency budget To Save The NHS before end July, and it is not coming down till next time there's a con majority with a thriving economy and the deficit under control 2095?
It's too late anyway to be clever about this. You have to bugger off and be resident abroad and *then* sell your asset, and anyone now resident in the UK is resident here till next April cos da man at da revenue doesn't recognise part years. So even if there's no budget till autumn that doesn't really help
Yep, I would be looking at leaving on April 6th 2025 for precisely that reason.
I would be looking to leave well before April 6th - to make sure everything was in place on April 6th..
Via @wethinkpolling, 6-24 Jun. Changes w/ GE2019 Notional. Yum yum
Looking at the data tables for this (available from here), the raw numbers are: LAB 160 LDM 64 CON 130 GRN 20 RFM 26
So there's some hefty weighting going on to arrive at the percentages above. Can anybody who understands these things take a look at the supplementary questions asked, and work out what has motivated the weighting? (It's not just "likelihood to vote" - I looked at that myself.)
No, not really and I'm not sure where you are seeing those figures.
The interesting tables are 13, 14 and 15. 13 is the baseline so all those sampled and it comes out Lab 95, LD 95, Con 93.
But in table 13, 95/95/93 is the weighted base - the unweighted figures are 160/64/130. My question is, on what criteria has the weighting been done ie if they only found 64 people actually saying they would vote LD, what caused them to up-weight that number (and down-weight the others)?
Presumably it's weighted by demographics, so in their sample of 350 they think middle-class middle aged sandal wearers are seriously under-represented compared to the general Bicester electorate (or something similar). It does seem a rather extreme re-weighting though and potentially it will drive voter behaviour.
This is our tax base disappearing. This is a catastrophe - and I very much doubt that Labour will fix it
And of course all the lefties on here will yelp: “let them go we don’t need them”. Or the alternative: “no they won’t go. They’re lying” even as they go
Millionaires are leaving the UK faster than any country in the world other than China, new data shows.
According to the Henley Private Wealth Migration Report, 9,500 millionaires, defined in US dollar terms are leaving the UK this year. Only China - which has more than twice as many people with seven-figure net worths - saw more millionaires leave.
This is a new record outflow for the UK, with London expected to be especially hard hit. The top destinations for millionaires leaving the UK include Paris, Dubai, Amsterdam, Monaco, Geneva, Sydney, and Singapore, as well as retirement hotspots such as Florida, the Algarve, Malta, and the Italian Riviera.”
Who would have thought high taxes, end to non-dom status, high levels of shitty crime in London etc would be a turn off.
The problem as I have said in the past is that it is ever easier to run businesses in countries you don't even live in, and some countries know this and making it very attractive offers.
I've spent the last couple of weeks eyeing up my options, should my tax bill double. There are some ridiculously cheap ways of leaving the country for example the D7 visa for Portugal only requires a passive income of €705 a month and comes with substantial tax breaks for the first decade of living there.
45% of capital gains taxes are raised on disposals of greater than £5m, so leaving to avoid the difference in a 20% rate (fairly average) vs a 45% rate (one of the highest in the world) makes sense to almost half the tax base currently paying the tax. 20% of £5m is £1m, but 45% of it is £2.25m, and there are places round the world you can pay 0%. Heck, you can pay 0% on the Isle of Man if you're really determined. But Dubai etc will welcome you with open arms.
While there's been no research done on 20% -> 45% HMRC's own forecasts have suggested that a 10% raise in the higher rate (28%) would be net negative to the treasury by £1.1bn in 2025-2026 and negative £2.1bn the year after.
For these reasons I hope Rachel Reeves will be sensible and avoid the calls from within her own party to tax CGT as income. However I suspect with a supermajority, the clarion call to bash the rich will be too great to resist. It will end up harming both the country, and the economy.
Avoiding the difference between 20% and a hypothetical new 45% rate by messing about with domicile is not an option. Anyone sitting on a big gain taxable at 20% in my view wants their head feeling if they don't sell at least a big chunk now. CGT is going up, very possibly in an emergency budget To Save The NHS before end July, and it is not coming down till next time there's a con majority with a thriving economy and the deficit under control 2095?
It's too late anyway to be clever about this. You have to bugger off and be resident abroad and *then* sell your asset, and anyone now resident in the UK is resident here till next April cos da man at da revenue doesn't recognise part years. So even if there's no budget till autumn that doesn't really help
Yep, I would be looking at leaving on April 6th 2025 for precisely that reason.
You need to leave by April 4 latest, and sell on the 6th. And best of luck but I greatly fear ms reeves will interfere with your plans. It's not just the rate of CGT she can alter, it's everything about it.
Totally unsurprisingly. Cameron assessment of UKIP / Reform was spot on.
I was thinking however, given many paper candidates are going to win Labour seats. I wonder what the under / over line on the time before a Labour MP suspended for previous comments or actions.
I believe Reform (certainly previous iterations) has a blanket ban on all former BNP members being candidates. The Tory Party did not have a similar ban at the time I was familiar with the issue.
Looking at the data tables for this (available from here), the raw numbers are: LAB 160 LDM 64 CON 130 GRN 20 RFM 26
So there's some hefty weighting going on to arrive at the percentages above. Can anybody who understands these things take a look at the supplementary questions asked, and work out what has motivated the weighting? (It's not just "likelihood to vote" - I looked at that myself.)
No, not really and I'm not sure where you are seeing those figures.
The interesting tables are 13, 14 and 15. 13 is the baseline so all those sampled and it comes out Lab 95, LD 95, Con 93.
But in table 13, 95/95/93 is the weighted base - the unweighted figures are 160/64/130. My question is, on what criteria has the weighting been done ie if they only found 64 people actually saying they would vote LD, what caused them to up-weight that number (and down-weight the others)?
They use "rake weighting" as quoted:
We use rake weighting to make our sample representative of the constituency. In particular we weight our data to match ONS targets on the following variables: age, gender, highest qualification, plus 2019 general election vote and likelihood to vote in this upcoming general election.
The betting markets on election night could be quite volatile if the exit poll puts Labour materially below their polling figures. They could get 33-4% of the vote but still win a huge majority.
Only if Redfield is right and the Tories get 19% and Reform 18%.
If however JL Partners is right and the Tories are back up to 25%, then 33-34% for Labour could mean a hung parliament
Perhaps understandably, there’s not much chat on here about the French elections.
As it stands, Le Pen’s mob (RN) are close to getting an absolute majority in the National Assembly.
If they DON’T get an absolute majority, which I still suspect is the most likely outcome, then we can expect some fragile minority coalition of Macron’s party and the rump centre-right.
But if they DO get a majority, not only are the promising to do a Truss (ie ballooning the deficit), they are also promising a complete about-turn in the French position on Ukraine. Le Pen has reminded voters that it is the PM not the President that controls the military budget, and Bardella has signalled that France wouldn’t supply Ukraine with long-range missiles. Several RN candidates have proven financial links with Moscow.
This election is a major European event, with significant implications for the UK.
Yes, in the sense that a lot of people are going to prefer to live in the UK than France if the far-right wins.
This is our tax base disappearing. This is a catastrophe - and I very much doubt that Labour will fix it
And of course all the lefties on here will yelp: “let them go we don’t need them”. Or the alternative: “no they won’t go. They’re lying” even as they go
Millionaires are leaving the UK faster than any country in the world other than China, new data shows.
According to the Henley Private Wealth Migration Report, 9,500 millionaires, defined in US dollar terms are leaving the UK this year. Only China - which has more than twice as many people with seven-figure net worths - saw more millionaires leave.
This is a new record outflow for the UK, with London expected to be especially hard hit. The top destinations for millionaires leaving the UK include Paris, Dubai, Amsterdam, Monaco, Geneva, Sydney, and Singapore, as well as retirement hotspots such as Florida, the Algarve, Malta, and the Italian Riviera.”
Who would have thought high taxes, end to non-dom status, high levels of shitty crime in London etc would be a turn off.
The problem as I have said in the past is that it is ever easier to run businesses in countries you don't even live in, and some countries know this and making it very attractive offers.
I've spent the last couple of weeks eyeing up my options, should my tax bill double. There are some ridiculously cheap ways of leaving the country for example the D7 visa for Portugal only requires a passive income of €705 a month and comes with substantial tax breaks for the first decade of living there.
45% of capital gains taxes are raised on disposals of greater than £5m, so leaving to avoid the difference in a 20% rate (fairly average) vs a 45% rate (one of the highest in the world) makes sense to almost half the tax base currently paying the tax. 20% of £5m is £1m, but 45% of it is £2.25m, and there are places round the world you can pay 0%. Heck, you can pay 0% on the Isle of Man if you're really determined. But Dubai etc will welcome you with open arms.
While there's been no research done on 20% -> 45% HMRC's own forecasts have suggested that a 10% raise in the higher rate (28%) would be net negative to the treasury by £1.1bn in 2025-2026 and negative £2.1bn the year after.
For these reasons I hope Rachel Reeves will be sensible and avoid the calls from within her own party to tax CGT as income. However I suspect with a supermajority, the clarion call to bash the rich will be too great to resist. It will end up harming both the country, and the economy.
Avoiding the difference between 20% and a hypothetical new 45% rate by messing about with domicile is not an option. Anyone sitting on a big gain taxable at 20% in my view wants their head feeling if they don't sell at least a big chunk now. CGT is going up, very possibly in an emergency budget To Save The NHS before end July, and it is not coming down till next time there's a con majority with a thriving economy and the deficit under control 2095?
It's too late anyway to be clever about this. You have to bugger off and be resident abroad and *then* sell your asset, and anyone now resident in the UK is resident here till next April cos da man at da revenue doesn't recognise part years. So even if there's no budget till autumn that doesn't really help
Yep, I would be looking at leaving on April 6th 2025 for precisely that reason.
You need to leave by April 4 latest, and sell on the 6th. And best of luck but I greatly fear ms reeves will interfere with your plans. It's not just the rate of CGT she can alter, it's everything about it.
"The top destinations for millionaires leaving the UK include Paris" ???
Surely some mistake there? They will be fleeing France soon enough as chaos comes.
The betting markets on election night could be quite volatile if the exit poll puts Labour materially below their polling figures. They could get 33-4% of the vote but still win a huge majority.
Spotting early results that point to flaws in the exit poll’s ‘votes into seats’ algorithm could also be profitable,
Expectations are for a Labour landslide so I think that in safe Labour seats there will be a drift towards Greens, Galloway's mob and assorted leftwing fringe candidates, and I can see the Labour percentage actually declining in a number of seats. The poll in Starmer's own seat suggested exactly that.
As many of the early seat announcements will be in these types of seats some of our more excitable posters (Leon, I'm looking at you!) will be telling us the polls are all wrong and Rishi's going to do it.
Be like May when some idiot (can't remember who) was posting "Susan Hall! Susan Hall! Susan Hall!" early on.
I'll be waiting for the swing in the first marginals, ie any Tory seat with a majority of less than 20k. I'm also expecting the individual results to be all over the place but with Labour ending up with 375-400 seats.
Sad though I am to read that hundreds of thousands of Tory-voting millionaires are going to leave the country once Labour is elected and raises their taxes, it does mean that Labour's path to victory in 2029 will be easier (provided the ex-pats don't get organised and vote from overseas).
The betting markets on election night could be quite volatile if the exit poll puts Labour materially below their polling figures. They could get 33-4% of the vote but still win a huge majority.
Only if Redfield is right and the Tories get 19% and Reform 18%.
If however JL Partners is right and the Tories are back up to 25%, then 33-34% for Labour could mean a hung parliament
I have just watched the best analysis of UK General Election made for US audience... John Oliver 'Last Week Tonight'. Look it up on YouTube...
That would make for a surprise. I think John Oliver is hilarious but when he gets onto British politics or topics he often gets very lazy, possibly because his audience is not likely to be as interested or aware of any subtleties as he is.
. . . in case you missed this story from the Great White North . . .
CBC News - Conservatives win longtime Liberal stronghold Toronto-St. Paul's in shock byelection result Stunning result raises questions about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's future
Conservative candidate Don Stewart has won the longtime federal Liberal stronghold of Toronto-St. Paul's, a stunning result that raises questions about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's future.
Stewart's victory is shocking because the seat has been held by the Liberals for more than 30 years — even through the party's past low points, such as the 2011 federal election that returned just 34 Liberal MPs to Parliament.
Before Monday's vote, a Conservative candidate hadn't been competitive in Toronto–St. Paul's since the 1980s. The party hadn't won a seat in urban Toronto since the 2011 federal election. . . .
. . . Stewart, a consultant, claimed victory with about 42 per cent of the vote against Church, a former Parliament Hill staffer and lawyer, who took roughly 40 per cent of the ballots cast.
The Liberals' poor showing in a stronghold like this could prompt some soul-searching for Trudeau, who has seen his popularity plummet as inflation, the cost of living crisis, high home prices and surging immigration levels drive voter discontent.
This Conservative upset is likely to lead to some anxiety in the Liberal caucus because such a dramatic vote swing could put other supposedly "safe" seats in play for the Conservatives in the next general election. . . .
Trudeau won't be springing for an early election this time!
The Canadian Liberals are a far more mellow bunch than the UK Tories. If a PM was getting those kinds of results and polling at Trudeau levels they’d be long gone by now. In fact, if Rishi hadn’t called his GE I have a strong suspicion we might actually have had that summer leadership contest…
Even now the Liberals are still projected to win more seats than they had in 2011 when Trudeau took over the leadership however
Perhaps understandably, there’s not much chat on here about the French elections.
As it stands, Le Pen’s mob (RN) are close to getting an absolute majority in the National Assembly.
If they DON’T get an absolute majority, which I still suspect is the most likely outcome, then we can expect some fragile minority coalition of Macron’s party and the rump centre-right.
But if they DO get a majority, not only are the promising to do a Truss (ie ballooning the deficit), they are also promising a complete about-turn in the French position on Ukraine. Le Pen has reminded voters that it is the PM not the President that controls the military budget, and Bardella has signalled that France wouldn’t supply Ukraine with long-range missiles. Several RN candidates have proven financial links with Moscow.
This election is a major European event, with significant implications for the UK.
Yes, in the sense that a lot of people are going to prefer to live in the UK than France if the far-right wins.
Thats how we ended up with Farage in the first place.
Either YouGov have uncovered something or their methodology is whack.
If that YG poll were borne out it would be apocalyptically bad for the Tories due to the Lib Dems picking up share. At this level of support though the EC model isn't very stable so it tends to have a normal one from time to time.
The betting markets on election night could be quite volatile if the exit poll puts Labour materially below their polling figures. They could get 33-4% of the vote but still win a huge majority.
Only if Redfield is right and the Tories get 19% and Reform 18%.
If however JL Partners is right and the Tories are back up to 25%, then 33-34% for Labour could mean a hung parliament
No but if Reform and the Greens ate into the Labour vote more and the SNP vote held up it could be, certainly if the Tories also got to 30%+. Though yes that is unlikely
Sad though I am to read that hundreds of thousands of Tory-voting millionaires are going to leave the country once Labour is elected and raises their taxes, it does mean that Labour's path to victory in 2029 will be easier (provided the ex-pats don't get organised and vote from overseas).
The betting markets on election night could be quite volatile if the exit poll puts Labour materially below their polling figures. They could get 33-4% of the vote but still win a huge majority.
Only if Redfield is right and the Tories get 19% and Reform 18%.
If however JL Partners is right and the Tories are back up to 25%, then 33-34% for Labour could mean a hung parliament
Sad though I am to read that hundreds of thousands of Tory-voting millionaires are going to leave the country once Labour is elected and raises their taxes, it does mean that Labour's path to victory in 2029 will be easier (provided the ex-pats don't get organised and vote from overseas).
It would certainly sort out the housing crisis
And reduce the pressure on state schools as all those millionaires priced out of the private sector would now be sending their little darlings to international schools in Dubai or wherever. Several birds killed with one stone.
It would be good if Corbyn and Farage got elected in my view, adds to the diversity of views in the Commons. Just as long as they don't become PM and Corbyn is at least a hardworking constituency MP.
Islington N could also be the only swing from Labour to Conservatives in the UK
Sad though I am to read that hundreds of thousands of Tory-voting millionaires are going to leave the country once Labour is elected and raises their taxes, it does mean that Labour's path to victory in 2029 will be easier (provided the ex-pats don't get organised and vote from overseas).
What a grown up take....if we want to get back to growth we need to attract wealth generators to come to the UK and stay in the UK. Its is what Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson got and why we had continued good growth when they took over. They got the balance about right.
The opposite has been happening at record rates.
If we don't sort growth and productivity, the millionaires will be fine (the world is easy for them to move about and plenty of countries want them*), it you and the majority of the public that won't be. Ever higher taxes, ever worse services.
Its why the Tories have be so bad over the past few years.
* even socialist leaning countries like Portugal have realised this.
Via @wethinkpolling, 6-24 Jun. Changes w/ GE2019 Notional. Yum yum
Looking at the data tables for this (available from here), the raw numbers are: LAB 160 LDM 64 CON 130 GRN 20 RFM 26
So there's some hefty weighting going on to arrive at the percentages above. Can anybody who understands these things take a look at the supplementary questions asked, and work out what has motivated the weighting? (It's not just "likelihood to vote" - I looked at that myself.)
Past-vote weighting does a lot of the heavy lifting. 25 2019 Lib Dems voters in the sample, weighted up to 78. 81 2019 Labour voters, weighted down to 49.
I would not be very confident in the results from this poll. The degree of weighting applied makes a mockery of the quoted margin of error.
I'm sure that the weighted results will be more accurate than if they'd published the unweighted results, but, still.
This is our tax base disappearing. This is a catastrophe - and I very much doubt that Labour will fix it
And of course all the lefties on here will yelp: “let them go we don’t need them”. Or the alternative: “no they won’t go. They’re lying” even as they go
Millionaires are leaving the UK faster than any country in the world other than China, new data shows.
According to the Henley Private Wealth Migration Report, 9,500 millionaires, defined in US dollar terms are leaving the UK this year. Only China - which has more than twice as many people with seven-figure net worths - saw more millionaires leave.
This is a new record outflow for the UK, with London expected to be especially hard hit. The top destinations for millionaires leaving the UK include Paris, Dubai, Amsterdam, Monaco, Geneva, Sydney, and Singapore, as well as retirement hotspots such as Florida, the Algarve, Malta, and the Italian Riviera.”
Who would have thought high taxes, end to non-dom status, high levels of shitty crime in London etc would be a turn off.
The problem as I have said in the past is that it is ever easier to run businesses in countries you don't even live in, and some countries know this and making it very attractive offers.
I've spent the last couple of weeks eyeing up my options, should my tax bill double. There are some ridiculously cheap ways of leaving the country for example the D7 visa for Portugal only requires a passive income of €705 a month and comes with substantial tax breaks for the first decade of living there.
45% of capital gains taxes are raised on disposals of greater than £5m, so leaving to avoid the difference in a 20% rate (fairly average) vs a 45% rate (one of the highest in the world) makes sense to almost half the tax base currently paying the tax. 20% of £5m is £1m, but 45% of it is £2.25m, and there are places round the world you can pay 0%. Heck, you can pay 0% on the Isle of Man if you're really determined. But Dubai etc will welcome you with open arms.
While there's been no research done on 20% -> 45% HMRC's own forecasts have suggested that a 10% raise in the higher rate (28%) would be net negative to the treasury by £1.1bn in 2025-2026 and negative £2.1bn the year after.
For these reasons I hope Rachel Reeves will be sensible and avoid the calls from within her own party to tax CGT as income. However I suspect with a supermajority, the clarion call to bash the rich will be too great to resist. It will end up harming both the country, and the economy.
Avoiding the difference between 20% and a hypothetical new 45% rate by messing about with domicile is not an option. Anyone sitting on a big gain taxable at 20% in my view wants their head feeling if they don't sell at least a big chunk now. CGT is going up, very possibly in an emergency budget To Save The NHS before end July, and it is not coming down till next time there's a con majority with a thriving economy and the deficit under control 2095?
It's too late anyway to be clever about this. You have to bugger off and be resident abroad and *then* sell your asset, and anyone now resident in the UK is resident here till next April cos da man at da revenue doesn't recognise part years. So even if there's no budget till autumn that doesn't really help
Yep, I would be looking at leaving on April 6th 2025 for precisely that reason.
It’s a good thing according to this Guardian talking head
I don't think it bodes ill for Reform. Reform have a lot of favourable people to get through before Farage's unfavourability become an issue. And the controversial nature of Farage and his negative coverage in sections of the press suggests if you're favourable to him, you're very favourable.
I don’t think anti-Reform tactical voting (though eventually it will come about) is likely to be a big feature in this GE either.
I'm quite hopeful it will and that FPTP works its magic at keeping the extremists out of Parliament.
Eight time loser Nigel Farage has a good ring to it, at the risk of coming across all Kevin Keegan, I'd love it if it comes true.
The use of extremists to refer to a party on the right that you happen to dislike is all sorts of pathetic. As well as being foolish - there are plenty of people who would love to label your views on economic issues as 'extremist' and will try it, and you'll have no leg to stand on having done the same thing to Reform, just (as far as I can see) to earn yourself some cringey trendy vicar cool points.
Left or right has nothing to do with it, the use of extremists to refer to any party that are extremists who pander to our enemy in Vladimir Putin is entirely appropriate.
Corbyn was an extremist and panders to Putin. Same with Farage.
I get why you don't see it as extreme, but it is and thankfully approximately three quarters of the country agrees which is not a helpful thing for your extremists under FPTP.
PS I rightly acknowledge that many of my own personal views on topics varying from economics to abolishing planning are considered extreme. I'm OK with that and not ashamed of that. I'd rather be extreme for backing liberalism and letting people do what they want with their own land, than be extreme for hating foreigners apart from Vladimir Putin.
I don't like to resort to personal invective. But your unending capacity to miss the point makes it somewhat of a challenge.
The point is you want us to be soft and cuddly with a nasty party of racists and bigots and Putin apologists, that somehow found many quite literal fascists as candidates, rather than call them what they are - extremists.
No thanks. I prefer honesty, even if it upsets your mores.
As for the rest of this tripe, it's the standard 'nasty party of racist bigots' that gets chucked at every right wing party that dares to challenge the prevailing consensus. It's a pathetic spectacle to see an avowed libertarian free marketeer chucking around such terms, but hey, you do you.
I’m calling you out over this.
Farage and Reform are extreme on the majority of people’s political barometer. If you tell yourself that they’re not that says more about you. Stop trying to pretend to us otherwise. It’s a classic tactic of extremists throughout history that they try to make out that they are decent people and not extreme at all.
If you are going to counter argue at least not substitute (presumably deliberate) extreme for racist bigots - you dont fool anyone with trying to match the two like that - many people are extreme (do we really want everybody to have the same establishment led position on things?) ,far less is what one poster on here hysterically refers to as racist bigots
It's not hysterical to refer to a party that has numerous candidates linked to the BNP, and is led by the notorious racist Nigel Farage as racist bigots.
It's the plain speaking truth.
I'm sorry if you find racism acceptable, or find yourself so sensitive you dislike hearing racists called out for what they are, but I for one believe in free speech and honesty.
So I will use my free speech and honesty to call out the nasty, bigoted racists for what they actually are.
Nigel Farage is a nasty, bigoted racist.
Do you actually disagree with that? Or are you just so fragile the term racist offends your sensitive eyes?
I just walked into a bar on the island and the proprietor looked frankly outraged that I, a seeker of beer, expect him, a known seller of beer, in a place which notoriously sells beer, to sell me a beer
Maybe you shouldn't have shouted "Oi, garçon, beer!" as you walked in?
The rendition of the whole of the St Crispian speech from Henry V was possibly a tad over the top.
“The difference between stupid and intelligent people -- and this is true whether or not they are well-educated -- is that intelligent people can handle subtlety. They are not baffled by ambigous or even contradictory situations -- in fact, they expect them and are apt to become suspicious when things seem overly straightforward.”
No Googling. And there are several PBers I expect to get it without difficulty.
Must be TSE?
a Young Lady's Illustrated Primer
An apt one for PBers (I had to look up the exact quote) :
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
I need to reread that one.
Two of my very best friends both have Stephenson books as their all time favourites: one loves Cryptonomicon and the other is a massive fan of The System of the World series.
While I love Stephenson, I'm more of a Christopher Brookmyre fan: particularly the first two Angelique de Xavier books which I must have read a dozen times apiece.
The System of the World is three extremely prolix books which contain within them one excellent one.
The problem is you have to read the whole damn thing to find the good bits.
Cryptonomicon was fun though.
I find that after a Diamond Age - the one thing Neal Stephenson needed was a decent editor - but he got to the point as with JK Rowling where the editor can't say - can you make it 100,000 words shorter...
Agreed - Diamond Age wonderful. I'm a massive Stephenson fan (my favourite is Anathem - profound things to say about deep time, knowledge and what lasts even if it goes a bit batshit at the end). I've also read 'Fall, or Dodge in Hell' (profound things to say about what might happen when we actually get to to upload consciousness into the cloud and essentially achieve immortality - although Greg Bear and dozens of others were there first - Cory Doctorow good on this in 'walkaway') and in both those books there is the moment around page 300 where you know you are in for 'the slog'...
In his book 'Reamde' I never made it past page 300 even though the set-up was brilliant.
Reamde was a tediously predictable potboiler. Avoid.
Any party got a policy to annexe it and make it part of Minehead in their manifesto?
They would know how to deal with eel poisoning Glastonbury Drug Abusers. Oh Yes.
Market towns have been hollowed out by the motor car. A hundred years ago the middle class solicitor, teacher, doctor would have lived in town. Now they've pissed off to the villages.
Decent cheap breakfast or tea & cake at the indoor market if you're still there tomorrow.
Via @wethinkpolling, 6-24 Jun. Changes w/ GE2019 Notional. Yum yum
Yikes.
That's fascinating. Not much Labour organisation in the seat at all (though a very keen candidate, Isabel Oakeshott's sister). LibDem posters and leaflets everywhere. And yet the above.
If it's accurate then the Blue Wall starts getting very messy.
If its accurate the Tories may hold seats like Witney, Tunbridge Wells, Chelsea and Fulham, Surrey Heath, Chelmsford and Wokingham and Chippenham which are in the latter part of the LD target list merely because the rise in the Labour vote is bigger than the rise in the LD vote. Similar happened in 1997 where the LDs got a lower swing to them than Labour in Tory held seats
Indeed. The biggest threat to the LibDems' ambitions in the South of England is people voting Labour in non-Labour targets.
Yes, I can see a lot of areas having Labour in a still distant second, surging past LDs who have a lot of local strength, off the back of national vote surging.
In fairness those areas of relative LD strength are often not trying at all either, since their activists are focusing on target seats.
Which is a sound strategy, but in a Tory collapse scenario it may mean the LDs have ignored a number of areas that were possibilities for them after all.
Looking at the data tables for this (available from here), the raw numbers are: LAB 160 LDM 64 CON 130 GRN 20 RFM 26
So there's some hefty weighting going on to arrive at the percentages above. Can anybody who understands these things take a look at the supplementary questions asked, and work out what has motivated the weighting? (It's not just "likelihood to vote" - I looked at that myself.)
No, not really and I'm not sure where you are seeing those figures.
The interesting tables are 13, 14 and 15. 13 is the baseline so all those sampled and it comes out Lab 95, LD 95, Con 93.
But in table 13, 95/95/93 is the weighted base - the unweighted figures are 160/64/130. My question is, on what criteria has the weighting been done ie if they only found 64 people actually saying they would vote LD, what caused them to up-weight that number (and down-weight the others)?
They use "rake weighting" as quoted:
We use rake weighting to make our sample representative of the constituency. In particular we weight our data to match ONS targets on the following variables: age, gender, highest qualification, plus 2019 general election vote and likelihood to vote in this upcoming general election.
It's widely used in opinion surveys.
Yes, but looking at the tables, most of those criteria wouldn't cause much change in the weighting. @Pulpstar has found the one that is making the difference: the recalled vote from the 2019 GE. In their sample, only 10% of those who voted last time say they voted LD, but the estimated true 2029 LD vote in the bits making up the new constituency is 27%.
I wonder why they had such trouble finding LD voters. Maybe they concentrated too much on Bicester, and not enough on Kidlington (which was in Layla Moran's seat)?
This is our tax base disappearing. This is a catastrophe - and I very much doubt that Labour will fix it
And of course all the lefties on here will yelp: “let them go we don’t need them”. Or the alternative: “no they won’t go. They’re lying” even as they go
Millionaires are leaving the UK faster than any country in the world other than China, new data shows.
According to the Henley Private Wealth Migration Report, 9,500 millionaires, defined in US dollar terms are leaving the UK this year. Only China - which has more than twice as many people with seven-figure net worths - saw more millionaires leave.
This is a new record outflow for the UK, with London expected to be especially hard hit. The top destinations for millionaires leaving the UK include Paris, Dubai, Amsterdam, Monaco, Geneva, Sydney, and Singapore, as well as retirement hotspots such as Florida, the Algarve, Malta, and the Italian Riviera.”
Who would have thought high taxes, end to non-dom status, high levels of shitty crime in London etc would be a turn off.
The problem as I have said in the past is that it is ever easier to run businesses in countries you don't even live in, and some countries know this and making it very attractive offers.
I've spent the last couple of weeks eyeing up my options, should my tax bill double. There are some ridiculously cheap ways of leaving the country for example the D7 visa for Portugal only requires a passive income of €705 a month and comes with substantial tax breaks for the first decade of living there.
45% of capital gains taxes are raised on disposals of greater than £5m, so leaving to avoid the difference in a 20% rate (fairly average) vs a 45% rate (one of the highest in the world) makes sense to almost half the tax base currently paying the tax. 20% of £5m is £1m, but 45% of it is £2.25m, and there are places round the world you can pay 0%. Heck, you can pay 0% on the Isle of Man if you're really determined. But Dubai etc will welcome you with open arms.
While there's been no research done on 20% -> 45% HMRC's own forecasts have suggested that a 10% raise in the higher rate (28%) would be net negative to the treasury by £1.1bn in 2025-2026 and negative £2.1bn the year after.
For these reasons I hope Rachel Reeves will be sensible and avoid the calls from within her own party to tax CGT as income. However I suspect with a supermajority, the clarion call to bash the rich will be too great to resist. It will end up harming both the country, and the economy.
Avoiding the difference between 20% and a hypothetical new 45% rate by messing about with domicile is not an option. Anyone sitting on a big gain taxable at 20% in my view wants their head feeling if they don't sell at least a big chunk now. CGT is going up, very possibly in an emergency budget To Save The NHS before end July, and it is not coming down till next time there's a con majority with a thriving economy and the deficit under control 2095?
It's too late anyway to be clever about this. You have to bugger off and be resident abroad and *then* sell your asset, and anyone now resident in the UK is resident here till next April cos da man at da revenue doesn't recognise part years. So even if there's no budget till autumn that doesn't really help
Yep, I would be looking at leaving on April 6th 2025 for precisely that reason.
It’s a good thing according to this Guardian talking head
Since the top 1% of taxpayers shoulder about 30% of the UK's tax burden, I wish such commentators the best of luck paying for their socialist utopia out of their own pockets.
Sad though I am to read that hundreds of thousands of Tory-voting millionaires are going to leave the country once Labour is elected and raises their taxes, it does mean that Labour's path to victory in 2029 will be easier (provided the ex-pats don't get organised and vote from overseas).
What a grown up take....if we want to get back to growth we need to attract wealth generators to come to the UK and stay in the UK. Its is what Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson got and why we had continued good growth when they took over. They got the balance about right.
The opposite has been happening at record rates.
If we don't sort growth and productivity, the millionaires will be fine (the world is easy for them to move about), it you and the majority of the public that won't be. Ever higher taxes, ever worse services.
Its why the Tories have be so bad over the past few years.
Thanks. I'm less convinced than you are that the sort of people who bugger off to low-tax regimes at the first whiff of a Labour government are wealth generators - they're just rich, greedy and selfish. Under the current tax regime, and any envisaged by Labour, they would still be extremely rich and want for nothing. It's just greed, an unpopular and rather under-used word these days.
Perhaps understandably, there’s not much chat on here about the French elections.
As it stands, Le Pen’s mob (RN) are close to getting an absolute majority in the National Assembly.
If they DON’T get an absolute majority, which I still suspect is the most likely outcome, then we can expect some fragile minority coalition of Macron’s party and the rump centre-right.
But if they DO get a majority, not only are the promising to do a Truss (ie ballooning the deficit), they are also promising a complete about-turn in the French position on Ukraine. Le Pen has reminded voters that it is the PM not the President that controls the military budget, and Bardella has signalled that France wouldn’t supply Ukraine with long-range missiles. Several RN candidates have proven financial links with Moscow.
This election is a major European event, with significant implications for the UK.
Yes, in the sense that a lot of people are going to prefer to live in the UK than France if the far-right wins.
Thats how we ended up with Farage in the first place.
We didn't end up with Farage.
He's a nobody, failed loser who has never yet been elected to Parliament and only got his name well known by claiming credit for a eurosceptic movement that preexisted him (for non-racist reasons) since Maastricht and that so recognised he was toxic he got excluded from the Leave campaign in the referendum.
He'll hopefully be defeated for the eighth time in a row this year, but if he's not he'll still be leading a party with fewer MPs than the Lib Dems or SNP. Until he pisses off to America once more and good riddance when he does.
Looking at the data tables for this (available from here), the raw numbers are: LAB 160 LDM 64 CON 130 GRN 20 RFM 26
So there's some hefty weighting going on to arrive at the percentages above. Can anybody who understands these things take a look at the supplementary questions asked, and work out what has motivated the weighting? (It's not just "likelihood to vote" - I looked at that myself.)
No, not really and I'm not sure where you are seeing those figures.
The interesting tables are 13, 14 and 15. 13 is the baseline so all those sampled and it comes out Lab 95, LD 95, Con 93.
But in table 13, 95/95/93 is the weighted base - the unweighted figures are 160/64/130. My question is, on what criteria has the weighting been done ie if they only found 64 people actually saying they would vote LD, what caused them to up-weight that number (and down-weight the others)?
They use "rake weighting" as quoted:
We use rake weighting to make our sample representative of the constituency. In particular we weight our data to match ONS targets on the following variables: age, gender, highest qualification, plus 2019 general election vote and likelihood to vote in this upcoming general election.
It's widely used in opinion surveys.
Yes, but looking at the tables, most of those criteria wouldn't cause much change in the weighting. @Pulpstar has found the one that is making the difference: the recalled vote from the 2019 GE. In their sample, only 10% of those who voted last time say they voted LD, but the estimated true 2029 LD vote in the bits making up the new constituency is 27%.
I wonder why they had such trouble finding LD voters. Maybe they concentrated too much on Bicester, and not enough on Kidlington (which was in Layla Moran's seat)?
I don't think it bodes ill for Reform. Reform have a lot of favourable people to get through before Farage's unfavourability become an issue. And the controversial nature of Farage and his negative coverage in sections of the press suggests if you're favourable to him, you're very favourable.
I don’t think anti-Reform tactical voting (though eventually it will come about) is likely to be a big feature in this GE either.
I'm quite hopeful it will and that FPTP works its magic at keeping the extremists out of Parliament.
Eight time loser Nigel Farage has a good ring to it, at the risk of coming across all Kevin Keegan, I'd love it if it comes true.
The use of extremists to refer to a party on the right that you happen to dislike is all sorts of pathetic. As well as being foolish - there are plenty of people who would love to label your views on economic issues as 'extremist' and will try it, and you'll have no leg to stand on having done the same thing to Reform, just (as far as I can see) to earn yourself some cringey trendy vicar cool points.
Left or right has nothing to do with it, the use of extremists to refer to any party that are extremists who pander to our enemy in Vladimir Putin is entirely appropriate.
Corbyn was an extremist and panders to Putin. Same with Farage.
I get why you don't see it as extreme, but it is and thankfully approximately three quarters of the country agrees which is not a helpful thing for your extremists under FPTP.
PS I rightly acknowledge that many of my own personal views on topics varying from economics to abolishing planning are considered extreme. I'm OK with that and not ashamed of that. I'd rather be extreme for backing liberalism and letting people do what they want with their own land, than be extreme for hating foreigners apart from Vladimir Putin.
I don't like to resort to personal invective. But your unending capacity to miss the point makes it somewhat of a challenge.
The point is you want us to be soft and cuddly with a nasty party of racists and bigots and Putin apologists, that somehow found many quite literal fascists as candidates, rather than call them what they are - extremists.
No thanks. I prefer honesty, even if it upsets your mores.
As for the rest of this tripe, it's the standard 'nasty party of racist bigots' that gets chucked at every right wing party that dares to challenge the prevailing consensus. It's a pathetic spectacle to see an avowed libertarian free marketeer chucking around such terms, but hey, you do you.
I’m calling you out over this.
Farage and Reform are extreme on the majority of people’s political barometer. If you tell yourself that they’re not that says more about you. Stop trying to pretend to us otherwise. It’s a classic tactic of extremists throughout history that they try to make out that they are decent people and not extreme at all.
If you are going to counter argue at least not substitute (presumably deliberate) extreme for racist bigots - you dont fool anyone with trying to match the two like that - many people are extreme (do we really want everybody to have the same establishment led position on things?) ,far less is what one poster on here hysterically refers to as racist bigots
It's not hysterical to refer to a party that has numerous candidates linked to the BNP, and is led by the notorious racist Nigel Farage as racist bigots.
It's the plain speaking truth.
I'm sorry if you find racism acceptable, or find yourself so sensitive you dislike hearing racists called out for what they are, but I for one believe in free speech and honesty.
So I will use my free speech and honesty to call out the nasty, bigoted racists for what they actually are.
Nigel Farage is a nasty, bigoted racist.
Do you actually disagree with that? Or are you just so fragile the term racist offends your sensitive eyes?
Unusually for me, I agree with Bart. What is it about Mr Farage that attracts the significant number of racist bigots still around in this country (sadly) to vote Reform?
A few people have mentioned how they’ve been targeted irrelevantly by political ads on social media. This piece here is fascinating and nerdy (and yet more evidence that the CCHQ team have suffered a monumental brain drain) - but includes nuggets like the fact that the Tories’ ads on Meta have had no geotargeting beyond blanket ‘England & Wales’.
But well worth a read. Apologies if already shared.
Any party got a policy to annexe it and make it part of Minehead in their manifesto?
They would know how to deal with eel poisoning Glastonbury Drug Abusers. Oh Yes.
Market towns have been hollowed out by the motor car. A hundred years ago the middle class solicitor, teacher, doctor would have lived in town. Now they've pissed off to the villages.
Decent cheap breakfast or tea & cake at the indoor market if you're still there tomorrow.
It is sad how many empty shops and tat shops there are in what is one of Englands nicer county towns.
Sadly the small villages that were home as recently as the 1970s to many farm workers and labours etc. are just commuter dwellings now and contractors drive tens of miles to work farms.
“The difference between stupid and intelligent people -- and this is true whether or not they are well-educated -- is that intelligent people can handle subtlety. They are not baffled by ambigous or even contradictory situations -- in fact, they expect them and are apt to become suspicious when things seem overly straightforward.”
No Googling. And there are several PBers I expect to get it without difficulty.
Must be TSE?
a Young Lady's Illustrated Primer
An apt one for PBers (I had to look up the exact quote) :
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
I need to reread that one.
Two of my very best friends both have Stephenson books as their all time favourites: one loves Cryptonomicon and the other is a massive fan of The System of the World series.
While I love Stephenson, I'm more of a Christopher Brookmyre fan: particularly the first two Angelique de Xavier books which I must have read a dozen times apiece.
Don't know Brookmyre, will have to look him up. Haven't read any Stephenson for ages, either. Funny how some quotes stay with you though.
I read Termination Shock recently. Not as good as Diamond Age/Anathem/Cryptonomicon, but still enjoyable to read.
Interesting how wrong he was about Covid though. (Thank fuck)
This is our tax base disappearing. This is a catastrophe - and I very much doubt that Labour will fix it
And of course all the lefties on here will yelp: “let them go we don’t need them”. Or the alternative: “no they won’t go. They’re lying” even as they go
Millionaires are leaving the UK faster than any country in the world other than China, new data shows.
According to the Henley Private Wealth Migration Report, 9,500 millionaires, defined in US dollar terms are leaving the UK this year. Only China - which has more than twice as many people with seven-figure net worths - saw more millionaires leave.
This is a new record outflow for the UK, with London expected to be especially hard hit. The top destinations for millionaires leaving the UK include Paris, Dubai, Amsterdam, Monaco, Geneva, Sydney, and Singapore, as well as retirement hotspots such as Florida, the Algarve, Malta, and the Italian Riviera.”
Who would have thought high taxes, end to non-dom status, high levels of shitty crime in London etc would be a turn off.
The problem as I have said in the past is that it is ever easier to run businesses in countries you don't even live in, and some countries know this and making it very attractive offers.
I've spent the last couple of weeks eyeing up my options, should my tax bill double. There are some ridiculously cheap ways of leaving the country for example the D7 visa for Portugal only requires a passive income of €705 a month and comes with substantial tax breaks for the first decade of living there.
45% of capital gains taxes are raised on disposals of greater than £5m, so leaving to avoid the difference in a 20% rate (fairly average) vs a 45% rate (one of the highest in the world) makes sense to almost half the tax base currently paying the tax. 20% of £5m is £1m, but 45% of it is £2.25m, and there are places round the world you can pay 0%. Heck, you can pay 0% on the Isle of Man if you're really determined. But Dubai etc will welcome you with open arms.
While there's been no research done on 20% -> 45% HMRC's own forecasts have suggested that a 10% raise in the higher rate (28%) would be net negative to the treasury by £1.1bn in 2025-2026 and negative £2.1bn the year after.
For these reasons I hope Rachel Reeves will be sensible and avoid the calls from within her own party to tax CGT as income. However I suspect with a supermajority, the clarion call to bash the rich will be too great to resist. It will end up harming both the country, and the economy.
Avoiding the difference between 20% and a hypothetical new 45% rate by messing about with domicile is not an option. Anyone sitting on a big gain taxable at 20% in my view wants their head feeling if they don't sell at least a big chunk now. CGT is going up, very possibly in an emergency budget To Save The NHS before end July, and it is not coming down till next time there's a con majority with a thriving economy and the deficit under control 2095?
It's too late anyway to be clever about this. You have to bugger off and be resident abroad and *then* sell your asset, and anyone now resident in the UK is resident here till next April cos da man at da revenue doesn't recognise part years. So even if there's no budget till autumn that doesn't really help
Yep, I would be looking at leaving on April 6th 2025 for precisely that reason.
You need to leave by April 4 latest, and sell on the 6th. And best of luck but I greatly fear ms reeves will interfere with your plans. It's not just the rate of CGT she can alter, it's everything about it.
Mrs Reeves is probably spending the whole week practising her “shocked” face for when she sees the books and realises major tax increases are urgently needed after all.
Perhaps understandably, there’s not much chat on here about the French elections.
As it stands, Le Pen’s mob (RN) are close to getting an absolute majority in the National Assembly.
If they DON’T get an absolute majority, which I still suspect is the most likely outcome, then we can expect some fragile minority coalition of Macron’s party and the rump centre-right.
But if they DO get a majority, not only are the promising to do a Truss (ie ballooning the deficit), they are also promising a complete about-turn in the French position on Ukraine. Le Pen has reminded voters that it is the PM not the President that controls the military budget, and Bardella has signalled that France wouldn’t supply Ukraine with long-range missiles. Several RN candidates have proven financial links with Moscow.
This election is a major European event, with significant implications for the UK.
Yes, in the sense that a lot of people are going to prefer to live in the UK than France if the far-right wins.
Thats how we ended up with Farage in the first place.
We didn't end up with Farage.
He's a nobody, failed loser who has never yet been elected to Parliament and only got his name well known by claiming credit for a eurosceptic movement that preexisted him (for non-racist reasons) since Maastricht and that so recognised he was toxic he got excluded from the Leave campaign in the referendum.
He'll hopefully be defeated for the eighth time in a row this year, but if he's not he'll still be leading a party with fewer MPs than the Lib Dems or SNP. Until he pisses off to America once more and good riddance when he does.
I was referring to his Hugenot origins you muppet.
Jeez, Some people round here take things rather too earnestly and seriously.
Seems I've demostrated the validity of Poe's law again.
Well I thought your posts were funny...
That was the aim!
Less boring than either Englands football team or a Snake v Sir Starmer Smith debate at any rate.
Why can't Bill Mclaren do the Labour debates?
That age old avoidance tactic when you’re found out being a bit nasty to claim it was all a joke. Leon does that a lot.
The Right have also made a habit of being vicious and nasty these past five years and finding it all ‘funny’. Well your Day of Judgement is upon you. The Electorate strikes back.
O/T (completely bonkers more like) Would it be possible to introduce a higher employer's national insurance rate for immigrant workers. It'd make no immediate difference to the sainted NHS (receipts out=receipts in), but would encourage "British Jobs for British Workers". The NHS would also see they could optimize their budget if they went domestic. We have a higher tax rate for graduates (although it's not called that) so it's not completely off the wall? You'd want a nice 5 year tapered introduction so employers could train up domestic staff obviously. A Brexit benefit?
Any party got a policy to annexe it and make it part of Minehead in their manifesto?
They would know how to deal with eel poisoning Glastonbury Drug Abusers. Oh Yes.
Market towns have been hollowed out by the motor car. A hundred years ago the middle class solicitor, teacher, doctor would have lived in town. Now they've pissed off to the villages.
Decent cheap breakfast or tea & cake at the indoor market if you're still there tomorrow.
It is sad how many empty shops and tat shops there are in what is one of Englands nicer county towns.
Sadly the small villages that were home as recently as the 1970s to many farm workers and labours etc. are just commuter dwellings now and contractors drive tens of miles to work farms.
Why's it sad?
Its free choice and people moving on.
So pathetic to see people bemoaning a century old technology.
What next, ban the Internet so people go shopping in the stores instead of Amazon.
We have cars and the Internet, that's progress. If we don't want shops, that's no big deal, that land can be repurposed for other more valuable use.
Sad though I am to read that hundreds of thousands of Tory-voting millionaires are going to leave the country once Labour is elected and raises their taxes, it does mean that Labour's path to victory in 2029 will be easier (provided the ex-pats don't get organised and vote from overseas).
What a grown up take....if we want to get back to growth we need to attract wealth generators to come to the UK and stay in the UK. Its is what Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson got and why we had continued good growth when they took over. They got the balance about right.
The opposite has been happening at record rates.
If we don't sort growth and productivity, the millionaires will be fine (the world is easy for them to move about), it you and the majority of the public that won't be. Ever higher taxes, ever worse services.
Its why the Tories have be so bad over the past few years.
Thanks. I'm less convinced than you are that the sort of people who bugger off to low-tax regimes at the first whiff of a Labour government are wealth generators - they're just rich, greedy and selfish. Under the current tax regime, and any envisaged by Labour, they would still be extremely rich and want for nothing. It's just greed, an unpopular and rather under-used word these days.
This isn't a Labour thing. Many wealth creators already have and far less are coming, this was the discussion. Brexit, high taxes, shitty levels of crime in London to name a few things.
Record levels of people are leaving the UK across the board. Large numbers are highly educated and / or wealthy.
Any party got a policy to annexe it and make it part of Minehead in their manifesto?
They would know how to deal with eel poisoning Glastonbury Drug Abusers. Oh Yes.
Market towns have been hollowed out by the motor car. A hundred years ago the middle class solicitor, teacher, doctor would have lived in town. Now they've pissed off to the villages.
Decent cheap breakfast or tea & cake at the indoor market if you're still there tomorrow.
It is sad how many empty shops and tat shops there are in what is one of Englands nicer county towns.
Sadly the small villages that were home as recently as the 1970s to many farm workers and labours etc. are just commuter dwellings now and contractors drive tens of miles to work farms.
Why's it sad?
Its free choice and people moving on.
So pathetic to see people bemoaning a century old technology.
What next, ban the Internet so people go shopping in the stores instead of Amazon.
We have cars and the Internet, that's progress. If we don't want shops, that's no big deal, that land can be repurposed for other more valuable use.
I don't celebrate the hollowing out of small towns. I live in a small town. But times have moved on, and I don't see what could possibly restore it. People's habits are different, and what measures people do suggest don't seem like they would massively impact things.
Town centres will presumably be mostly for living in and eating out.
O/T (completely bonkers more like) Would it be possible to introduce a higher employer's national insurance rate for immigrant workers. It'd make no immediate difference to the sainted NHS (receipts out=receipts in), but would encourage "British Jobs for British Workers". The NHS would also see they could optimize their budget if they went domestic. We have a higher tax rate for graduates (although it's not called that) so it's not completely off the wall? You'd want a nice 5 year tapered introduction so employers could train up domestic staff obviously. A Brexit benefit?
“We met a guy who said he was going to vote Labour but wouldn’t now because he had just heard that we were taxing condoms,” said Labour’s Karl Turner, who was first voted in as the MP for Hull East in 2010 and is standing for re-election this time.
“I said, ‘condoms?’ ‘Yeah,’ he said: ‘I just heard on that [pointing to the TV] that you are taxing condoms, and I’m not having it. You’re not getting my vote.’ It was Terence [Turner’s parliamentary assistant] here who worked it out.
“We met a guy who said he was going to vote Labour but wouldn’t now because he had just heard that we were taxing condoms,” said Labour’s Karl Turner, who was first voted in as the MP for Hull East in 2010 and is standing for re-election this time.
“I said, ‘condoms?’ ‘Yeah,’ he said: ‘I just heard on that [pointing to the TV] that you are taxing condoms, and I’m not having it. You’re not getting my vote.’ It was Terence [Turner’s parliamentary assistant] here who worked it out.
I just walked into a bar on the island and the proprietor looked frankly outraged that I, a seeker of beer, expect him, a known seller of beer, in a place which notoriously sells beer, to sell me a beer
As an experienced traveller, Leon, you must remember that the French get extremely cross and upset if you do not speak to them in impeccable French. I expect you got a gender wrong, or something...
If it is not perfect they say no understand. Then use English. It might work or they walk away and leave.
That's my experience.
1) Try in French. Put lots of politeness in, if nothing else. 2) They smile and often reply in English. 3) Stuff happens.
Forget step 1) and it doesn't work.
The only place this didn't work was, it turned out, a cafe in Paris that *the locals* gave reviews describing the staff as rude and stupid.
I agree with you. Paris can be hard going.
Even for the French.
I worked for a French company for 18 years and used to teach in Paris. Whenever I meet French vistors to the UK and conversation gets round to the fact I used to work in France they always ask where. When I say Paris the answer is always the same. Paris is not France. If we think there is a lot of dislike directed at London by the rest of the UK, it is nothing compared to how much the French regions hate Paris and the Parisians.
C’est vrait
This hatred of Paris is one driver of Le Pen’s support
Macron to be fair to him is quite regal in style and gets on well with King Charles and Camilla.
If you wanted a leader who would be manning the barricades and leading a storm of the Bastille it would be Le Pen or Melenchon, Macron would be an aristocrat trying to avoid the guillotine.
Culturally London has more in common with Paris than the provincial UK and vice versa
Yes because londoners are c**ts and so are parisians
Keir Starmer has been given such an easy ride. by the media.
because they love him- human rights lawyer, economic moderate and mass migration lover.
Because his tack to the centre much closer aligns to the centre of the world view of much of the media. For all the Telegraph right wing, Guardian left wing, a lot of these people are actually friends, married to one another etc. There are journa lists who freelance and job-in at across the board. Its a very small world.
Blair, same with Cameron, even Boris (for mayor) got fair easy rides. Those that are further away from that e.g. Corbyn or Truss, get a really hard time.
Also, if you know who is going to win, you don't want to be left on the naughty step from day one. No exclusives, no interviews with important people, no jollies on the foreign trips etc.
Whenever a government targets income earners at about £100k or sole traders, the media go mental...no idea why.
Via @wethinkpolling, 6-24 Jun. Changes w/ GE2019 Notional. Yum yum
Looking at the data tables for this (available from here), the raw numbers are: LAB 160 LDM 64 CON 130 GRN 20 RFM 26
So there's some hefty weighting going on to arrive at the percentages above. Can anybody who understands these things take a look at the supplementary questions asked, and work out what has motivated the weighting? (It's not just "likelihood to vote" - I looked at that myself.)
Past-vote weighting does a lot of the heavy lifting. 25 2019 Lib Dems voters in the sample, weighted up to 78. 81 2019 Labour voters, weighted down to 49.
I would not be very confident in the results from this poll. The degree of weighting applied makes a mockery of the quoted margin of error.
I'm sure that the weighted results will be more accurate than if they'd published the unweighted results, but, still.
Yes, thank you to you and Pulpstar for finding the source of the weighting. I agree that it makes the poll less reliable - a bit of a shame really.
Still little sign of herding the polling. It somewhere between absolute terrible and wipe out for the Tories.
As I said yesterday, if the election was close and we had this level of polling disparity, people would be screaming to know what the pollsters are playing at.
. . . in case you missed this story from the Great White North . . .
CBC News - Conservatives win longtime Liberal stronghold Toronto-St. Paul's in shock byelection result Stunning result raises questions about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's future
Conservative candidate Don Stewart has won the longtime federal Liberal stronghold of Toronto-St. Paul's, a stunning result that raises questions about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's future.
Stewart's victory is shocking because the seat has been held by the Liberals for more than 30 years — even through the party's past low points, such as the 2011 federal election that returned just 34 Liberal MPs to Parliament.
Before Monday's vote, a Conservative candidate hadn't been competitive in Toronto–St. Paul's since the 1980s. The party hadn't won a seat in urban Toronto since the 2011 federal election. . . .
. . . Stewart, a consultant, claimed victory with about 42 per cent of the vote against Church, a former Parliament Hill staffer and lawyer, who took roughly 40 per cent of the ballots cast.
The Liberals' poor showing in a stronghold like this could prompt some soul-searching for Trudeau, who has seen his popularity plummet as inflation, the cost of living crisis, high home prices and surging immigration levels drive voter discontent.
This Conservative upset is likely to lead to some anxiety in the Liberal caucus because such a dramatic vote swing could put other supposedly "safe" seats in play for the Conservatives in the next general election. . . .
This is not a good time to be in government! (As Sir Keir may fairly soon find out). So far as I can see only Meloni seems to be bucking trend in the major countries - apart from Biden who has Trump to thank for that.
I'm a bit worried because I was a bit harsh about Python yesterday and I am not sure which offense is worse...
There are plenty of reasons to be critical of Python.
But there's also a reason (well many reasons) why it is so popular. In particular: chips are cheap and humans are expensive.
Python is accessible both in terms of syntax and in terms of resources. It's not just a good programming language, it's a great one.
People sneer at it because it's not a formula 1 car, but most people need a Ford Transit, not some 220mph bastard where the steering wheel alone costs £40,000
Actually I sneer at it because I find the way some features have been implemented looks incredibly kludgy like a poor afterthought. Abstract classes would be an obvious example.
I see a regular comment pattern on here where someone will disregard recent polling, and say “I think it will be more like LAB 400 CON 150 LIB 50…” - followed by another poster agreeing and saying “Yeah, that feels more right”
Of course, the above scenario is possible.
However, isn’t a lot of this thinking based on people wanting to stay within their instinctive comfort zone?
Rather than making a call based on evidence, is it not making one based on the assumption that large swings cannot happen, because they usually tend not to?
But if this is the year when a large swing does happen, then is that past cautiousness worth much at all?
If you were sent back in a Time Machine to the 1931 election, and had some kind of magic MRP data in your possession, would you also say that MacDonald’s National Government was heading for a comparatively smaller majority, simply because the swing would be smaller?
Now, absolutely fair enough if you want to say “I think X% of Reform voters will actually vote Tory on the day” or “I think Y% of Labour voters won’t turn up” or “I think this pollster’s methodology is more reliable, and they show a smaller Labour majority.”
But if you just think it will be a smaller majority simply because that *feels* more right - then is there any evidence that would make you change your mind, beyond seeing the actual exit poll / final result?
An interesting thought exercise to be had. And to be clear I am sympathetic to the idea that the Tories may do slightly better than the extinction projections.
Feelings can be helpful. They can also betray you. It’s trying to sort them out into the right camps that’s the tricky part.
The other thing to say is that precedent is not always a bad thing to rely on. Much has been written here about how maybe too much reliance is being placed on the fact that some of the forecast results are just so bonkers off-the-charts that they simply can’t happen. I agree with the sentiment, but it is good to remind ourselves from time to time that (a) polls can be wrong and (b) it is hard to model for elections that are producing these kinds of swings and change in sentiment. You only need look at the variance in the polls to see that at the moment (unless we get some rapid herding next week) someone is going to be professionally embarrassed.
So, I have a feeling that the gap between Labour and the Tories is going to be a little closer than suggested when the actual vote comes around. And from a seat perspective, I think they’ll cling on in at least 100, perhaps even get up to a 1997 seat count though I think that’s at the very top end of my expectations. But I have been revising my view downward all campaign. I could change my mind.
IIRC John Curtice has said within the last 24 hours or so that any Tory result between 50-150 can be justified from the current data; also that the issue is going to be (gosh) how the huge shift in voting patterns plays out in different places. As there isn't really data on what happens with this sort of volatility our own best guesses are going to be in play.
In 1997 Labour got a 179 seat majority with a 12.5 % point lead. Next week (in 6 or perhaps 9 days time, anyway 7 sleeps till exit poll) the Labour lead (over the Tories) will, I suppose be between 12 and 25 points. That span - enormous - plus geographical variability will keep us awake for some time after 10pm Thursday, just 6, 7 or 8 days away.
This is our tax base disappearing. This is a catastrophe - and I very much doubt that Labour will fix it
And of course all the lefties on here will yelp: “let them go we don’t need them”. Or the alternative: “no they won’t go. They’re lying” even as they go
Millionaires are leaving the UK faster than any country in the world other than China, new data shows.
According to the Henley Private Wealth Migration Report, 9,500 millionaires, defined in US dollar terms are leaving the UK this year. Only China - which has more than twice as many people with seven-figure net worths - saw more millionaires leave.
This is a new record outflow for the UK, with London expected to be especially hard hit. The top destinations for millionaires leaving the UK include Paris, Dubai, Amsterdam, Monaco, Geneva, Sydney, and Singapore, as well as retirement hotspots such as Florida, the Algarve, Malta, and the Italian Riviera.”
Who would have thought high taxes, end to non-dom status, high levels of shitty crime in London etc would be a turn off.
The problem as I have said in the past is that it is ever easier to run businesses in countries you don't even live in, and some countries know this and making it very attractive offers.
I've spent the last couple of weeks eyeing up my options, should my tax bill double. There are some ridiculously cheap ways of leaving the country for example the D7 visa for Portugal only requires a passive income of €705 a month and comes with substantial tax breaks for the first decade of living there.
45% of capital gains taxes are raised on disposals of greater than £5m, so leaving to avoid the difference in a 20% rate (fairly average) vs a 45% rate (one of the highest in the world) makes sense to almost half the tax base currently paying the tax. 20% of £5m is £1m, but 45% of it is £2.25m, and there are places round the world you can pay 0%. Heck, you can pay 0% on the Isle of Man if you're really determined. But Dubai etc will welcome you with open arms.
While there's been no research done on 20% -> 45% HMRC's own forecasts have suggested that a 10% raise in the higher rate (28%) would be net negative to the treasury by £1.1bn in 2025-2026 and negative £2.1bn the year after.
For these reasons I hope Rachel Reeves will be sensible and avoid the calls from within her own party to tax CGT as income. However I suspect with a supermajority, the clarion call to bash the rich will be too great to resist. It will end up harming both the country, and the economy.
Avoiding the difference between 20% and a hypothetical new 45% rate by messing about with domicile is not an option. Anyone sitting on a big gain taxable at 20% in my view wants their head feeling if they don't sell at least a big chunk now. CGT is going up, very possibly in an emergency budget To Save The NHS before end July, and it is not coming down till next time there's a con majority with a thriving economy and the deficit under control 2095?
It's too late anyway to be clever about this. You have to bugger off and be resident abroad and *then* sell your asset, and anyone now resident in the UK is resident here till next April cos da man at da revenue doesn't recognise part years. So even if there's no budget till autumn that doesn't really help
Yep, I would be looking at leaving on April 6th 2025 for precisely that reason.
It’s a good thing according to this Guardian talking head
Since the top 1% of taxpayers shoulder about 30% of the UK's tax burden, I wish such commentators the best of luck paying for their socialist utopia out of their own pockets.
The incoming Labour government will have two familiar problems:
1. It will load far too much taxation on the private sector to fund the public sector, at the cost of private sector jobs and growth
2 "wealth" will be a word spat out with venom by several hundred back-benchers, each trying to appear the most vitriolic in condemnation of those who have it. They will be happy to wave wealth off at the airport.
Then they will wonder why they are having to close hospital wards.
If there was ever a good election to lose, then this is one of them. The total domination of Parliament by Labour over the next five years means they will wholly own everything that fucks up. "It was the fault of the Tories!" What Tories?
Looking at the data tables for this (available from here), the raw numbers are: LAB 160 LDM 64 CON 130 GRN 20 RFM 26
So there's some hefty weighting going on to arrive at the percentages above. Can anybody who understands these things take a look at the supplementary questions asked, and work out what has motivated the weighting? (It's not just "likelihood to vote" - I looked at that myself.)
No, not really and I'm not sure where you are seeing those figures.
The interesting tables are 13, 14 and 15. 13 is the baseline so all those sampled and it comes out Lab 95, LD 95, Con 93.
But in table 13, 95/95/93 is the weighted base - the unweighted figures are 160/64/130. My question is, on what criteria has the weighting been done ie if they only found 64 people actually saying they would vote LD, what caused them to up-weight that number (and down-weight the others)?
They use "rake weighting" as quoted:
We use rake weighting to make our sample representative of the constituency. In particular we weight our data to match ONS targets on the following variables: age, gender, highest qualification, plus 2019 general election vote and likelihood to vote in this upcoming general election.
It's widely used in opinion surveys.
Yes, but looking at the tables, most of those criteria wouldn't cause much change in the weighting. @Pulpstar has found the one that is making the difference: the recalled vote from the 2019 GE. In their sample, only 10% of those who voted last time say they voted LD, but the estimated true 2029 LD vote in the bits making up the new constituency is 27%.
I wonder why they had such trouble finding LD voters. Maybe they concentrated too much on Bicester, and not enough on Kidlington (which was in Layla Moran's seat)?
Part of the challenge for Lib Dems has always been voter churn in their (target) seats. People who voted for them last time, moving out, replaced by voters not previously in a Lib Dem target seat, and so have to be persuaded from scratch.
So you'd expect voter churn to reduce the number of 2019 Lib Dems in a seat that had a Lib Dem share more than twice their national average. But not, perhaps, by that much.
This is our tax base disappearing. This is a catastrophe - and I very much doubt that Labour will fix it
And of course all the lefties on here will yelp: “let them go we don’t need them”. Or the alternative: “no they won’t go. They’re lying” even as they go
There’s also the inverse, about which we’ll hear nothing.
Friend/customer of mine out here, hedge fund manager, likely earns $10m or thereabouts, every year looks at possibly relocating somewhere else. Recently went to London and was shocked at the crime. Add that to taxes going up under Labour, and he’s staying in the sandpit for another few years.
Your anecdote is backed up with the video I linked down below. Rise in rich people leaving UK, fall in rich people relocating to UK.
This is our tax base disappearing. This is a catastrophe - and I very much doubt that Labour will fix it
And of course all the lefties on here will yelp: “let them go we don’t need them”. Or the alternative: “no they won’t go. They’re lying” even as they go
Millionaires are leaving the UK faster than any country in the world other than China, new data shows.
According to the Henley Private Wealth Migration Report, 9,500 millionaires, defined in US dollar terms are leaving the UK this year. Only China - which has more than twice as many people with seven-figure net worths - saw more millionaires leave.
This is a new record outflow for the UK, with London expected to be especially hard hit. The top destinations for millionaires leaving the UK include Paris, Dubai, Amsterdam, Monaco, Geneva, Sydney, and Singapore, as well as retirement hotspots such as Florida, the Algarve, Malta, and the Italian Riviera.”
Who would have thought high taxes, end to non-dom status, high levels of shitty crime in London etc would be a turn off.
The problem as I have said in the past is that it is ever easier to run businesses in countries you don't even live in, and some countries know this and making it very attractive offers.
I've spent the last couple of weeks eyeing up my options, should my tax bill double. There are some ridiculously cheap ways of leaving the country for example the D7 visa for Portugal only requires a passive income of €705 a month and comes with substantial tax breaks for the first decade of living there.
45% of capital gains taxes are raised on disposals of greater than £5m, so leaving to avoid the difference in a 20% rate (fairly average) vs a 45% rate (one of the highest in the world) makes sense to almost half the tax base currently paying the tax. 20% of £5m is £1m, but 45% of it is £2.25m, and there are places round the world you can pay 0%. Heck, you can pay 0% on the Isle of Man if you're really determined. But Dubai etc will welcome you with open arms.
While there's been no research done on 20% -> 45% HMRC's own forecasts have suggested that a 10% raise in the higher rate (28%) would be net negative to the treasury by £1.1bn in 2025-2026 and negative £2.1bn the year after.
For these reasons I hope Rachel Reeves will be sensible and avoid the calls from within her own party to tax CGT as income. However I suspect with a supermajority, the clarion call to bash the rich will be too great to resist. It will end up harming both the country, and the economy.
Avoiding the difference between 20% and a hypothetical new 45% rate by messing about with domicile is not an option. Anyone sitting on a big gain taxable at 20% in my view wants their head feeling if they don't sell at least a big chunk now. CGT is going up, very possibly in an emergency budget To Save The NHS before end July, and it is not coming down till next time there's a con majority with a thriving economy and the deficit under control 2095?
It's too late anyway to be clever about this. You have to bugger off and be resident abroad and *then* sell your asset, and anyone now resident in the UK is resident here till next April cos da man at da revenue doesn't recognise part years. So even if there's no budget till autumn that doesn't really help
Yep, I would be looking at leaving on April 6th 2025 for precisely that reason.
It’s a good thing according to this Guardian talking head
Since the top 1% of taxpayers shoulder about 30% of the UK's tax burden, I wish such commentators the best of luck paying for their socialist utopia out of their own pockets.
I agree. For people like him it really is be careful what you wish for.
. . . in case you missed this story from the Great White North . . .
CBC News - Conservatives win longtime Liberal stronghold Toronto-St. Paul's in shock byelection result Stunning result raises questions about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's future
Conservative candidate Don Stewart has won the longtime federal Liberal stronghold of Toronto-St. Paul's, a stunning result that raises questions about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's future.
Stewart's victory is shocking because the seat has been held by the Liberals for more than 30 years — even through the party's past low points, such as the 2011 federal election that returned just 34 Liberal MPs to Parliament.
Before Monday's vote, a Conservative candidate hadn't been competitive in Toronto–St. Paul's since the 1980s. The party hadn't won a seat in urban Toronto since the 2011 federal election. . . .
. . . Stewart, a consultant, claimed victory with about 42 per cent of the vote against Church, a former Parliament Hill staffer and lawyer, who took roughly 40 per cent of the ballots cast.
The Liberals' poor showing in a stronghold like this could prompt some soul-searching for Trudeau, who has seen his popularity plummet as inflation, the cost of living crisis, high home prices and surging immigration levels drive voter discontent.
This Conservative upset is likely to lead to some anxiety in the Liberal caucus because such a dramatic vote swing could put other supposedly "safe" seats in play for the Conservatives in the next general election. . . .
This is not a good time to be in government! (As Sir Keir may fairly soon find out). So far as I can see only Meloni seems to be bucking trend in the major countries - apart from Biden who has Trump to thank for that.
Has something to do with Trudeau the Younger's problem, as with Sunak.
HOWEVER think two other factors are at play in the Great White North:
> Justin Trudeau has been PM since 2015, thus significant fatigue with him AND his Liberal Party; similar to UK voter fatigue with CUP.
> Pierre Poilievre, Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, is WAY more of an electoral asset than his predecessor who lost last election to JT; similar to Starmer compared to Corbyn.
This is our tax base disappearing. This is a catastrophe - and I very much doubt that Labour will fix it
And of course all the lefties on here will yelp: “let them go we don’t need them”. Or the alternative: “no they won’t go. They’re lying” even as they go
Millionaires are leaving the UK faster than any country in the world other than China, new data shows.
According to the Henley Private Wealth Migration Report, 9,500 millionaires, defined in US dollar terms are leaving the UK this year. Only China - which has more than twice as many people with seven-figure net worths - saw more millionaires leave.
This is a new record outflow for the UK, with London expected to be especially hard hit. The top destinations for millionaires leaving the UK include Paris, Dubai, Amsterdam, Monaco, Geneva, Sydney, and Singapore, as well as retirement hotspots such as Florida, the Algarve, Malta, and the Italian Riviera.”
Who would have thought high taxes, end to non-dom status, high levels of shitty crime in London etc would be a turn off.
The problem as I have said in the past is that it is ever easier to run businesses in countries you don't even live in, and some countries know this and making it very attractive offers.
I've spent the last couple of weeks eyeing up my options, should my tax bill double. There are some ridiculously cheap ways of leaving the country for example the D7 visa for Portugal only requires a passive income of €705 a month and comes with substantial tax breaks for the first decade of living there.
45% of capital gains taxes are raised on disposals of greater than £5m, so leaving to avoid the difference in a 20% rate (fairly average) vs a 45% rate (one of the highest in the world) makes sense to almost half the tax base currently paying the tax. 20% of £5m is £1m, but 45% of it is £2.25m, and there are places round the world you can pay 0%. Heck, you can pay 0% on the Isle of Man if you're really determined. But Dubai etc will welcome you with open arms.
While there's been no research done on 20% -> 45% HMRC's own forecasts have suggested that a 10% raise in the higher rate (28%) would be net negative to the treasury by £1.1bn in 2025-2026 and negative £2.1bn the year after.
For these reasons I hope Rachel Reeves will be sensible and avoid the calls from within her own party to tax CGT as income. However I suspect with a supermajority, the clarion call to bash the rich will be too great to resist. It will end up harming both the country, and the economy.
Avoiding the difference between 20% and a hypothetical new 45% rate by messing about with domicile is not an option. Anyone sitting on a big gain taxable at 20% in my view wants their head feeling if they don't sell at least a big chunk now. CGT is going up, very possibly in an emergency budget To Save The NHS before end July, and it is not coming down till next time there's a con majority with a thriving economy and the deficit under control 2095?
It's too late anyway to be clever about this. You have to bugger off and be resident abroad and *then* sell your asset, and anyone now resident in the UK is resident here till next April cos da man at da revenue doesn't recognise part years. So even if there's no budget till autumn that doesn't really help
Yep, I would be looking at leaving on April 6th 2025 for precisely that reason.
It’s a good thing according to this Guardian talking head
Since the top 1% of taxpayers shoulder about 30% of the UK's tax burden, I wish such commentators the best of luck paying for their socialist utopia out of their own pockets.
The incoming Labour government will have two familiar problems:
1. It will load far too much taxation on the private sector to fund the public sector, at the cost of private sector jobs and growth
2 "wealth" will be a word spat out with venom by several hundred back-benchers, each trying to appear the most vitriolic in condemnation of those who have it. They will be happy to wave wealth off at the airport.
Then they will wonder why they are having to close hospital wards.
If there was ever a good election to lose, then this is one of them. The total domination of Parliament by Labour over the next five years means they will wholly own everything that fucks up. "It was the fault of the Tories!" What Tories?
This could be unpicked at length, but to take it briefly, 2 points:
WRT policy (ignore rhetoric for a moment) Labour replacing Tory will for almost all relevant purposes replace one set of high spending social democrats with another.
That this is a good election to lose: can only mean that the Tories have laid the field waste, which is hardly a recommendation.
Sad though I am to read that hundreds of thousands of Tory-voting millionaires are going to leave the country once Labour is elected and raises their taxes, it does mean that Labour's path to victory in 2029 will be easier (provided the ex-pats don't get organised and vote from overseas).
What a grown up take....if we want to get back to growth we need to attract wealth generators to come to the UK and stay in the UK. Its is what Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson got and why we had continued good growth when they took over. They got the balance about right.
The opposite has been happening at record rates.
If we don't sort growth and productivity, the millionaires will be fine (the world is easy for them to move about), it you and the majority of the public that won't be. Ever higher taxes, ever worse services.
Its why the Tories have be so bad over the past few years.
Thanks. I'm less convinced than you are that the sort of people who bugger off to low-tax regimes at the first whiff of a Labour government are wealth generators - they're just rich, greedy and selfish. Under the current tax regime, and any envisaged by Labour, they would still be extremely rich and want for nothing. It's just greed, an unpopular and rather under-used word these days.
You’re an absolute idiot and people like you will ruin the country
Comments
Less boring than either Englands football team or a Snake v Sir Starmer Smith debate at any rate.
Why can't Bill Mclaren do the Labour debates?
·
Jun 25
Wesminster Voting Intention:
LAB: 41% (+1)
CON: 25% (+2)
RFM: 15% (-3)
LDM: 11% (+2)
GRN: 5% (=)
SNP: 3% (-1)
Via
@JLPartnersPolls
, 21-24 Jun.
Cynically I suspect Labour would rather have a weakened, in-fighting Tory party as its opposition than a newly invigorated LibDem party attacking them (at times) from the left.
The gender voting is interesting - only 4% of men are DKs but 11% of women.
The age tranches are also interesting - Reform are running second among the 45-64 age group but the Conservatives are four points ahead of Reform among the 65+ cohort though they trail Labour in this group 32-23 (the gap in 2019 was 17-64) so that's a 28% swing in the 65+ age group. Those numbers are very different to More In Common who for example who had 40% Conservative among the over 65s but that goes a long way to explaining the difference in Conservative VI.
Though seriously, I think you know that your party is doomed this time round and, unlike some on here, you take it with good grace and dignity.
Signed.
Bored at a bus stop.
https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1806367143564280056
Treat the exit poll with caution, at least until who got what percentage at Sunderland South an hour later
We use rake weighting to make our sample representative of the constituency. In particular we weight our data to match ONS targets on the following variables: age, gender, highest qualification, plus 2019 general election vote and likelihood to vote in this upcoming general election.
It's widely used in opinion surveys.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121013566
"Highlights
•
Illicit drugs were found in the river running through the Glastonbury Festival.
•
MDMA was found at environmentally damaging levels in the local aquatic ecosystem.
•
[...]
Levels of cocaine were high enough to disrupt the lifecyle of the European eel.
•
Use of treatment wetlands and preventing public urination could reduce the issue."
Surely some mistake there? They will be fleeing France soon enough as chaos comes.
As many of the early seat announcements will be in these types of seats some of our more excitable posters (Leon, I'm looking at you!) will be telling us the polls are all wrong and Rishi's going to do it.
Be like May when some idiot (can't remember who) was posting "Susan Hall! Susan Hall! Susan Hall!" early on.
I'll be waiting for the swing in the first marginals, ie any Tory seat with a majority of less than 20k.
I'm also expecting the individual results to be all over the place but with Labour ending up with 375-400 seats.
Notable difference is that the constituency poll suggests Tories are voting for Labour to beat Corbyn, something MRPs cannot pick up.
Any party got a policy to annexe it and make it part of Minehead in their manifesto?
They would know how to deal with eel poisoning Glastonbury Drug Abusers. Oh Yes.
CON 56
LAB 440
LIB 82
Reform 22
Green 4 (lol)
Yes, it would be hilarious, but if he has so much local support it'd be nice to see that rewarded.
Several birds killed with one stone.
Islington N could also be the only swing from Labour to Conservatives in the UK
The opposite has been happening at record rates.
If we don't sort growth and productivity, the millionaires will be fine (the world is easy for them to move about and plenty of countries want them*), it you and the majority of the public that won't be. Ever higher taxes, ever worse services.
Its why the Tories have be so bad over the past few years.
* even socialist leaning countries like Portugal have realised this.
25 2019 Lib Dems voters in the sample, weighted up to 78.
81 2019 Labour voters, weighted down to 49.
I would not be very confident in the results from this poll. The degree of weighting applied makes a mockery of the quoted margin of error.
I'm sure that the weighted results will be more accurate than if they'd published the unweighted results, but, still.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/21/britain-millionaires-leave-tax-havens-uk
It's the plain speaking truth.
I'm sorry if you find racism acceptable, or find yourself so sensitive you dislike hearing racists called out for what they are, but I for one believe in free speech and honesty.
So I will use my free speech and honesty to call out the nasty, bigoted racists for what they actually are.
Nigel Farage is a nasty, bigoted racist.
Do you actually disagree with that? Or are you just so fragile the term racist offends your sensitive eyes?
speech from Henry V was possibly a tad over the top.
Decent cheap breakfast or tea & cake at the indoor market if you're still there tomorrow.
In fairness those areas of relative LD strength are often not trying at all either, since their activists are focusing on target seats.
Which is a sound strategy, but in a Tory collapse scenario it may mean the LDs have ignored a number of areas that were possibilities for them after all.
I wonder why they had such trouble finding LD voters. Maybe they concentrated too much on Bicester, and not enough on Kidlington (which was in Layla Moran's seat)?
He's a nobody, failed loser who has never yet been elected to Parliament and only got his name well known by claiming credit for a eurosceptic movement that preexisted him (for non-racist reasons) since Maastricht and that so recognised he was toxic he got excluded from the Leave campaign in the referendum.
He'll hopefully be defeated for the eighth time in a row this year, but if he's not he'll still be leading a party with fewer MPs than the Lib Dems or SNP. Until he pisses off to America once more and good riddance when he does.
What is it about Mr Farage that attracts the significant number of racist bigots still around in this country (sadly) to vote Reform?
And the rules specified that India plays in this one, no draw for them.
It's just not cricket.
A few people have mentioned how they’ve been targeted irrelevantly by political ads on social media. This piece here is fascinating and nerdy (and yet more evidence that the CCHQ team have suffered a monumental brain drain) - but includes nuggets like the fact that the Tories’ ads on Meta have had no geotargeting beyond blanket ‘England & Wales’.
But well worth a read. Apologies if already shared.
Sadly the small villages that were home as recently as the 1970s to many farm workers and labours etc. are just commuter dwellings now and contractors drive tens of miles to work farms.
Interesting how wrong he was about Covid though. (Thank fuck)
The Right have also made a habit of being vicious and nasty these past five years and finding it all ‘funny’. Well your Day of Judgement is upon you. The Electorate strikes back.
I hope you do get back alright.
Its free choice and people moving on.
So pathetic to see people bemoaning a century old technology.
What next, ban the Internet so people go shopping in the stores instead of Amazon.
We have cars and the Internet, that's progress. If we don't want shops, that's no big deal, that land can be repurposed for other more valuable use.
because they love him- human rights lawyer, economic moderate and mass migration lover.
NEW THREAD AND IT BASED ON A SUB-SAMPLE
Record levels of people are leaving the UK across the board. Large numbers are highly educated and / or wealthy.
Its Labour job to turn that trend around.
Town centres will presumably be mostly for living in and eating out.
There already is an additional surcharge, not part of employer NI but to the same effect.
Blair, same with Cameron, even Boris (for mayor) got fair easy rides. Those that are further away from that e.g. Corbyn or Truss, get a really hard time.
Also, if you know who is going to win, you don't want to be left on the naughty step from day one. No exclusives, no interviews with important people, no jollies on the foreign trips etc.
Whenever a government targets income earners at about £100k or sole traders, the media go mental...no idea why.
In 1997 Labour got a 179 seat majority with a 12.5 % point lead. Next week (in 6 or perhaps 9 days time, anyway 7 sleeps till exit poll) the Labour lead (over the Tories) will, I suppose be between 12 and 25 points. That span - enormous - plus geographical variability will keep us awake for some time after 10pm Thursday, just 6, 7 or 8 days away.
1. It will load far too much taxation on the private sector to fund the public sector, at the cost of private sector jobs and growth
2 "wealth" will be a word spat out with venom by several hundred back-benchers, each trying to appear the most vitriolic in condemnation of those who have it. They will be happy to wave wealth off at the airport.
Then they will wonder why they are having to close hospital wards.
If there was ever a good election to lose, then this is one of them. The total domination of Parliament by Labour over the next five years means they will wholly own everything that fucks up. "It was the fault of the Tories!" What Tories?
So you'd expect voter churn to reduce the number of 2019 Lib Dems in a seat that had a Lib Dem share more than twice their national average. But not, perhaps, by that much.
Exactly as I predicted. “Let them go”. This is a “pain drain”
It’s exactly the same as “why don’t you fuck off and join the Tories”
Britain is doomed
HOWEVER think two other factors are at play in the Great White North:
> Justin Trudeau has been PM since 2015, thus significant fatigue with him AND his Liberal Party; similar to UK voter fatigue with CUP.
> Pierre Poilievre, Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, is WAY more of an electoral asset than his predecessor who lost last election to JT; similar to Starmer compared to Corbyn.
WRT policy (ignore rhetoric for a moment) Labour replacing Tory will for almost all relevant purposes replace one set of high spending social democrats with another.
That this is a good election to lose: can only mean that the Tories have laid the field waste, which is hardly a recommendation.
What an over!