politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Today’s Populus 1pc LAB lead poll had a sharp increase in Tory certainty to vote figures and a decline in LAB ones
Today’s Populus online poll sees the LAB lead down to just 1%. The raw number show LAb still with a big lead but the weighted ones, after the demographic and certainty calculations, the Tory deficit comes right down.
FPT: cheers for those tips, Mr. Eagles. I can't see France winning. Even if they beat Ireland, England would have to lose to Italy, which has never happened in the tournament and seems unlikely to now.
I tipped Williams to top score at 5.5 yesterday, but this is looking rather ropey and I would not today recommend it. If, however, you think I've fluked my way to a good bet (this happened last year, with identical odds but for Ferrari to top score) it's now out to 7.5.
As interesting question for Ed Miliband is what his policy will be if he becomes Prime Minister supposing the European Union (Referendum) Bill has been enacted in this Parliament. It is one thing to say there will be no "In"/"Out" referendum while he is PM unless there is a major transfer of powers to Brussels. It is quite another to repeal existing legislation providing for such a referendum.
There is a tendency to look at polling movements on far too short term a basis. Occasionally events shift polls, but rarely.
If I were fingering an event that might have had an effect, I'd look at Ukraine. Foreign policy events favour incumbent leaders. But personally i'd see any closing (possible but unclear) as related to a longer term impact of the improving economy.
FPT: cheers for those tips, Mr. Eagles. I can't see France winning. Even if they beat Ireland, England would have to lose to Italy, which has never happened in the tournament and seems unlikely to now.
I tipped Williams to top score at 5.5 yesterday, but this is looking rather ropey and I would not today recommend it. If, however, you think I've fluked my way to a good bet (this happened last year, with identical odds but for Ferrari to top score) it's now out to 7.5.
France can still win it, even if England win in Rome, France just have to give Ireland the sort of hiding Rome gave Carthage in successive wars.
Mr. Eagles, Carthage didn't do so badly. They lost the first because of losing at sea (bit of a faux pas for a naval power), the second because if internal infighting (no proper reinforcements for Hannibal) and the third because at that stage it was an empire versus a single city. They actually acquitted themselves very well in the Third Punic War.
From a skim, it seems fairly excoriating. Dos anyone know if this was meant to come out (phase 1 of the report is scheduled for the end of next month), or is a hurried reaction to Euan Sutherland's resignation?
As interesting question for Ed Miliband is what his policy will be if he becomes Prime Minister supposing the European Union (Referendum) Bill has been enacted in this Parliament. It is one thing to say there will be no "In"/"Out" referendum while he is PM unless there is a major transfer of powers to Brussels. It is quite another to repeal existing legislation providing for such a referendum.
But isnt the chance of that Bill being enacted somewhere near 0% (or have a I missed something)?
Mr. Eagles, Carthage didn't do so badly. They lost the first because of losing at sea (bit of a faux pas for a naval power), the second because if internal infighting (no proper reinforcements for Hannibal) and the third because at that stage it was an empire versus a single city. They actually acquitted themselves very well in the Third Punic War.
It led to the phrase "Carthaginian Peace"
Carthaginian Peace is a term that refers to the imposition of a very brutal 'peace' by completely crushing the enemy. It derives from the peace imposed on Carthage by Rome. After the Second Punic War, Carthage lost all its colonies, was forced to demilitarize, pay a constant tribute to Rome and could not enter war without Rome's permission. At the end of the Third Punic War the Romans systematically burned Carthage to the ground and enslaved its population.
Mr. Eagles, a similarly harsh (to the Second) treaty occurred after the First. The Third was a bit of imperial bullying, rather than anything else.
Incidentally, I saw Balls on the news. Asked by Nick Robinson about how the British public would feel about him (a man 'at the wheel' when the recession occurred) Balls replied that everyone in life got some things wrong and some things right.
Not sure that's a great line. Leaving aside the odium of Balls, not everybody in life costs their country hundreds of billions of pounds by giving us the worst recession in history. It sounds flippant.
Mr. Eagles, Carthage didn't do so badly. They lost the first because of losing at sea (bit of a faux pas for a naval power), the second because if internal infighting (no proper reinforcements for Hannibal) and the third because at that stage it was an empire versus a single city. They actually acquitted themselves very well in the Third Punic War.
Given the balance of forces, the performance of the Roman Army was dreadful in the Third Punic War. In fact, Roman military efficiency declined markedly, between the conquest of Macedonia in 168 BC, and the consulships of Gaius Marius. They got whipped by the Spanish, Germans, and Numidians in that period.
Mr. F, indeed, the Second Punic War was perhaps the peak (especially the latter days) of military capability and patriotic fervour. Jugurtha would've been fantastic, if he had soldiers whose first response to a battle wasn't to wet themselves.
From a skim, it seems fairly excoriating. Dos anyone know if this was meant to come out (phase 1 of the report is scheduled for the end of next month), or is a hurried reaction to Euan Sutherland's resignation?
I got YouGov'd on my views and perceptions of the Co-op recently. It was a big questionnaire, but I found it quite revealing. Around here, as far as I'm aware, we have a Co-op store a few villages away, and that's about it. I genuinely have no idea what their community engagement and charitable works are in my area.
I wonder if the certainty to vote stats should have a bearing on the Euro elections where turnover is tradionally low and Labour are an odds on to win the most votes.
I've backed the tories around 7/1 on Betfair a few months back and am looking for reasons to believe I haven't done my money! The logic was that the tories have won the last three, are more likely to vote and UKIP are looking a bit less attractive to moderates these days. I still think 7/1 is a decent price.
Mr. F, indeed, the Second Punic War was perhaps the peak (especially the latter days) of military capability and patriotic fervour. Jugurtha would've been fantastic, if he had soldiers whose first response to a battle wasn't to wet themselves.
Had the Romans faced an enemy as capable and well-resourced as Mithradates, in c.130 BC, they would surely have lost Asia Minor and Greece. Fortunately for them, by the time Mithradates appeared, they'd discovered some excellent commanders (and still, it was a very near-run thing).
The conquest of Macedonia was really the last hurrah for the veterans of the Second Punic War.
"The LD week was topped off overnight with two gains in council by-elections – one in Canterbury and the other in Ludlow in Shropshire. The latter is the most interesting because the Lib Dems held the parliamentary seat from 2001 to 2005."
I think Canterbury was the most interesting one. UKIP went from nowhere to 18%, and the seat changed hands because the Conservatives lost more votes than their nearest challenger.
That I think is going to be UKIP's most significant contribution to the next election. They're going to reduce the number of safe seats.
I hope that anticipating this, MPs in formerly safe seats are going to spend the last 12 months of this parliament trying very hard to represent voters they would in past have ignored.
Surely if we are looking for a cause for this closing of the scores (and I take anitfrank's point) it has to be the better economy. The news has been more consistently good in recent months and we are getting to the point when speculation about the budget is highlighting the better situation.
I still think this is a very tricky budget politically. There is a real need to reduce the deficit so there is no real money about. Osborne will be looking for quite a big bang for quite small bucks and that is always tricky. All in it together is due another run out which is problematic as well.
He did well last year by skipping the gimmicks. I hope he has learned that lesson even if it makes the budget duller. At the moment, even politically, looking grown up and competent is more than enough given the choices available.
From a skim, it seems fairly excoriating. Dos anyone know if this was meant to come out (phase 1 of the report is scheduled for the end of next month), or is a hurried reaction to Euan Sutherland's resignation?
I got YouGov'd on my views and perceptions of the Co-op recently. It was a big questionnaire, but I found it quite revealing. Around here, as far as I'm aware, we have a Co-op store a few villages away, and that's about it. I genuinely have no idea what their community engagement and charitable works are in my area.
In the last few places we lived (i.e. south of Cambridge and in the Southampton area) the nearest small shops were all Co-ops, and we enjoyed using them. They were convenient, well-stocked, and cheaper than getting the car to go out to Waitrose or Asda. In November we had a brand new Co-op open a stone's throw from us here in Cambourne.
In all that time, I've noticed nothing about community engagement or charitable works. If they're doing them, they should make more of it.
Heck, Waitrose do more with their choose-where-to-put-your-token charitable nonsense. It's visible and quite in your face as you're given a token.
Oh, it was also annoying that North Baddesley had two Co-ops, neither of which would accept the membership card from the other. One was a Southern Co-op, the other a different one.
Mr. F, I keep meaning to buy a book about Mithridates. Bit of a gap in my knowledge, there. Time, money and half a dozen books still to read have delayed it, though.
Surely if we are looking for a cause for this closing of the scores (and I take anitfrank's point) it has to be the better economy. The news has been more consistently good in recent months and we are getting to the point when speculation about the budget is highlighting the better situation.
I still think this is a very tricky budget politically. There is a real need to reduce the deficit so there is no real money about. Osborne will be looking for quite a big bang for quite small bucks and that is always tricky. All in it together is due another run out which is problematic as well.
He did well last year by skipping the gimmicks. I hope he has learned that lesson even if it makes the budget duller. At the moment, even politically, looking grown up and competent is more than enough given the choices available.
It's true that the economy is looking up, and I've posted in the past that the recession didn't hit me and mine too hard-pension contributions up significantly, no payrises, but that was balanced out by low mortgage rates, only a couple of people( friends of friends, really) lost jobs, but on the whole, we got through it, maybe a little poorer in real terms, but almost intact......but....... That's going to change next year. The Public Sector is going to take a big hit, with the first proper cuts implemented. All the fat has been cut, cost savings have all been implemented, there's not a lot more natural wastage to go. It has to be implemented over the next year, and then the 2 years after that. That won't feed into the "Economy on the up" meme.
As interesting question for Ed Miliband is what his policy will be if he becomes Prime Minister supposing the European Union (Referendum) Bill has been enacted in this Parliament. It is one thing to say there will be no "In"/"Out" referendum while he is PM unless there is a major transfer of powers to Brussels. It is quite another to repeal existing legislation providing for such a referendum.
I don't think it'll pass (which is why leadership going through the motions pretending to try to pass it instead of squishing it) but in the event that it did, and if it actually has some kind of practical meaning, he'd have no problem repealing it, since not having a referendum in 2017 is what he's fighting the election on.
PS I get that there are sometimes political reasons for politicians to spend parliamentary time pretending to try to pass legislation they know doesn't actually do anything, but I think when they do it they should at least have to put some money in a jar for charity or something.
As interesting question for Ed Miliband is what his policy will be if he becomes Prime Minister supposing the European Union (Referendum) Bill has been enacted in this Parliament. It is one thing to say there will be no "In"/"Out" referendum while he is PM unless there is a major transfer of powers to Brussels. It is quite another to repeal existing legislation providing for such a referendum.
I don't think it'll pass (which is why leadership going through the motions pretending to try to pass it instead of squishing it) but in the event that it did, and if it actually has some kind of practical meaning, he'd have no problem repealing it, since not having a referendum in 2017 is what he's fighting the election on.
PS I get that there are sometimes political reasons for politicians to spend parliamentary time pretending to try to pass legislation they know doesn't actually do anything, but I think when they do it they should at least have to put some money in a jar for charity or something.
Surely if we are looking for a cause for this closing of the scores (and I take anitfrank's point) it has to be the better economy. The news has been more consistently good in recent months and we are getting to the point when speculation about the budget is highlighting the better situation.
I still think this is a very tricky budget politically. There is a real need to reduce the deficit so there is no real money about. Osborne will be looking for quite a big bang for quite small bucks and that is always tricky. All in it together is due another run out which is problematic as well.
He did well last year by skipping the gimmicks. I hope he has learned that lesson even if it makes the budget duller. At the moment, even politically, looking grown up and competent is more than enough given the choices available.
It's true that the economy is looking up, and I've posted in the past that the recession didn't hit me and mine too hard-pension contributions up significantly, no payrises, but that was balanced out by low mortgage rates, only a couple of people( friends of friends, really) lost jobs, but on the whole, we got through it, maybe a little poorer in real terms, but almost intact......but....... That's going to change next year. The Public Sector is going to take a big hit, with the first proper cuts implemented. All the fat has been cut, cost savings have all been implemented, there's not a lot more natural wastage to go. It has to be implemented over the next year, and then the 2 years after that. That won't feed into the "Economy on the up" meme.
The cuts won't really kick in until after the GE. Clearly.
40% of the cuts will have been implemented by the end of the FY. Presumably most will have been implemented by the time of the GE.
Surely if we are looking for a cause for this closing of the scores (and I take anitfrank's point) it has to be the better economy. The news has been more consistently good in recent months and we are getting to the point when speculation about the budget is highlighting the better situation.
I still think this is a very tricky budget politically. There is a real need to reduce the deficit so there is no real money about. Osborne will be looking for quite a big bang for quite small bucks and that is always tricky. All in it together is due another run out which is problematic as well.
He did well last year by skipping the gimmicks. I hope he has learned that lesson even if it makes the budget duller. At the moment, even politically, looking grown up and competent is more than enough given the choices available.
It's true that the economy is looking up, and I've posted in the past that the recession didn't hit me and mine too hard-pension contributions up significantly, no payrises, but that was balanced out by low mortgage rates, only a couple of people( friends of friends, really) lost jobs, but on the whole, we got through it, maybe a little poorer in real terms, but almost intact......but....... That's going to change next year. The Public Sector is going to take a big hit, with the first proper cuts implemented. All the fat has been cut, cost savings have all been implemented, there's not a lot more natural wastage to go. It has to be implemented over the next year, and then the 2 years after that. That won't feed into the "Economy on the up" meme.
The cuts won't really kick in until after the GE. Clearly.
I wasn't clear, sorry. The talks are taking place now. SMT meetings, nothing is off the table, nothing is immune from cuts, even our flagship city centre station. We've been told there will be operational firefighter redundancies. The county council are singing the same song. For the first time, I feel a little nervous. I might lose my job, at 47. It's scary. YouGov ask me every month how I feel about my personal circumstance. I usually tick the "feeling confident" box. Last time I ticked the "scared s#!tless" box. Sure, Some of the cuts won't be until after the GE, but they're hanging over us now. They have to start implementation by this time next year
Well he clearly is a 'f*cking whining idiot'. What's also true is that he and Balls seem to have been in the news a bit more lately too. Labour did quite well when there was a period of extended radio silence from them both. Staying off the telly is going to be hard in the run up to the GE though.
Oh...and they've both been making some very stupid announcements lately - such as Balls' promise to crank up spending and tax borrowing (nobbling pension tax deductions to fund 'guaranteed jobs' for the young). This scares the horses.
F1: just laid Bottas and Massa at 50 and 36 respectively for the title, having earlier backed them at 65 and 40. I had intended to hold on until the third or fourth race then lay, but I suspect Williams will underperform compared to my previous expectations. So, I'm ahead if Rosberg or either Williams wins and flat if anyone else does.
Surely if we are looking for a cause for this closing of the scores (and I take anitfrank's point) it has to be the better economy. The news has been more consistently good in recent months and we are getting to the point when speculation about the budget is highlighting the better situation.
I still think this is a very tricky budget politically. There is a real need to reduce the deficit so there is no real money about. Osborne will be looking for quite a big bang for quite small bucks and that is always tricky. All in it together is due another run out which is problematic as well.
He did well last year by skipping the gimmicks. I hope he has learned that lesson even if it makes the budget duller. At the moment, even politically, looking grown up and competent is more than enough given the choices available.
It's true that the economy is looking up, and I've posted in the past that the recession didn't hit me and mine too hard-pension contributions up significantly, no payrises, but that was balanced out by low mortgage rates, only a couple of people( friends of friends, really) lost jobs, but on the whole, we got through it, maybe a little poorer in real terms, but almost intact......but....... That's going to change next year. The Public Sector is going to take a big hit, with the first proper cuts implemented. All the fat has been cut, cost savings have all been implemented, there's not a lot more natural wastage to go. It has to be implemented over the next year, and then the 2 years after that. That won't feed into the "Economy on the up" meme.
The cuts won't really kick in until after the GE. Clearly.
I wasn't clear, sorry. The talks are taking place now. SMT meetings, nothing is off the table, nothing is immune from cuts, even our flagship city centre station. We've been told there will be operational firefighter redundancies. The county council are singing the same song. For the first time, I feel a little nervous. I might lose my job, at 47. It's scary. YouGov ask me every month how I feel about my personal circumstance. I usually tick the "feeling confident" box. Last time I ticked the "scared s#!tless" box. Sure, the cuts won't be until after the GE, but they're hanging over us now.
If I could ask for one thing from the budget it would be for the ridiculous fetishising of raising the personal allowance to end. I'm not overly-confident.
From a skim, it seems fairly excoriating. Dos anyone know if this was meant to come out (phase 1 of the report is scheduled for the end of next month), or is a hurried reaction to Euan Sutherland's resignation?
I got YouGov'd on my views and perceptions of the Co-op recently. It was a big questionnaire, but I found it quite revealing. Around here, as far as I'm aware, we have a Co-op store a few villages away, and that's about it. I genuinely have no idea what their community engagement and charitable works are in my area.
In all that time, I've noticed nothing about community engagement or charitable works. If they're doing them, they should make more of it.
I also completed the YouGov on the Co-op and I got the impression that the questions about charitable work/community were meant to find out whether the Co-op should go more into those areas and use their divi money to support local charities rather than distributing it back to customers.
If I could ask for one thing from the budget it would be for the ridiculous fetishising of raising the personal allowance to end. I'm not overly-confident.
I'd prefer they went for increasing the starting point for NI but the talk about that seems to have died away.
Surely if we are looking for a cause for this closing of the scores (and I take anitfrank's point) it has to be the better economy. The news has been more consistently good in recent months and we are getting to the point when speculation about the budget is highlighting the better situation.
I still think this is a very tricky budget politically. There is a real need to reduce the deficit so there is no real money about. Osborne will be looking for quite a big bang for quite small bucks and that is always tricky. All in it together is due another run out which is problematic as well.
He did well last year by skipping the gimmicks. I hope he has learned that lesson even if it makes the budget duller. At the moment, even politically, looking grown up and competent is more than enough given the choices available.
It's true that the economy is looking up, and I've posted in the past that the recession didn't hit me and mine too hard-pension contributions up significantly, no payrises, but that was balanced out by low mortgage rates, only a couple of people( friends of friends, really) lost jobs, but on the whole, we got through it, maybe a little poorer in real terms, but almost intact......but....... That's going to change next year. The Public Sector is going to take a big hit, with the first proper cuts implemented. All the fat has been cut, cost savings have all been implemented, there's not a lot more natural wastage to go. It has to be implemented over the next year, and then the 2 years after that. That won't feed into the "Economy on the up" meme.
The cuts won't really kick in until after the GE. Clearly.
40% of the cuts will have been implemented by the end of the FY. Presumably most will have been implemented by the time of the GE.
I mean the painful cuts, the big redundancies, the cuts you notice. They have been backloaded to 2015-18.
If I could ask for one thing from the budget it would be for the ridiculous fetishising of raising the personal allowance to end. I'm not overly-confident.
Well he clearly is a 'f*cking whining idiot'. What's also true is that he and Balls seem to have been in the news a bit more lately too. Labour did quite well when there was a period of extended radio silence from them both. Staying off the telly is going to be hard in the run up to the GE though.
Oh...and they've both been making some very stupid announcements lately - such as Balls' promise to crank up spending and tax borrowing (nobbling pension tax deductions to fund 'guaranteed jobs' for the young). This scares the horses.
Sick of reading this rubbish from the Right that Lab do worse when Ed is on telly. It's sheer fantasy - you have no evidence for it. Indeed, there have been clear periods when he is all over the telly when Labour's vote has gone up.
It depends what he is talking about - when he says No Referendum, he takes a hit. When he says: "I'm going to clobber the energy ripoff merchants" he gets a boost. Really not that surprising is it? But some people seem desperate to believe the daydreams in their heads.
If I could ask for one thing from the budget it would be for the ridiculous fetishising of raising the personal allowance to end. I'm not overly-confident.
What have you got against low earners ?
Raising the personal allowance doesnt benefit low earners.
May I advise PBers that there is no truth that the sight of little JackW's childhood knees caused the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression of the 1930's as inferred above.
Indeed it has been commented that decades later the sight of a shapely Scottish noble thigh in a revelatory bathing costume at the Wannsee Lake by the Berliner Yacht Club was the touch paper that led to the fall of the Berlin Wall and Communism.
he one guaranteed way to generate a Feel Good factor in Britain is to boost house prices,
Perhaps Osborne will do something with the lowest stamp duty threshold. That would be popular, and chime in with the helping aspirers meme.
Not sure how much it might cost though.
Feel Good Factor - Except amongst the 20-35 year old generation of perpetual renters who are, and continue to be, priced out of the housing market and ignored by politicians. (Logically as they don't tend to bother to vote, and there is no major party they can vote for - but still)
Surely if we are looking for a cause for this closing of the scores (and I take anitfrank's point) it has to be the better economy. The news has been more consistently good in recent months and we are getting to the point when speculation about the budget is highlighting the better situation.
I still think this is a very tricky budget politically. There is a real need to reduce the deficit so there is no real money about. Osborne will be looking for quite a big bang for quite small bucks and that is always tricky. All in it together is due another run out which is problematic as well.
He did well last year by skipping the gimmicks. I hope he has learned that lesson even if it makes the budget duller. At the moment, even politically, looking grown up and competent is more than enough given the choices available.
Whether you like it or not, Help to Buy has been crucial, too.
"The number of mortgage approvals granted to home buyers by Britain's high street banks lifted to a six-year high in December in a further sign of blossoming consumer confidence."
The one guaranteed way to generate a Feel Good factor in Britain is to boost house prices, and give first time buyers a sense of opportunity and anticipation. Wages may be flat, or even falling, but a lot of people are now seeing the value of their homes tick up (indeed prices are surging in the south east), and young people are climbing on the ladder again.
I blogged about this a year ago: Osborne's plan to win the election was based on a property boomlet.
The wages/property prices ratio is the coalition's biggest problem, I think.
That said, I notice that 250 tower blocks are due to spring up in the next decade in London alone, and they are mostly residential. That is a lot of property, especially if there's a slowdown in China and the interest from overseas wanes.
From a skim, it seems fairly excoriating. Dos anyone know if this was meant to come out (phase 1 of the report is scheduled for the end of next month), or is a hurried reaction to Euan Sutherland's resignation?
I got YouGov'd on my views and perceptions of the Co-op recently. It was a big questionnaire, but I found it quite revealing. Around here, as far as I'm aware, we have a Co-op store a few villages away, and that's about it. I genuinely have no idea what their community engagement and charitable works are in my area.
In all that time, I've noticed nothing about community engagement or charitable works. If they're doing them, they should make more of it.
I also completed the YouGov on the Co-op and I got the impression that the questions about charitable work/community were meant to find out whether the Co-op should go more into those areas and use their divi money to support local charities rather than distributing it back to customers.
Ah, thanks. Strangely, despite having had various correspondence from both bank and group over the last few months, we haven't had a questionnaire.
May I advise PBers that there is no truth that the sight of little JackW's childhood knees caused the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression of the 1930's.
Indeed it has been commented that decades later the sight of a shapely Scottish noble thigh in a revelatory bathing costume at the Wannsee Lake by the Berliner Yacht Club was the touch paper that led to the fall of the Berlin Wall and Communism.
It was David Hasselhoff that was responsible for the fall of the Berlin Wall (no really)
Baywatch star David Hasselhoff is griping that his role in reuniting East and West Germany has been overlooked. So what part, if any, did the hunk in trunks play in ending the Cold War?
I still have (and used until yesterday here) a picture of David Hasselhoff as an avatar. In it he is wearing a leather jacket, a black leather pouch, a cheery smile and nothing else.
He is what William Shatner would be if William Shatner lacked humility.
Surely if we are looking for a cause for this closing of the scores (and I take anitfrank's point) it has to be the better economy. The news has been more consistently good in recent months and we are getting to the point when speculation about the budget is highlighting the better situation.
I still think this is a very tricky budget politically. There is a real need to reduce the deficit so there is no real money about. Osborne will be looking for quite a big bang for quite small bucks and that is always tricky. All in it together is due another run out which is problematic as well.
He did well last year by skipping the gimmicks. I hope he has learned that lesson even if it makes the budget duller. At the moment, even politically, looking grown up and competent is more than enough given the choices available.
It's
The cuts won't really kick in until after the GE. Clearly.
I wasn't clear, sorry. The talks are taking place now. SMT meetings, nothing is off the table, nothing is immune from cuts, even our flagship city centre station. We've been told there will be operational firefighter redundancies. The county council are singing the same song. For the first time, I feel a little nervous. I might lose my job, at 47. It's scary. YouGov ask me every month how I feel about my personal circumstance. I usually tick the "feeling confident" box. Last time I ticked the "scared s#!tless" box. Sure, the cuts won't be until after the GE, but they're hanging over us now.
Sympathies. You are close to my age and I know financial uncertainty in yer middle years (when you should be comfortable) is seriously unpleasant. I've got too many friends who are in the same situation (and I would definitely be there too if it weren't for a couple of very lucky breaks - and who knows what the future holds).
As for the politics, it's worth noting that Labour would - I believe - be forced into making exactly the same cuts and savings, more or less. The market will enforce this. Spendthrift EU governments are no longer tolerated, because they don't work. Look at Hollande.
Miliband will be Cameron with higher taxes.
I have no illusion about the politics. The wheels are coming off, and neither Cameron or Milliband are going to be the saviours of the universe that their cheerleaders on here so desperately want them to be.
Its going to be an interesting few years, to say the least.
I know we're a betting website, but I think it's not appropriate to allow he passing of a titan like Tony Benn to go without mention in one of the headers. I didn't agree with much of his politics, but it is absolutely undeniable that he was an intellectual giant and a man of the people. He defined leftist politics for a generation in this country.
Surely if we are looking for a cause for this closing of the scores (and I take anitfrank's point) it has to be the better economy. The news has been more consistently good in recent months and we are getting to the point when speculation about the budget is highlighting the better situation.
I still think this is a very tricky budget politically. There is a real need to reduce the deficit so there is no real money about. Osborne will be looking for quite a big bang for quite small bucks and that is always tricky. All in it together is due another run out which is problematic as well.
He did well last year by skipping the gimmicks. I hope he has learned that lesson even if it makes the budget duller. At the moment, even politically, looking grown up and competent is more than enough given the choices available.
Whether you like it or not, Help to Buy has been crucial, too.
"The number of mortgage approvals granted to home buyers by Britain's high street banks lifted to a six-year high in December in a further sign of blossoming consumer confidence."
The one guaranteed way to generate a Feel Good factor in Britain is to boost house prices, and give first time buyers a sense of opportunity and anticipation. Wages may be flat, or even falling, but a lot of people are now seeing the value of their homes tick up (indeed prices are surging in the south east), and young people are climbing on the ladder again.
I blogged about this a year ago: Osborne's plan to win the election was based on a property boomlet.
Your story says it was a lady doctor. Yet the Telegraph has a picture of a nurse. Shurly shume mistake?
I haven't seen any UK nurses wearing that sort of gear, at least in hospital. So perhaps it's a doctor shortly before the steamy sex with SeanT. It's obvious: just see the look of pure, unadulterated joy on her face ...
I know we're a betting website, but I think it's not appropriate to allow he passing of a titan like Tony Benn to go without mention in one of the headers. I didn't agree with much of his politics, but it is absolutely undeniable that he was an intellectual giant and a man of the people. He defined leftist politics for a generation in this country.
I still have (and used until yesterday here) a picture of David Hasselhoff as an avatar. In it he is wearing a leather jacket, a black leather pouch, a cheery smile and nothing else.
Shudder - a vision that has left me shaken, but not stirred Mr Bond...!
Well he clearly is a 'f*cking whining idiot'. What's also true is that he and Balls seem to have been in the news a bit more lately too. Labour did quite well when there was a period of extended radio silence from them both. Staying off the telly is going to be hard in the run up to the GE though.
Oh...and they've both been making some very stupid announcements lately - such as Balls' promise to crank up spending and tax borrowing (nobbling pension tax deductions to fund 'guaranteed jobs' for the young). This scares the horses.
Sick of reading this rubbish from the Right that Lab do worse when Ed is on telly. It's sheer fantasy - you have no evidence for it. Indeed, there have been clear periods when he is all over the telly when Labour's vote has gone up.
It depends what he is talking about - when he says No Referendum, he takes a hit. When he says: "I'm going to clobber the energy ripoff merchants" he gets a boost. Really not that surprising is it? But some people seem desperate to believe the daydreams in their heads.
Are you seriously claiming that Ed Miliband is popular and likable? Hint: he isn't. He irritates his own supporters, let alone floaters and Tories. His personal polling is miserable.
Surely if we are looking for a cause for this closing of the scores (and I take anitfrank's point) it has to be the better economy. The news has been more consistently good in recent months and we are getting to the point when speculation about the budget is highlighting the better situation.
I still think this is a very tricky budget politically. There is a real need to reduce the deficit so there is no real money about. Osborne will be looking for quite a big bang for quite small bucks and that is always tricky. All in it together is due another run out which is problematic as well.
He did well last year by skipping the gimmicks. I hope he has learned that lesson even if it makes the budget duller. At the moment, even politically, looking grown up and competent is more than enough given the choices available.
It's
The cuts won't really kick in until after the GE. Clearly.
I wasn't clear, s now.
Miliband will be Cameron with higher taxes.
I have no illusion about the politics. The wheels are coming off, and neither Cameron or Milliband are going to be the saviours of the universe that their cheerleaders on here so desperately want them to be.
Its going to be an interesting few years, to say the least.
If and when Miliband wins, and he is inevitably forced to follow Tory spending plans, and make vicious cuts, it is interesting to speculate how unpopular he might become - given that he is hardly inspiring now.
I note that Hollande is plumbing ever greater depths of polling dissatisfaction.
@minefornothing: Mar 13 #France: President Hollande's approval rating falls to just 16% (must be a record low) - YouGov Poll
Hollande is SO unpopular the French would apparently prefer DSK as their leader.
But isnt the chance of that Bill being enacted somewhere near 0% (or have a I missed something)?
I would say the odds are 3/1 on the Bill being enacted.
That makes it a lot more interesting than I thought it was!
The two key variables are (1) who wins the private members' bill ballot in the next session, and (2) the tactics of Labour and the Liberal Democracts in the Commons. If they adopt the same tactics that they did in this Session (i.e. not opposing the principle), there is little that they can do to obstruct the Bill's passage under the Parliament Acts. On the other hand, if they actively vote for an amendment (eg on timing, or the referendum question) in the Commons and win, then the Speaker will be unable to certify the Bill as it will not be the same as passed in this Session. Whether there are sufficient numbers to outvote all the Conservatives, the DUP and any Labour rebels (there were six on the Second Reading vote on 5 July) is, however, by no means certain.
Well he clearly is a 'f*cking whining idiot'. What's also true is that he and Balls seem to have been in the news a bit more lately too. Labour did quite well when there was a period of extended radio silence from them both. Staying off the telly is going to be hard in the run up to the GE though.
Oh...and they've both been making some very stupid announcements lately - such as Balls' promise to crank up spending and tax borrowing (nobbling pension tax deductions to fund 'guaranteed jobs' for the young). This scares the horses.
Sick of reading this rubbish from the Right that Lab do worse when Ed is on telly
You could always do a 'flounce' if it offends your sensibilities such.
Well he clearly is a 'f*cking whining idiot'. What's also true is that he and Balls seem to have been in the news a bit more lately too. Labour did quite well when there was a period of extended radio silence from them both. Staying off the telly is going to be hard in the run up to the GE though.
Oh...and they've both been making some very stupid announcements lately - such as Balls' promise to crank up spending and tax borrowing (nobbling pension tax deductions to fund 'guaranteed jobs' for the young). This scares the horses.
Sick of reading this rubbish from the Right that Lab do worse when Ed is on telly. It's sheer fantasy - you have no evidence for it. Indeed, there have been clear periods when he is all over the telly when Labour's vote has gone up.
It depends what he is talking about - when he says No Referendum, he takes a hit. When he says: "I'm going to clobber the energy ripoff merchants" he gets a boost. Really not that surprising is it? But some people seem desperate to believe the daydreams in their heads.
Are you seriously claiming that Ed Miliband is popular and likable? Hint: he isn't. He irritates his own supporters, let alone floaters and Tories. His personal polling is miserable.
If Labour win it will be despite Miliband (and Balls) not because. No one can credibly deny this.
No - I said there was no evidence that Lab's vote goes down when he's on telly, which there isn't, and is what I wrote.
As an aside, the data you post is also dire for Dave - in touch with ordinary people 6%. Boom!
Bobba, I need to only know one thing. Will Ed Milliband be good for me and my family? Nothing he's said or done since he became Labour leader has convinced me that he is going to be anything other than mediocre. Now, mediocre might be good enough, but is he the man to make the country a better place?
But isnt the chance of that Bill being enacted somewhere near 0% (or have a I missed something)?
I would say the odds are 3/1 on the Bill being enacted.
That makes it a lot more interesting than I thought it was!
The two key variables are (1) who wins the private members' bill ballot in the next session, and (2) the tactics of Labour and the Liberal Democracts in the Commons. If they adopt the same tactics that they did in the this Session (i.e. not opposing the principle), there is little that they can do to obstruct the Bill's passage under the Parliament Acts. On the other hand, if they actively vote for an amendment (eg on timing, or the referendum question) in the Commons and win, then the Speaker will be unable to certify the Bill as it will not be the same as passed in this Session. Whether there are sufficient numbers to outvote all the Conservatives, the DUP and any Labour rebels (there were six on the Second Reading vote on 5 July) is, however, by no means certain.
I don't get that, not publicly opposing the bill but using procedural tactics to kill it is what they've been doing all along. If they carry on with those tactics they'll kill it. The cheeky move here would be to vote to amend to bring the referendum forward ("if we're going to do this we should get it out of the way to minimize the damage to jobs") and see if Tories with UKIP challengers want to vote against an immediate referendum...
If I could ask for one thing from the budget it would be for the ridiculous fetishising of raising the personal allowance to end. I'm not overly-confident.
What have you got against low earners ?
Raising the personal allowance doesnt benefit low earners.
For me, the biggest problem with the obsession with raising personal allowances is that it doesn't help those who aren't earning at all. While it is true that the very lowest earners do not benefit, this is only because that group are working part-time. In some cases this is a sign of real poverty, in other cases it's people like students doing a bit of work to top up their student loans. But fairly low earners, include those on minimum wage but working more hours than the very lowest, would benefit. Even those below the threshold can benefit in the (important) sense that they may be encouraged to seek more hours of work - the combination of tax and benefits withdrawal imposes absurd marginal marginal effective tax rates that in many cases make it irrational for low-earners to attempt to earn more.
I think there is a strong argument to mandate a link between the personal allowance and the Full-Time Equivalent salary for the minimum wage - if society thinks that a certain wage is the bare minimum acceptable to live off, then it seems remarkable for society to also take tax off that!
There are also rational economic grounds for a universal basic income guarantee, or alternatively, negative income taxes for the low-paid. If that was on the agenda, I'd vote for it. Failing that, there are good reasons to disentangle the tax and benefits systems. That doesn't seem to be on the agenda either. In the absence of those things, one of the key determinants of my vote at the next general election will be how strongly a party or candidate supports a rise in the personal allowance. It doesn't help everyone, and there may be better ways to spend the money on the very lowest earners (I'm quite comfortable with it being made revenue neutral by reducing other thresholds though this may not be politically viable), but for very many people who I feel are overtaxed given their limited resources, it would at least be a good start.
Help to Sell (as it clearly should be called) and the general persistence with a "high house prices are good" policy is the most likely policy to stop me voting tory,
House prices are insanely high and my children will never be able to buy until i die, or they get a job as a banker at this rate. those in families with no property owned are doomed to rent forever. The transfer of wealth to banks and to the older generation from the young which house price inflation represents is perhaps the single biggest corrosive force in our country now. We'd all be so much better off in the long run if those under 40 weren't paying 40-50% of their incomes over to banks each month. Madness.
I know we're a betting website, but I think it's not appropriate to allow he passing of a titan like Tony Benn to go without mention in one of the headers. I didn't agree with much of his politics, but it is absolutely undeniable that he was an intellectual giant and a man of the people. He defined leftist politics for a generation in this country.
Hear, hear.
Agreed. A weekend header on Mr Benn perhaps tied to the changing nature of our politicians would be very welcome.
I know we're a betting website, but I think it's not appropriate to allow he passing of a titan like Tony Benn to go without mention in one of the headers. I didn't agree with much of his politics, but it is absolutely undeniable that he was an intellectual giant and a man of the people. He defined leftist politics for a generation in this country.
Hear, hear.
"Intellectual giant" my Cornish arse.
He was by all accounts a decent father and husband, so we can mourn Benn the man; but Benn the politician was generally deluded, and occasionally dangerous - e.g. he publicly supported Sinn Fein when the IRA was killing innocent British citizens, and he was against our liberation of the Falklands.
A..Tony Benn "A man of the people" ..you have got to be kidding. He was the one who petitioned to stop the people walking on the coastal path on his Estate..he pawned his Title,which now passes to the boy Benn..300quid a day ex's when he goes to the HOL. If Benn was the man of the people he claimed to be why did he not become a miner,steelworker .factory hand. Benn was privileged from the get go, as much a man of the people as the lad who runs North Korea. Just what did he actually do to get this ridiculous reputation.?.
"TwistedFireStopper"For the first time, I feel a little nervous. I might lose my job, at 47. It's scary. YouGov ask me every month how I feel about my personal circumstance. I usually tick the "feeling confident" box. Last time I ticked the "scared s#!tless"
Sorry to hear that TFS. I had several episodes of threats in a 25 year stint with one large PLC. What helped me was to have a Plan B and a Plan C if I had to leave and also looked at how I might move sideways inside the organisation (and home) ahead of a change. Knowing what your minimum cash flow needed to survive also helps.
Sadly adding 1 million to the public payroll under the last Govt has made public finances unsustainable and I fear that worse things are to come for public sector workers whoever is in Govt. Same thing has happened in the private sector with empire building CEOs. Unsustainable job creation leads to a collapse and a lot of individual pain and stress.
But fairly low earners, include those on minimum wage but working more hours than the very lowest, would benefit.
But it benefits the top, say, 50% of the earnings distribution far more than it benefits the bottom 50%. That's quite a scatter gun approach for spending billions of pounds. At the very least (if you didnt want to be more radical) it is clear that raising the starting point for employee NICs would give the bottom 50% more bang for the buck.
I know we're a betting website, but I think it's not appropriate to allow he passing of a titan like Tony Benn to go without mention in one of the headers. I didn't agree with much of his politics, but it is absolutely undeniable that he was an intellectual giant and a man of the people. He defined leftist politics for a generation in this country.
Hear, hear.
"Intellectual giant" my Cornish arse.
He was by all accounts a decent father and husband, so we can mourn Benn the man; but Benn the politician was generally deluded, and occasionally dangerous - e.g. he publicly supported Sinn Fein when the IRA was killing innocent British citizens, and he was against our liberation of the Falklands.
Spot on. As a politician he was almost entirely destructive, not least in his ridiculous, disloyal, damaging posturing as a cabinet minister in the Wilson/Callaghan government and in his support of Militant/Scargill/unilateral disarmament etc in the 1980s. The stances he took and the policies he supported almost tore the Labour party apart, ensured it was unelectable and, without doubt, helped to give the Tories a free hand throughout the 1980s and early 90s.
He was a lot more than a "decent" father and husband by all accounts, he clearly inspired great affection among his supporters and he was consistent in his views (at least from the 1970s onwards), but he probably did more harm to the Labour party than anyone else since the war.
Help to Sell (as it clearly should be called) and the general persistence with a "high house prices are good" policy is the most likely policy to stop me voting tory,
House prices are insanely high and my children will never be able to buy until i die, or they get a job as a banker at this rate. those in families with no property owned are doomed to rent forever. The transfer of wealth to banks and to the older generation from the young which house price inflation represents is perhaps the single biggest corrosive force in our country now. We'd all be so much better off in the long run if those under 40 weren't paying 40-50% of their incomes over to banks each month. Madness.
The whole Ponzi housing market stinks
Out of curiosity - given what you say above - who would you consider voting for - I struggle to see any of 4 major parties acting differently on this.
Interesting that the bile poured on Thatcher from the left has not been replicated on Crow and Benn after their death. Maybe people on the right just have better manners? (I now duck out of this!)
Interesting that the venom poured on Thatcher from the left has not been replicated on Crow and Benn after their death. Maybe people on the right just have better manners? (I now duck out of this!)
I think it's much more that they are intrinsically better people. We lefties are venal scum, aren't we?
SeanT - Very good point on the Hollande = Miliband approach to the economy. But, Cameron's communication team seem incapable of haresting the low hanging fruit.
But fairly low earners, include those on minimum wage but working more hours than the very lowest, would benefit.
But it benefits the top, say, 50% of the earnings distribution far more than it benefits the bottom 50%. That's quite a scatter gun approach for spending billions of pounds. At the very least (if you didnt want to be more radical) it is clear that raising the starting point for employee NICs would give the bottom 50% more bang for the buck.
Agree about NIC's being the way to go - but technically the way the coalition have been doing it is to reduce the upper earnings limit as well - so that those paying 40% don't benefit at all.
Well he clearly is a 'f*cking whining idiot'. What's also true is that he and Balls seem to have been in the news a bit more lately too. Labour did quite well when there was a period of extended radio silence from them both. Staying off the telly is going to be hard in the run up to the GE though.
Oh...and they've both been making some very stupid announcements lately - such as Balls' promise to crank up spending and tax borrowing (nobbling pension tax deductions to fund 'guaranteed jobs' for the young). This scares the horses.
Sick of reading this rubbish from the Right that Lab do worse when Ed is on telly. It's sheer fantasy - you have no evidence for it. Indeed, there have been clear periods when he is all over the telly when Labour's vote has gone up.
It depends what he is talking about - when he says No Referendum, he takes a hit. When he says: "I'm going to clobber the energy ripoff merchants" he gets a boost. Really not that surprising is it? But some people seem desperate to believe the daydreams in their heads.
Are you seriously claiming that Ed Miliband is popular and likable? Hint: he isn't. He irritates his own supporters, let alone floaters and Tories. His personal polling is miserable.
If Labour win it will be despite Miliband (and Balls) not because. No one can credibly deny this.
No - I said there was no evidence that Lab's vote goes down when he's on telly, which there isn't, and is what I wrote.
As an aside, the data you post is also dire for Dave - in touch with ordinary people 6%. Boom!
Bobba, I need to only know one thing. Will Ed Milliband be good for me and my family? Nothing he's said or done since he became Labour leader has convinced me that he is going to be anything other than mediocre. Now, mediocre might be good enough, but is he the man to make the country a better place?
Again, you just need to look at France. Miliband has publicly declared his admiration for Hollande's economic policies, and his "anti-austerity" stance.
Hollande (until very recently) has enacted exactly the kind of tax hiking, anti-business agenda espoused by Miliband.
No, he hasn't been good for France - they have the highest unemployment on record and virtually zero growth, and Hollande is the most unpopular president in French history.
I remember going to a club in the 90s where two girls were dressed like that, and they were actually nurses.
Presumably, the nurses only look like that if you're with BUPA?
I had a gorgeous blonde physiotherapist when I was being treated under private healthcare in London. I'd see her twice a week, and thankfully she never wore anything like that uniform. If she had, there might have been an unfortunate accident ...
She introduced me to Prof. Watkins, who finally made it possible for me to walk without pain. So I've a great deal to thank her for. Through a moment's inspiration and a bit of blagging, she changed my life.
That must be one of the great things about being a doctor, or indeed at the business end of healthcare: you can really change lives for the better.
Interesting that the venom poured on Thatcher from the left has not been replicated on Crow and Benn after their death. Maybe people on the right just have better manners? (I now duck out of this!)
I think it's much more that they are intrinsically better people. We lefties are venal scum, aren't we?
Interesting that the bile poured on Thatcher from the left has not been replicated on Crow and Benn after their death. Maybe people on the right just have better manners? (I now duck out of this!)
I think the biggest difference is that Thatcher won, Benn didn't.
Interesting that the bile poured on Thatcher from the left has not been replicated on Crow and Benn after their death. Maybe people on the right just have better manners? (I now duck out of this!)
I think the biggest difference is that Thatcher won, Benn didn't.
Thatcher was the titan that he wasn't.
Interestingly, are there any current living UK politicians who would be afforded a funeral on the scale that she was given?
But fairly low earners, include those on minimum wage but working more hours than the very lowest, would benefit.
But it benefits the top, say, 50% of the earnings distribution far more than it benefits the bottom 50%. That's quite a scatter gun approach for spending billions of pounds. At the very least (if you didnt want to be more radical) it is clear that raising the starting point for employee NICs would give the bottom 50% more bang for the buck.
Agree about NIC's being the way to go - but technically the way the coalition have been doing it is to reduce the upper earnings limit as well - so that those paying 40% don't benefit at all.
...and those earning over 100k actually lose out, since they have their personal allowance tapered away (in a rather underhand bit of work by Darling, which leads to 60% marginal rates).
"TwistedFireStopper"For the first time, I feel a little nervous. I might lose my job, at 47. It's scary. YouGov ask me every month how I feel about my personal circumstance. I usually tick the "feeling confident" box. Last time I ticked the "scared s#!tless"
Sorry to hear that TFS. I had several episodes of threats in a 25 year stint with one large PLC. What helped me was to have a Plan B and a Plan C if I had to leave and also looked at how I might move sideways inside the organisation (and home) ahead of a change. Knowing what your minimum cash flow needed to survive also helps.
Sadly adding 1 million to the public payroll under the last Govt has made public finances unsustainable and I fear that worse things are to come for public sector workers whoever is in Govt. Same thing has happened in the private sector with empire building CEOs. Unsustainable job creation leads to a collapse and a lot of individual pain and stress.
TCPB is absolutely right, as I found from experience - because I had done my homework, I was able to address the situation with a bit more composure and even make the (for me, at least, initially surprisingly difficult) decision to move on.
I would add, also: check the redundancy provisions carefully so you know your financial options. In some cases one has to wait and see what one is offered, but public sector redundancy provisions are often an integral part of the pension scheme and the pension scheme handbooks (often online) can be sued to work out a fairly good idea of what might be on offer.
Obviously too early to do that and I hope it will not come to that for you. But I remember a union rep commenting to me that she found that one of her biggest problems with dealing with redundancy was that people wouldn't sit down and look at their options in detail even if they knew their unit was being closed down - in her phrase they were like rabbits in headlights and it made it very much harder to help them.
Interesting that the bile poured on Thatcher from the left has not been replicated on Crow and Benn after their death. Maybe people on the right just have better manners? (I now duck out of this!)
I think the biggest difference is that Thatcher won, Benn didn't.
Thatcher was the titan that he wasn't.
Interestingly, are there any current living UK politicians who would be afforded a funeral on the scale that she was given?
The only comparable one is Blair, and I can't quite see it in his case.
Salmond would be a possibility for Scotland if he pulls off a win in the independence referendum.
Surely if we are looking for a cause for this closing of the scores (and I take anitfrank's point) it has to be the better economy. The news has been more consistently good in recent months and we are getting to the point when speculation about the budget is highlighting the better situation.
I still think this is a very tricky budget politically. There is a real need to reduce the deficit so there is no real money about. Osborne will be looking for quite a big bang for quite small bucks and that is always tricky. All in it together is due another run out which is problematic as well.
He did well last year by skipping the gimmicks. I hope he has learned that lesson even if it makes the budget duller. At the moment, even politically, looking grown up and competent is more than enough given the choices available.
It's true that the economy is looking up, and I've posted in the past that the recession didn't hit me and mine too hard-pension contributions up significantly, no payrises, but that was balanced out by low mortgage rates, only a couple of people( friends of friends, really) lost jobs, but on the whole, we got through it, maybe a little poorer in real terms, but almost intact......but....... That's going to change next year. The Public Sector is going to take a big hit, with the first proper cuts implemented. All the fat has been cut, cost savings have all been implemented, there's not a lot more natural wastage to go. It has to be implemented over the next year, and then the 2 years after that. That won't feed into the "Economy on the up" meme.
It was always very strange politics to back load the cuts in public spending towards the end of the Parliament as I have commented many times before. I think Osborne simply concluded that the economy could not take them in 2010. I suspect the Lib Dems hoped that growth and surging tax revenues would make them unnecessary. If so they underestimated the scale of the problem. Approximatley 5.5m people currently work in the public sector and some of them are going to lose their jobs. Many more are going to be asked to do more for no more money and even more still are going to feel under threat and concerned about their future. This is inevitable but it is not great politics.
Surely if we are looking for a cause for this closing of the scores (and I take anitfrank's point) it has to be the better economy. The news has been more consistently good in recent months and we are getting to the point when speculation about the budget is highlighting the better situation.
I still think this is a very tricky budget politically. There is a real need to reduce the deficit so there is no real money about. Osborne will be looking for quite a big bang for quite small bucks and that is always tricky. All in it together is due another run out which is problematic as well.
He did well last year by skipping the gimmicks. I hope he has learned that lesson even if it makes the budget duller. At the moment, even politically, looking grown up and competent is more than enough given the choices available.
Whether you like it or not, Help to Buy has been crucial, too.
"The number of mortgage approvals granted to home buyers by Britain's high street banks lifted to a six-year high in December in a further sign of blossoming consumer confidence."
The one guaranteed way to generate a Feel Good factor in Britain is to boost house prices, and give first time buyers a sense of opportunity and anticipation. Wages may be flat, or even falling, but a lot of people are now seeing the value of their homes tick up (indeed prices are surging in the south east), and young people are climbing on the ladder again.
I blogged about this a year ago: Osborne's plan to win the election was based on a property boomlet.
I agree. Given the necessary cuts in real wages growth in the housing market was the easiest and most effective way of keeping consumption on the up.
But the situation in the SE and London is now getting silly in a traditionally British way and all government schemes to support the housing market need to be excluded from those areas. I will be amazed if that is not in the budget.
But fairly low earners, include those on minimum wage but working more hours than the very lowest, would benefit.
But it benefits the top, say, 50% of the earnings distribution far more than it benefits the bottom 50%. That's quite a scatter gun approach for spending billions of pounds. At the very least (if you didnt want to be more radical) it is clear that raising the starting point for employee NICs would give the bottom 50% more bang for the buck.
That would rather expose NI for what it is, though, wouldn't it? A lot of people seem to like the whole "contributory" idea. (Personally, I'd be inclined to raise the NIC allowance until it matched the income tax one, and then merge the two away. But that's definitely not politically feasible. Too many angry pensioners for a start.)
For people earning above a certain amount, shunting around the personal allowance only produces a fixed, rather than income-proportional, boost. That can be entirely neutralised by moving other thresholds. I'd simply rather live in a country in which the moderately low-earners pay less tax, and those earning somewhat more pay a relatively higher proportion of the share. I appreciate that it doesn't do much for the very poorest (it does change incentives, and that shouldn't be overlooked) but they are not the only group deserving attention.
(There is the separate, philosophical, question of whether cutting taxes is quite the same as the government "spending" money. If someone thinks, for moral reasons, that low earners shouldn't be paying tax in the first place, then from that perspective it isn't the government's money to spend to start with! I don't hold any strong opinions on that, but I appreciate if someone thinks that way it's a self-consistent and quite reasonable argument. For me the more interesting question is what alternative uses could be had for the money. On that issue you raise a very fair point.)
Surely if we are looking for a cause for this closing of the scores (and I take anitfrank's point) it has to be the better economy. The news has been more consistently good in recent months and we are getting to the point when speculation about the budget is highlighting the better situation.
I still think this is a very tricky budget politically. There is a real need to reduce the deficit so there is no real money about. Osborne will be looking for quite a big bang for quite small bucks and that is always tricky. All in it together is due another run out which is problematic as well.
He did well last year by skipping the gimmicks. I hope he has learned that lesson even if it makes the budget duller. At the moment, even politically, looking grown up and competent is more than enough given the choices available.
It's true that the economy is looking up, and I've posted in the past that the recession didn't hit me and mine too hard-pension contributions up significantly, no payrises, but that was balanced out by low mortgage rates, only a couple of people( friends of friends, really) lost jobs, but on the whole, we got through it, maybe a little poorer in real terms, but almost intact......but....... That's going to change next year. The Public Sector is going to take a big hit, with the first proper cuts implemented. All the fat has been cut, cost savings have all been implemented, there's not a lot more natural wastage to go. It has to be implemented over the next year, and then the 2 years after that. That won't feed into the "Economy on the up" meme.
It was always very strange politics to back load the cuts in public spending towards the end of the Parliament as I have commented many times before. I think Osborne simply concluded that the economy could not take them in 2010. I suspect the Lib Dems hoped that growth and surging tax revenues would make them unnecessary. If so they underestimated the scale of the problem. Approximatley 5.5m people currently work in the public sector and some of them are going to lose their jobs. Many more are going to be asked to do more for no more money and even more still are going to feel under threat and concerned about their future. This is inevitable but it is not great politics.
Serious question: could another factor be the Scottish referendum?
The No campaign likes to claim there will be no change to the status quo, and by implication no spending cuts in the event of a No - Mr Darling said a few days ago; "if Scotland was independent today we would have no option but to cut spending on services like schools and hospitals or put up taxes – or probably both. Today as part of the UK we don't have to do that." There are 2 ways to read that, of course, one being that he's not mentioning the cuts tomorrow ...
Heh, thanks for that. I'd never heard of it before.
More finger trouble from Scotland: an RN warship up at the Cape Wrath ranges forgot there was a live shell in one of its guns, and fired it over the village of Durness. Or rather, they claim they did it deliberately ...
I don't get that, not publicly opposing the bill but using procedural tactics to kill it is what they've been doing all along. If they carry on with those tactics they'll kill it. The cheeky move here would be to vote to amend to bring the referendum forward ("if we're going to do this we should get it out of the way to minimize the damage to jobs") and see if Tories with UKIP challengers want to vote against an immediate referendum...
The use of procedural tactics to kill the Bill in this Session in the Lords was successful. What it did not do was prevent the Commons passing the Bill. Indeed, whether the supporters of the Bill could have been defeated in the Commons was, and remains an interesting question. If the Commons passes the Bill in the same form in the next Session, then it will be certified by the Speaker and will receive the Royal Assent, regardless of what happens in the Lords. Given that no-one voted against the principle in the last Session, it seems doubtful whether anyone will in the next Session. The key question then becomes whether there is a majority to amend the Bill in the Commons. If there isn't, and a Tory wins the ballot, then it is all but certain that the Bill will be enacted. That is why I think the chances of passage are about 25%.
Higher prices have stimulated exploding construction in London. 250 towers planned, mostly residential. If overseas demand cools, it's by no means out of the question property will cheapen relative to earnings.
Look, I know that one shouldn't speak ill of the dead and all that, and I am sorry for Tony Benn's friends and family.
But really he was not quite as principled as all that. As the story below illustrates:-
"If you have heard Tony Benn interviewed recently you will know that he is fond of saying there are five questions we should ask of any politician:
"What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it? To whom are you accountable? How do we get rid of you?'
Except that, as Oliver Kamm points out, that is not precisely what he said to Saddam.
It was more:
"I have 10 grandchildren and in my family there is English, Scottish, American, French, Irish, Jewish, Indian, Muslim blood, and for me politics is about their future, their survival. And I wonder whether you could say something yourself directly through this interview to the peace movement of the world that might help to advance the cause they have in mind?""
Comments
We saw it with the first YouGov post Ed's announcement.
But there is a long term trend prior to this, a year ago, Lab were in the 40s.
They're approaching that infamous 35%.
But look at the leads with ICM, Mori and Populus. 3%. That's consistent.
FPT: cheers for those tips, Mr. Eagles. I can't see France winning. Even if they beat Ireland, England would have to lose to Italy, which has never happened in the tournament and seems unlikely to now.
Incidentally, my pre-qualifying piece is up here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/australia-pre-qualifying.html
I tipped Williams to top score at 5.5 yesterday, but this is looking rather ropey and I would not today recommend it. If, however, you think I've fluked my way to a good bet (this happened last year, with identical odds but for Ferrari to top score) it's now out to 7.5.
Meanwhile, a video emerged in which Mr Farage boasts about how he is paid more than a Goldman Sachs banker because he employs his wife as a secretary.
The video, which dates from 1999, shows Mr Farage saying that "everyone's a winner with Europe".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10696283/Nigel-Farage-denies-being-forced-out-of-marital-home-after-affair-claims.html
http://xkcd.com/552/
There is a tendency to look at polling movements on far too short term a basis. Occasionally events shift polls, but rarely.
If I were fingering an event that might have had an effect, I'd look at Ukraine. Foreign policy events favour incumbent leaders. But personally i'd see any closing (possible but unclear) as related to a longer term impact of the improving economy.
My hunch the air disappearance and the Pistorious trial will be more noticed
Interim report on the Co-op group:
http://www.co-operative.coop/PageFiles/989317209/Progress-Update-of-the-Independent-Governance-Review.pdf
From a skim, it seems fairly excoriating. Dos anyone know if this was meant to come out (phase 1 of the report is scheduled for the end of next month), or is a hurried reaction to Euan Sutherland's resignation?
Carthaginian Peace is a term that refers to the imposition of a very brutal 'peace' by completely crushing the enemy. It derives from the peace imposed on Carthage by Rome. After the Second Punic War, Carthage lost all its colonies, was forced to demilitarize, pay a constant tribute to Rome and could not enter war without Rome's permission. At the end of the Third Punic War the Romans systematically burned Carthage to the ground and enslaved its population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthaginian_peace
Incidentally, I saw Balls on the news. Asked by Nick Robinson about how the British public would feel about him (a man 'at the wheel' when the recession occurred) Balls replied that everyone in life got some things wrong and some things right.
Not sure that's a great line. Leaving aside the odium of Balls, not everybody in life costs their country hundreds of billions of pounds by giving us the worst recession in history. It sounds flippant.
Interesting book on the Jugurthine War and related matters reviewed here: http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/review-crisis-of-rome-jugurthine-and.html
I've backed the tories around 7/1 on Betfair a few months back and am looking for reasons to believe I haven't done my money! The logic was that the tories have won the last three, are more likely to vote and UKIP are looking a bit less attractive to moderates these days. I still think 7/1 is a decent price.
The conquest of Macedonia was really the last hurrah for the veterans of the Second Punic War.
"The LD week was topped off overnight with two gains in council by-elections – one in Canterbury and the other in Ludlow in Shropshire. The latter is the most interesting because the Lib Dems held the parliamentary seat from 2001 to 2005."
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/03/14/for-the-first-week-in-a-very-long-time-three-different-pollsters-have-the-lds-in-third-and-ukip-in-fourth/
I think Canterbury was the most interesting one. UKIP went from nowhere to 18%, and the seat changed hands because the Conservatives lost more votes than their nearest challenger.
http://thepollshavenowclosed.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/canterbury-barham-downs-result-libdem.html
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/canterbury/
That I think is going to be UKIP's most significant contribution to the next election. They're going to reduce the number of safe seats.
I hope that anticipating this, MPs in formerly safe seats are going to spend the last 12 months of this parliament trying very hard to represent voters they would in past have ignored.
I still think this is a very tricky budget politically. There is a real need to reduce the deficit so there is no real money about. Osborne will be looking for quite a big bang for quite small bucks and that is always tricky. All in it together is due another run out which is problematic as well.
He did well last year by skipping the gimmicks. I hope he has learned that lesson even if it makes the budget duller. At the moment, even politically, looking grown up and competent is more than enough given the choices available.
In all that time, I've noticed nothing about community engagement or charitable works. If they're doing them, they should make more of it.
Heck, Waitrose do more with their choose-where-to-put-your-token charitable nonsense. It's visible and quite in your face as you're given a token.
Oh, it was also annoying that North Baddesley had two Co-ops, neither of which would accept the membership card from the other. One was a Southern Co-op, the other a different one.
That's going to change next year. The Public Sector is going to take a big hit, with the first proper cuts implemented. All the fat has been cut, cost savings have all been implemented, there's not a lot more natural wastage to go. It has to be implemented over the next year, and then the 2 years after that.
That won't feed into the "Economy on the up" meme.
PS I get that there are sometimes political reasons for politicians to spend parliamentary time pretending to try to pass legislation they know doesn't actually do anything, but I think when they do it they should at least have to put some money in a jar for charity or something.
Sure, Some of the cuts won't be until after the GE, but they're hanging over us now.
They have to start implementation by this time next year
Oh...and they've both been making some very stupid announcements lately - such as Balls' promise to crank up spending and tax borrowing (nobbling pension tax deductions to fund 'guaranteed jobs' for the young). This scares the horses.
Perhaps Osborne will do something with the lowest stamp duty threshold. That would be popular, and chime in with the helping aspirers meme.
Not sure how much it might cost though.
It depends what he is talking about - when he says No Referendum, he takes a hit. When he says: "I'm going to clobber the energy ripoff merchants" he gets a boost. Really not that surprising is it? But some people seem desperate to believe the daydreams in their heads.
"Re the budget, the past budgets of 2007 and 2012 were praised on the day by the media.
But within a few short weeks and months they were being panned as the worst budgets since JackW was in short trousers and caused long term damage."
......................................................................
May I advise PBers that there is no truth that the sight of little JackW's childhood knees caused the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression of the 1930's as inferred above.
Indeed it has been commented that decades later the sight of a shapely Scottish noble thigh in a revelatory bathing costume at the Wannsee Lake by the Berliner Yacht Club was the touch paper that led to the fall of the Berlin Wall and Communism.
The wages/property prices ratio is the coalition's biggest problem, I think.
That said, I notice that 250 tower blocks are due to spring up in the next decade in London alone, and they are mostly residential. That is a lot of property, especially if there's a slowdown in China and the interest from overseas wanes.
Don't they care what I think? (sniffs)
Baywatch star David Hasselhoff is griping that his role in reuniting East and West Germany has been overlooked. So what part, if any, did the hunk in trunks play in ending the Cold War?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3465301.stm
and
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2419618/David-Hasselhoff-returns-Berlin-nearly-25-years-famous-performance-Berlin-Wall.html
and
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/19/david-hasselhoff-berlin-wall-fall
He is what William Shatner would be if William Shatner lacked humility.
Its going to be an interesting few years, to say the least.
BREAKING: Russia Is preparing to invade East Ukraine, Estonia says: http://bloom.bg/1lDkgRD :
Shudder - a vision that has left me shaken, but not stirred Mr Bond...!
As an aside, the data you post is also dire for Dave - in touch with ordinary people 6%. Boom!
I remember going to a club in the 90s where two girls were dressed like that, and they were actually nurses.
Nothing he's said or done since he became Labour leader has convinced me that he is going to be anything other than mediocre. Now, mediocre might be good enough, but is he the man to make the country a better place?
I think there is a strong argument to mandate a link between the personal allowance and the Full-Time Equivalent salary for the minimum wage - if society thinks that a certain wage is the bare minimum acceptable to live off, then it seems remarkable for society to also take tax off that!
There are also rational economic grounds for a universal basic income guarantee, or alternatively, negative income taxes for the low-paid. If that was on the agenda, I'd vote for it. Failing that, there are good reasons to disentangle the tax and benefits systems. That doesn't seem to be on the agenda either. In the absence of those things, one of the key determinants of my vote at the next general election will be how strongly a party or candidate supports a rise in the personal allowance. It doesn't help everyone, and there may be better ways to spend the money on the very lowest earners (I'm quite comfortable with it being made revenue neutral by reducing other thresholds though this may not be politically viable), but for very many people who I feel are overtaxed given their limited resources, it would at least be a good start.
House prices are insanely high and my children will never be able to buy until i die, or they get a job as a banker at this rate. those in families with no property owned are doomed to rent forever. The transfer of wealth to banks and to the older generation from the young which house price inflation represents is perhaps the single biggest corrosive force in our country now. We'd all be so much better off in the long run if those under 40 weren't paying 40-50% of their incomes over to banks each month. Madness.
The whole Ponzi housing market stinks
If Benn was the man of the people he claimed to be why did he not become a miner,steelworker .factory hand.
Benn was privileged from the get go, as much a man of the people as the lad who runs North Korea.
Just what did he actually do to get this ridiculous reputation.?.
Sorry to hear that TFS. I had several episodes of threats in a 25 year stint with one large PLC. What helped me was to have a Plan B and a Plan C if I had to leave and also looked at how I might move sideways inside the organisation (and home) ahead of a change. Knowing what your minimum cash flow needed to survive also helps.
Sadly adding 1 million to the public payroll under the last Govt has made public finances unsustainable and I fear that worse things are to come for public sector workers whoever is in Govt. Same thing has happened in the private sector with empire building CEOs. Unsustainable job creation leads to a collapse and a lot of individual pain and stress.
He was a lot more than a "decent" father and husband by all accounts, he clearly inspired great affection among his supporters and he was consistent in his views (at least from the 1970s onwards), but he probably did more harm to the Labour party than anyone else since the war.
But, Cameron's communication team seem incapable of haresting the low hanging fruit.
She introduced me to Prof. Watkins, who finally made it possible for me to walk without pain. So I've a great deal to thank her for. Through a moment's inspiration and a bit of blagging, she changed my life.
That must be one of the great things about being a doctor, or indeed at the business end of healthcare: you can really change lives for the better.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-26577109
I'm not sure who are the biggest dummies, the torpedo or the crew ...
Interestingly, are there any current living UK politicians who would be afforded a funeral on the scale that she was given?
I would add, also: check the redundancy provisions carefully so you know your financial options. In some cases one has to wait and see what one is offered, but public sector redundancy provisions are often an integral part of the pension scheme and the pension scheme handbooks (often online) can be sued to work out a fairly good idea of what might be on offer.
Obviously too early to do that and I hope it will not come to that for you. But I remember a union rep commenting to me that she found that one of her biggest problems with dealing with redundancy was that people wouldn't sit down and look at their options in detail even if they knew their unit was being closed down - in her phrase they were like rabbits in headlights and it made it very much harder to help them.
Salmond would be a possibility for Scotland if he pulls off a win in the independence referendum.
Approximatley 5.5m people currently work in the public sector and some of them are going to lose their jobs. Many more are going to be asked to do more for no more money and even more still are going to feel under threat and concerned about their future. This is inevitable but it is not great politics.
http://www.ussiowa.org/general/html/willie_d.htm
But the situation in the SE and London is now getting silly in a traditionally British way and all government schemes to support the housing market need to be excluded from those areas. I will be amazed if that is not in the budget.
For people earning above a certain amount, shunting around the personal allowance only produces a fixed, rather than income-proportional, boost. That can be entirely neutralised by moving other thresholds. I'd simply rather live in a country in which the moderately low-earners pay less tax, and those earning somewhat more pay a relatively higher proportion of the share. I appreciate that it doesn't do much for the very poorest (it does change incentives, and that shouldn't be overlooked) but they are not the only group deserving attention.
(There is the separate, philosophical, question of whether cutting taxes is quite the same as the government "spending" money. If someone thinks, for moral reasons, that low earners shouldn't be paying tax in the first place, then from that perspective it isn't the government's money to spend to start with! I don't hold any strong opinions on that, but I appreciate if someone thinks that way it's a self-consistent and quite reasonable argument. For me the more interesting question is what alternative uses could be had for the money. On that issue you raise a very fair point.)
The No campaign likes to claim there will be no change to the status quo, and by implication no spending cuts in the event of a No - Mr Darling said a few days ago; "if Scotland was independent today we would have no option but to cut spending on services like schools and hospitals or put up taxes – or probably both. Today as part of the UK we don't have to do that." There are 2 ways to read that, of course, one being that he's not mentioning the cuts tomorrow ...
More finger trouble from Scotland: an RN warship up at the Cape Wrath ranges forgot there was a live shell in one of its guns, and fired it over the village of Durness. Or rather, they claim they did it deliberately ...
https://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2002/jul/john-swinney-addresses-durness-public-meeting-re-rogue-shell
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/MEET+THE+FLINTSTONES;+Live+shell+just+missing+Scots+village+is+latest...-a088650057
Higher prices have stimulated exploding construction in London. 250 towers planned, mostly residential. If overseas demand cools, it's by no means out of the question property will cheapen relative to earnings.
But really he was not quite as principled as all that. As the story below illustrates:-
"If you have heard Tony Benn interviewed recently you will know that he is fond of saying there are five questions we should ask of any politician:
"What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it? To whom are you accountable? How do we get rid of you?'
Except that, as Oliver Kamm points out, that is not precisely what he said to Saddam.
It was more:
"I have 10 grandchildren and in my family there is English, Scottish, American, French, Irish, Jewish, Indian, Muslim blood, and for me politics is about their future, their survival. And I wonder whether you could say something yourself directly through this interview to the peace movement of the world that might help to advance the cause they have in mind?""