Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On the eve of the budget a Survation poll restricted to tho

2»

Comments

  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,782
    Just checking for my sanity - the budget is tomorrow right?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534
    warelane said:

    Curious indeed. Although it is a one-off and is sponsored by the unions, a seventeen percent lead cannot be easily dismissed. It does lead one to speculate that the Tories must be leading amongst the unemployed and retired.

    Labour almost certainly lead among students, and the unemployed.

    But, there are three big groups of voters who are not employees who likely give very big leads to the Conservatives. Retired people, employers and self-employed, and stay-at-home mothers.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,341



    But I'm almost certainly missing the point you're making ...

    The point I'm making is that if the annual net rent you will earn from your new building is £100, then at (say) 10% return, the second year's rent is worth only £91, the third year's is worth £83, and so on. Rent received 30 years out is worth only £6 today, and rent received after 50 years is worth less than £1.

    So while it is technically feasible to construct a commercial building to last 50 or 60 or 100 years, it's going to cost you more while not earning you any more. The NPV of the rents over 30, 50 or 100 years is about the same in each case.

    This also applies to the eventual residual value of the building. It might be worth something, but "something" in 30 years' time is not much today, especially when you factor in the cost of the major works it's then likely to need to keep it in use.

    A case in point is where I had my first job - in an office building along the steps between St. Paul's Cathedral and Queen Victoria Street, in London, in 1982. The building was about 10 or 15 years old at that time. It was completely vacated by its last tenant about 15 years later. It was then vacant for years and has since been ripped down and simply replaced. At that time, presumably a consideration was made of the economics of refitting and re-letting versus totally rebuilding and the answer was the latter, i.e. a 25-year-old building was essentially worthless. Of course a lot of this is to do with IT suitability but this just demonstrates how foolish it would be to assume that a building lettable to day will still be so in 30 years' time.

    I know I'm missing something here but I'm not sure what it is.

    Sometimes I have wished I was an architect but I understand that the Norman Fosters and those who make all the big bucks typically draw the new building on a fag packet and leave it to underpaid underlings to work out how to make it 1/ stand up and 2/ contain sufficient lettable space to pay for itself....
    I'm getting confused. I thought return was calculated on the original capital. Can you please explain what it is?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,709
    Man who won the big Euro lottery is Neil Trotter from S London.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    If Mister Dancer is on, I had dinner the other night with the Squire of the Morris, Robin Springett. What a top fellow he is!
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    This poll shows how reliant the Tories are on the votes of the 65+ age group, although that's nothing new of course. It also explains why people who decide to conduct their own personal surveys in railway stations and high streets never find a very high percentage of Tory supporters.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited March 2014
    warelane said:

    Curious indeed. Although it is a one-off and is sponsored by the unions, a seventeen percent lead cannot be easily dismissed. It does lead one to speculate that the Tories must be leading amongst the unemployed and retired.

    The unemployed? No way: Labour would be even further ahead with them. It's just that the Tories have a massive lead among retired people, and maybe a small lead with stay-at-home mums (and dads).

    Worth noting that the Tories were in third place in 1974 among the youngest age groups, who are now the same people giving them a big lead.
  • JonCJonC Posts: 67
    Well i'm not that surprised by this poll. the tories are doing all they can to lose my vote.

    My wife doesn't work, so i don't benefit from this ridiculous childcare bribe. There is only a need for it in the first place because house prices are insanely high (another thing the tories seem to like).

    I work hard and yet I am basically taxed at 67% on every pound I earn of the last 1/6th of my income because the government thinks i am too rich to have child benefit. Yet apparently (a) I could earn double and still get this childcare bung or (b) my wife and I could in theory earn £100k between us and still keep the CB AND get the childcare cash. WTF???

    Also the FT has calculated that the higher rate threshold would be £76K if it had kept up with inflation. Now 5 million people are expected to pay 40% from next year! This is not a tory government, it feels like Wilson or Callaghan. And government spending still goes up, the deficit is merely inching down so there's no sign of respite any time soon. P1ssing all the money away on free school meals, bribes for farming your children out to strangers 5 days a week, and funding a housing benefit bill which is ballooning due to the pumping up of a housing bubble is not remotely what i hoped for from a conservative government.

    Yet the other parties are all worse. None of the above has it for me for now :-(
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534
    My very rough, back of the envelope calculation, making guesses about the voting preferences of various classes of non-employees, suggests this would equate to a Labour lead of about 4% among the voters as a whole.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682
    OT Went to the pictures last night to see Terry Gilliam's new film Zero Theorem

    Not yet been able to decide whether it was a brilliant concept underplayed and therefore a work of genius or a mundane concept overplayed and therefore pretty poor. I am trending towards the genius but I suspect many people might go for very poor. I think it will definitely turn out to be a marmite movie.

    But also worth noting is a very slick advert being shown before the film all about how much we rely on the countryside. I though it was for some new organic range or maybe a plea for supporting our farmers.

    Turns out it was an advert to tell us how wonderful the Common Agricultural Policy is.

    Remarkable garbage disinformation from Brussels but very slickly done.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    Mick_Pork said:

    Jonathan Ashworth MP ‏@JonAshworth 1h

    First Gove, then Warsi now Boris's dad on radio calling for Tory leadership rules to be changed. Talk about ferrets in a sack.... #torywars

    Stewart Wood ‏@StewartWood 2m

    Impressive Tory pitch-rolling for the Budget: Gove & Warsi talk Eton, Ken talks Europe, Boris's dad talks leadership election rule-changes.

    They're onto something TBF. The rules are barking mad. Michael Howard tried to change them, but the headbangers wouldn't let him. If he hadn't been looking over his shoulder at the most unhinged 15% of his party all the time Cameron might actually have been able to follow a strategy designed to win a majority.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    FPT:

    "JohnLoony: Wikipedia says that Clarissa Dickson-Wright was "disbarred [as a barrister] for practising without chambers". What does that mean? Why would "not having chambers" be a reason for not being a barrister?"

    Isn't it just a turn of phrase?
  • CopperSulphateCopperSulphate Posts: 1,119
    Amazing since Labour have trashed peoples wages with unlimited immigration. I guess they topped it up with working tax credits that the country can't afford meaning people in low paid jobs will always vote for more of the same. Gordon Brown was more intelligent than we thought.

    Only when the money well and truly runs out will anyone try and sort out the current mess, hopefully it will happen with Labour in power.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,034

    Man who won the big Euro lottery is Neil Trotter from S London.

    "this time next year, we'll be millionaires"!
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Changing the rules specially for the benefit of an Old Etonian is exactly the sort of thing ordinary people can't stand about the Tories.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Labour is the party of scroungers!!!!!111
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    The Tories had a 20% plus lead among the over 65s in the most recent Populus poll, while Labour had a very big lead among public sector workers and a small one among private sector workers. All in all, there is no reason to doubt this poll is broadly reflective of other polling - it's just expressed in a different way.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682

    Mick_Pork said:

    Jonathan Ashworth MP ‏@JonAshworth 1h

    First Gove, then Warsi now Boris's dad on radio calling for Tory leadership rules to be changed. Talk about ferrets in a sack.... #torywars

    Stewart Wood ‏@StewartWood 2m

    Impressive Tory pitch-rolling for the Budget: Gove & Warsi talk Eton, Ken talks Europe, Boris's dad talks leadership election rule-changes.

    They're onto something TBF. The rules are barking mad. Michael Howard tried to change them, but the headbangers wouldn't let him. If he hadn't been looking over his shoulder at the most unhinged 15% of his party all the time Cameron might actually have been able to follow a strategy designed to win a majority.
    It was precisely because he ignored such a large proportion of his own party on the right that he failed to win a majority.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    AndyJS said:

    warelane said:

    Curious indeed. Although it is a one-off and is sponsored by the unions, a seventeen percent lead cannot be easily dismissed. It does lead one to speculate that the Tories must be leading amongst the unemployed and retired.

    The unemployed? No way: Labour would be even further ahead with them. It's just that the Tories have a massive lead among retired people, and maybe a small lead with stay-at-home mums (and dads).

    Worth noting that the Tories were in third place in 1974 among the youngest age groups, who are now the same people giving them a big lead.
    The Conservatives have a massive lead amongst the retired? Maybe, but I don't know where, it certainly doesn't seem to be true down here in the Conservative heartland of West Sussex. Cameron and his clique are about as popular with us retired people as plague rats and, save for the very wealthy, everyone is worried about what the future holds their children/grand-children. I dare say that many, maybe even most, will, come they day, hold their noses and vote Conservative but it will be out of fear not enthusiasm.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,709
    AndyJS said:

    FPT:

    "JohnLoony: Wikipedia says that Clarissa Dickson-Wright was "disbarred [as a barrister] for practising without chambers". What does that mean? Why would "not having chambers" be a reason for not being a barrister?"

    Isn't it just a turn of phrase?

    No, there was quite a lot about it her autobiography. IIRC she had a bit of a fight about it, but she had other problems at the material time.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,469
    edited March 2014
    AndyJS said:

    FPT:

    "JohnLoony: Wikipedia says that Clarissa Dickson-Wright was "disbarred [as a barrister] for practising without chambers". What does that mean? Why would "not having chambers" be a reason for not being a barrister?"

    Isn't it just a turn of phrase?

    I heard an interview with her a while back (Desert Island Discs?) where she went into it. IANAL but from memory, to serve as a barrister you need to be in chambers. She was a trainee, and got thrown out for excess debauchery or somesuch. Later she accepted work as a barrister, despite having no chambers. She was therefore barred.

    All from memory, so take with a dry lakebed of salt.

    It sounds like it's either a good way of maintaining high professional standards at the bar, or a way of limiting entrants that perpetuates the old boy's network.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    AndyJS said:

    warelane said:

    Curious indeed. Although it is a one-off and is sponsored by the unions, a seventeen percent lead cannot be easily dismissed. It does lead one to speculate that the Tories must be leading amongst the unemployed and retired.

    The unemployed? No way: Labour would be even further ahead with them. It's just that the Tories have a massive lead among retired people, and maybe a small lead with stay-at-home mums (and dads).

    Worth noting that the Tories were in third place in 1974 among the youngest age groups, who are now the same people giving them a big lead.
    The Conservatives have a massive lead amongst the retired? Maybe, but I don't know where, it certainly doesn't seem to be true down here in the Conservative heartland of West Sussex. Cameron and his clique are about as popular with us retired people as plague rats and, save for the very wealthy, everyone is worried about what the future holds their children/grand-children. I dare say that many, maybe even most, will, come they day, hold their noses and vote Conservative but it will be out of fear not enthusiasm.

    If the Tories can't rely on the retired vote in West Sussex they really would be heading for total oblivion.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited March 2014
    Turns out that (a) the Malaysian PM is closely related to the transport minister and (b) the missing captain is related to the opposition leader:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/18/mh370-missing-plane-search-live
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,507
    edited March 2014
    Not questioning the poll, but I would be interested to know what exactly mean by "employers"...that could include / exclude variety of different people...and why they were excluded, they are in employment themselves are they not.

    Is it literally anybody who employs somebody else, or more than x other people, etc.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    AndyJS said:

    Turns out that (a) the Malaysian PM is closely related to the transport minister and (b) the missing captain is related to the opposition leader:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/18/mh370-missing-plane-search-live

    We're getting deep into tinfoil hat territory there. Next you'll be telling me the plane was full of Nazi gold.
  • It's certainly true that those of us at the lower end of the income scale are getting little to no benefit from the recovery. We can certainly see that there's a pretty strong recovery taking place as the workload (and, in fairness, overtime) increases in our workplaces but this goes unreflected in pay.

    For example - in 2007 I was earning a wage at an hourly rate that was around 14% above the then minimum wage. Seven years on in 2014 I'm still in the same job but my wage is now just less than 3% above the present minimum wage.

    The reason for this is that 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 were all pay freeze years at my place of work. Only in 2013 did we get a modest pay increase - the first since 2007. (And if there's no pay increase this year then, come the autumn, I'll find myself on minimum wage for the first time ever in my life.)

    Of course there are other factors that have varied my pay over the last 7 years. For pretty much all of Gordon Brown's premiership I was faced with the double whammy of not just an hourly rate pay freeze but also a substantial reduction in my working hours. Obviously when you're paid by the hour and you find your working hours cut by 10 to 20% then you really do start to feel the squeeze.

    The Cameron era began in much the same way as the Brown era... a continuation of frozen wages and reduced hours. The only light in the tunnel being the raising of the starting rate of income tax by the coalition government - which was effectively my only increase in income since the recession began. Little but welcome. Then gradually working hours increased and 2014 has seen a further increase in hours. I'm regularly working 45+ hours per week now.

    PB.com has a lot of strengths - but diversity of contributors in the comment section isn't, alas, one of them. The problem lies in the fact that many ordinary working people are in jobs that don't involve sitting at desks with computers so are unable to contribute comments here during the working day - and most people have other things to do at weekends. Obviously people with desk jobs, the retired, the unemployed and students are always going to have more chance to state their views here than the likes of people such as myself. I'm only on here at this time today because I've got a week off work.

    Sometimes, in an evening, I might glance through one of the daytime threads and find that they can sometimes read like the script for one of those hilarious out of touch middle class dinner party sketches that Bird & Fortune used to do.

    At the moment I can't see anything or anyone in any of the political parties that could convince me vote for them. I've likened politics to a board game played between the politicians before on this site. That remains my view. Politics is becoming a spectator sport - with a decreasing number of spectators. As it stands I'll still be sitting the next election out.





  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534

    The self-employed are about 13% of the workforce now. They'll likely give a very substantial lead to the Conservatives.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    It's certainly true that those of us at the lower end of the income scale are getting little to no benefit from the recovery. We can certainly see that there's a pretty strong recovery taking place as the workload (and, in fairness, overtime) increases in our workplaces but this goes unreflected in pay.

    For example - in 2007 I was earning a wage at an hourly rate that was around 14% above the then minimum wage. Seven years on in 2014 I'm still in the same job but my wage is now just less than 3% above the present minimum wage.

    The reason for this is that 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 were all pay freeze years at my place of work. Only in 2013 did we get a modest pay increase - the first since 2007. (And if there's no pay increase this year then, come the autumn, I'll find myself on minimum wage for the first time ever in my life.)

    Of course there are other factors that have varied my pay over the last 7 years. For pretty much all of Gordon Brown's premiership I was faced with the double whammy of not just an hourly rate pay freeze but also a substantial reduction in my working hours. Obviously when you're paid by the hour and you find your working hours cut by 10 to 20% then you really do start to feel the squeeze.

    The Cameron era began in much the same way as the Brown era... a continuation of frozen wages and reduced hours. The only light in the tunnel being the raising of the starting rate of income tax by the coalition government - which was effectively my only increase in income since the recession began. Little but welcome. Then gradually working hours increased and 2014 has seen a further increase in hours. I'm regularly working 45+ hours per week now.
    *snip to get under character limit*

    This isn't meant to be patronising - and I apologise if it's perceived that way - but the quality of your writing suggests you're wasted in a [close to] minimum-wage job.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Clarissa Dickson Wright drank 6 pints of tonic water every day for 12 years, quite a feat really, as well as, for a while, two bottles of gin a day and a bottle of vodka before getting out of bed:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/tv-radio-obituaries/10702886/Clarissa-Dickson-Wright-obituary.html
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Putin says "Crimea belongs to Russia!"
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26630062
    Red Bishop to pawn 4.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    warelane said:

    Curious indeed. Although it is a one-off and is sponsored by the unions, a seventeen percent lead cannot be easily dismissed. It does lead one to speculate that the Tories must be leading amongst the unemployed and retired.

    The unemployed? No way: Labour would be even further ahead with them. It's just that the Tories have a massive lead among retired people, and maybe a small lead with stay-at-home mums (and dads).

    Worth noting that the Tories were in third place in 1974 among the youngest age groups, who are now the same people giving them a big lead.
    The Conservatives have a massive lead amongst the retired? Maybe, but I don't know where, it certainly doesn't seem to be true down here in the Conservative heartland of West Sussex. Cameron and his clique are about as popular with us retired people as plague rats and, save for the very wealthy, everyone is worried about what the future holds their children/grand-children. I dare say that many, maybe even most, will, come they day, hold their noses and vote Conservative but it will be out of fear not enthusiasm.

    If the Tories can't rely on the retired vote in West Sussex they really would be heading for total oblivion.
    Mr. JS, I think they'll get enough of the vote, even on a hold your nose basis, to keep most, if not all, of their seats down here (though probably only the collapse in the Lib Dem position will save Mid-Sussex especially if Soames bows out). What I am struggling to get my head round is this idea that there is a big majority for the Conservatives amongst the retired. If it exists then I think it must do so because of the piss-poor quality of the opposition and not enthusiasm for Cameron and his gang.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,808

    AndyJS said:

    warelane said:

    Curious indeed. Although it is a one-off and is sponsored by the unions, a seventeen percent lead cannot be easily dismissed. It does lead one to speculate that the Tories must be leading amongst the unemployed and retired.

    The unemployed? No way: Labour would be even further ahead with them. It's just that the Tories have a massive lead among retired people, and maybe a small lead with stay-at-home mums (and dads).

    Worth noting that the Tories were in third place in 1974 among the youngest age groups, who are now the same people giving them a big lead.
    The Conservatives have a massive lead amongst the retired? Maybe, but I don't know where, it certainly doesn't seem to be true down here in the Conservative heartland of West Sussex. Cameron and his clique are about as popular with us retired people as plague rats and, save for the very wealthy, everyone is worried about what the future holds their children/grand-children. I dare say that many, maybe even most, will, come they day, hold their noses and vote Conservative but it will be out of fear not enthusiasm.

    Isn't it the definition of madness to repeatedly do the same thing, resulting in an adverse outcome, whilst hoping for a more beneficial one?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,507
    WOW got to be the fastest U-Turn ever...so fast gone back in time :-)


    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/18/bristol-plans-ban-tree-climbing-skateboarding-parks

    Tuesday 18 March 2014 10.29 GMT

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-26609949

    18 March 2014 Last updated at 09:51
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @LadPolitics: Ladbrokes take a pre-budget bet of £25k @ 11/8 Tories to win most seats at General Election. Biggest GE bet so far.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    AndyJS said:

    Clarissa Dickson Wright drank 6 pints of tonic water every day for 12 years, quite a feat really, as well as, for a while, two bottles of gin a day and a bottle of vodka before getting out of bed:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/tv-radio-obituaries/10702886/Clarissa-Dickson-Wright-obituary.html

    What a wonderful obituary. Well worth a read.
  • Steven_WhaleySteven_Whaley Posts: 313
    edited March 2014
    Anorak said:


    This isn't meant to be patronising - and I apologise if it's perceived that way - but the quality of your writing suggests you're wasted in a [close to] minimum-wage job.

    Fair comment, Anorak. :) No need to apologise.

    I actually do have a BSc - from the University of Wales. I studied agriculture at Bangor and graduated in 1995. My family background is farming but I left the industry in 2000 and have no interest in returning to it.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,507
    edited March 2014
    Henry has broken the criteria into three areas and the production in question would have to meet two out of these three to qualify - the first suggests that at least 50% of production staff must be black, Asian or minority ethnic.

    The second is that the production company must be 30% BAME-controlled and/or 30% of senior personnel must be BAME.

    And the third dictates that at least 50% of on-screen talent must be BAME.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26626388

    Replace BAME with white....Would sound like something out of the BNP manifesto.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    Anorak said:


    This isn't meant to be patronising - and I apologise if it's perceived that way - but the quality of your writing suggests you're wasted in a [close to] minimum-wage job.

    Fair comment, Anorak. :) No need to apologise.

    I actually do have a BSc - from the University of Wales. I studied agriculture at Bangor and graduated in 1995. My family background is farming but I left the industry in 2000 and have no interest in returning to it.
    I don't blame you. A farmer's life is usually a pretty miserable one - unless you own several hundred acres of East Anglia and can afford to pay others to do the hard work! I had family in sheep farming up in Cumbria. Given the effort expended the rewards were awful, and ever-diminishing.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    ** Betting Post **

    Sporting Index have put up some Budget Specials:

    http://tinyurl.com/prrpu6g
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121
    MikeK said:

    Putin says "Crimea belongs to Russia!"
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26630062
    Red Bishop to pawn 4.

    @MikeK Russia and UKIP have a common foe - the EU!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121

    Henry has broken the criteria into three areas and the production in question would have to meet two out of these three to qualify - the first suggests that at least 50% of production staff must be black, Asian or minority ethnic.

    The second is that the production company must be 30% BAME-controlled and/or 30% of senior personnel must be BAME.

    And the third dictates that at least 50% of on-screen talent must be BAME.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26626388

    Replace BAME with white....Would sound like something out of the BNP manifesto.

    I thought it was 'ethnic minority'?

    'Minority ethnic' sounds decidedly French ('minoritie ethnique' or somesuch)!
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    JonC said:

    Well i'm not that surprised by this poll. the tories are doing all they can to lose my vote.

    My wife doesn't work, so i don't benefit from this ridiculous childcare bribe. There is only a need for it in the first place because house prices are insanely high (another thing the tories seem to like).

    I work hard and yet I am basically taxed at 67% on every pound I earn of the last 1/6th of my income because the government thinks i am too rich to have child benefit. Yet apparently (a) I could earn double and still get this childcare bung or (b) my wife and I could in theory earn £100k between us and still keep the CB AND get the childcare cash. WTF???

    Also the FT has calculated that the higher rate threshold would be £76K if it had kept up with inflation. Now 5 million people are expected to pay 40% from next year! This is not a tory government, it feels like Wilson or Callaghan. And government spending still goes up, the deficit is merely inching down so there's no sign of respite any time soon. P1ssing all the money away on free school meals, bribes for farming your children out to strangers 5 days a week, and funding a housing benefit bill which is ballooning due to the pumping up of a housing bubble is not remotely what i hoped for from a conservative government.

    Yet the other parties are all worse. None of the above has it for me for now :-(

    This isn't a Conservative government.

    It's a Coalition government.

    There are important changes - such as bringing down the cost of chilcare by aligning our regulations with France - that were stymied by the LibDems.

    A majority conservative government could have been more proactive on many things (including Regulation Mr Alanbrooke - but Cable needed an economics ministry). Perhaps the next one will be...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,507
    I thought it was 'ethnic minority'?

    Not my words...might be a typo from BBC journalist.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121
    Charles said:

    JonC said:

    Well i'm not that surprised by this poll. the tories are doing all they can to lose my vote.

    My wife doesn't work, so i don't benefit from this ridiculous childcare bribe. There is only a need for it in the first place because house prices are insanely high (another thing the tories seem to like).

    I work hard and yet I am basically taxed at 67% on every pound I earn of the last 1/6th of my income because the government thinks i am too rich to have child benefit. Yet apparently (a) I could earn double and still get this childcare bung or (b) my wife and I could in theory earn £100k between us and still keep the CB AND get the childcare cash. WTF???

    Also the FT has calculated that the higher rate threshold would be £76K if it had kept up with inflation. Now 5 million people are expected to pay 40% from next year! This is not a tory government, it feels like Wilson or Callaghan. And government spending still goes up, the deficit is merely inching down so there's no sign of respite any time soon. P1ssing all the money away on free school meals, bribes for farming your children out to strangers 5 days a week, and funding a housing benefit bill which is ballooning due to the pumping up of a housing bubble is not remotely what i hoped for from a conservative government.

    Yet the other parties are all worse. None of the above has it for me for now :-(

    This isn't a Conservative government.

    It's a Coalition government.

    There are important changes - such as bringing down the cost of chilcare by aligning our regulations with France - that were stymied by the LibDems.

    A majority conservative government could have been more proactive on many things (including Regulation Mr Alanbrooke - but Cable needed an economics ministry). Perhaps the next one will be...
    This isn't a Conservative government.
    This is an M&S government.

    :)
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    AndyJS said:

    FPT:

    "JohnLoony: Wikipedia says that Clarissa Dickson-Wright was "disbarred [as a barrister] for practising without chambers". What does that mean? Why would "not having chambers" be a reason for not being a barrister?"

    Isn't it just a turn of phrase?

    IANAL, but Chambers is the office setup that barristers have. It provides legal administrative support, regulatory systems, general administration (eg billing) and gives the Courts a central point to coordinate with.

    Although barristers are technically sole traders, I can see the courts might want a mechanism for coordination.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Speaking of tin foil hats - Kirkup tries hard to raise interest in the budget - I fear he may be disappointed...

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100264179/budget-2014-george-osborne-is-quiet-too-quiet-hes-up-to-something/

    " So maybe all the pre-briefing about a “steady as she goes” Budget is accurate. But if there are fireworks in the Commons tomorrow, don’t be completely surprised."
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121

    I thought it was 'ethnic minority'?

    Not my words...might be a typo from BBC journalist.

    No of course not your words - but it's in the acronym too - BAME.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121
    IANAL?

    Is that anything to do with Jack's ARSE?




    (I am not a linguist!)
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    AndyJS said:

    warelane said:

    Curious indeed. Although it is a one-off and is sponsored by the unions, a seventeen percent lead cannot be easily dismissed. It does lead one to speculate that the Tories must be leading amongst the unemployed and retired.

    The unemployed? No way: Labour would be even further ahead with them. It's just that the Tories have a massive lead among retired people, and maybe a small lead with stay-at-home mums (and dads).

    Worth noting that the Tories were in third place in 1974 among the youngest age groups, who are now the same people giving them a big lead.
    The Conservatives have a massive lead amongst the retired? Maybe, but I don't know where, it certainly doesn't seem to be true down here in the Conservative heartland of West Sussex. Cameron and his clique are about as popular with us retired people as plague rats and, save for the very wealthy, everyone is worried about what the future holds their children/grand-children. I dare say that many, maybe even most, will, come they day, hold their noses and vote Conservative but it will be out of fear not enthusiasm.

    Isn't it the definition of madness to repeatedly do the same thing, resulting in an adverse outcome, whilst hoping for a more beneficial one?
    Einstein apparently said something like that, yes. On the other hand you could apply the same rule to voting in a Labour government (always left unemployment higher etc. etc.).

    I think a lot of political commentators and indeed politicians have got it wrong in how to attract the grey vote. The current orthodoxy seems to be based around the idea that you cannot take away pensioner benefits otherwise the old buggers will stop voting for you. In my experience that is not necessarily true. For most pensioners concern about their children and especially their grand-children is a much bigger driver than their own well-being.

    Of course for genuinely needy pensioners we should provide what is needed in terms of heating food and so forth, but let's target need. For example, the idea that the members of the Hurtspierpoint and District Gentlemen's Temperance Association need free bus passes (mainly used for our first Tuesday in the month Brighton Luncheon outing) is a nonsense, as is giving us a heating allowance. Take that money from us give it to the genuinely needy. Maybe go even so far as to make the old age pension not a universal benefit (some of us have a big enough occupational pension to live on).

    Approached in the right way and HMG could take money from the retired with their blessing (and votes) provided it was spent on the coming generations.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,291
    TGOHF said:

    Speaking of tin foil hats - Kirkup tries hard to raise interest in the budget - I fear he may be disappointed...

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100264179/budget-2014-george-osborne-is-quiet-too-quiet-hes-up-to-something/

    " So maybe all the pre-briefing about a “steady as she goes” Budget is accurate. But if there are fireworks in the Commons tomorrow, don’t be completely surprised."

    I wonder though....so far the 'leaks' have been remarkably few and far between. Tomorrow is either going to be one of the most boring budgets ever or Kirkup might well be on to something (Ip off the basic rate would be my hunch).
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,291
    Now Mr. Llama, about our bet on the Indy referendum.

    I don't believe anyone can now reasonably argue that it will be cancelled.

    Shouldn't we now be a-settling?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,507
    edited March 2014
    JohnO said:

    TGOHF said:

    Speaking of tin foil hats - Kirkup tries hard to raise interest in the budget - I fear he may be disappointed...

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100264179/budget-2014-george-osborne-is-quiet-too-quiet-hes-up-to-something/

    " So maybe all the pre-briefing about a “steady as she goes” Budget is accurate. But if there are fireworks in the Commons tomorrow, don’t be completely surprised."

    I wonder though....so far the 'leaks' have been remarkably few and far between. Tomorrow is either going to be one of the most boring budgets ever or Kirkup might well be on to something (Ip off the basic rate would be my hunch).
    Or the truth is somewhere between the two. He is quiet, so his big "rabbit out of the hat" gets all the headlines, rather than already chip paper after being leaked in the Sunday papers...but actually the big rabbit isn't actually that big of a deal and it is just some spin operation to cover over what is otherwise same old same old budget.

    I can't see given the state of public finances how he can produce anything that radical, without either taking from Peter to pay Paul or just abandoning any illusion of cuts / radical deficit reduction.

    It seems he kicked the idea of IC+NI tax being combined into the long grass in the past couple of announcements, which would be one eye catcher.
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323

    I thought it was 'ethnic minority'?

    Not my words...might be a typo from BBC journalist.

    No of course not your words - but it's in the acronym too - BAME.
    I assumed it may have been for the purposes of the acronym myself but it is used in a few other places.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Doesn't coalition government ensure leaks though ?

    Cable will be wanting credit for the colour of GO's tie or whatever.

  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,818
    edited March 2014
    I see Sporting index are doing their usual 'order order' and how many sips of water markets . What was the make up last year? I think George has form where sips of water are concerned and Bercow likes the sound of his own voice so both could be interesting
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,291

    I see Sporting index are doing their usual 'order order' and how many sips of water markets . What was the make up last year. I think George has form where sips of water are concerned and Bercow likes the sound of his own voice so both could be interesting

    Except Bercow won't be presiding. It will be the admirable Lindsay Hoyle as Deputy Speaker.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Hannan on EU reform:
    "I have absolutely no doubt that the PM will secure all his stated [EU] negotiating aims. Indeed it’s clear, looking at them, that the starting point was not “What kind of relationship with the EU do we ideally want?” but “What can we be certain of securing, so that the negotiations can be declared a success?”

    Sir Humphrey in Brussels has evidently been shuttling around his opposite numbers finding out what they are prepared to concede. “Look here, I don’t suppose we could opt out of some of these regulations that are hurting the City of London? No? How about an end to the Cohesion Fund racket? Too much? Ah. Alright then. What about taking out the words ‘ever closer union’ – just the words, you understand? Yes? Splendid!”"

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100264175/david-cameron-wants-to-stay-in-the-eu-on-something-like-the-current-terms-but-hes-our-only-chance-of-a-referendum/
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,818
    JohnO said:

    I see Sporting index are doing their usual 'order order' and how many sips of water markets . What was the make up last year. I think George has form where sips of water are concerned and Bercow likes the sound of his own voice so both could be interesting

    Except Bercow won't be presiding. It will be the admirable Lindsay Hoyle as Deputy Speaker.
    Oh yes I always forget that !!
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    JohnO said:

    Now Mr. Llama, about our bet on the Indy referendum.

    I don't believe anyone can now reasonably argue that it will be cancelled.

    Shouldn't we now be a-settling?

    Mr O, as I have said in the past you shall have your dosh, when the race is run. I will even drive up to your establishment and deliver it in crisp fivers by hand (maybe you will give me a cup of tea or something). However, I am not PaddyPower and will not pay out on the basis of press reports.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Hannan on EU reform:
    "I have absolutely no doubt that the PM will secure all his stated [EU] negotiating aims. Indeed it’s clear, looking at them, that the starting point was not “What kind of relationship with the EU do we ideally want?” but “What can we be certain of securing, so that the negotiations can be declared a success?”

    Sir Humphrey in Brussels has evidently been shuttling around his opposite numbers finding out what they are prepared to concede. “Look here, I don’t suppose we could opt out of some of these regulations that are hurting the City of London? No? How about an end to the Cohesion Fund racket? Too much? Ah. Alright then. What about taking out the words ‘ever closer union’ – just the words, you understand? Yes? Splendid!”"

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100264175/david-cameron-wants-to-stay-in-the-eu-on-something-like-the-current-terms-but-hes-our-only-chance-of-a-referendum/

    The comments are hilarious - Kippers are running scared from a referendum.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821

    I see Sporting index are doing their usual 'order order' and how many sips of water markets . What was the make up last year? I think George has form where sips of water are concerned and Bercow likes the sound of his own voice so both could be interesting

    Yep, Osborne is definitely a sipper, but the current price of 3.8-4.5 reflects that.

    I've sold 'Billion' at 36. Selling is always a bit of a risk on this kind of market, but at a quick count the numbers of instances of the word (and variants) in 2011, 2012 and 2013 seem to have been 16, 31 and 23.

    This is not advice, do your own research, you might lose your shirt, etc etc.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,818
    edited March 2014

    I see Sporting index are doing their usual 'order order' and how many sips of water markets . What was the make up last year? I think George has form where sips of water are concerned and Bercow likes the sound of his own voice so both could be interesting

    Yep, Osborne is definitely a sipper, but the current price of 3.8-4.5 reflects that.

    I've sold 'Billion' at 36. Selling is always a bit of a risk on this kind of market, but at a quick count the numbers of instances of the word (and variants) in 2011, 2012 and 2013 seem to have been 16, 31 and 23.

    This is not advice, do your own research, you might lose your shirt, etc etc.
    Good pick , I think these million and billion spreads are still influenced a bit by the fondness of Gordon Brown (especially) for tractor stats
    Just don't panic when he mentions billion about 8 times in 10 seconds when he goes through the predicted and historical public deficit each year. It calms down then!!
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    edited March 2014
    PoliticsMarkets ‏@politicsmarkets 7m
    Ladbrokes say they have taken a £25,000 bet at 11/8 on Tories to be biggest party #GE2015

    Better odds than that on betfair ;)

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,507
    edited March 2014
    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/nick-cohen/2014/03/who-judges-the-judges/

    Interesting article....will leave it at that, other than to say how come the Sunday Times legal team didn't know or object?
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,818
    TGOHF said:

    PoliticsMarkets ‏@politicsmarkets 7m
    Ladbrokes say they have taken a £25,000 bet at 11/8 on Tories to be biggest party #GE2015

    Better odds than that on betfair ;)

    Would have got better value (though maybe not so much on) betting on individual seats
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:

    PoliticsMarkets ‏@politicsmarkets 7m
    Ladbrokes say they have taken a £25,000 bet at 11/8 on Tories to be biggest party #GE2015

    Better odds than that on betfair ;)

    Would have got better value (though maybe not so much on) betting on individual seats
    Day before the budget ? Kirkup in a foil hat ?
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    (Ip off the basic rate would be my hunch).

    Judging from what I've heard about this budget so far, I'd be more inclined to go for a hike in stamp duty thresholds. All Osborne's rhetoric has been about hard working families being able to buy their own homes....
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Certainly plenty to lay on Labour at 1.73 (£2.6K) and to back Con at 2.4 (£1.5k)

    But not £25k's worth.
  • Betfair has also crossed back to NOM ahead of Labour Maj even after OGHs recent thread when Lab went favourite briefly.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Betfair has also crossed back to NOM ahead of Labour Maj even after OGHs recent thread when Lab went favourite briefly.

    ARSE watchers ?

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    taffys said:

    (Ip off the basic rate would be my hunch).

    Judging from what I've heard about this budget so far, I'd be more inclined to go for a hike in stamp duty thresholds. All Osborne's rhetoric has been about hard working families being able to buy their own homes....


    Or removing the "steps" ? Would suit me am looking to buy/sell.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,818
    anyone doing budget bingo?
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    TGOHF said:

    Betfair has also crossed back to NOM ahead of Labour Maj even after OGHs recent thread when Lab went favourite briefly.

    ARSE watchers ?

    I think the solitary joke about Arse may have just about run its course.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    BobaFett said:

    TGOHF said:

    Betfair has also crossed back to NOM ahead of Labour Maj even after OGHs recent thread when Lab went favourite briefly.

    ARSE watchers ?

    I think the solitary joke about Arse may have just about run its course.

    You really don't like a bit of ARSE do you ?
  • TGOHF said:

    Betfair has also crossed back to NOM ahead of Labour Maj even after OGHs recent thread when Lab went favourite briefly.

    ARSE watchers ?

    I did my part by splashing £500 on sunday to get over the Spurs season ending by backing Tory biggest number and laying Lab majority....
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    TGOHF said:

    PoliticsMarkets ‏@politicsmarkets 7m
    Ladbrokes say they have taken a £25,000 bet at 11/8 on Tories to be biggest party #GE2015

    Better odds than that on betfair ;)

    Not after commission. 1.4/1 * 95% = 1.33/1 (assuming the guy isn't a regular punter) and 11/8 is 1.375/1.

    Betfair are actually quite rarely best value for one-off bets on anything that's covered by plenty of bookies. The principal advantage of betfair is trading.
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    @TGOHF

    It's pretty thin gruel, to be honest.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821

    anyone doing budget bingo?

    I had a look, but I couldn't see any value this year.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,704
    Curious childcare announcement by the Tories. Somewhat undermines every argument they have made to date on austerity.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:

    PoliticsMarkets ‏@politicsmarkets 7m
    Ladbrokes say they have taken a £25,000 bet at 11/8 on Tories to be biggest party #GE2015

    Better odds than that on betfair ;)

    Not after commission. 1.4/1 * 95% = 1.33/1 (assuming the guy isn't a regular punter) and 11/8 is 1.375/1.

    Betfair are actually quite rarely best value for one-off bets on anything that's covered by plenty of bookies. The principal advantage of betfair is trading.
    Of course is the commission not even higher if he is a massive punter on betfair ?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121
    New Thread
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    Scott_P said:

    BobaFett said:

    Labour. Party of the working man.

    Does he have a name?
    Ed?
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    TGOHF said:

    Of course is the commission not even higher if he is a massive punter on betfair ?

    If he's a big winner in percentage terms, yes, via the premium charge. But someone having a series of one-off bets at close-to-fair prices would be unlikely to be hit by that - it's more targeted at traders and punters who are essentially taking advantage of either (a) inside or (b) quicker information ("courtsiders").
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207


    Are we witnessing pre-nuptial posturing this morning between Jack W and Mick Pork? What do Lady W and Mrs Pork have to say about this? Ed Milibland about to call for a Public Enquiry into the situation.

    Mrs Pork feels a bit let down, but once Mick fixes her puncture, all will be well again.
    LIKE!
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    BobaFett said:

    TGOHF said:

    Betfair has also crossed back to NOM ahead of Labour Maj even after OGHs recent thread when Lab went favourite briefly.

    ARSE watchers ?

    I think the solitary joke about Arse may have just about run its course.

    LIKE!

    It's not as if there are any Floaters in the PB toilet bowl to still stink the place out.

    Get it?

    *chortle*
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065

    Not questioning the poll, but I would be interested to know what exactly mean by "employers"...that could include / exclude variety of different people...and why they were excluded, they are in employment themselves are they not.

    Is it literally anybody who employs somebody else, or more than x other people, etc.

    I imagine "Employers" includes self employed, and company directors (or similar) but not people who pay for services even if that worker has only one "boss", ie an MP who "employs" a researcher or a couple who "employ" a nanny or cleaner would not qualify as "Employers".

    I do think it's a bit odd that this group is not included in the opinion poll of the "Employed" and is almost certainly going to be more tory than the 27:44 Tory:Labour split.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    *** Betting Post ***

    Sporting Index have put up some Budget Specials:

    http://www.sportingindex.com/spread-betting/politics/british/mm4.uk.meeting.4574998/the-2014-budget
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    *** Betting Post ***

    Sporting Index have put up some Budget Specials:

    http://www.sportingindex.com/spread-betting/politics/british/mm4.uk.meeting.4574998/the-2014-budget
This discussion has been closed.