Dear me, this is politicalbetting.com. It's supposed to be full of wise old birds who coolly assess odds, take the long view, and don't get fooled into putting their money into temporary fads, even if there's a temporary polling surge. Such as these three classics:
If your fellow Tories were so calm as you, people would not have so much to feed upon. It isn't merely the election results or poll ratings, it's the sheer blind panic from prominent tories, or as I can attest to first hand, the terror at UKIP and ensuing dissatisfaction with Cameroonian style at a grassroots level. It's tories running around like chickens with no heads, not anyone else, they're just observing it and occasionally getting in a flap about what this invasion of headless chickens could all mean (ok, the metaphor got away from me a bit there)
And I liked Cameron and the coalition for 2.5 years I remind you, so I'm inclined to be generous with them.
Can anyone explain to me why landlords checking immigration status is any more impossible than small employers doing the same, for which, under provisions introduced by the last government, there's a £10K fine per employee if they get it wrong innocently, and up to two years in jail plus an unlimited fine if they get it wrong knowingly?
If your fellow Tories were so calm as you, people would not have so much to feed upon. It isn't merely the election results or poll ratings, it's the sheer blind panic from prominent tories, or as I can attest to first hand, the terror at UKIP and ensuing dissatisfaction with Cameroonian style at a grassroots level. I
Can anyone explain to me why landlords checking immigration status is any more impossible than small employers doing the same, for which there's a £10K fine if you get it wrong?
Even if UKIP lose two thirds of their current vote share by the next general election, which seems unlikely, the Conservatives will still not get in again while we have UKIP and FPTP. Either they need electoral reform to get through, or they need to merge with UKIP. The latter can only happen if the Conservatives move, as a party, to a Better Off Out position. Lawson has shown them the way. They just need to follow in his path.
If UKIP keeps driving down the Conservatives numbers, the Cameroons will just cave.
We'll have an in/out referendum bill this parliament. Possibly a new leader of the Conservative Party too.
Isn't the perjorative "Cameroon" racist against the good people of, er, Cameroon?
Not entirely sure but i don't think it was a perjorative at the start?
I don't think so, but it certainly is now. The tide has turned against them.
Well it has on here. But the Cameroon public is at least keeping the Tories in the game. The soft-right is worth more to them than the fringe headbangers we see so many of on PB.
I was Cameroon public (voted LD in a Tory seat, but hoped for LD-Con Coalition) and he's lost me, so he's not just losing to the likes of UKIP (no thanks), he's losing some others too.
Even if UKIP lose two thirds of their current vote share by the next general election, which seems unlikely, the Conservatives will still not get in again while we have UKIP and FPTP. Either they need electoral reform to get through, or they need to merge with UKIP. The latter can only happen if the Conservatives move, as a party, to a Better Off Out position. Lawson has shown them the way. They just need to follow in his path.
If UKIP keeps driving down the Conservatives numbers, the Cameroons will just cave.
We'll have an in/out referendum bill this parliament. Possibly a new leader of the Conservative Party too.
Isn't the perjorative "Cameroon" racist against the good people of, er, Cameroon?
Not entirely sure but i don't think it was a perjorative at the start?
I don't think so, but it certainly is now. The tide has turned against them.
Well it has on here. But the Cameroon public is at least keeping the Tories in the game. The soft-right is worth more to them than the fringe headbangers we see so many of on PB.
I was Cameroon public (voted LD in a Tory seat, but hoped for LD-Con Coalition) and he's lost me, so he's not just losing to the likes of UKIP (no thanks), he's losing some others too.
While you're still up, can you fill us in on this "it's the sheer blind panic from prominent tories, or as I can attest to first hand,the terror at UKIP and ensuing dissatisfaction with Cameroonian style at a grassroots level." anecdote please. Pretty please?
A reminder of some of the 'brains' behind the immigration posturing.
Queen's Speech: Jeremy Hunt 'unable' to explain how new immigration laws will work
Plans to make landlords legally responsible for ensuring that they do not let properties to illegal immigrants were mired in confusion today after Jeremy Hunt refused to explain how the rules will actually work.
Just hours before the new immigration laws are announced in the Queen’s Speech Mr Hunt, the Health Secretary, failed to answer a series of questions about how private landlords could effectively become responsible for policing the immigration system.
In an interview on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Mr Hunt struggled to explain how the new laws will be enforced but denied the Government is legislating without having thought the plans through.
Despite the Queen’s Speech setting out the Government’s legislative agenda, Mr Hunt insisted it was only about “announcing areas we are going to tackle” and said that ministers will provide further details “when the time is right”.
Under the plans almost two million buy-to-let property owners will be responsible for checking the immigration status of potential tenants, with fines running into thousands of pounds for those breaking the law.
Even if UKIP lose two thirds of their current vote share by the next general election, which seems unlikely, the Conservatives will still not get in again while we have UKIP and FPTP. Either they need electoral reform to get through, or they need to merge with UKIP. The latter can only happen if the Conservatives move, as a party, to a Better Off Out position. Lawson has shown them the way. They just need to follow in his path.
If UKIP keeps driving down the Conservatives numbers, the Cameroons will just cave.
We'll have an in/out referendum bill this parliament. Possibly a new leader of the Conservative Party too.
Isn't the perjorative "Cameroon" racist against the good people of, er, Cameroon?
Not entirely sure but i don't think it was a perjorative at the start?
I don't think so, but it certainly is now. The tide has turned against them.
Well it has on here. But the Cameroon public is at least keeping the Tories in the game. The soft-right is worth more to them than the fringe headbangers we see so many of on PB.
I was Cameroon public (voted LD in a Tory seat, but hoped for LD-Con Coalition) and he's lost me, so he's not just losing to the likes of UKIP (no thanks), he's losing some others too.
While you're still up, can you fill us in on this "it's the sheer blind panic from prominent tories, or as I can attest to first hand,the terror at UKIP and ensuing dissatisfaction with Cameroonian style at a grassroots level." anecdote please. Pretty please?
I thought we hated anecdotes. Shall I substitute 'can attest to first hand' for 'as many have seen/ has been reported'? I was really just referring to some of the rather desperate tactics and fear of some Tories in the locals in what should have been rock solid areas with huge majorities that I have seen, where the threat of UKIP was given way more credit than it in fact derserved.
They looked frightened, by a party than had no seats and no record in locals, and they played into their hands in many ways I felt. Acceptable? And now I really do need to sleep. Partisan though he may be, I think Mick (above) has a few examples covered.
But before that, any fan or non-fan of Star Trek (the reboot) should witness this awesome trailer
Finding it difficult to work out why the three guys who kidnapped, raped and chained those three girls - for a decade - should not be put to death in the electric chair.
Any ideas?
Because the death penalty brutalises the society that inflicts it.
Exclude them from society, by all means, (i.e. exile or prison) but you don't have the right to terminate their existence.
Yes, we do. The British (and American) state puts people to death all the time - lots of them innocent kids who have done NOTHING. We blow them up with bombs and drones. This is called war.
Yet we flinch at stringing up a few evil disgusting creeps who admit to rape, torture and infanticide?
The hypocrisy is ridiculous. Bring back the noose.
There is a difference between a just war (harking back to the great StTA) and a death penalty. War is the last option, but sometimes necessary.
Iraq? Was that a "Just War"? How many did we kill then? Several thousand? 50,000?
Certainly about a hundred years' worth of convicted murderers and child rapists. And these convicted criminals would of course - unlike the incinerated children of bombed Baghdad - be the beneficiaries of a proper trial before we put them to sleep.
Liberals who wince at capital punishment but are happy to applaud wars are full of shit.
Was Iraq a just war? In hindsight a mistake, but probably still a just war based on the evidence that was presented at the time. (I do not know whether we can rely on the evidence presented being to the best of the PM's reasonable knowledge, but if not then Blair is very guilty indeed).
Jus ad bellum:
1. Just cause - innocent life in imminent damage. We believed so. 2. Comparative justice - oppression of the innocent in Iraq by Hussein. Yes 3. Competent authority - the nation state (I dont believe the UN is the only competent authority. Yes 4. Right intention - yes unless you are a guardian reader or a conspiracy theorist 5. Probability of success - yes 6. Last resort - yes 7. Proportionality - yes. IMO it was the pease that was messed up not the war. Bush and Rumsfeld are to be severely criticised for that. Nation building is a serious commitment that should be taken seriously
Jus in bello:
1. Distinction: yes - the allies didn't *target* non-combatants. AL-Qaeda shows less compunction 2. Proportionality: I genuinely think the allies tried to minimise innocent casulties 3. Military necessity - use of minimum force. Yes 4. Fair treatment of prisoners of war: yes
A longer list than Aquinas, but the only one that is debatable is proportionality (ad) i my view.
Hindsight for cretins like Blair, Bush the neoconservatives and those who backed the stupidity. Not for those who knew it was idiotic and based on lies from the start.
Even if UKIP lose two thirds of their current vote share by the next general election, which seems unlikely, the Conservatives will still not get in again while we have UKIP and FPTP. Either they need electoral reform to get through, or they need to merge with UKIP. The latter can only happen if the Conservatives move, as a party, to a Better Off Out position. Lawson has shown them the way. They just need to follow in his path.
If UKIP keeps driving down the Conservatives numbers, the Cameroons will just cave.
We'll have an in/out referendum bill this parliament. Possibly a new leader of the Conservative Party too.
Isn't the perjorative "Cameroon" racist against the good people of, er, Cameroon?
Not entirely sure but i don't think it was a perjorative at the start?
I don't think so, but it certainly is now. The tide has turned against them.
Well it has on here. But the Cameroon public is at least keeping the Tories in the game. The soft-right is worth more to them than the fringe headbangers we see so many of on PB.
I was Cameroon public (voted LD in a Tory seat, but hoped for LD-Con Coalition) and he's lost me, so he's not just losing to the likes of UKIP (no thanks), he's losing some others too.
While you're still up, can you fill us in on this "it's the sheer blind panic from prominent tories, or as I can attest to first hand,the terror at UKIP and ensuing dissatisfaction with Cameroonian style at a grassroots level." anecdote please. Pretty please?
I thought we hated anecdotes. Shall I substitute 'can attest to first hand' for 'as many have seen/ has been reported'? I was really just referring to some of the rather desperate tactics and fear of some Tories in the locals in what should have been rock solid areas with huge majorities that I have seen, where the threat of UKIP was given way more credit than it in fact derserved.
They looked frightened, by a party than had no seats and no record in locals, and they played into their hands in many ways I felt. Acceptable? And now I really do need to sleep. Partisan though he may be, I think Mick (above) has a few examples covered.
But before that, any fan or non-fan of Star Trek (the reboot) should witness this awesome trailer
That YouGov poll tonight shows one simple truth namely that the voters do not like divided parties and the sooner my lot (the blues)get it into their thick heads and start behaving like an adult party intent on retaining power and show the self discipline that has to go with that the better. Its absolutely crazy but its a fact that for nigh on 20 years they have been behaving as though the normal rules for political success simply don't apply to them.
Peter, this and your other much longer post tonight (which I can't now find to quote) are both bang on the money.
Ignore all the baiting from the other side and the childish posts from supposed Conservatives throwing their toys out of the pram because they can't get 100% of what they want.
The vast majority of Conservatives agree with you and know that Cameron is doing an excellent job - hence his sky high approval ratings.
Also keep calm about UKIP - despite UKIP at 23% last week, the Lab lead over Con was only 4% - much less than opinion polls and a pitiful lead in mid-term.
The next GE remains up for grabs - if Cameron keeps calm and the economy improves he'll be very well placed to launch the "Labour tax bombshell". He'll ask ordinary families whether they want to be able to leave their homes to their kids or whether they want Miliband and Clegg levying 50% tax on the lot.
If he holds his nerve it may well be a carbon copy of 1992.
"If he holds his nerve it may well be a carbon copy of 1992."
The Conservatives got 42% of the vote in 1992 do you think they'll get that in 2015 ?
The Conservatives still lost 40 seats in 1992, that does seem very possible in 2015.
And the problem with keeping saying about how 'the vast majority' of Conservatives still support Cameron is that the absolute number of Conservatives is falling month by month.
Its not the forelock tuggers and vote-by-rote Conservatives that you need to persuade but those people who voted Conservatives in 2010 but have now given up because of the incompetance and bigotry of the chumocracy.
But there's none so blind as those who will not see.
CON 27%, LAB 38%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 17%. Problem for Cons. 27 is low Problem for Lab 38 is low Problem for LDs 11 is low Problem for UKIP 17 won't get you anywhere.
Only one of these -UKIP - is outside MOE on recent polling.
The thing I find quite interesting about this is the comparison between this poll and the national equivalent share last week:
Labour 29%, Con 25%, UKIP 23%, LD 14%, Other 9%
So the differences are Labour gain 9% in the poll, Cons gain 2%. LD lose 3%, UKIP lose 6%
So this suggests that there is a good chunk of people who voted UKIP at the locals as a protest but will return or switch to Labour at the GE, while a much smaller share will return to Conservative.
Or of course it could be that YouGov's methodology is overstating Labour and understating UKIP.
"If he holds his nerve it may well be a carbon copy of 1992."
The Conservatives got 42% of the vote in 1992 do you think they'll get that in 2015 ?
The Conservatives still lost 40 seats in 1992, that does seem very possible in 2015.
And the problem with keeping saying about how 'the vast majority' of Conservatives still support Cameron is that the absolute number of Conservatives is falling month by month.
Its not the forelock tuggers and vote-by-rote Conservatives that you need to persuade but those people who voted Conservatives in 2010 but have now given up because of the incompetance and bigotry of the chumocracy.
But there's none so blind as those who will not see.
50% of people in this country don't even know who George Osborne is.
Going on about nonsense like "chumocracy" is absolute classic PB poster anorak nonsense. 99% of people wouldn't have a clue about any of this childish rubbish.
Do you really think a retired homeowner contemplating Miliband grabbing say £150,000 tax on their modest home is going to be more concerned about "chumocracy" nonsense?
Grow up, get real, get in touch with ordinary people, not childish PB anorak nonsense.
As a landlord I have no problem checking the immigration status of my tenants.
Surely the Immigration Agency will just provide a phone number that I can ring up and ask...
Umm...
You'll ask them to do identity verification via PayPal. Seriously. This is where this stuff is headed.
I hate both, but just having a transparent national ID scheme would be better than this. The government requires ID verification for an increasing number of things, but then declines to provide it, and forces you to go to some venal, personal-data-hungry private corporation.
"If he holds his nerve it may well be a carbon copy of 1992."
The Conservatives got 42% of the vote in 1992 do you think they'll get that in 2015 ?
The Conservatives still lost 40 seats in 1992, that does seem very possible in 2015.
And the problem with keeping saying about how 'the vast majority' of Conservatives still support Cameron is that the absolute number of Conservatives is falling month by month.
Its not the forelock tuggers and vote-by-rote Conservatives that you need to persuade but those people who voted Conservatives in 2010 but have now given up because of the incompetance and bigotry of the chumocracy.
But there's none so blind as those who will not see.
50% of people in this country don't even know who George Osborne is.
Going on about nonsense like "chumocracy" is absolute classic PB poster anorak nonsense. 99% of people wouldn't have a clue about any of this childish rubbish.
Do you really think a retired homeowner contemplating Miliband grabbing say £150,000 tax on their modest home is going to be more concerned about "chumocracy" nonsense?
Grow up, get real, get in touch with ordinary people, not childish PB anorak nonsense.
The Conservatives have increased both taxation, and government spendng since 2010. That retired homeowner is going to have a tough time finding a low tax option on their ballot paper.
As a landlord I have no problem checking the immigration status of my tenants.
Surely the Immigration Agency will just provide a phone number that I can ring up and ask...
Umm...
You'll ask them to do identity verification via PayPal. Seriously. This is where this stuff is headed.
I hate both, but just having a transparent national ID scheme would be better than this. The government requires ID verification for an increasing number of things, but then declines to provide it, and forces you to go to some venal, personal-data-hungry private corporation.
The government provides plenty of forms of ID:
Citizens have birth certificates, or passports (usually). EU citizens will have the equivalent from their own government (or ID cards for Germany e.g.) Non-citizen residents will have the necessary visa which qualifies them to be resident in the UK.
I've had to prove I was legally entitled to reside in the UK when renting from a letting agents, so it is not like we are venturing into territories unknown.
CON 27%, LAB 38%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 17%. Problem for Cons. 27 is low Problem for Lab 38 is low Problem for LDs 11 is low Problem for UKIP 17 won't get you anywhere.
Only one of these -UKIP - is outside MOE on recent polling.
The thing I find quite interesting about this is the comparison between this poll and the national equivalent share last week:
Labour 29%, Con 25%, UKIP 23%, LD 14%, Other 9%
So the differences are Labour gain 9% in the poll, Cons gain 2%. LD lose 3%, UKIP lose 6%
So this suggests that there is a good chunk of people who voted UKIP at the locals as a protest but will return or switch to Labour at the GE, while a much smaller share will return to Conservative.
Or of course it could be that YouGov's methodology is overstating Labour and understating UKIP.
Thoughts?
relative turnout - labour relatively unenthusiastic - cons relatively unenthusiastic (but a lot less than labour) - LD above average turnout as always - ukip enthusiastic
'You'll ask them to do identity verification via PayPal. Seriously. This is where this stuff is headed. '
Get real,this won't be any different from the standard identity checks that solicitor's are required to make with new clients to comply with the money laundering act.
Do you really think a retired homeowner contemplating Miliband grabbing say £150,000 tax on their modest home is going to be more concerned about "chumocracy" nonsense?
Grow up, get real, get in touch with ordinary people, not childish PB anorak nonsense.
Last month, the Halifax price index valued the average UK house at just under £164k. I assume that a "modest" home would be considered to be one worth less than average. Are you really saying that the Tories could launch a credible "Labour tax bombshell" attack on the based on the idea that Labour would entirely abolish the IHT nil rate band, and charge 91.5% on entire estates? I've not been paying much attention lately, but I hadn't noticed any Labour announcements that could be spun to that degree.
More seriously, outside the southeast bubble, I don't know that many voters see themselves dying owning £500k+ of residential property (the minimum level you'd need before you get particularly stressed about IHT). My grandparents and those of my wife are now busy moving into residential care and/or dying; they have all owned modest middle-class homes outside the southeast and at the moment it looks unlikely that there will be any meaningful wealth in their estates when they die - old age care doesn't come cheap. That kind of middle-class-middle-wealth-ish centre group are the ones that Cameron needs to scare out of voting Labour, and I reckon most of them think of IHT as something that happens to rich people, not them. They don't buy into the American delusion that they'll suddenly get rich and thus need to worry about it.
Do you really think a retired homeowner contemplating Miliband grabbing say £150,000 tax on their modest home is going to be more concerned about "chumocracy" nonsense?
Grow up, get real, get in touch with ordinary people, not childish PB anorak nonsense.
Last month, the Halifax price index valued the average UK house at just under £164k. I assume that a "modest" home would be considered to be one worth less than average. Are you really saying that the Tories could launch a credible "Labour tax bombshell" attack on the based on the idea that Labour would entirely abolish the IHT nil rate band, and charge 91.5% on entire estates? I've not been paying much attention lately, but I hadn't noticed any Labour announcements that could be spun to that degree.
More seriously, outside the southeast bubble, I don't know that many voters see themselves dying owning £500k+ of residential property (the minimum level you'd need before you get particularly stressed about IHT). My grandparents and those of my wife are now busy moving into residential care and/or dying; they have all owned modest middle-class homes outside the southeast and at the moment it looks unlikely that there will be any meaningful wealth in their estates when they die - old age care doesn't come cheap. That kind of middle-class-middle-wealth-ish centre group are the ones that Cameron needs to scare out of voting Labour, and I reckon most of them think of IHT as something that happens to rich people, not them. They don't buy into the American delusion that they'll suddenly get rich and thus need to worry about it.
There are many "modest" homes in much of the country (and in particular in currently Con seats) worth in the region of £300k to £350k.
The Lib Dems have advocated scrapping IHT and introducing a Beneficiaries tax - ie taxing all inheritance as income. With the top IT rate of 50% restored that is going to mean tax bills of approaching £150,000 on homes worth in the region of £300k to £350k.
I haven't yet heard it advocated by Labour but if Labour goes into Coalition with the Lib Dems it sounds like an idea that would be absolutely up the two Eds' street.
Would it actually happen? Maybe, maybe not. But it certainly might do and I predict the idea will scare the living daylights out of a very large number of retired homeowners.
relative turnout - labour relatively unenthusiastic - cons relatively unenthusiastic (but a lot less than labour) - LD above average turnout as always - ukip enthusiastic
Thanks Mr Jones. So essentially UKIP voters may be just as keen to stick with them at the GE but their votes will be diluted by the addition of extra people who didn't vote this time. I suppose my next thought then is that there are a lot of Labour supporters who didn't turn out for the locals - you would have thought Labour could get a higher turnout through postal voting.
Thanks Mr Jones. So essentially UKIP voters may be just as keen to stick with them at the GE but their votes will be diluted by the addition of extra people who didn't vote this time. I suppose my next thought then is that there are a lot of Labour supporters who didn't turn out for the locals - you would have thought Labour could get a higher turnout through postal voting.
i think postal voting is critical when enthusiasm is low as there's a lower hurdle to vote.
'You'll ask them to do identity verification via PayPal. Seriously. This is where this stuff is headed. '
Get real,this won't be any different from the standard identity checks that solicitor's are required to make with new clients to comply with the money laundering act.
Spookily, that's what I'm right in the middle of wasting my morning on.
Do you really think a retired homeowner contemplating Miliband grabbing say £150,000 tax on their modest home is going to be more concerned about "chumocracy" nonsense?
Grow up, get real, get in touch with ordinary people, not childish PB anorak nonsense.
Last month, the Halifax price index valued the average UK house at just under £164k. I assume that a "modest" home would be considered to be one worth less than average. Are you really saying that the Tories could launch a credible "Labour tax bombshell" attack on the based on the idea that Labour would entirely abolish the IHT nil rate band, and charge 91.5% on entire estates? I've not been paying much attention lately, but I hadn't noticed any Labour announcements that could be spun to that degree.
More seriously, outside the southeast bubble, I don't know that many voters see themselves dying owning £500k+ of residential property (the minimum level you'd need before you get particularly stressed about IHT). My grandparents and those of my wife are now busy moving into residential care and/or dying; they have all owned modest middle-class homes outside the southeast and at the moment it looks unlikely that there will be any meaningful wealth in their estates when they die - old age care doesn't come cheap. That kind of middle-class-middle-wealth-ish centre group are the ones that Cameron needs to scare out of voting Labour, and I reckon most of them think of IHT as something that happens to rich people, not them. They don't buy into the American delusion that they'll suddenly get rich and thus need to worry about it.
There are many "modest" homes in much of the country (and in particular in currently Con seats) worth in the region of £300k to £350k.
The Lib Dems have advocated scrapping IHT and introducing a Beneficiaries tax - ie taxing all inheritance as income. With the top IT rate of 50% restored that is going to mean tax bills of approaching £150,000 on homes worth in the region of £300k to £350k.
I haven't yet heard it advocated by Labour but if Labour goes into Coalition with the Lib Dems it sounds like an idea that would be absolutely up the two Eds' street.
Would it actually happen? Maybe, maybe not. But it certainly might do and I predict the idea will scare the living daylights out of a very large number of retired homeowners.
Thanks for clarifying the tax point - it does sound rather like Lib Dem kiteflying, but I can see what you're getting at. I still think that if you looked at the number of homes worth (say) >£300k and adjusted for likely expenses of old age care, you'd be left with relatively few affected voters. That said, the idea of (effectively) IHT with no nil rate band whatsoever would be utterly moronic from an electability point of view - you and I may disagree on the amount of money people expect to die with, but I think we'd agree that they do expect to die with something, and the idea of having to pay tax on it, no matter how little, could produce a pretty hostile reaction.
If the LDs went to the election in a position to have that suggestion pinned on them, Labour would have to state that any coalition that they were part of would never accept such a stupid policy. One hopes that they'd be smart enough to do that... then again...
Thanks Mr Jones. So essentially UKIP voters may be just as keen to stick with them at the GE but their votes will be diluted by the addition of extra people who didn't vote this time. I suppose my next thought then is that there are a lot of Labour supporters who didn't turn out for the locals - you would have thought Labour could get a higher turnout through postal voting.
i think postal voting is critical when enthusiasm is low as there's a lower hurdle to vote.
Didn't make myself clear. How come Labour didn't do better at the locals when they have an effective postal voting system in place for the nationals?
Thanks for clarifying the tax point - it does sound rather like Lib Dem kiteflying, but I can see what you're getting at. I still think that if you looked at the number of homes worth (say) >£300k and adjusted for likely expenses of old age care, you'd be left with relatively few affected voters. That said, the idea of (effectively) IHT with no nil rate band whatsoever would be utterly moronic from an electability point of view - you and I may disagree on the amount of money people expect to die with, but I think we'd agree that they do expect to die with something, and the idea of having to pay tax on it, no matter how little, could produce a pretty hostile reaction.
If the LDs went to the election in a position to have that suggestion pinned on them, Labour would have to state that any coalition that they were part of would never accept such a stupid policy. One hopes that they'd be smart enough to do that... then again...
Agreed. Even on a £200k home the tax would still be substantial. Say £200k home left to a son on a £30k salary. Then tax bill would be approx:
So a tax bill of £86k. I think the retired home owner would be pretty unhappy about that.
My broader point is that when we get to the GE all talk of "chums" etc will go completely out of the window. It will come down to whether people want Cameron or Miliband in Downing Street.
Cameron is going to go all guns blazing on Labour Tax Bombshell and I suspect Ed will have to make some pretty clear cut promises to diffuse it. If Cameron gets something like the above communicated effectively it could move a lot of votes very, very fast.
Thanks Mr Jones. So essentially UKIP voters may be just as keen to stick with them at the GE but their votes will be diluted by the addition of extra people who didn't vote this time. I suppose my next thought then is that there are a lot of Labour supporters who didn't turn out for the locals - you would have thought Labour could get a higher turnout through postal voting.
i think postal voting is critical when enthusiasm is low as there's a lower hurdle to vote.
Didn't make myself clear. How come Labour didn't do better at the locals when they have an effective postal voting system in place for the nationals?
Labour's postal vote organisation is patchy at best, and on average probably still inferior to the Tories, though you wouldn't think so from the grumbles you see here. In my patch we won on the day but lost the PVs by a large margin, and I've talked to others with similar experiences. It's partly generational - PVs tend to be older, and older people tend to be less abour - and partly a class thing - you need to have time, interest and quite good literacy (I find PVs tricky to do right, and I don't think it's just me). But also, in my experience, Labour voters and indeed candidates are on average simply less interested in local elections (whereas LibDems are often extremely interested).
So of the 5,933,255 votes cast last Thursday UKIP won almost exactly 1 in 5. The projections must have raised this to somewhere between 25-30% by taking into account the fact that they didn't stand in all the seats, and then reduced it to 22% because these council areas would be better territory for the purples than the country as a whole. I realise we already knew most of that but it's interesting to see the raw data for a change.
The Times article implies the polling has shifted thanks to George Osborne's recent intervention over the currency an independent Scotland would use and a perceived lack of credibility in The SNP's plans.
1. Just cause - innocent life in imminent damage. We believed so. 2. Comparative justice - oppression of the innocent in Iraq by Hussein. Yes 3. Competent authority - the nation state (I dont believe the UN is the only competent authority. Yes 4. Right intention - yes unless you are a guardian reader or a conspiracy theorist 5. Probability of success - yes 6. Last resort - yes 7. Proportionality - yes. IMO it was the pease that was messed up not the war. Bush and Rumsfeld are to be severely criticised for that. Nation building is a serious commitment that should be taken seriously
Jus in bello:
1. Distinction: yes - the allies didn't *target* non-combatants. AL-Qaeda shows less compunction 2. Proportionality: I genuinely think the allies tried to minimise innocent casulties 3. Military necessity - use of minimum force. Yes 4. Fair treatment of prisoners of war: yes
A longer list than Aquinas, but the only one that is debatable is proportionality (ad) i my view.
With all due respect, you ignore some very serious issues with a few of those:
1. Just Cause - Stopping a genocide may count, but the stated aim was to topple Saddam which does not. A just cause isn't anything you like the sound of, we voluntarily signed up to the UN which defines the possible just causes in modern warfare. 2. Comparative Justice - I'll buy that Blair thought this was the case. 3 Competent Authority - The UN is the only such authority under UN law, and we voluntarily signed up to that law. If Blair wanted to ignore it he should have left the UN and its legal constraints. Alternatively he shouldn't have invaded. You can't have it both ways. 4. Right Intention - The sexing up of dossiers at least raises questions as to how honest he was with his reasoning. His admission at Chilcott that he'd have gone in even if he'd known about the WMDs raises issues also. 5. Probability of Success - Probably, though it depends on whether you include the rebuilding stage. Even before we went in it was foreseeable that this would raise serious problems had we considered them. 6. Last Resort - Seeing as Saddam didn't have any WMDs it wasn't, and seeing as the evidence for them was flimsy it is far from clear-cut that it was a last resort and action had to be taken immediately. We even had weapons inspections going on right then which Blair could have given more time. 7. Proportionality - The inevitable occupation of the entire country for years afterwards and hardly unforeseeable damage this has caused suggests this isn't exactly a slam dunk.
8. Distinction - Yes, I don't think the allies are vindictive as a policy. 9. Proportionality - Questionable, especially in some of their tactics since the end of the main war. 10. Minimum Force - See above. 11. POWs - Are you kidding me? Did Abu Ghraib not happen in your world?
I'm not saying on all of those the case is clear cut for the war being unjust, but to say there is only one small area where it wasn't clearly a just war is insanity.
Comments
And I liked Cameron and the coalition for 2.5 years I remind you, so I'm inclined to be generous with them.
Anyway, night all.
https://www.gov.uk/penalties-for-employing-illegal-workers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-564063/Dramatic-increase-employers-prosecuted-hiring-illegal-immigrants.html
Though I expect they will try, Landlords being such an oppressed and popular minority and all....
Behaving like an adult party ?
Is that why Osborne was tweeting pictures of clowns ?
Is that why Osborne went poncing around the USA a week before producing a dog's dinner of a budget ?
Or are the chumocracy absolved from the need to act like adults ?
They looked frightened, by a party than had no seats and no record in locals, and they played into their hands in many ways I felt. Acceptable? And now I really do need to sleep. Partisan though he may be, I think Mick (above) has a few examples covered.
But before that, any fan or non-fan of Star Trek (the reboot) should witness this awesome trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTfBH-XFdSc&list=SP86F4D497FD3CACCE
Just yet more empty posturing for gullible tory MPs.
Jus ad bellum:
1. Just cause - innocent life in imminent damage. We believed so.
2. Comparative justice - oppression of the innocent in Iraq by Hussein. Yes
3. Competent authority - the nation state (I dont believe the UN is the only competent authority. Yes
4. Right intention - yes unless you are a guardian reader or a conspiracy theorist
5. Probability of success - yes
6. Last resort - yes
7. Proportionality - yes. IMO it was the pease that was messed up not the war. Bush and Rumsfeld are to be severely criticised for that. Nation building is a serious commitment that should be taken seriously
Jus in bello:
1. Distinction: yes - the allies didn't *target* non-combatants. AL-Qaeda shows less compunction
2. Proportionality: I genuinely think the allies tried to minimise innocent casulties
3. Military necessity - use of minimum force. Yes
4. Fair treatment of prisoners of war: yes
A longer list than Aquinas, but the only one that is debatable is proportionality (ad) i my view.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dFhCYWMxM2lNc3daSnZlU1liZFo0aXc#gid=0
Votes:
Con 13,805
Ind 11,578
UKIP 7,470
Lab 2,676
LD 1,848
Green 297
Others 2,154
Total: 39,828
Percentages:
Con 34.66%
Ind 29.07%
UKIP 18.76%
Lab 6.72%
LD 4.64%
Green 0.75%
Others 5.41%
Changes since 2010 general election:
Con -12.03%
LD -27.07%
UKIP +15.29%
Lab -4.91%
Green -0.58%
Ind +28.60%
Others +0.70%
a government out of ideas and relying on hope.
http://imgur.com/a/zCbfs
Apparently the group don't like this video much!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRPi0XXmc-I&
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/may/07/queens-speech-state-opening-parliament
Ignore all the baiting from the other side and the childish posts from supposed Conservatives throwing their toys out of the pram because they can't get 100% of what they want.
The vast majority of Conservatives agree with you and know that Cameron is doing an excellent job - hence his sky high approval ratings.
Also keep calm about UKIP - despite UKIP at 23% last week, the Lab lead over Con was only 4% - much less than opinion polls and a pitiful lead in mid-term.
The next GE remains up for grabs - if Cameron keeps calm and the economy improves he'll be very well placed to launch the "Labour tax bombshell". He'll ask ordinary families whether they want to be able to leave their homes to their kids or whether they want Miliband and Clegg levying 50% tax on the lot.
If he holds his nerve it may well be a carbon copy of 1992.
The Conservatives got 42% of the vote in 1992 do you think they'll get that in 2015 ?
The Conservatives still lost 40 seats in 1992, that does seem very possible in 2015.
And the problem with keeping saying about how 'the vast majority' of Conservatives still support Cameron is that the absolute number of Conservatives is falling month by month.
Its not the forelock tuggers and vote-by-rote Conservatives that you need to persuade but those people who voted Conservatives in 2010 but have now given up because of the incompetance and bigotry of the chumocracy.
But there's none so blind as those who will not see.
Labour 29%, Con 25%, UKIP 23%, LD 14%, Other 9%
So the differences are Labour gain 9% in the poll, Cons gain 2%. LD lose 3%, UKIP lose 6%
So this suggests that there is a good chunk of people who voted UKIP at the locals as a protest but will return or switch to Labour at the GE, while a much smaller share will return to Conservative.
Or of course it could be that YouGov's methodology is overstating Labour and understating UKIP.
Thoughts?
Surely the Immigration Agency will just provide a phone number that I can ring up and ask...
Umm...
Going on about nonsense like "chumocracy" is absolute classic PB poster anorak nonsense. 99% of people wouldn't have a clue about any of this childish rubbish.
Do you really think a retired homeowner contemplating Miliband grabbing say £150,000 tax on their modest home is going to be more concerned about "chumocracy" nonsense?
Grow up, get real, get in touch with ordinary people, not childish PB anorak nonsense.
'Grow up, get real, get in touch with ordinary people, not childish PB anorak nonsense.'
A tad on the optimistic side.
I hate both, but just having a transparent national ID scheme would be better than this. The government requires ID verification for an increasing number of things, but then declines to provide it, and forces you to go to some venal, personal-data-hungry private corporation.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dHk1d0dtdW4zcFlnSlJpcklOUmFrS3c#gid=0
Votes:
Con 64,120
Lab 39,080
UKIP 36,187
LD 19,058
Green 15,849
Ind 5,792
Others 703
Total: 180,789
Percentages:
Con 35.47%
Lab 21.62%
UKIP 20.02%
LD 10.54%
Green 8.77%
Ind 3.20%
Others 0.39%
Changes since 2010 general election:
Con -10.69%
Lab +0.29%
UKIP +14.73%
LD -13.51%
Green +6.84%
Ind +2.90%
Others -0.56%
Swing, Con to Lab: 5.49%
Totals, (with Oxfordshire still to collate):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dDFzVlVSWGtOaGlNQllBQjBmVzc0Mnc#gid=0
Citizens have birth certificates, or passports (usually).
EU citizens will have the equivalent from their own government (or ID cards for Germany e.g.)
Non-citizen residents will have the necessary visa which qualifies them to be resident in the UK.
I've had to prove I was legally entitled to reside in the UK when renting from a letting agents, so it is not like we are venturing into territories unknown.
- labour relatively unenthusiastic
- cons relatively unenthusiastic (but a lot less than labour)
- LD above average turnout as always
- ukip enthusiastic
'You'll ask them to do identity verification via PayPal. Seriously. This is where this stuff is headed. '
Get real,this won't be any different from the standard identity checks that solicitor's are required to make with new clients to comply with the money laundering act.
More seriously, outside the southeast bubble, I don't know that many voters see themselves dying owning £500k+ of residential property (the minimum level you'd need before you get particularly stressed about IHT). My grandparents and those of my wife are now busy moving into residential care and/or dying; they have all owned modest middle-class homes outside the southeast and at the moment it looks unlikely that there will be any meaningful wealth in their estates when they die - old age care doesn't come cheap. That kind of middle-class-middle-wealth-ish centre group are the ones that Cameron needs to scare out of voting Labour, and I reckon most of them think of IHT as something that happens to rich people, not them. They don't buy into the American delusion that they'll suddenly get rich and thus need to worry about it.
The Lib Dems have advocated scrapping IHT and introducing a Beneficiaries tax - ie taxing all inheritance as income. With the top IT rate of 50% restored that is going to mean tax bills of approaching £150,000 on homes worth in the region of £300k to £350k.
I haven't yet heard it advocated by Labour but if Labour goes into Coalition with the Lib Dems it sounds like an idea that would be absolutely up the two Eds' street.
Would it actually happen? Maybe, maybe not. But it certainly might do and I predict the idea will scare the living daylights out of a very large number of retired homeowners.
relative turnout
- labour relatively unenthusiastic
- cons relatively unenthusiastic (but a lot less than labour)
- LD above average turnout as always
- ukip enthusiastic
Thanks Mr Jones. So essentially UKIP voters may be just as keen to stick with them at the GE but their votes will be diluted by the addition of extra people who didn't vote this time. I suppose my next thought then is that there are a lot of Labour supporters who didn't turn out for the locals - you would have thought Labour could get a higher turnout through postal voting.
If the LDs went to the election in a position to have that suggestion pinned on them, Labour would have to state that any coalition that they were part of would never accept such a stupid policy. One hopes that they'd be smart enough to do that... then again...
'Spookily, that's what I'm right in the middle of wasting my morning on'
Showing a copy of your passport plus a utility bill or bank statement,how much time does that take?
£10k @ 20% = £2k
£110k @ 40% = £44k
£80k @ 50% = £40k
So a tax bill of £86k. I think the retired home owner would be pretty unhappy about that.
My broader point is that when we get to the GE all talk of "chums" etc will go completely out of the window. It will come down to whether people want Cameron or Miliband in Downing Street.
Cameron is going to go all guns blazing on Labour Tax Bombshell and I suspect Ed will have to make some pretty clear cut promises to diffuse it. If Cameron gets something like the above communicated effectively it could move a lot of votes very, very fast.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dFlDLTJzRUE4LTRmb3A3NTloVW55Smc#gid=0
Votes:
Con 50,419
Lab 32,072
UKIP 23,272
LD 22,371
Green 13,990
Ind 4,620
Others 827
Total 147,571
Percentages:
Con 34.17%
Lab 21.73%
UKIP 15.77%
LD 15.16%
Green 9.48%
Ind 3.13%
Others 0.56%
Changes since 2010 general election:
Con -13.02%
Lab +3.69%
UKIP +12.23%
LD -12.85%
Green +7.03%
Ind +2.86%
Others +0.06%
Swing, Con to Lab: 8.35%
Con: 2,030,456
Lab: 1,277,535
UKIP: 1,183,836
LD: 818,076
Green: 207,225
PC: 9,021
Others: 407,106
Total: 5,933,255
Percentages:
Con: 34.22%
Lab: 21.53%
UKIP: 19.95%
LD: 13.79%
Green: 3.49%
PC: 0.15%
Others: 6.86%
{I've only separated independents from others in Isle of Wight, Oxfordshire, Somerset, Suffolk}.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dDFzVlVSWGtOaGlNQllBQjBmVzc0Mnc#gid=0
Rallings & Thrasher national projections:
Lab: 29%
Con: 26%
UKIP: 22%
LD: 13%
Difference:
Lab +7%
Con -8%
UKIP +2%
LD -1%
(Changes from the last poll in Feb)
Independence 31(-3)
Remaining in the Union 59 (+4)
Undecided 10 (-1)
But they give no figures.
Flipping awesome.
1. Just Cause - Stopping a genocide may count, but the stated aim was to topple Saddam which does not. A just cause isn't anything you like the sound of, we voluntarily signed up to the UN which defines the possible just causes in modern warfare.
2. Comparative Justice - I'll buy that Blair thought this was the case.
3 Competent Authority - The UN is the only such authority under UN law, and we voluntarily signed up to that law. If Blair wanted to ignore it he should have left the UN and its legal constraints. Alternatively he shouldn't have invaded. You can't have it both ways.
4. Right Intention - The sexing up of dossiers at least raises questions as to how honest he was with his reasoning. His admission at Chilcott that he'd have gone in even if he'd known about the WMDs raises issues also.
5. Probability of Success - Probably, though it depends on whether you include the rebuilding stage. Even before we went in it was foreseeable that this would raise serious problems had we considered them.
6. Last Resort - Seeing as Saddam didn't have any WMDs it wasn't, and seeing as the evidence for them was flimsy it is far from clear-cut that it was a last resort and action had to be taken immediately. We even had weapons inspections going on right then which Blair could have given more time.
7. Proportionality - The inevitable occupation of the entire country for years afterwards and hardly unforeseeable damage this has caused suggests this isn't exactly a slam dunk.
8. Distinction - Yes, I don't think the allies are vindictive as a policy.
9. Proportionality - Questionable, especially in some of their tactics since the end of the main war.
10. Minimum Force - See above.
11. POWs - Are you kidding me? Did Abu Ghraib not happen in your world?
I'm not saying on all of those the case is clear cut for the war being unjust, but to say there is only one small area where it wasn't clearly a just war is insanity.