Not sure that Antifrank is right in putting so much weight on current betting odds to forecast results in 2015. I feel that what is happening on the ground is far more important.
Has anybody here considered the possibility that the Lib Dem performance in the Euros and in Newark were so dire, that lots of recently inactive people will now be motivated to return to the fray?
Or will they give up and go to run the pigeon club, or help with the local food bank?
Not sure that Antifrank is right in putting so much weight on current betting odds to forecast results in 2015. I feel that what is happening on the ground is far more important.
Has anybody here considered the possibility that the Lib Dem performance in the Euros and in Newark were so dire, that lots of recently inactive people will now be motivated to return to the fray?
Welcome Mr Clipp. The Lib Dems have paid a savage price for providing the country with secure, competent majority government from the off, losing about 1/3 of their councillors in each round of elections. The most recent results were if anything slightly worse but I doubt if they would bring a rallying to the flag if the earlier results did not.
As the election gets closer Antifrank is looking for value. The assumption that the Lib Dem vote will recover in the same way it has in the past when they have been largely ignored between elections is a possible source of that value. If it does not happen from the high profile of government the Lib Dems are overpriced in many seats.
Personally, I think there will be some recovery into the teens but they are undoubtedly going to lose some support and quite a few seats. The valuable information is which ones.
Nick, what's the level of public sector employment in Broxtowe, a lot higher than the average isn't it
I don't have the stats to hand (perhaps someone else does?). Broadly the constituency is university+commuters+ex-coalfield+villages. It's quite a mix, though the ethnic minority population is unusually low (6% IIRC). Average incomes are higher than the nearby cities with a good many quietly wealthy retired people, who tend to vote reliably Con or Lab according to personal preference rather than need. The seat is also unusual in having a strong Telegraph/Guardian readership - it's fairly rare to see the Sun or the Mirror. The floating vote is the commuters (who are often fairly detached from politics) and the WWC pockets (who tend to vote Labour if they vote). It's the last group that has been getting more interested.
As others have commented putting Cameron into the same demonology that Maggie was is a bit of a challenge and with even Osborne now grudgingly acknowledged to have done an excellent job (or having been extraordinarily lucky, take your pick) I don't see why the anti tory vote would be hardening.
But it has always been the key to turnout amongst labour supporters and I suppose it always will be. Sigh.
Passing over your view of Osborne, I don't think that people are getting more anti-Tory, merely that an existing deep-rooted belief that the Tories are mainly about helping the rich wakes up when politics becomes more active, unless there's a stronger motivator such as intense dislike of someone or a major crisis. People don't really regard Juncker or Syria as major crises affecting them.
Nick, what's the level of public sector employment in Broxtowe, a lot higher than the average isn't it
I don't have the stats to hand (perhaps someone else does?). Broadly the constituency is university+commuters+ex-coalfield+villages. It's quite a mix, though the ethnic minority population is unusually low (6% IIRC). Average incomes are higher than the nearby cities with a good many quietly wealthy retired people, who tend to vote reliably Con or Lab according to personal preference rather than need. The seat is also unusual in having a strong Telegraph/Guardian readership - it's fairly rare to see the Sun or the Mirror. The floating vote is the commuters (who are often fairly detached from politics) and the WWC pockets (who tend to vote Labour if they vote). It's the last group that has been getting more interested.
As others have commented putting Cameron into the same demonology that Maggie was is a bit of a challenge and with even Osborne now grudgingly acknowledged to have done an excellent job (or having been extraordinarily lucky, take your pick) I don't see why the anti tory vote would be hardening.
But it has always been the key to turnout amongst labour supporters and I suppose it always will be. Sigh.
Passing over your view of Osborne, I don't think that people are getting more anti-Tory, merely that an existing deep-rooted belief that the Tories are mainly about helping the rich wakes up when politics becomes more active, unless there's a stronger motivator such as intense dislike of someone or a major crisis. People don't really regard Juncker or Syria as major crises affecting them.
It is not so much my views Nick as the fact that Osborne had a net positive satisfaction rating recently in the polling. I am still somewhat in shock about that.
Juncker is not a major issue but the disaster unfolding in the middle east is. Unfortunately for Labour there is a lot of blame to be spread around there and Chilcott will presumably remind people of that, possibly in time for the 2020 election.
In the interests of fairness and giving credit where it is due, Peter from Putney and Topping are two Tory posters who have also noted the rise in Labour share and have been ignored when trying to draw attention to it.
Topping has also noted how the bacon etc attacks on Ed have been sinister, unedifying borderline bullying that may even backfire.
I finally saw Ed's very gallant joke about the sarnie to the fragrant Penny Mordaunt the other day as part of his Queen's Speech response. More proof that Ed can be witty and self-deprecating. He had the whole house laughing - a great response that again gives the lie to the nasty, desperate schoolyard taunts we see in the media, and on here, from time to time.
Ah, presume you have finished the washing up. As many others have frequently noted the post-EU14 rise in Labour's VI share is due mainly to more defections from LD 2010 VI. and the Cons having a more severe attack of UKIPitis.
SO what do you say to both the Labour VI and his fellow Labour colleagues who frequent point out EdM's unsuitability as both leader of Labour and as a future PM?
I think that what we are seeing is that the Ed Miliband factor is priced in.
In other words, Voters know that Ed is a geek and probably going to struggle with coherent policies, but still prefer him to the Coalition parties.
Personally, I would see an element of polarisation here. The appeasment of the kippers and their fellow travellers in the europhobic wing of the Tories, combined with the collapse of the LibDems brings Joey Bartons dictum to play. Labour are the least ugly girl in the room to many voters.
There has undoubtedly been a Labour recovery in the last couple of weeks. The interesting question is why. It has been accompanied by a collapse of Eds personal ratings and a fairly intense media attack along with some infighting which shows there is nothing like the new Labour enforcers scaring people into line. This makes it all the more curious as does the fact that the news on the economy is so consistently good it almost gets boring.
My guess is that the Tory campaigning got people to focus on areas where Labour was particularly weak such as immigration and the EU and attention has again drifted to the fact the majority see nothing for them in this economic miracle. The Tories need some real wage growth this year to share the gains around a bit. Whether they will get enough of that is hard to say. I suspect that the increases for most will be too modest to be noticed, especially after such a long period of falling real wages. Mike's Tories most votes, Labour most seats bet looks better and better to me.
FWIW, I think that, in difficult circumstances, this government has been in general a pretty good one. Of course, the bits I like best about its record are those policies that have come from the Lib Dem side of it; and the bits I like least have come from the Tory side. But that is the nature of coalition government.
I think the people who went cool on the Lib Dems since 2010 are those who really wanted a 100% Lib Dem government. They were not prepared to settle for half a cake. But what they certainly do not want is to see another 100% Tory government - nor,with all respect to Mr Palmer, a 100% Labour one either.
So yes, they have for the last few years gone off doing other things - such as running the pigeon club - but I have in recent weeks met one or two people who are facing up to reality and eager to join the fight back. Straws in the wind, maybe, but it would not surprise me to see an increase in the amount of Lib Dem activity on the ground, and an increase in their poll ratings.
Not sure that Antifrank is right in putting so much weight on current betting odds to forecast results in 2015. I feel that what is happening on the ground is far more important.
Has anybody here considered the possibility that the Lib Dem performance in the Euros and in Newark were so dire, that lots of recently inactive people will now be motivated to return to the fray?
I agree with you that all politics is local, and nowhere is that truer than when looking at the Lib Dems. But I'm not making forecasts. I'm looking for value.
Also, the betting odds are illuminating as to how gamblers and bookies rate the chances of each party in seats, relative to each other. Why do punters rate the Lib Dems as safer in Brecon & Radnorshire than in North Devon, for example? Answer questions like that and you understand much better the broader dynamics.
'It is not so much my views Nick as the fact that Osborne had a net positive satisfaction rating recently in the polling. I am still somewhat in shock about that.'
A tiny net positive rating in one poll does not quite equate to the population accepting he's done an 'excellent job', though, does it (except in PB Tory wishful-thinking-land
Not sure that Antifrank is right in putting so much weight on current betting odds to forecast results in 2015. I feel that what is happening on the ground is far more important.
Has anybody here considered the possibility that the Lib Dem performance in the Euros and in Newark were so dire, that lots of recently inactive people will now be motivated to return to the fray?
Personally, I think there will be some [LD] recovery into the teens but they are undoubtedly going to lose some support and quite a few seats.
Why?
2010-now the LD poll numbers have been flat/declining. Their May local election results have seen repeated year-on-year declines.
ICM noted in the period July-Sep 86 Kinnock enjoyed a 6/7 point lead that saw him return as LotO at the 87 election. Roll on almost 4 years and the spring and summer of 1991 saw Kinnock again with 6/10 point leads only for Basildon et al to ring his electoral death knell again at the1992 General Election.
If Ed gains as many seats as Kinnock in 92 he becomes Prime Minister. Even matching Kinnocks 87 performance could see Ed in no10.
The unique feature of the 2015 GE is that the governing party is not defending a majority and starts from a exceptionally weak position.
If Ed matches Kinnock's polling turnaround in either of the 86/87 or 91/92 then Ed will poll worse than Gordon Brown - an electoral historical feat that he will match as all post war Labour governments going into their first GE in opposition lose vote share.
Now there's a thought ....
Why do you insist on pretending that Ed has to overturn a 100+ seat majority? I know you don't like him, but the reality is Ed is in quite a different position.
Er he pretty well does have to overturn a 1987esque majority? Labour only have 29 more seats than they won in 1987 and the coalition majority is 76. add in a green and three extra SNP MPs , four extra non sitting SF MPs replacing labour friendly SDLPs and 8 of the UUP MPs being replaced by more right wing DUP MPs and the scale of Milibands task is similar to Kinnocks.
60 LAB gains will see Ed as PM IMHO
34% lab 35% tory 10%ld will mean Ed is PM ON UNS quite likely imho
Electoral calculus gives LD down to 18 seats and Lab 11 short of a majority.
Student debt delays marriage and harms affordable marriage formation, the unmarried 30s are not our voters, really feel this was a big mistake and societally wrong for the young to be burdened with debt.
That Labour policy paper is right. The WWC is the soft underbelly, the Conservatives must attack here and explain exactly how Labour has abandoned them. Immigration is the key.
LibLabCon have the same open door immigration policy. The strategy of both Lab and Con is to cross their fingers and hope the other side is the one who loses the most votes from it.
There has undoubtedly been a Labour recovery in the last couple of weeks. The interesting question is why. It has been accompanied by a collapse of Eds personal ratings and a fairly intense media attack along with some infighting which shows there is nothing like the new Labour enforcers scaring people into line. This makes it all the more curious as does the fact that the news on the economy is so consistently good it almost gets boring.
My guess is that the Tory campaigning got people to focus on areas where Labour was particularly weak such as immigration and the EU and attention has again drifted to the fact the majority see nothing for them in this economic miracle. The Tories need some real wage growth this year to share the gains around a bit. Whether they will get enough of that is hard to say. I suspect that the increases for most will be too modest to be noticed, especially after such a long period of falling real wages. Mike's Tories most votes, Labour most seats bet looks better and better to me.
Labour's best ratings are with Yougov. Most pollsters have Labour on 35% or less, which is nowhere near good enough, at this stage.
The last two rounds of local elections had them 29% and 31%.
ICM noted in the period July-Sep 86 Kinnock enjoyed a 6/7 point lead that saw him return as LotO at the 87 election. Roll on almost 4 years and the spring and summer of 1991 saw Kinnock again with 6/10 point leads only for Basildon et al to ring his electoral death knell again at the1992 General Election.
If Ed gains as many seats as Kinnock in 92 he becomes Prime Minister. Even matching Kinnocks 87 performance could see Ed in no10.
The unique feature of the 2015 GE is that the governing party is not defending a majority and starts from a exceptionally weak position.
If Ed matches Kinnock's polling turnaround in either of the 86/87 or 91/92 then Ed will poll worse than Gordon Brown - an electoral historical feat that he will match as all post war Labour governments going into their first GE in opposition lose vote share.
Now there's a thought ....
Why do you insist on pretending that Ed has to overturn a 100+ seat majority? I know you don't like him, but the reality is Ed is in quite a different position.
Er he pretty well does have to overturn a 1987esque majority? Labour only have 29 more seats than they won in 1987 and the coalition majority is 76. add in a green and three extra SNP MPs , four extra non sitting SF MPs replacing labour friendly SDLPs and 8 of the UUP MPs being replaced by more right wing DUP MPs and the scale of Milibands task is similar to Kinnocks.
60 LAB gains will see Ed as PM IMHO
34% lab 35% tory 10%ld will mean Ed is PM ON UNS quite likely imho
Electoral calculus gives LD down to 18 seats and Lab 11 short of a majority.
Ed is PM then
Not unless you believe the fantasy GE of today will be repeated next May ?!?
Labour are the least ugly girl in the room to many voters.
That's my view too. A lot of voters wouldn't consider voting Conservative (Tory Zero), Lib Dem (Diet Tory) or UKIP (Vanilla Tory) which pretty much leaves Labour as the only remaining option, regardless of any lack of enthusiasm.
Will Eds personal ratings go up or down during a GE campaign ?
Overall I think they'll improve but way off the numbers required to put Ed in Downing Street - A little of the Marmite conundrum. Most Labour voters will hold their nose and cast their ballot for Ed, but a significant minority will not. Swing voters will vote against Ed in disproportionate numbers.
"Heart in the right place, but just not Prime Ministerial material"
Morning all and once again we have a thread based on the pogo pollsters. ICM on the other hand for the 6 months of this year has shown Labour on 35,38,38,37,31,32 and Tories on 32,34,35,32,33,31. That to me says that the 2 main parties are basically in a dead heat situation.
In the real elections we have had in the last couple of months that was the actual situation, where had it not been for London, Labour would have ended up with fewer MEPS and a lower % vote than the Tories at the Euro elections. In the local elections Labour seriously undershot even the most modest predictions of gains and the Tories remained the largest party of local government in England.
I suspect next May the PB lefties will still be clinging to their YouGov leads as David Cameron returns to Downing Street, probably leading a single party government.
Brent crude is now at $114 a barrel. George Osborne's handling of the economy means that our £ is seen so far as I can work out as a decent bet bearing in mind interest rates are probably likely to rise shortly. So the $1.70 £ is holding the pump prices lowish. This isn't helping the Gov't as noone is noticing a price drifting sideways. But if the UK economy wasn't picking up then the price at the pumps could well be over £1.50 right now - and I'm not just talking Motorway service stations either. In addition there would be more price hikes on the related gas/electricity prices.
So GO whilst not improving the Conservative position with his economics is certainly stopping a counter-factual where I think it could well be slipping more and a Labour lead of ~ 10 points or so.
Morning all and once again we have a thread based on the pogo pollsters. ICM on the other hand for the 6 months of this year has shown Labour on 35,38,38,37,31,32 and Tories on 32,34,35,32,33,31. That to me says that the 2 main parties are basically in a dead heat situation.
In the real elections we have had in the last couple of months that was the actual situation, where had it not been for London, Labour would have ended up with fewer MEPS and a lower % vote than the Tories at the Euro elections. In the local elections Labour seriously undershot even the most modest predictions of gains and the Tories remained the largest party of local government in England.
I suspect next May the PB lefties will still be clinging to their YouGov leads as David Cameron returns to Downing Street, probably leading a single party government.
Not quite clear of the point you are making , Easterross , are you saying that in the next GE , people living in London will not have a vote ?
Not sure that Antifrank is right in putting so much weight on current betting odds to forecast results in 2015. I feel that what is happening on the ground is far more important.
Has anybody here considered the possibility that the Lib Dem performance in the Euros and in Newark were so dire, that lots of recently inactive people will now be motivated to return to the fray?
I agree with you that all politics is local, and nowhere is that truer than when looking at the Lib Dems. But I'm not making forecasts. I'm looking for value.
Also, the betting odds are illuminating as to how gamblers and bookies rate the chances of each party in seats, relative to each other. Why do punters rate the Lib Dems as safer in Brecon & Radnorshire than in North Devon, for example? Answer questions like that and you understand much better the broader dynamics.
Powys CC (which includes Brecon) is controlled mainly by Independents of all political shades, (IND 48, Cons, 10; LD.9; LAB,6); in the last two elections Cons have increased and LDs declined. At assembly level Brecon is the seat of the LD leader, Kirsty Williams. Plaid does not do well here. In 2010GE LDs improved their vote share.
LDs in mid-Wales are very much old-fashioned Liberal and not SDLP and tend to be very loyal,
Typical unionist , no sense of humour unless it is them giving it out. Sad git. Why not crack one of your great jokes and have us all laughing in the aisles.
Unckie' Malc':
The perennial 107 year old yoke [sic] is showing you attention. Do not take Praise as a criticism.
Will Eds personal ratings go up or down during a GE campaign ?
Is there a proven connection between a party leader's personal ratings and election vote share?
I do seem to remember a former denizen of this site who, on the run up to the 2010 GE, told us many, many, many times that it was the leaders' ratings that really mattered and not voting intention.
OGH, of course, will tell us that is tosh. Indeed, he denies that people even vote for a party but carefully choose the individual who they think will best represent them in parliament. He is certainly correct in theory and maybe, for a relatively small number of people, correct in practice. The reason why their party logo is on the ballot paper next to the candidates' names and most voters couldn't name their MP if asked, suggests his theory may not hold for the majority. As does the fact there are such things as safe seats and tribal voters.
Do voters see the system as much more presidential than in the past? In that by voting for a party they are voting for their preferred leader to become PM and the name on the ballot paper is in fact irrelevant, I think the answer is yes. To what extent though I am not so confident.
The alternative to the least ugly girl in the room (or bloke of course!) is to go home alone. That is to not vote at all.
Ed's problem is to get his reluctant followers to vote at all, and he failed to do that at the recent Euros, locals and Newark.
One option would be to go for a radical policy likely to gain support of the most left leaning sector of society, the under 30's. Bring back free higher education, with a write off of outstanding student loans, financed by bringing down the threshold of the 45% tax band.
Labour are the least ugly girl in the room to many voters.
That's my view too. A lot of voters wouldn't consider voting Conservative (Tory Zero), Lib Dem (Diet Tory) or UKIP (Vanilla Tory) which pretty much leaves Labour as the only remaining option, regardless of any lack of enthusiasm.
ICM noted in the period July-Sep 86 Kinnock enjoyed a 6/7 point lead that saw him return as LotO at the 87 election. Roll on almost 4 years and the spring and summer of 1991 saw Kinnock again with 6/10 point leads only for Basildon et al to ring his electoral death knell again at the1992 General Election.
If Ed gains as many seats as Kinnock in 92 he becomes Prime Minister. Even matching Kinnocks 87 performance could see Ed in no10.
The unique feature of the 2015 GE is that the governing party is not defending a majority and starts from a exceptionally weak position.
If Ed matches Kinnock's polling turnaround in either of the 86/87 or 91/92 then Ed will poll worse than Gordon Brown - an electoral historical feat that he will match as all post war Labour governments going into their first GE in opposition lose vote share.
Now there's a thought ....
Why do you insist on pretending that Ed has to overturn a 100+ seat majority? I know you don't like him, but the reality is Ed is in quite a different position.
Er he pretty well does have to overturn a 1987esque majority? Labour only have 29 more seats than they won in 1987 and the coalition majority is 76. add in a green and three extra SNP MPs , four extra non sitting SF MPs replacing labour friendly SDLPs and 8 of the UUP MPs being replaced by more right wing DUP MPs and the scale of Milibands task is similar to Kinnocks.
60 LAB gains will see Ed as PM IMHO
34% lab 35% tory 10%ld will mean Ed is PM ON UNS quite likely imho
Electoral calculus gives LD down to 18 seats and Lab 11 short of a majority.
Ed is PM then
Not unless you believe the fantasy GE of today will be repeated next May ?!?
No you are not reading the conversation properly it is based on LAB 34% CON 35% LD10% ie with a 4% fall in Lab and 3% increase in CON from todays YG.
Which is my current view yours is
One essential that will not change is that :
Ed Miliband Will Never Become Prime Minister
JacW 22/6/14
We don't agree with the size of the swingback. We will see who is right. Interesting 10.5 months ahead
There has undoubtedly been a Labour recovery in the last couple of weeks. The interesting question is why. It has been accompanied by a collapse of Eds personal ratings and a fairly intense media attack along with some infighting which shows there is nothing like the new Labour enforcers scaring people into line. This makes it all the more curious as does the fact that the news on the economy is so consistently good it almost gets boring.
My guess is that the Tory campaigning got people to focus on areas where Labour was particularly weak such as immigration and the EU and attention has again drifted to the fact the majority see nothing for them in this economic miracle. The Tories need some real wage growth this year to share the gains around a bit. Whether they will get enough of that is hard to say. I suspect that the increases for most will be too modest to be noticed, especially after such a long period of falling real wages. Mike's Tories most votes, Labour most seats bet looks better and better to me.
Labour's best ratings are with Yougov. Most pollsters have Labour on 35% or less, which is nowhere near good enough, at this stage.
The last two rounds of local elections had them 29% and 31%.
On the very useful thread that we had recently which compared the polling of the individual companies I suggested that there should be a YouGov deflator of 3% in the lead since that was their average exaggeration of the ICM gold standard position.
I suspect that will continue to be true and that YouGov will overstate the Labour position by about that amount on the actual result as well as ICM. That still leaves a modest Labour lead at the moment.
I expect that lead in votes to be reversed by the election but I think it is much less likely that the tories will end up with the most seats. Labour simply have too many advantages, specifically the consolidation of the lefty vote after the collapse of the Lib Dem support.
Brent crude is now at $114 a barrel. George Osborne's handling of the economy means that our £ is seen so far as I can work out as a decent bet bearing in mind interest rates are probably likely to rise shortly. So the $1.70 £ is holding the pump prices lowish. This isn't helping the Gov't as noone is noticing a price drifting sideways. But if the UK economy wasn't picking up then the price at the pumps could well be over £1.50 right now - and I'm not just talking Motorway service stations either. In addition there would be more price hikes on the related gas/electricity prices.
So GO whilst not improving the Conservative position with his economics is certainly stopping a counter-factual where I think it could well be slipping more and a Labour lead of ~ 10 points or so.
Good post, Mr. PulpStar. Mind you with the pound touching $1.70 I fully expect any day now the CBI to be complaining about an over-valued pound damaging our exports.
Will Eds personal ratings go up or down during a GE campaign ?
Is there a proven connection between a party leader's personal ratings and election vote share?
I do seem to remember a former denizen of this site who, on the run up to the 2010 GE, told us many, many, many times that it was the leaders' ratings that really mattered and not voting intention.
OGH, of course, will tell us that is tosh. Indeed, he denies that people even vote for a party but carefully choose the individual who they think will best represent them in parliament. He is certainly correct in theory and maybe, for a relatively small number of people, correct in practice. The reason why their party logo is on the ballot paper next to the candidates' names and most voters couldn't name their MP if asked, suggests his theory may not hold for the majority. As does the fact there are such things as safe seats and tribal voters.
Do voters see the system as much more presidential than in the past? In that by voting for a party they are voting for their preferred leader to become PM and the name on the ballot paper is in fact irrelevant, I think the answer is yes. To what extent though I am not so confident.
I think a lot of Labour VI in 2010 held their noses regarding Brown.
Typical unionist , no sense of humour unless it is them giving it out. Sad git. Why not crack one of your great jokes and have us all laughing in the aisles.
Unckie' Malc':
The perennial 107 year old yoke [sic] is showing you attention. Do not take Praise as a criticism.
LOL, he is upset because UK Government have shared polling data with BT and he now realises that all his previous pontifications are wrong and it appears his ARSE is just that.
Not sure that Antifrank is right in putting so much weight on current betting odds to forecast results in 2015. I feel that what is happening on the ground is far more important.
Has anybody here considered the possibility that the Lib Dem performance in the Euros and in Newark were so dire, that lots of recently inactive people will now be motivated to return to the fray?
Personally, I think there will be some [LD] recovery into the teens but they are undoubtedly going to lose some support and quite a few seats.
Why?
2010-now the LD poll numbers have been flat/declining. Their May local election results have seen repeated year-on-year declines.
Why would that change?
As I have said already the Lib Dem vote has always dropped off before elections and then recovered. This is normally thought to be because they get so little attention. This time they may be getting too much.
It may be that our new and welcome contributor Mr Clipp has a point as well. Also the cumulative effect of their incumbents fighting for their seat will remind people more of the tactical choices they face.
In actual elections they have been losing about 1/3 of their seats. I think it is entirely possible they will do so in Westminster as well, possibly a little worse thanks to Scotland. That will hurt but hopefully it will not be fatal.
There has undoubtedly been a Labour recovery in the last couple of weeks. The interesting question is why. It has been accompanied by a collapse of Eds personal ratings and a fairly intense media attack along with some infighting which shows there is nothing like the new Labour enforcers scaring people into line. This makes it all the more curious as does the fact that the news on the economy is so consistently good it almost gets boring.
My guess is that the Tory campaigning got people to focus on areas where Labour was particularly weak such as immigration and the EU and attention has again drifted to the fact the majority see nothing for them in this economic miracle. The Tories need some real wage growth this year to share the gains around a bit. Whether they will get enough of that is hard to say. I suspect that the increases for most will be too modest to be noticed, especially after such a long period of falling real wages. Mike's Tories most votes, Labour most seats bet looks better and better to me.
Labour's best ratings are with Yougov. Most pollsters have Labour on 35% or less, which is nowhere near good enough, at this stage.
The last two rounds of local elections had them 29% and 31%.
On the very useful thread that we had recently which compared the polling of the individual companies I suggested that there should be a YouGov deflator of 3% in the lead since that was their average exaggeration of the ICM gold standard position.
I suspect that will continue to be true and that YouGov will overstate the Labour position by about that amount on the actual result as well as ICM. That still leaves a modest Labour lead at the moment.
I expect that lead in votes to be reversed by the election but I think it is much less likely that the tories will end up with the most seats. Labour simply have too many advantages, specifically the consolidation of the lefty vote after the collapse of the Lib Dem support.
The Tories were overated by YG as well i seem to remember giving LAB advantage over Tories of 0.3%. Wheras ICM overating the other way is 1.9%
Brent crude is now at $114 a barrel. George Osborne's handling of the economy means that our £ is seen so far as I can work out as a decent bet bearing in mind interest rates are probably likely to rise shortly. So the $1.70 £ is holding the pump prices lowish. This isn't helping the Gov't as noone is noticing a price drifting sideways. But if the UK economy wasn't picking up then the price at the pumps could well be over £1.50 right now - and I'm not just talking Motorway service stations either. In addition there would be more price hikes on the related gas/electricity prices.
So GO whilst not improving the Conservative position with his economics is certainly stopping a counter-factual where I think it could well be slipping more and a Labour lead of ~ 10 points or so.
Good post, Mr. PulpStar. Mind you with the pound touching $1.70 I fully expect any day now the CBI to be complaining about an over-valued pound damaging our exports.
You have a point about the CBI and the 'bosses'. You would never think that its their job to roll their sleeves up and manage rather than be spoon fed their profits.
Brent crude is now at $114 a barrel. George Osborne's handling of the economy means that our £ is seen so far as I can work out as a decent bet bearing in mind interest rates are probably likely to rise shortly. So the $1.70 £ is holding the pump prices lowish. This isn't helping the Gov't as noone is noticing a price drifting sideways. But if the UK economy wasn't picking up then the price at the pumps could well be over £1.50 right now - and I'm not just talking Motorway service stations either. In addition there would be more price hikes on the related gas/electricity prices.
So GO whilst not improving the Conservative position with his economics is certainly stopping a counter-factual where I think it could well be slipping more and a Labour lead of ~ 10 points or so.
4 from Jordan off the first ball. This should be a seriously good day of cricket.
Agree, today should be a cracking bit of play.
And I've really enjoyed the series as a whole so far too. I hope the next series is as good too - I've just got my flights and tickets for the Lord's Test in July.
Not sure that Antifrank is right in putting so much weight on current betting odds to forecast results in 2015. I feel that what is happening on the ground is far more important.
Has anybody here considered the possibility that the Lib Dem performance in the Euros and in Newark were so dire, that lots of recently inactive people will now be motivated to return to the fray?
Personally, I think there will be some [LD] recovery into the teens but they are undoubtedly going to lose some support and quite a few seats.
Why?
2010-now the LD poll numbers have been flat/declining. Their May local election results have seen repeated year-on-year declines.
Why would that change?
As I have said already the Lib Dem vote has always dropped off before elections and then recovered. This is normally thought to be because they get so little attention. This time they may be getting too much.
Labour are the least ugly girl in the room to many voters.
That's my view too. A lot of voters wouldn't consider voting Conservative (Tory Zero), Lib Dem (Diet Tory) or UKIP (Vanilla Tory) which pretty much leaves Labour as the only remaining option, regardless of any lack of enthusiasm.
In the interests of fairness and giving credit where it is due, Peter from Putney and Topping are two Tory posters who have also noted the rise in Labour share and have been ignored when trying to draw attention to it.
Topping has also noted how the bacon etc attacks on Ed have been sinister, unedifying borderline bullying that may even backfire.
I finally saw Ed's very gallant joke about the sarnie to the fragrant Penny Mordaunt the other day as part of his Queen's Speech response. More proof that Ed can be witty and self-deprecating. He had the whole house laughing - a great response that again gives the lie to the nasty, desperate schoolyard taunts we see in the media, and on here, from time to time.
To listen to people, attacks on political leaders always backfire ... unless it seems they are tory or libdem. How does that work then?
How costly would it be for Scotland to transition to independence Answer is not very much, so much for the dud Coalition x12 numbers.
Our report essentially shows that the Scottish government has put in place a timetable for transition that is demanding but feasible. We can say with some confidence that Scotland’s immediate set-up costs are likely to be constrained –we suggest around £200 million in one-off costs to create its own versions of a few but big and important existing UK department capabilities. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/how-costly-would-it-be-for-scotland-to-transition-to-independence/
There has undoubtedly been a Labour recovery in the last couple of weeks. The interesting question is why. It has been accompanied by a collapse of Eds personal ratings and a fairly intense media attack along with some infighting which shows there is nothing like the new Labour enforcers scaring people into line. This makes it all the more curious as does the fact that the news on the economy is so consistently good it almost gets boring.
My guess is that the Tory campaigning got people to focus on areas where Labour was particularly weak such as immigration and the EU and attention has again drifted to the fact the majority see nothing for them in this economic miracle. The Tories need some real wage growth this year to share the gains around a bit. Whether they will get enough of that is hard to say. I suspect that the increases for most will be too modest to be noticed, especially after such a long period of falling real wages. Mike's Tories most votes, Labour most seats bet looks better and better to me.
Labour's best ratings are with Yougov. Most pollsters have Labour on 35% or less, which is nowhere near good enough, at this stage.
The last two rounds of local elections had them 29% and 31%.
On the very useful thread that we had recently which compared the polling of the individual companies I suggested that there should be a YouGov deflator of 3% in the lead since that was their average exaggeration of the ICM gold standard position.
I suspect that will continue to be true and that YouGov will overstate the Labour position by about that amount on the actual result as well as ICM. That still leaves a modest Labour lead at the moment.
I expect that lead in votes to be reversed by the election but I think it is much less likely that the tories will end up with the most seats. Labour simply have too many advantages, specifically the consolidation of the lefty vote after the collapse of the Lib Dem support.
The Tories were overated by YG as well i seem to remember giving LAB advantage over Tories of 0.3%. Wheras ICM overating the other way is 1.9%
Went back and looked. The difference between ICM and YouGov in the tory vote favours the tories by 0.6% as ICM have the tories 1.3% above average and Yougov 1.9%. But the difference in the Labour vote is the full 3% I was talking about because YouGov have them 2.1% above average and ICM 0.9% less. So the net difference between the pollsters in the lead between the 2 parties is 2.4%.
If we assume that ICM are going to be closest to the actual result, and they usually are, then to get to the ICM position you should reduce any Yougov lead for Labour by 2.4%.
The alternative to the least ugly girl in the room (or bloke of course!) is to go home alone. That is to not vote at all.
Ed's problem is to get his reluctant followers to vote at all, and he failed to do that at the recent Euros, locals and Newark.
Yeah, I agree with that too. Labour need to get people motivated and prevent seepage to the Greens, UKIP, the nationalists and the none of the above party. I don't think the Euros, locals or Newark results were especially bad, though, and the general is much more favourable for Labour, especially since I hope they have some extremely aggressive voter targetting and get out the vote plans.
One option would be to go for a radical policy likely to gain support of the most left leaning sector of society, the under 30's. Bring back free higher education, with a write off of outstanding student loans, financed by bringing down the threshold of the 45% tax band.
I think Labour is a little bit lost. I'm all for tackling uncomfortable issues like immigration, spending or benefits, but there's also a distinct lack of, well, red meat or any real attempt to defend the struggling from some quite unpleasant and ideological Tory policies. Some "soft left" policies would go a long way. Hopefully these will turn up nearer election time.
That said, I think "not the Tories" along with some negative campaigning about the government's record represents most of the way towards a victory. I'm also pretty confident that negative campaigning against Miliband won't work as well as the Tories hope.
How costly would it be for Scotland to transition to independence Answer is not very much, so much for the dud Coalition x12 numbers.
Our report essentially shows that the Scottish government has put in place a timetable for transition that is demanding but feasible. We can say with some confidence that Scotland’s immediate set-up costs are likely to be constrained –we suggest around £200 million in one-off costs to create its own versions of a few but big and important existing UK department capabilities. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/how-costly-would-it-be-for-scotland-to-transition-to-independence/
That can't be right, it contradicts just about everything Danny Alexander and BetterTogetherUKOKUnitedwithLabourHMTNawthanks have said on the subject.
Brent crude is now at $114 a barrel. George Osborne's handling of the economy means that our £ is seen so far as I can work out as a decent bet bearing in mind interest rates are probably likely to rise shortly. So the $1.70 £ is holding the pump prices lowish. This isn't helping the Gov't as noone is noticing a price drifting sideways. But if the UK economy wasn't picking up then the price at the pumps could well be over £1.50 right now - and I'm not just talking Motorway service stations either. In addition there would be more price hikes on the related gas/electricity prices.
So GO whilst not improving the Conservative position with his economics is certainly stopping a counter-factual where I think it could well be slipping more and a Labour lead of ~ 10 points or so.
Good post, Mr. PulpStar. Mind you with the pound touching $1.70 I fully expect any day now the CBI to be complaining about an over-valued pound damaging our exports.
You have a point about the CBI and the 'bosses'. You would never think that its their job to roll their sleeves up and manage rather than be spoon fed their profits.
Quite so, Mr. Path, but they have got away with it for so long (under all shades of government) that it has now become a reflex action. Mind you the TUC has over the years been happy to slipstream them on this issue. Both sides seem to believe that constant devaluation is the pathway to prosperity. You would think that after decades of evidence to the contrary they might actually stop and think, but there is no sign of that. When looking at our captains of industry I am constantly reminded of that immortal line from Star Trek, "It's life, Jim, but not as we know it".
How costly would it be for Scotland to transition to independence Answer is not very much, so much for the dud Coalition x12 numbers.
Our report essentially shows that the Scottish government has put in place a timetable for transition that is demanding but feasible. We can say with some confidence that Scotland’s immediate set-up costs are likely to be constrained –we suggest around £200 million in one-off costs to create its own versions of a few but big and important existing UK department capabilities. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/how-costly-would-it-be-for-scotland-to-transition-to-independence/
Do you actually believe that £200m figure, Mr. G? Just thinking about tax, welfare, SMoD, driver and vehicle licensing, do you really believe that can be set up for £200 million?
Prior has done a pretty ordinary job of keeping the strike this morning. He is about to run out of partners. Disappointing for England but it surely suggests there is plenty in the pitch.
Labour are the least ugly girl in the room to many voters.
That's my view too. A lot of voters wouldn't consider voting Conservative (Tory Zero), Lib Dem (Diet Tory) or UKIP (Vanilla Tory) which pretty much leaves Labour as the only remaining option, regardless of any lack of enthusiasm.
Unless, of course, you live in Scotland, Wales or NI. Which may make enough difference in a hung, or close to hung, Westminster. Always worth bearing in mind that if you are arguing about single figure leads in the big three (whichever they are).
The Tories were overated by YG as well i seem to remember giving LAB advantage over Tories of 0.3%. Wheras ICM overating the other way is 1.9%
Went back and looked. The difference between ICM and YouGov in the tory vote favours the tories by 0.6% as ICM have the tories 1.3% above average and Yougov 1.9%. But the difference in the Labour vote is the full 3% I was talking about because YouGov have them 2.1% above average and ICM 0.9% less. So the net difference between the pollsters in the lead between the 2 parties is 2.4%.
If we assume that ICM are going to be closest to the actual result, and they usually are, then to get to the ICM position you should reduce any Yougov lead for Labour by 2.4%.
The point of that thread was to compare pollster bias compared to the average. YG over scores both LAB and Tories resulting in a 0.3% more favourable lab lead compared to the average. ICM over scores tories and underscores lab having a tory lead bias of 1.9% compared to the average. Even if ICM were 100% correct which makes a nonsense of the thread to which you compare every June poll would still result in Ed is crap is PM.
The point of that thread was to compare pollster bias compared to the average. YG over scores both LAB and Tories resulting in a 0.3% more favourable lab lead compared to the average. ICM over scores tories and underscores lab having a tory lead bias of 1.9% compared to the average. Even if ICM were 100% correct which makes a nonsense of the thread to which you compare every June poll would still result in Ed is crap is PM.
AVG: Con: 38%, Lab: 25%, LD: 18% Compared with final result: Con: -2%, Lab: +4%, LD: +5%
If you believe in swingback and that the 2010 election result was representative of that, then this suggests that the next election will be very close indeed.
"Not the Tories" is an effective meme. It certainly did well for Labour in 1997, but was combined with a positive social vision for a less xenophobic Britain at home and abroad.
Clearly money is going to be tight in the next parliament, and while Labour will spend more it cannot be profligate again. That means that a campaign needs to be on non-financial issues as far as possible. This carries risks as well as positive aspects in that social issues are inevitably divisive, or uncontentious. The overall impression matters, so the image of Miliband as a tolerant liberal intellectual is not a bad one to have compared with the often intolerant kippers and their fellow travellers in the Tories.
The alternative to the least ugly girl in the room (or bloke of course!) is to go home alone. That is to not vote at all.
Ed's problem is to get his reluctant followers to vote at all, and he failed to do that at the recent Euros, locals and Newark.
Yeah, I agree with that too. Labour need to get people motivated and prevent seepage to the Greens, UKIP, the nationalists and the none of the above party. I don't think the Euros, locals or Newark results were especially bad, though, and the general is much more favourable for Labour, especially since I hope they have some extremely aggressive voter targetting and get out the vote plans.
One option would be to go for a radical policy likely to gain support of the most left leaning sector of society, the under 30's. Bring back free higher education, with a write off of outstanding student loans, financed by bringing down the threshold of the 45% tax band.
I think Labour is a little bit lost. I'm all for tackling uncomfortable issues like immigration, spending or benefits, but there's also a distinct lack of, well, red meat or any real attempt to defend the struggling from some quite unpleasant and ideological Tory policies. Some "soft left" policies would go a long way. Hopefully these will turn up nearer election time.
That said, I think "not the Tories" along with some negative campaigning about the government's record represents most of the way towards a victory. I'm also pretty confident that negative campaigning against Miliband won't work as well as the Tories hope.
AVG: Con: 38%, Lab: 25%, LD: 18% Compared with final result: Con: -2%, Lab: +4%, LD: +5%
If you believe in swingback and that the 2010 election result was representative of that, then this suggests that the next election will be very close indeed.
Thanks Oliver was going to try to do exactly what you did.
Very interesting next 10.5 months will swing back be in line with that as i think or much bigger as PB Tories seem to think
Yeah, I agree with that too. Labour need to get people motivated and prevent seepage to the Greens, UKIP, the nationalists and the none of the above party. I don't think the Euros, locals or Newark results were especially bad, though, and the general is much more favourable for Labour, especially since I hope they have some extremely aggressive voter targetting and get out the vote plans.
One option would be to go for a radical policy likely to gain support of the most left leaning sector of society, the under 30's. Bring back free higher education, with a write off of outstanding student loans, financed by bringing down the threshold of the 45% tax band.
This is a good post.
There is quite a lot Miliband could do that is radical and would gain him extra votes from a priced out younger generation while producing howls of outrage from the tories e.g.
Land Value tax. Land is a non replaceable resource. If you own it and therefore exclude others from it you should be taxed on this benefit. For rental properties and agricultural land it would be paid by landlords not tenants. Where an individual or organisation owns more than 200 acres or land with a value of over £500k (note land value not property value) they would pay a much higher rate of land value tax which would be used to keep land value tax low for those owning smaller amounts of land.
Abolish 12% national insurance and replace it with 12% extra on income tax. Income tax rates would be 32, 42 and 47% (which is what they are now for earned income) This would be levied on unearned income as well as earned income. Dividends to be taxed at undiscounted rate (32/42%) as unearned income.
Use the extra revenue from the above to cut the basic rate of income tax from 32% to 25% -for earned income only - and align starting level of income tax with mininum wage. Labour will make work pay.
Means test EU common agricultural policy handouts and other similar benefits. Anyone with assets worth more than £16,000 wont get a penny. (IDS wouldn't like this one little bit!)
Abolish shorthold assured tenancy. Replace with tenancies of up to 10 years (except where owner only rents out one property). Owner can give 6 months notice of wanting the property back at any time but during the first five years of tenancy they have to have reasonable cause which can be challenged in a tenants tribunal. Licences for owners who rent out more than one property. Part of licence conditions is duty of care to maintain property in good condition.
Yeah, I agree with that too. Labour need to get people motivated and prevent seepage to the Greens, UKIP, the nationalists and the none of the above party. I don't think the Euros, locals or Newark results were especially bad, though, and the general is much more favourable for Labour, especially since I hope they have some extremely aggressive voter targetting and get out the vote plans.
One option would be to go for a radical policy likely to gain support of the most left leaning sector of society, the under 30's. Bring back free higher education, with a write off of outstanding student loans, financed by bringing down the threshold of the 45% tax band.
This is a good post.
There is quite a lot Miliband could do that is radical and would gain him extra votes from a priced out younger generation while producing howls of outrage from the tories e.g.
Land Value tax. Land is a non replaceable resource. If you own it and therefore exclude others from it you should be taxed on this benefit. For rental properties and agricultural land it would be paid by landlords not tenants. Where an individual or organisation owns more than 200 acres or land with a value of over £500k (note land value not property value) they would pay a much higher rate of land value tax which would be used to keep land value tax low for those owning smaller amounts of land.
Abolish 12% national insurance and replace it with 12% extra on income tax. Income tax rates would be 32, 42 and 47% (which is what they are now for earned income) This would be levied on unearned income as well as earned income. Dividends to be taxed at undiscounted rate (32/42%) as unearned income.
Use the extra revenue from the above to cut the basic rate of income tax from 32% to 25% -for earned income only - and align starting level of income tax with mininum wage. Labour will make work pay.
Means test EU common agricultural policy handouts and other similar benefits. Anyone with assets worth more than £16,000 wont get a penny. (IDS wouldn't like this one little bit!)
Abolish shorthold assured tenancy. Replace with tenancies of up to 10 years (except where owner only rents out one property). Owner can give 6 months notice of wanting the property back at any time but during the first five years of tenancy they have to have reasonable cause which can be challenged in a tenants tribunal. Licences for owners who rent out more than one property. Part of licence conditions is duty of care to maintain property in good condition.
Did you consider the IHT relief on agric land? I was surprised to find it existed when dealing with a small plot of land in a relative's estate.
Labour are the least ugly girl in the room to many voters.
That's my view too. A lot of voters wouldn't consider voting Conservative (Tory Zero), Lib Dem (Diet Tory) or UKIP (Vanilla Tory) which pretty much leaves Labour as the only remaining option, regardless of any lack of enthusiasm.
Unless, of course, you live in Scotland, Wales or NI. Which may make enough difference in a hung, or close to hung, Westminster. Always worth bearing in mind that if you are arguing about single figure leads in the big three (whichever they are).
Also true. I can imagine a lot of annoyed people in Wales/Scotland if the Conservatives get another term as a minority government because the nationalists win more seats from Labour!
For those who are interested in unionists trying to blame Yes campaigners for the tone of the indyref, this is good fun, not least because the unionists have been blaming the 'cybernats' for John Prescott. Which does seem rather unfair. And there's a nice wee dug too.
And this is posted not just for the contrast with Mr Dailly but because it could be very significant, given the socio-economic demography of the No vote to date, and my suspicion there is a shy Yes vote in the ABC sector:
Did you consider the IHT relief on agric land? I was surprised to find it existed when dealing with a small plot of land in a relative's estate.
I've just had a look at HMRC. Its not just agricultural land: "Agricultural property includes:
agricultural land or pasture farmhouses, cottages or buildings that are used for agricultural purposes and are proportionate in size to the nature and size of the farming activity woodland and buildings used for intensive rearing of livestock or fish growing crops transferred with the land stud farms that are breeding and rearing horses, and the land that the horses graze on short-rotation coppice - trees that are planted and harvested at least every ten years land that is actively not being farmed to help preserve the countryside and habitat for wild animals and birds under the Habitat Scheme the value of land where the value includes the benefit of a milk quota some agricultural shares and securities"
Stud farms and land that horses graze on FFS?
"land that is actively not being farmed to help preserve the countryside and habitat for wild animals and birds under the Habitat Scheme" - so land where the owners are paid to do nothing by the government under EU subsidies is also exempt from IHT
I'm going to come over all Mugabe if I'm not careful :-)
What this proves is that Labour are inept. There is low hanging fruit ripe for the taking, however as the party are wealthy north London middle classes rather than working class I suspect that they are too near troughs like that themselves to see the wood for the trees.
Did you consider the IHT relief on agric land? I was surprised to find it existed when dealing with a small plot of land in a relative's estate.
I've just had a look at HMRC. Its not just agricultural land: "Agricultural property includes:
agricultural land or pasture farmhouses, cottages or buildings that are used for agricultural purposes and are proportionate in size to the nature and size of the farming activity woodland and buildings used for intensive rearing of livestock or fish growing crops transferred with the land stud farms that are breeding and rearing horses, and the land that the horses graze on short-rotation coppice - trees that are planted and harvested at least every ten years land that is actively not being farmed to help preserve the countryside and habitat for wild animals and birds under the Habitat Scheme the value of land where the value includes the benefit of a milk quota some agricultural shares and securities"
Stud farms and land that horses graze on FFS?
"land that is actively not being farmed to help preserve the countryside and habitat for wild animals and birds under the Habitat Scheme" - so land where the owners are paid to do nothing by the government under EU subsidies is also exempt from IHT
I'm going to come over all Mugabe if I'm not careful :-)
What this proves is that Labour are inept. There is low hanging fruit ripe for the taking, however as the party are wealthy north London middle classes rather than working class I suspect that they are too near troughs like that themselves to see the wood for the trees.
I'm glad I'm not the only one to think it unfair that a house in London or Llanwrst is totally liable to IHT - unless it is on farmland. I know it's good for farmers, but on the other hand it must increase the value of the land (by 40%? IHT rate?) instantly which is bad for new farmers. Indeed I wonder how much of the prie of farmland is driven up by this fiddle. I seem to recall there were plenty of farmers in the 70s and 80s Tory and Labour cabinets. Whether this is true of the latest Labour mob I have no idea, but it is a good point that you make about low-hanging fruit.
I was quite taken with the idea of buying farmland as an investment - it is useful stuff - but when I realised that it was IHT-free the shine rather went off as any removal of the relief would have an effect on capital value.
Labour are the least ugly girl in the room to many voters.
That's my view too. A lot of voters wouldn't consider voting Conservative (Tory Zero), Lib Dem (Diet Tory) or UKIP (Vanilla Tory) which pretty much leaves Labour as the only remaining option, regardless of any lack of enthusiasm.
Unless, of course, you live in Scotland, Wales or NI. Which may make enough difference in a hung, or close to hung, Westminster. Always worth bearing in mind that if you are arguing about single figure leads in the big three (whichever they are).
Also true. I can imagine a lot of annoyed people in Wales/Scotland if the Conservatives get another term as a minority government because the nationalists win more seats from Labour!
I can imagine a lot of people in the shires if Labour get in as a minority government because in the shires the Conservatives win more seats than Labour. Nasty business this democracy, ain't it.
Polls show that Tories are not doing well enough in marginals and major cities, for them to win a majority. But it is possible they can recover enough to win more seats than Labour, with another coaltion with the Lib Dems. I cannot see Cameron wanting to lead a minority government, whatever Tory backbenchers think about coalition.
Well if you did not collect IHT, you would have to think how this revenue would be replaced. All governments are tax and spend, with little difference between Labour and Tories, when you look at the stats over the last 40 years. They just find creative ways to make it look different to what the previous lot did in government.
IHT is the most just tax of them all. Why do you think it's positive people should be handed money rather than earning it? Don't you think it's good for society that people spend their money rather than hoarding it?
The Tory policy on IHT is the most hypocritical of all. All this talk of "get on your bike" and "pull yourself up by your bootstraps", yet, at the end of the day, they are dedicated to ensuring that the rich have every advantage possible so the poor can never catch on with them.
It's clear to anyone with an ounce of fairness that we need greater inheritance taxes and income tax, plus luxury taxes and wealth taxes to tackle mass inequality.
Well if you did not collect IHT, you would have to think how this revenue would be replaced. All governments are tax and spend, with little difference between Labour and Tories, when you look at the stats over the last 40 years. They just find creative ways to make it look different to what the previous lot did in government.
Mr. 67, Inheritance tax is now only paid by the middle people who didn't think it would hit them and the terminally stupid among the really wealthy. The amount it brings in is trivial, but it has a distorting effect on the use of money far beyond its value to the exchequer. Australia abolished it years ago with no obvious ill effects and arguably many benefits (wealth that was locked away in trusts became available for investment etc.).
Inheritance tax is an envy tax, not awfully useful at raising revenue, not at useful in redistributing wealth from the seriously rich, but it makes the envious feel better - even as they trot down to their lawyers to make sure it don't apply to them (*cough* Miliband *cough*).
Afternoon all. Well it's a lovely late June day and I won't spoil it by lobbing my thoughts into the topic of the thread. I will however be raising a glass later to Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus and his decisive victory at the first Battle of Pydna on this day in 168BC.
Well if you did not collect IHT, you would have to think how this revenue would be replaced. All governments are tax and spend, with little difference between Labour and Tories, when you look at the stats over the last 40 years. They just find creative ways to make it look different to what the previous lot did in government.
Mr. 67, Inheritance tax is now only paid by the middle people who didn't think it would hit them and the terminally stupid among the really wealthy. The amount it brings in is trivial, but it has a distorting effect on the use of money far beyond its value to the exchequer. Australia abolished it years ago with no obvious ill effects and arguably many benefits (wealth that was locked away in trusts became available for investment etc.).
Inheritance tax is an envy tax, not awfully useful at raising revenue, not at useful in redistributing wealth from the seriously rich, but it makes the envious feel better - even as they trot down to their lawyers to make sure it don't apply to them (*cough* Miliband *cough*).
The inheritance tax threshold is £325,000. In your world, that's the "middle people" and not the wealthy, which shows how out of touch you are. Get out into the real world.
Well if you did not collect IHT, you would have to think how this revenue would be replaced. All governments are tax and spend, with little difference between Labour and Tories, when you look at the stats over the last 40 years. They just find creative ways to make it look different to what the previous lot did in government.
Mr. 67, Inheritance tax is now only paid by the middle people who didn't think it would hit them and the terminally stupid among the really wealthy. The amount it brings in is trivial, but it has a distorting effect on the use of money far beyond its value to the exchequer. Australia abolished it years ago with no obvious ill effects and arguably many benefits (wealth that was locked away in trusts became available for investment etc.).
Inheritance tax is an envy tax, not awfully useful at raising revenue, not at useful in redistributing wealth from the seriously rich, but it makes the envious feel better - even as they trot down to their lawyers to make sure it don't apply to them (*cough* Miliband *cough*).
The inheritance tax threshold is £325,000. In your world, that's the "middle people" and not the wealthy, which shows how out of touch you are. Get out into the real world.
The average property in London is worth £485k. Pretty much all of them will be above £325k. Do you really think all homeowners in London are rich?
Well if you did not collect IHT, you would have to think how this revenue would be replaced. All governments are tax and spend, with little difference between Labour and Tories, when you look at the stats over the last 40 years. They just find creative ways to make it look different to what the previous lot did in government.
Mr. 67, Inheritance tax is now only paid by the middle people who didn't think it would hit them and the terminally stupid among the really wealthy. The amount it brings in is trivial, but it has a distorting effect on the use of money far beyond its value to the exchequer. Australia abolished it years ago with no obvious ill effects and arguably many benefits (wealth that was locked away in trusts became available for investment etc.).
Inheritance tax is an envy tax, not awfully useful at raising revenue, not at useful in redistributing wealth from the seriously rich, but it makes the envious feel better - even as they trot down to their lawyers to make sure it don't apply to them (*cough* Miliband *cough*).
The inheritance tax threshold is £325,000. In your world, that's the "middle people" and not the wealthy, which shows how out of touch you are. Get out into the real world.
The average property in London is worth £485k. Pretty much all of them will be above £325k. Do you really think all homeowners in London are rich?
IHT is the most just tax of them all. Why do you think it's positive people should be handed money rather than earning it? Don't you think it's good for society that people spend their money rather than hoarding it?
The Tory policy on IHT is the most hypocritical of all. All this talk of "get on your bike" and "pull yourself up by your bootstraps", yet, at the end of the day, they are dedicated to ensuring that the rich have every advantage possible so the poor can never catch on with them.
It's clear to anyone with an ounce of fairness that we need greater inheritance taxes and income tax, plus luxury taxes and wealth taxes to tackle mass inequality.
Absolutely, Mr. PB. Let us really go for it. Never mind inheritance tax for the moment, let us go for income tax. What is a fair rate? I suggest above about £52k p.a. (i.e. twice the median wage) income tax should be levied at 95%. Anyone with assets valued above £500k should pay a wealth tax of 1% p.a. on the total sum.
Coming back to inheritance tax, let us follow the Dr. Palmer's prescription. Levy it at 100%.
IHT is the most just tax of them all. Why do you think it's positive people should be handed money rather than earning it? Don't you think it's good for society that people spend their money rather than hoarding it?
The Tory policy on IHT is the most hypocritical of all. All this talk of "get on your bike" and "pull yourself up by your bootstraps", yet, at the end of the day, they are dedicated to ensuring that the rich have every advantage possible so the poor can never catch on with them.
It's clear to anyone with an ounce of fairness that we need greater inheritance taxes and income tax, plus luxury taxes and wealth taxes to tackle mass inequality.
Absolutely, Mr. PB. Let us really go for it. Never mind inheritance tax for the moment, let us go for income tax. What is a fair rate? I suggest above about £52k p.a. (i.e. twice the median wage) income tax should be levied at 95%. Anyone with assets valued above £500k should pay a wealth tax of 1% p.a. on the total sum.
Coming back to inheritance tax, let us follow the Dr. Palmer's prescription. Levy it at 100%.
Don't be silly.
You can't do that because the right have ensured the free movement of capital, good and labour, making it impossible for any government to establish left-wing tax or wealth redistributon policies.
No it's not, it balances things out and prevents elites owning more and more wealth while the rest are excluded.
Cobblers. The elites can avoid IHT completely, while the main burden falls on those with modest estates, who are ignorant, elderly, unworldly or unlucky...
Student debt delays marriage and harms affordable marriage formation, the unmarried 30s are not our voters, really feel this was a big mistake and societally wrong for the young to be burdened with debt.
I think this is a really good point. It's one I've been mulling over recently, and it's made me requestion my support of tuition fees.
Another related one is that it means that working class people will find it harder to become rich. Because if they use a degree to do it - the main mechanism, let's be honest - they'll lose half the premium from higher education. On the one hand it's better that formerly poor, now good income graduates pay for their education than the continuously poor. On the other hand, if kids that grow up in poor families do the right thing but still only make it to middle income levels, that's not as good an advert for educating yourself and working hard to other low income kids.
Greetings from Amsterdam. Our annual global conference gets underway this afternoon. Over 600 excellent delegates, top class speakers and wonderful sponsors.
www.ipbusinesscongress.com
I just wish I did not have this horrendous hangover.
IHT did have a role in breaking up the great estates of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century, but now raises only small amounts. What it does now is to enrich lawyers and accountants and distort how people manage their assets in retirement. If personal IHT was raised then we would just see more complex family Trusts and personal companies.
The taxes that should be raised are those on companies like Amazon that pay little or no UK tax at all, by offshoring earnings.
Well if you did not collect IHT, you would have to think how this revenue would be replaced. All governments are tax and spend, with little difference between Labour and Tories, when you look at the stats over the last 40 years. They just find creative ways to make it look different to what the previous lot did in government.
Mr. 67, Inheritance tax is now only paid by the middle people who didn't think it would hit them and the terminally stupid among the really wealthy. The amount it brings in is trivial, but it has a distorting effect on the use of money far beyond its value to the exchequer. Australia abolished it years ago with no obvious ill effects and arguably many benefits (wealth that was locked away in trusts became available for investment etc.).
Inheritance tax is an envy tax, not awfully useful at raising revenue, not at useful in redistributing wealth from the seriously rich, but it makes the envious feel better - even as they trot down to their lawyers to make sure it don't apply to them (*cough* Miliband *cough*).
The inheritance tax threshold is £325,000. In your world, that's the "middle people" and not the wealthy, which shows how out of touch you are. Get out into the real world.
The average property in London is worth £485k. Pretty much all of them will be above £325k. Do you really think all homeowners in London are rich?
I actually support IHT - and certainly think it should apply to huge farms worth millions - but we should be honest that it hits upper middle class people as well as the rich.
I don't feel maintaining IHT and closing tax loopholes are mutually exclusive things.
Afternoon all. Well it's a lovely late June day and I won't spoil it by lobbing my thoughts into the topic of the thread. I will however be raising a glass later to Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus and his decisive victory at the first Battle of Pydna on this day in 168BC.
Indeed. Another decisive victory on this day (if that is the word) is the sinking of Admiral Tryon's Med Fleet flagship HMS Victoria, and the death of Tryon amongst many others, when it was rammed by HMS Camperdown when the two columns of ships, one turning radius apart, reversed course by turning inwards under Tryon's explicit and repeated orders (despite querying by his subordinates). This is of course the true story behind the incident in the film Kind Hearts and Coronets.
Coming back a little to the point about IHT and farms, does anyone have an informed opinion on how much (or how little) farmland prices are distorted upwards by IHT relief? I'd be genuinely interested. I'm not thinking of land on the edges of towns etc. (though presumably that too gets IHT relief, rather oddly)
The taxes that should be raised are those on companies like Amazon that pay little or no UK tax at all, by offshoring earnings.
Amazon is a bad example because they don't make any profit. They're a giant company that seemingly exists to destroy other companies business models and profit margins.
IHT is the most just tax of them all. Why do you think it's positive people should be handed money rather than earning it? Don't you think it's good for society that people spend their money rather than hoarding it?
The Tory policy on IHT is the most hypocritical of all. All this talk of "get on your bike" and "pull yourself up by your bootstraps", yet, at the end of the day, they are dedicated to ensuring that the rich have every advantage possible so the poor can never catch on with them.
It's clear to anyone with an ounce of fairness that we need greater inheritance taxes and income tax, plus luxury taxes and wealth taxes to tackle mass inequality.
Absolutely, Mr. PB. Let us really go for it. Never mind inheritance tax for the moment, let us go for income tax. What is a fair rate? I suggest above about £52k p.a. (i.e. twice the median wage) income tax should be levied at 95%. Anyone with assets valued above £500k should pay a wealth tax of 1% p.a. on the total sum.
Coming back to inheritance tax, let us follow the Dr. Palmer's prescription. Levy it at 100%.
Don't be silly.
You can't do that because the right have ensured the free movement of capital, good and labour, making it impossible for any government to establish left-wing tax or wealth redistributon policies.
I am the one being silly? Surely, Mr. PB, if we left the EU then there would be scope for a real left wing government to introduce proper redistributive taxes, and exchange controls, and exit visas.
Comments
Welcome Mr Clipp. The Lib Dems have paid a savage price for providing the country with secure, competent majority government from the off, losing about 1/3 of their councillors in each round of elections. The most recent results were if anything slightly worse but I doubt if they would bring a rallying to the flag if the earlier results did not.
As the election gets closer Antifrank is looking for value. The assumption that the Lib Dem vote will recover in the same way it has in the past when they have been largely ignored between elections is a possible source of that value. If it does not happen from the high profile of government the Lib Dems are overpriced in many seats.
Personally, I think there will be some recovery into the teens but they are undoubtedly going to lose some support and quite a few seats. The valuable information is which ones.
Juncker is not a major issue but the disaster unfolding in the middle east is. Unfortunately for Labour there is a lot of blame to be spread around there and Chilcott will presumably remind people of that, possibly in time for the 2020 election.
SO what do you say to both the Labour VI and his fellow Labour colleagues who frequent point out EdM's unsuitability as both leader of Labour and as a future PM?
In other words, Voters know that Ed is a geek and probably going to struggle with coherent policies, but still prefer him to the Coalition parties.
Personally, I would see an element of polarisation here. The appeasment of the kippers and their fellow travellers in the europhobic wing of the Tories, combined with the collapse of the LibDems brings Joey Bartons dictum to play. Labour are the least ugly girl in the room to many voters.
I think the people who went cool on the Lib Dems since 2010 are those who really wanted a 100% Lib Dem government. They were not prepared to settle for half a cake. But what they certainly do not want is to see another 100% Tory government - nor,with all respect to Mr Palmer, a 100% Labour one either.
So yes, they have for the last few years gone off doing other things - such as running the pigeon club - but I have in recent weeks met one or two people who are facing up to reality and eager to join the fight back. Straws in the wind, maybe, but it would not surprise me to see an increase in the amount of Lib Dem activity on the ground, and an increase in their poll ratings.
Also, the betting odds are illuminating as to how gamblers and bookies rate the chances of each party in seats, relative to each other. Why do punters rate the Lib Dems as safer in Brecon & Radnorshire than in North Devon, for example? Answer questions like that and you understand much better the broader dynamics.
A tiny net positive rating in one poll does not quite equate to the population accepting he's done an 'excellent job', though, does it (except in PB Tory wishful-thinking-land
2010-now the LD poll numbers have been flat/declining. Their May local election results have seen repeated year-on-year declines.
Why would that change?
edit: you're right in theory though
The last two rounds of local elections had them 29% and 31%.
£100 towards Junior's site maintenance costs. I pay-out if Labour out-poll* the Tories else you have to...?
* Votes, mainland-GB (includes the ball-less Scots).
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/political-football-why-labour-is-spain-not-england-9554320.html
"Heart in the right place, but just not Prime Ministerial material"
In the real elections we have had in the last couple of months that was the actual situation, where had it not been for London, Labour would have ended up with fewer MEPS and a lower % vote than the Tories at the Euro elections. In the local elections Labour seriously undershot even the most modest predictions of gains and the Tories remained the largest party of local government in England.
I suspect next May the PB lefties will still be clinging to their YouGov leads as David Cameron returns to Downing Street, probably leading a single party government.
Brent crude is now at $114 a barrel. George Osborne's handling of the economy means that our £ is seen so far as I can work out as a decent bet bearing in mind interest rates are probably likely to rise shortly. So the $1.70 £ is holding the pump prices lowish. This isn't helping the Gov't as noone is noticing a price drifting sideways. But if the UK economy wasn't picking up then the price at the pumps could well be over £1.50 right now - and I'm not just talking Motorway service stations either. In addition there would be more price hikes on the related gas/electricity prices.
So GO whilst not improving the Conservative position with his economics is certainly stopping a counter-factual where I think it could well be slipping more and a Labour lead of ~ 10 points or so.
LDs in mid-Wales are very much old-fashioned Liberal and not SDLP and tend to be very loyal,
The perennial 107 year old yoke [sic] is showing you attention. Do not take Praise as a criticism.
OGH, of course, will tell us that is tosh. Indeed, he denies that people even vote for a party but carefully choose the individual who they think will best represent them in parliament. He is certainly correct in theory and maybe, for a relatively small number of people, correct in practice. The reason why their party logo is on the ballot paper next to the candidates' names and most voters couldn't name their MP if asked, suggests his theory may not hold for the majority. As does the fact there are such things as safe seats and tribal voters.
Do voters see the system as much more presidential than in the past? In that by voting for a party they are voting for their preferred leader to become PM and the name on the ballot paper is in fact irrelevant, I think the answer is yes. To what extent though I am not so confident.
Ed's problem is to get his reluctant followers to vote at all, and he failed to do that at the recent Euros, locals and Newark.
One option would be to go for a radical policy likely to gain support of the most left leaning sector of society, the under 30's. Bring back free higher education, with a write off of outstanding student loans, financed by bringing down the threshold of the 45% tax band.
Which is my current view yours is
One essential that will not change is that :
Ed Miliband Will Never Become Prime Minister
JacW 22/6/14
We don't agree with the size of the swingback. We will see who is right. Interesting 10.5 months ahead
I suspect that will continue to be true and that YouGov will overstate the Labour position by about that amount on the actual result as well as ICM. That still leaves a modest Labour lead at the moment.
I expect that lead in votes to be reversed by the election but I think it is much less likely that the tories will end up with the most seats. Labour simply have too many advantages, specifically the consolidation of the lefty vote after the collapse of the Lib Dem support.
Wheras if we tell the electorate its a Euro election not a GE UKIP might win a seat
It may be that our new and welcome contributor Mr Clipp has a point as well. Also the cumulative effect of their incumbents fighting for their seat will remind people more of the tactical choices they face.
In actual elections they have been losing about 1/3 of their seats. I think it is entirely possible they will do so in Westminster as well, possibly a little worse thanks to Scotland. That will hurt but hopefully it will not be fatal.
And I've really enjoyed the series as a whole so far too. I hope the next series is as good too - I've just got my flights and tickets for the Lord's Test in July.
2006: 25%
2007: 24%
2008: 23%
2009: 25%
2010 GE: 23%
2011: 16%
2012: 15%
2013: 13%
2014: 11%
How costly would it be for Scotland to transition to independence
Answer is not very much, so much for the dud Coalition x12 numbers.
Our report essentially shows that the Scottish government has put in place a timetable for transition that is demanding but feasible. We can say with some confidence that Scotland’s immediate set-up costs are likely to be constrained –we suggest around £200 million in one-off costs to create its own versions of a few but big and important existing UK department capabilities.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/how-costly-would-it-be-for-scotland-to-transition-to-independence/
If we assume that ICM are going to be closest to the actual result, and they usually are, then to get to the ICM position you should reduce any Yougov lead for Labour by 2.4%.
That said, I think "not the Tories" along with some negative campaigning about the government's record represents most of the way towards a victory. I'm also pretty confident that negative campaigning against Miliband won't work as well as the Tories hope.
Just saying.
Even if ICM were 100% correct which makes a nonsense of the thread to which you compare every June poll would still result in Ed is crap is PM.
Eng +15.49
SL +30.78
Draw -68.45 at the moment
May 2010 result:
Con: 36%, Lab: 29% LD: 23%
June 2009 polling:
YouGov - Con: 38%, Lab: 25%, LD: 18%
ComRes - Con: 39%, Lab: 22%, LD: 18%
Ipsos-MORI - Con: 39%, Lab: 25%, LD: 19%
ICM - Con: 39%, Lab: 27%, LD: 18%
Populus - Con: 36%, Lab: 24%, LD: 19%
AVG: Con: 38%, Lab: 25%, LD: 18%
Compared with final result: Con: -2%, Lab: +4%, LD: +5%
If you believe in swingback and that the 2010 election result was representative of that, then this suggests that the next election will be very close indeed.
Clearly money is going to be tight in the next parliament, and while Labour will spend more it cannot be profligate again. That means that a campaign needs to be on non-financial issues as far as possible. This carries risks as well as positive aspects in that social issues are inevitably divisive, or uncontentious. The overall impression matters, so the image of Miliband as a tolerant liberal intellectual is not a bad one to have compared with the often intolerant kippers and their fellow travellers in the Tories. I think Labour is a little bit lost. I'm all for tackling uncomfortable issues like immigration, spending or benefits, but there's also a distinct lack of, well, red meat or any real attempt to defend the struggling from some quite unpleasant and ideological Tory policies. Some "soft left" policies would go a long way. Hopefully these will turn up nearer election time.
That said, I think "not the Tories" along with some negative campaigning about the government's record represents most of the way towards a victory. I'm also pretty confident that negative campaigning against Miliband won't work as well as the Tories hope.
Very interesting next 10.5 months will swing back be in line with that as i think or much bigger as PB Tories seem to think
This is a good post.
There is quite a lot Miliband could do that is radical and would gain him extra votes from a priced out younger generation while producing howls of outrage from the tories e.g.
Land Value tax. Land is a non replaceable resource. If you own it and therefore exclude others from it you should be taxed on this benefit. For rental properties and agricultural land it would be paid by landlords not tenants. Where an individual or organisation owns more than 200 acres or land with a value of over £500k (note land value not property value) they would pay a much higher rate of land value tax which would be used to keep land value tax low for those owning smaller amounts of land.
Abolish 12% national insurance and replace it with 12% extra on income tax. Income tax rates would be 32, 42 and 47% (which is what they are now for earned income) This would be levied on unearned income as well as earned income. Dividends to be taxed at undiscounted rate (32/42%) as unearned income.
Use the extra revenue from the above to cut the basic rate of income tax from 32% to 25% -for earned income only - and align starting level of income tax with mininum wage. Labour will make work pay.
Means test EU common agricultural policy handouts and other similar benefits. Anyone with assets worth more than £16,000 wont get a penny. (IDS wouldn't like this one little bit!)
Abolish shorthold assured tenancy. Replace with tenancies of up to 10 years (except where owner only rents out one property). Owner can give 6 months notice of wanting the property back at any time but during the first five years of tenancy they have to have reasonable cause which can be challenged in a tenants tribunal. Licences for owners who rent out more than one property. Part of licence conditions is duty of care to maintain property in good condition.
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/9354-no-campaign-backer-launches-foul-mouthed-attack-on-salmond
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/9352-better-together-attack-on-animation-backfires-after-it-emerges-offensive-term-was-coined-by-labour-mp
And this is posted not just for the contrast with Mr Dailly but because it could be very significant, given the socio-economic demography of the No vote to date, and my suspicion there is a shy Yes vote in the ABC sector:
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/9356-hundreds-of-legal-experts-sign-up-to-new-yes-campaign-group
agricultural land or pasture
farmhouses, cottages or buildings that are used for agricultural purposes and are proportionate in size to the nature and size of the farming activity
woodland and buildings used for intensive rearing of livestock or fish
growing crops transferred with the land
stud farms that are breeding and rearing horses, and the land that the horses graze on
short-rotation coppice - trees that are planted and harvested at least every ten years
land that is actively not being farmed to help preserve the countryside and habitat for wild animals and birds under the Habitat Scheme
the value of land where the value includes the benefit of a milk quota
some agricultural shares and securities"
Stud farms and land that horses graze on FFS?
"land that is actively not being farmed to help preserve the countryside and habitat for wild animals and birds under the Habitat Scheme" - so land where the owners are paid to do nothing by the government under EU subsidies is also exempt from IHT
I'm going to come over all Mugabe if I'm not careful :-)
What this proves is that Labour are inept. There is low hanging fruit ripe for the taking, however as the party are wealthy north London middle classes rather than working class I suspect that they are too near troughs like that themselves to see the wood for the trees.
I was quite taken with the idea of buying farmland as an investment - it is useful stuff - but when I realised that it was IHT-free the shine rather went off as any removal of the relief would have an effect on capital value.
People often think that it is levied on the whole estate - it's not, it is only levied on the part of the estate that exceeds the threshold value.
The Tory policy on IHT is the most hypocritical of all. All this talk of "get on your bike" and "pull yourself up by your bootstraps", yet, at the end of the day, they are dedicated to ensuring that the rich have every advantage possible so the poor can never catch on with them.
It's clear to anyone with an ounce of fairness that we need greater inheritance taxes and income tax, plus luxury taxes and wealth taxes to tackle mass inequality.
Inheritance tax is an envy tax, not awfully useful at raising revenue, not at useful in redistributing wealth from the seriously rich, but it makes the envious feel better - even as they trot down to their lawyers to make sure it don't apply to them (*cough* Miliband *cough*).
Taxes should be about raising money. Everything else is incidental.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5OxAPxUyjY
Coming back to inheritance tax, let us follow the Dr. Palmer's prescription. Levy it at 100%.
You can't do that because the right have ensured the free movement of capital, good and labour, making it impossible for any government to establish left-wing tax or wealth redistributon policies.
Another related one is that it means that working class people will find it harder to become rich. Because if they use a degree to do it - the main mechanism, let's be honest - they'll lose half the premium from higher education. On the one hand it's better that formerly poor, now good income graduates pay for their education than the continuously poor. On the other hand, if kids that grow up in poor families do the right thing but still only make it to middle income levels, that's not as good an advert for educating yourself and working hard to other low income kids.
www.ipbusinesscongress.com
I just wish I did not have this horrendous hangover.
The taxes that should be raised are those on companies like Amazon that pay little or no UK tax at all, by offshoring earnings.
I actually support IHT - and certainly think it should apply to huge farms worth millions - but we should be honest that it hits upper middle class people as well as the rich.
I don't feel maintaining IHT and closing tax loopholes are mutually exclusive things.