The Raid: straightforward plot, amazing violence. The Raid 2: more confusing plot, amazing violence.
Has someone else just received their Raid 2 DVD in the post then? Bone-cripplingly visceral thrills are perhaps poor for a soothing nighttime sit, but my gods I had to see that again!
It does seem that Clegg should still be able to hold onto his own seat at least, even amid the turmoil, but the LDs seem to have begun a renewed spiral this year, where after broadly flatlining they are suddenly trending downwards across many pollsters to even lower lows. In such a situation, I guess it cannot be written off.
@Floater No, it is what we have governments for, to rein in capitalism's more base instincts. We now have the problem that any governments power over a multinational is very weak.
The likes of Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg probably wouldn't stir themselves out of pacifism even if ISIS was about to invade their own countries. Total cowards.
"And anyone rich enough to be doing so is likely to be voting Con anyway"
Anyone rich enough to be affected by inheritance tax will include quite a lot of pensioners in the South East who own relatively modest houses. They might normally be expected to vote Conservative but that is not an excuse for a Conservative chancellor to introduce yet another measure that will annoy his core vote.
Cameron and Osborne seem to have made a habit of doing just that.
Isn't he going to scrap IHT on primary residence in the November statement or pre-election budget ?
That would get ALOT of votes.
I agree that would be terrifically popular. If he does it.
It would be a terrible idea though.
Why would we want to create a tax incentive for elderly people to live in houses that are too large for them and could be more efficiently utilised by a family, and to put the bulk of their wealth into a single, illiquid, property?
At the margin it will also reduce liquidity and increase prices in the housing market.
Back on topic - Iraq - where the F is Germany? How does the richest and most powerful country in Europe get away with doing the cube root of f*ck all when it comes to foreign policy?
80 million people. Serious industrial power. A cultural aversion to "genocide". Yet absolute silence on Iraq and ISIS??
Germany's pacifism needs to end, they need to help the UK and France is leading Europe, instead of hiding away like a bunch of pussies. Especially as America now shrinks from anything resembling intervention.
Eh? Germany's running Europe - by all accounts.
US is following your lead on interventions - rightly so - it's all going well.
"And anyone rich enough to be doing so is likely to be voting Con anyway"
Anyone rich enough to be affected by inheritance tax will include quite a lot of pensioners in the South East who own relatively modest houses. They might normally be expected to vote Conservative but that is not an excuse for a Conservative chancellor to introduce yet another measure that will annoy his core vote.
Cameron and Osborne seem to have made a habit of doing just that.
Isn't he going to scrap IHT on primary residence in the November statement or pre-election budget ?
That would get ALOT of votes.
I agree that would be terrifically popular. If he does it.
It would be a terrible idea though.
Why would we want to create a tax incentive for elderly people to live in houses that are too large for them and could be more efficiently utilised by a family, and to put the bulk of their wealth into a single, illiquid, property?
At the margin it will also reduce liquidity and increase prices in the housing market.
None of these are good outcomes.
All of which sounds exactly like the sort of thing that a politician would do just before an election when the consequences are more likely to be someone elses... (Cynical, moi?)
The Raid: straightforward plot, amazing violence. The Raid 2: more confusing plot, amazing violence.
Has someone else just received their Raid 2 DVD in the post then? Bone-cripplingly visceral thrills are perhaps poor for a soothing nighttime sit, but my gods I had to see that again!
Ouch. There is doing the decent thing for Unionists fighting for the cause in Scotland and then this. Really bad poll from the gold standard. It will have a pretty significant impact on the next Fisher projection on its own.
Went to see William McIlvaney (of Laidlaw fame) at the Edinburgh Book Festival tonight. He is voting yes he told us. You cannot get away from this in Scotland at the moment. He got some claps from the audience for this but not many. Of course Edinburgh culture vultures are a tough crowd for Yes.
He has a brilliant use of language. More in sorrow he said that Labour were like politics with Alzheimer's. Every few years they had to ask the electorate where they had come from because they had forgotten.
I made this comment and I now have adverts from the Alzheimer's Association in the margins. Google scare me sometimes. A much greater threat to liberty and privacy than any government.
@JBriskin Your rule might be sensible, but the law of the "lowest common denominator" comes into force. They move money and if possible, assets to a place where they have power.
@JBriskin Your rule might be sensible, but the law of the "lowest common denominator" comes into force. They move money and if possible, assets to a place where they have power.
Bullshit - how much ready money can you shift Smarmy??
On topic, the Tories may change approach if they cant get it right against Labour now. They really need to be on Labour's back.
Iraq: Iraq gets its new PM, but Maliki as I mentioned the other day actually needs to decide to stand down. And he isn't.
The Americans and the bloc set up against Maliki are hoping that effectively that what is de jure will become de facto. Maliki however is today's de facto.
Meanwhile some more important developments whilst the boys in the Green Zone argue.
1. The US has suggested that it has no plans to extend its airstrikes outside of the Kurdish zone. It will if Maliki goes but its a clear statement that will no doubt be heard in Baghdad.
2. The US military at least is honest in that they've launched a mere 15 airstrikes with limited overall effect. Two reasons why a) on the ground intelligence is being added to, which is shocking given the amount of resources the US have in the area how long this situation has been brewing b) they are restricted in scope by political order.
3. ISIS announces its begun the Battle of Baghdad. Whether this is designed as a nerve rattler or serious intent we'll soon know.
Ukraine
Apparently a neutral aid mission has been agreed by Russia and Ukraine for separatist areas of Eastern Ukraine. The Russian military do have a surprising number of UN white vehicles within 40 miles of the border....
"And anyone rich enough to be doing so is likely to be voting Con anyway"
Anyone rich enough to be affected by inheritance tax will include quite a lot of pensioners in the South East who own relatively modest houses. They might normally be expected to vote Conservative but that is not an excuse for a Conservative chancellor to introduce yet another measure that will annoy his core vote.
Cameron and Osborne seem to have made a habit of doing just that.
Isn't he going to scrap IHT on primary residence in the November statement or pre-election budget ?
That would get ALOT of votes.
I agree that would be terrifically popular. If he does it.
It would be a terrible idea though.
Why would we want to create a tax incentive for elderly people to live in houses that are too large for them and could be more efficiently utilised by a family, and to put the bulk of their wealth into a single, illiquid, property?
At the margin it will also reduce liquidity and increase prices in the housing market.
None of these are good outcomes.
Why would changing the IHT limit encourage people to stay in their house? They can still downsize and bank the difference to spend or give an income. The value of their smaller house and bank balance would still be the same for tax purposes.The problem with death is it can come at any time, d*mn~d inconsiderate, so planning for the future can be difficult.
@Floater No, it is what we have governments for, to rein in capitalism's more base instincts. We now have the problem that any governments power over a multinational is very weak.
The last government seemed to share those base instincts.
But we are supposed to believe its all different now.
"And anyone rich enough to be doing so is likely to be voting Con anyway"
Anyone rich enough to be affected by inheritance tax will include quite a lot of pensioners in the South East who own relatively modest houses. They might normally be expected to vote Conservative but that is not an excuse for a Conservative chancellor to introduce yet another measure that will annoy his core vote.
Cameron and Osborne seem to have made a habit of doing just that.
Isn't he going to scrap IHT on primary residence in the November statement or pre-election budget ?
That would get ALOT of votes.
I agree that would be terrifically popular. If he does it.
It would be a terrible idea though.
Why would we want to create a tax incentive for elderly people to live in houses that are too large for them and could be more efficiently utilised by a family, and to put the bulk of their wealth into a single, illiquid, property?
At the margin it will also reduce liquidity and increase prices in the housing market.
None of these are good outcomes.
Hello, hasn't you family got a great big house with lots of land out in the sticks? Liable to inheritance tax is it? Or perhaps it is safely tucked into a trust. But you think its a good idea that ordinary families should have to sell their homes to pay inheritance tax rather than be able to leave said home to their child(ren)? Come on, Charles, that is not what we would expect from you.
Tories taking one for the team to save the Union. Once a clear No is achieved, Dave needs to focus relentlessly on slashing that 10% UKIP vote and getting swingback to the Tories
"ICM tends to find UKIP with lower numbers than other firms partly because of its turnout filtering which scales back by 50% the value of responses of non-voters from GE2010."
Is this really the right way to deal with an emerging party? Fair play to ICM if they have nailed this 4 party politics, but they did have ukip on 20% for the euros 2-3 months out, and labour on 35%
"ICM tends to find UKIP with lower numbers than other firms partly because of its turnout filtering which scales back by 50% the value of responses of non-voters from GE2010."
Is this really the right way to deal with an emerging party? Fair play to ICM if they have nailed this 4 party politics, but they did have ukip on 20% for the euros 2-3 months out, and labour on 35%
Can I answer that after the election? (Makes predictions much easier doing it then).
Tories taking one for the team to save the Union. Once a clear No is achieved, Dave needs to focus relentlessly on slashing that 10% UKIP vote and getting swingback to the Tories
But polls consistently show that almost half of UKIP's voters would prefer a Labour government to a Tory government (irrespective of the flawed measuring stick of how they voted in 2010), and the vast majority of UKIP voters are anti-austerity.
Yokel The killer for Maliki will be if Iran withdraws support, there have been suggestions of some moves in that direction
Suggestions only though I have few doubts its under consideration. Iran in terms of its active foreign arm however is a bit factional. My understanding is that some of militia out on the street are very much in the Iranian orbit, so at least someone on the Iranian side hasn't given up on him yet.
@JBriskin For my sins of youth, I really can't stand blended whisky these days. If I am drinking in a pub, I usually settle for something else with a dash of mixer.
"ICM tends to find UKIP with lower numbers than other firms partly because of its turnout filtering which scales back by 50% the value of responses of non-voters from GE2010."
Is this really the right way to deal with an emerging party? Fair play to ICM if they have nailed this 4 party politics, but they did have ukip on 20% for the euros 2-3 months out, and labour on 35%
Raw VI always tends to overstate Labour so pollsters need to come up with ways to deal with this and I reckon alot of people who never vote will say "Labour"
It's to deal with this sort of people who will blindly say Labour to a VI survey but when push comes to shove they don't make it down the polling booth I reckon. I reckon the UKIP former non voters are a touch more motivated tbh, its not the typical 18-24 yr old that says they'll vote Labour and then never shows up.
@JBriskin For my sins of youth, I really can't stand blended whisky these days. If I am drinking in a pub, I usually settle for something else with a dash of mixer.
Good to see that HMRC are dealing with abuses of off-shore trusts for IHT avoidance.
You have to admire the Telegraph's desperation to make a smidgen of a story from a complete non-story. I particularly liked the disjunction between the headline and the content (a favourite Guardian trick as well):
Headline: "Savers could pay death tax while they are still living" . That gets the Pavlovian reaction going nicely, so the readers, frothing at the mouth with indignation, don't actually get round to noticing what the article actually says. In fact it's a rehash of the previous indignation, about up-front payment pending court action over tax avoidance schemes, in particular in relation to tax-avoidance schemes using offshore trusts.
Quite what this has got to do with 'Savers' paying 'death tax while they are still living' is mysterious. Anyone got any clues?
@JBriskin For my sins of youth, I really can't stand blended whisky these days. If I am drinking in a pub, I usually settle for something else with a dash of mixer.
I am an Islay man for preference but it doesn't suit all occasions. If its time for a blend then I'll go with Irish whiskey, these days I find most of the Scottish blends too harsh.
FPT The tories are doing badly partly because George Osborne is idiotically allowing the mao-ist leadership of HMRC to dictate his fiscal agenda. People are horrified that HMRC will soon be able to steal their deposits and make them pay inheritance tax before even dying.
Osborne, incredibly for a conservative chancellor, has the voters thinking they would pay lower taxes under labour.
I'm a thatcherite, but one consolation about the tories losing is that we can get rid of these big government corporatists masquerading as conservatives.
I do sometimes wonder if Cameron and Osborne are doing it deliberately, pissing off ever group of the electorate likely to vote Conservative that is.
"George, I am a bit concerned our polling figures seem to holding up, we are only a percent or two down on 2010"
"Not a problem, the group most likely to vote for us are pensioners and they are the most likely to die. So how about I suggest we make them pay their inheritance tax before they are dead. That should piss 'em off"
It's seems to be a request/suggestion from HMRC directly, rather than the government particularly.
.
That some people think he might make a good leader of the Party is astonishing.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer sets the high-level objectives, but HMRC is separate managed from the Treasury.
Who is in charge of HMRC? Which politician is responsible for it?
HMRC is a non-ministerial department; this makes it different from most other government departments, which work under the direct day-to-day control of a minister.
The link goes on to say 'The Queen appoints Commissioners of HMRC who have responsibility for handling individual taxpayers’ affairs impartially. This means that ministers have no involvement in taxpayers’ cases.' 'The commissioners meet formally and make decisions within HMRC’s Board and Executive Committee. The commissioners are responsible for providing leadership to the department and for managing its resources efficiently and effectively and for delivering the objectives and targets set by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. '
There is no evidence to suggest that the govt have suggested any move for early collection of IHT. The govt set the levels and the %ages. The govt make resources available to HMRC to do its job, eg money to target tax evaders
Mark hopkins says 'Not sure why everyone's commenting about problems for the Conservatives? This poll has them on 31%, same as in the June ICM when the lead was only 1%.'
Yes this is true and we see Labour going up at the same time as UKIP but everyone is telling us that UKIP are taking votes from Labour. The sums don't add up.
Even in purely statistical terms, the MOE on the Con and Lab vote-shares in typical poll is around plus or minus 3% - and of course looking at the lead magnifies that effect.
Add to that the extra systematic problem of distortions caused by polling during the holiday period, and you can expect some apparently big shifts.
"ICM tends to find UKIP with lower numbers than other firms partly because of its turnout filtering which scales back by 50% the value of responses of non-voters from GE2010."
Is this really the right way to deal with an emerging party? Fair play to ICM if they have nailed this 4 party politics, but they did have ukip on 20% for the euros 2-3 months out, and labour on 35%
Can I answer that after the election? (Makes predictions much easier doing it then).
Will be interesting to see who gets the hang of ukip best pollster wise... Yes let's after time in 9 months or so!
"You have to admire the Telegraph's desperation to make a smidgen of a story from a complete non-story"
Richard your normally lucid defence of Osborne and Cameron is running extremely thin. If what you say is true the conservatives should be having their rebuttal unit going like a steam train on this, given how important it is to the core vote, and indeed voters in general.
Osborne should be screaming from the rooftops that ordinary, honest people would never have pay inheritance tax before they die.
And he should also be screaming from the roof tops that ordinary, honest people would never have their money summarily confiscated by HMRC without some sort of due process.
But Osborne isn't. The fact is, Osborne has been silent on these stories floated in the press, which means he is either considering exactly what is being reported, or he simply doesn't care to reassure ordinary people.
Either way He reveals himself as a wealthy big government patrician socialist. obsessed with playing labour's 'fairness' game, to try to win supporters who will never vote for him.
"ICM tends to find UKIP with lower numbers than other firms partly because of its turnout filtering which scales back by 50% the value of responses of non-voters from GE2010."
Is this really the right way to deal with an emerging party? Fair play to ICM if they have nailed this 4 party politics, but they did have ukip on 20% for the euros 2-3 months out, and labour on 35%
Can I answer that after the election? (Makes predictions much easier doing it then).
Will be interesting to see who gets the hang of ukip best pollster wise... Yes let's after time in 9 months or so!
Of course what might work best for UKIP at this GE might well not work for the next one (and vice versa).
Richard your normally lucid defence of Osborne and Cameron is running extremely thin. If what you say is true the conservatives should be having their rebuttal unit going like a steam train on this, given how important it is to the core vote, and indeed voters in general.
Really? HMRC clampdowns on abuse of offshore trusts for IHT avoidance are 'important to the core vote and indeed voters in general'?
Inasmuch as the core vote or voters in general care about this at all, they rather want the small minority of the wealthy who abuse offshore trusts in this way to pay more tax.
Admittedly you raise an interesting, if slightly different, point - whether the government can just get on with governing well, or needs, like Blair, to forget about that and just chase short-term headlines, no matter how ridiculous the press nonsense is.
It's an interesting question, and I don't know the answer. I guess we'll find out in 2015.
Hello, hasn't you family got a great big house with lots of land out in the sticks? Liable to inheritance tax is it? Or perhaps it is safely tucked into a trust. But you think its a good idea that ordinary families should have to sell their homes to pay inheritance tax rather than be able to leave said home to their child(ren)? Come on, Charles, that is not what we would expect from you.
Is this like when Blair thought the average wage was "about 40k" again? A couple leaving their house to their children get 650k tax free. Tell me more about these ordinary families who are borderline millionaires.
Cannot fathom why if I earn 650k by working for it I pay about 250k in tax (depending on the time period over which I earn it), but if I get 650k because my family got lucky in the UK housing lottery I get the full sum no questions asked.
The ICM model is broken. Not because of weighting down previous non-voters, but because of allocating a large share of don't knows to their 2010 choice. That's just not realistic for former Lib Dems, and a heroic assumption for Tory / UKIP floaters.
Hello, hasn't you family got a great big house with lots of land out in the sticks? Liable to inheritance tax is it? Or perhaps it is safely tucked into a trust. But you think its a good idea that ordinary families should have to sell their homes to pay inheritance tax rather than be able to leave said home to their child(ren)? Come on, Charles, that is not what we would expect from you.
Is this like when Blair thought the average wage was "about 40k" again? A couple leaving their house to their children get 650k tax free. Tell me more about these ordinary families who are borderline millionaires.
Cannot fathom why if I earn 650k by working for it I pay about 250k in tax (depending on the time period over which I earn it), but if I get 650k because my family got lucky in the UK housing lottery I get the full sum no questions asked.
One of the best argument I ever heard about IHT came from a Tory - Portillo on This Week. He said he wanted a lower rate of income tax as it was "earned" whereas he preferred higher rates for IHT as it was "unearned".
Why should something be tax free when most of the increase came because of inflation ? Personally, I prefer IHT free allowance per child rather than a total. Why should a single child benefit more than, say, three children ?
The ICM model is broken. Not because of weighting down previous non-voters, but because of allocating a large share of don't knows to their 2010 choice. That's just not realistic for former Lib Dems, and a heroic assumption for Tory / UKIP floaters.
@JohnDC None of the pollsters models are broken, They are like your favourite tipster, when they tell you the percentage winner based on the horse's previous results, then tell you afterwards why they were wrong.
The ICM model is broken. Not because of weighting down previous non-voters, but because of allocating a large share of don't knows to their 2010 choice. That's just not realistic for former Lib Dems, and a heroic assumption for Tory / UKIP floaters.
"ICM tends to find UKIP with lower numbers than other firms partly because of its turnout filtering which scales back by 50% the value of responses of non-voters from GE2010."
Is this really the right way to deal with an emerging party? Fair play to ICM if they have nailed this 4 party politics, but they did have ukip on 20% for the euros 2-3 months out, and labour on 35%
Can I answer that after the election? (Makes predictions much easier doing it then).
Will be interesting to see who gets the hang of ukip best pollster wise... Yes let's after time in 9 months or so!
Of course what might work best for UKIP at this GE might well not work for the next one (and vice versa).
Fighting the last war etc.
Pollsters have a tricky job.
They sure do... To be fair the betting markets are with ICM ukip wise
Danny565 At least 50% of UKIP voters voted Tory in 2010
Yes, but that's because 2010 was a high watermark for the Tories (in recent times) and they got a lot of people who wouldn't ordinarily vote for them. But still, NOW, almost half of Kippers say they'd prefer Labour to the Tories if they had to choose.
and for austerity, Farage wants deeper spending cuts than Cameron.
UKIP have actually been quietly backing away from their right-wing economic policies over the last year. But the point is, the Tories are going to be basing most of their campaign on the economy, which is not likely to work on Kippers because all the polls show most of them fundamentally disagree with austerity and Tory economic policies.
The ICM model is broken. Not because of weighting down previous non-voters, but because of allocating a large share of don't knows to their 2010 choice. That's just not realistic for former Lib Dems, and a heroic assumption for Tory / UKIP floaters.
So the Labour lead is even greater?
Than the underlying position, yes, I think so. That's not to say this particular poll is not at one end of the MoE, though. I don't think Labour have a lead in double figures, but I do think if the election were tomorrow they would win reasonably comfortably, on votes and most definitely on seats.
Though you might knock a few Labour seats off the predicted total for the negative impact the DK adjustment has on the SNP.
The ICM model is broken. Not because of weighting down previous non-voters, but because of allocating a large share of don't knows to their 2010 choice. That's just not realistic for former Lib Dems, and a heroic assumption for Tory / UKIP floaters.
So the Labour lead is even greater?
I await this poll's tables with interest - no doubt it'll have the normal UKIP > Lib Dem story in the raw numbers but could be a Labour outlier.
If the referendum is a "NO" to independence, it will more than likely lead to a "bleeding" of support from the both right and left of the SNP (it is a fairly broad church no matter what Salmond says).
As I said, few doubts that there is a move but the Iranians have their own factions to account for. What they've done in Syria and Iraq is similar where they've not only put some of their own guys on the floor but have also sponsored and funded Shia militias who are nominally loyal to the local leaders (Assad and Maliki) but know what side their bread is buttered.
The differences are in Syria they put more direct fighters in and in Iraq they have been at the sponsored militia game for longer. Its just accelerated in recent times.
Some of those sponsored militias have been called out successfully by Maliki.
The ICM model is broken. Not because of weighting down previous non-voters, but because of allocating a large share of don't knows to their 2010 choice. That's just not realistic for former Lib Dems, and a heroic assumption for Tory / UKIP floaters.
Shouldn't we wait until the general election before saying that ICM's model is broken?
I remember the way YouGov were constantly attacked by Labour in the run up to the 2008 Mayoral election and in the end it was the people like Ken Livingstone that finished up looking silly.
ICM is getting a lot of stick lately, but their record in general elections is second to none - That is why they are perceived as "The Gold Standard" - Not, as some claim because they show the best results for the Tories, but because they are the best pollster in general elections.
The ICM model is broken. Not because of weighting down previous non-voters, but because of allocating a large share of don't knows to their 2010 choice. That's just not realistic for former Lib Dems, and a heroic assumption for Tory / UKIP floaters.
Indeed JohnDC - half of Lib Dems have gone to Lab
I'm surprised it wasn't 70%
I think 50% is a large exaggeration. 70% laughably so.
HMRC clampdowns on abuse of offshore trusts for IHT avoidance are 'important to the core vote and indeed voters in general'?
Is that what this is?? really?? oh come on. Voters, and conservatives in particular, have a natural suspicion of big government, borne out, I guess by bitter experience. They know, instinctively, that given these powers HMRC would go after the little guy, not the rich bloke with the army of lawyers. We already have evidence of this, with HMRC being reprimanded for trying it on with poor pensioners over tax demands they did not owe.
Danny565? UKIP voters heavily favour Cameron over Miliband as best PM and Cameron fell well short of Thatcher and Major's 40%+
Show me one poll in which UKIP voters do not agree we need to produce a surplus, they overwhelmingly want to end ringfencing of overseas aid for example
The ICM model is broken. Not because of weighting down previous non-voters, but because of allocating a large share of don't knows to their 2010 choice. That's just not realistic for former Lib Dems, and a heroic assumption for Tory / UKIP floaters.
Indeed. I'm not convinced that ICM's methodology is designed to handle major political realignments. It's obviously worked wonders from 1997 onwards but the assumptions have changed.
@taffys There are "targets" to be met, and the HRMC in common with most departments, go for the low hanging fruit, rather than the harder to reach ones at the top of the tree. It is the "free" market in action.
The ICM model is broken. Not because of weighting down previous non-voters, but because of allocating a large share of don't knows to their 2010 choice. That's just not realistic for former Lib Dems, and a heroic assumption for Tory / UKIP floaters.
Shouldn't we wait until the general election before saying that ICM's model is broken?
Not really. If the process no longer makes sense in the changed context, there's no reason not to say so. They could end up being right by accident (say the final poll is an outlier which precisely cancels out method error). The clock is stopped. Waiting until noon to decide how wrong it is may or may not 've useful, depending what time it is stopped at.
Admittedly you raise an interesting, if slightly different, point - whether the government can just get on with governing well, or needs, like Blair, to forget about that and just chase short-term headlines, no matter how ridiculous the press nonsense is.
It's an interesting question, and I don't know the answer. I guess we'll find out in 2015.
At least now with a fixed term parliament the short-term headline chasing is only confined to the year or so before the election. Under Blair, with the theoretical possibility of an election at any time, they could get away with it indefinitely.
The ICM model is broken. Not because of weighting down previous non-voters, but because of allocating a large share of don't knows to their 2010 choice. That's just not realistic for former Lib Dems, and a heroic assumption for Tory / UKIP floaters.
Shouldn't we wait until the general election before saying that ICM's model is broken?
Not really. If the process no longer makes sense in the changed context, there's no reason not to say so. They could end up being right by accident (say the final poll is an outlier which precisely cancels out method error). The clock is stopped. Waiting until noon to decide how wrong it is may or may not 've useful, depending what time it is stopped at.
So instead of waiting for results to measure a model against, we should go on the feelings in your gut of what is realistic or not?
@GIN1138 Not to watch the news is a comfortable position to be in. Then your outlook on the world is never challenged. It does however have several downsides.
The ICM model is broken. Not because of weighting down previous non-voters, but because of allocating a large share of don't knows to their 2010 choice. That's just not realistic for former Lib Dems, and a heroic assumption for Tory / UKIP floaters.
Shouldn't we wait until the general election before saying that ICM's model is broken?
Not really. If the process no longer makes sense in the changed context, there's no reason not to say so. They could end up being right by accident (say the final poll is an outlier which precisely cancels out method error). The clock is stopped. Waiting until noon to decide how wrong it is may or may not 've useful, depending what time it is stopped at.
So instead of waiting for results to measure a model against, we should go on the feelings in your gut of what is realistic or not?
Was you around in 2008 when we was hearing similar arguments about why YouGov's Mayoral election predictions were wrong?
The stick ICM is getting right now seems warily similar to me...
Show me one poll in which UKIP voters do not agree we need to produce a surplus, they overwhelmingly want to end ringfencing of overseas aid for example
Lord Ashcroft poll from a few months ago asked people whether there should be 5 more years of cuts. Only 40% said there should be, with 60% disagreeing -- crucially, the share among UKIP voters agreeing was (slightly) lower than the national average.
Also, virtually anytime Yougov asks economic or fiscal questions (on austerity, business, taxes, public services, etc.), the numbers for UKIP supporters are much closer to Labour than they are to the Tories.
@GIN1138 Not to watch the news is a comfortable position to be in. Then your outlook on the world is never challenged. It does however have several downsides.
Well, I don't NOT watch the news, just don't watch it as much at the moment, because between Iraq, Israel/Gaza, Ebola and several other news stories I've probably forgotten, it's just been too depressing, especially in the evenings when the weather has been so lovely...
I'm sure now autumn has started early I'll find myself getting back into my usual evening news routine...
Hello, hasn't you family got a great big house with lots of land out in the sticks? Liable to inheritance tax is it? Or perhaps it is safely tucked into a trust. But you think its a good idea that ordinary families should have to sell their homes to pay inheritance tax rather than be able to leave said home to their child(ren)? Come on, Charles, that is not what we would expect from you.
Is this like when Blair thought the average wage was "about 40k" again? A couple leaving their house to their children get 650k tax free. Tell me more about these ordinary families who are borderline millionaires.
Cannot fathom why if I earn 650k by working for it I pay about 250k in tax (depending on the time period over which I earn it), but if I get 650k because my family got lucky in the UK housing lottery I get the full sum no questions asked.
One of the best argument I ever heard about IHT came from a Tory - Portillo on This Week. He said he wanted a lower rate of income tax as it was "earned" whereas he preferred higher rates for IHT as it was "unearned".
Why should something be tax free when most of the increase came because of inflation ? Personally, I prefer IHT free allowance per child rather than a total. Why should a single child benefit more than, say, three children ?
To me it seems to be a matter of perspective.
From the perspective of a giving money, it seems brutal that the government cut such a large slice. For many people, their family's prosperity is one big motivator in aspiring to be successful, and the government butting in their seems like an intrusion into something fundamental.
From the perspective of receiving money, it's plainly unfair that people can be so advantaged based on their parents' wealth and how many siblings they have. And the idea that you'd rather the government take money that you actually go out spending hour after hour, day after day, working to earn than money given to you through no merit of your own seems crazy.
To me, the latter perspective is ultimately the most persuasive. But they're both powerful arguments not just emotionally, but rationally based on value judgements about the society you want to live in. If you value the ability to provide for your family beyond your death, then the first argument makes sense. If you value equality of opportunity or fairness, or see the concentration of wealth as a bad thing, then the second makes sense.
The ICM model is broken. Not because of weighting down previous non-voters, but because of allocating a large share of don't knows to their 2010 choice. That's just not realistic for former Lib Dems, and a heroic assumption for Tory / UKIP floaters.
Shouldn't we wait until the general election before saying that ICM's model is broken?
Not really. If the process no longer makes sense in the changed context, there's no reason not to say so. They could end up being right by accident (say the final poll is an outlier which precisely cancels out method error). The clock is stopped. Waiting until noon to decide how wrong it is may or may not 've useful, depending what time it is stopped at.
So instead of waiting for results to measure a model against, we should go on the feelings in your gut of what is realistic or not?
It's not a 'feeling in my gut', it's a reason, based on real events, why the things they used to do to make their polling more accurate are likely to make it less accurate this time round. Waiting for the result seems like a very peculiar proposal on a betting site.
Comedian Robin Williams found dead in apparent suicide. Shocking news, he was great in comedies from Mrs Doubtfire and as an inspirational teacher in Dead Poets' Society http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28749702
GIN1138 Solutions are complex. But unlike Linux, (Charlie Brown comics) some problems are so big and scary that they need facing rather than "running away" from. The original was "No problem is so big and scary, it can't be run away from"
The ICM model is broken. Not because of weighting down previous non-voters, but because of allocating a large share of don't knows to their 2010 choice. That's just not realistic for former Lib Dems, and a heroic assumption for Tory / UKIP floaters.
Shouldn't we wait until the general election before saying that ICM's model is broken?
Not really. If the process no longer makes sense in the changed context, there's no reason not to say so. They could end up being right by accident (say the final poll is an outlier which precisely cancels out method error). The clock is stopped. Waiting until noon to decide how wrong it is may or may not 've useful, depending what time it is stopped at.
So instead of waiting for results to measure a model against, we should go on the feelings in your gut of what is realistic or not?
We'll never have enough elections to empirically validate a methodolgy for such a specific set of circumstances (the LD and UKIP factors both being pretty unique this time around).
Of course it'd be ideal to somehow be able to run elections over and over, do a thousand or two and then say who the best pollster is, but since that's impossible, reasoning about the models is the only sensible thing you can do.
It's obviously fraught with opportunities to read in your own bias (see: Romney, Yes campaign), but short of either massively over-relying on a tiny number of elections or just flipping a coin, a bit of common sense is the best option we have.
Danny565 Well there won't be 5 more years of austerity as the target is a surplus in 2018. UKIP supporters also pro grammar school, anti more immigration, anti EU, socially conservative and the most pro Israel, all issues to the right of the spectrum
Comments
No, it is what we have governments for, to rein in capitalism's more base instincts.
We now have the problem that any governments power over a multinational is very weak.
Why would we want to create a tax incentive for elderly people to live in houses that are too large for them and could be more efficiently utilised by a family, and to put the bulk of their wealth into a single, illiquid, property?
At the margin it will also reduce liquidity and increase prices in the housing market.
None of these are good outcomes.
#DownThePanMonday
US is following your lead on interventions - rightly so - it's all going well.
Sorry - what can I say - I think of the lurkers
Great films, both.
I can work with this.
Brisky rule - multinationals have nae power.
They looked Very grumpy
Your rule might be sensible, but the law of the "lowest common denominator" comes into force. They move money and if possible, assets to a place where they have power.
Iraq: Iraq gets its new PM, but Maliki as I mentioned the other day actually needs to decide to stand down. And he isn't.
The Americans and the bloc set up against Maliki are hoping that effectively that what is de jure will become de facto. Maliki however is today's de facto.
Meanwhile some more important developments whilst the boys in the Green Zone argue.
1. The US has suggested that it has no plans to extend its airstrikes outside of the Kurdish zone. It will if Maliki goes but its a clear statement that will no doubt be heard in Baghdad.
2. The US military at least is honest in that they've launched a mere 15 airstrikes with limited overall effect. Two reasons why a) on the ground intelligence is being added to, which is shocking given the amount of resources the US have in the area how long this situation has been brewing b) they are restricted in scope by political order.
3. ISIS announces its begun the Battle of Baghdad. Whether this is designed as a nerve rattler or serious intent we'll soon know.
Ukraine
Apparently a neutral aid mission has been agreed by Russia and Ukraine for separatist areas of Eastern Ukraine. The Russian military do have a surprising number of UN white vehicles within 40 miles of the border....
Dunno? Send me your bank account details and I will give it a go.
Ready money = err, lets go for Liquid assets
But we are supposed to believe its all different now.
And the moral?
NOT AS GOOD AS AVERY'S
If it is liquid assets, I have been known to polish off a bottle of Islay malt in a session?
Is this really the right way to deal with an emerging party? Fair play to ICM if they have nailed this 4 party politics, but they did have ukip on 20% for the euros 2-3 months out, and labour on 35%
Apologies
I might be tempted by an "older" MacAllen, it being one of the few whiskies where 35 years in the cask really improved it over the standard
I'm all about the blended and [censored - perhaps on the order of Sky news]
This will be why people like Bill Gates give billions away to charity then - obviously he has no moral compass.
The list of such people is endless.
Smameron is confusing hard working moral capitalists with talentless celebrities and their vacant headed wannabee reality TV counterparts.
For my sins of youth, I really can't stand blended whisky these days.
If I am drinking in a pub, I usually settle for something else with a dash of mixer.
It's to deal with this sort of people who will blindly say Labour to a VI survey but when push comes to shove they don't make it down the polling booth I reckon. I reckon the UKIP former non voters are a touch more motivated tbh, its not the typical 18-24 yr old that says they'll vote Labour and then never shows up.
I am out of practice with beer drinking, any more than four pints and it is time for the spirits.
I don't know about the Yoof
You have to admire the Telegraph's desperation to make a smidgen of a story from a complete non-story. I particularly liked the disjunction between the headline and the content (a favourite Guardian trick as well):
Headline: "Savers could pay death tax while they are still living" . That gets the Pavlovian reaction going nicely, so the readers, frothing at the mouth with indignation, don't actually get round to noticing what the article actually says. In fact it's a rehash of the previous indignation, about up-front payment pending court action over tax avoidance schemes, in particular in relation to tax-avoidance schemes using offshore trusts.
Quite what this has got to do with 'Savers' paying 'death tax while they are still living' is mysterious. Anyone got any clues?
How much worse can it get for the Blues?
Wonders why.
Bourbon or Scotch, surely.
Don't call me Shirley.
Islay whiskies need comfortable arm chairs, good company, and an open fire, though the armchairs can be dispensed with in emergencies.
'The Queen appoints Commissioners of HMRC who have responsibility for handling individual taxpayers’ affairs impartially. This means that ministers have no involvement in taxpayers’ cases.'
'The commissioners meet formally and make decisions within HMRC’s Board and Executive Committee. The commissioners are responsible for providing leadership to the department and for managing its resources efficiently and effectively and for delivering the objectives and targets set by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. '
There is no evidence to suggest that the govt have suggested any move for early collection of IHT. The govt set the levels and the %ages. The govt make resources available to HMRC to do its job, eg money to target tax evaders
Team OGH - Something Should Be Done
This poll has them on 31%, same as in the June ICM when the lead was only 1%.'
Yes this is true and we see Labour going up at the same time as UKIP but everyone is telling us that UKIP are taking votes from Labour. The sums don't add up.
Even in purely statistical terms, the MOE on the Con and Lab vote-shares in typical poll is around plus or minus 3% - and of course looking at the lead magnifies that effect.
Add to that the extra systematic problem of distortions caused by polling during the holiday period, and you can expect some apparently big shifts.
Richard your normally lucid defence of Osborne and Cameron is running extremely thin. If what you say is true the conservatives should be having their rebuttal unit going like a steam train on this, given how important it is to the core vote, and indeed voters in general.
Osborne should be screaming from the rooftops that ordinary, honest people would never have pay inheritance tax before they die.
And he should also be screaming from the roof tops that ordinary, honest people would never have their money summarily confiscated by HMRC without some sort of due process.
But Osborne isn't. The fact is, Osborne has been silent on these stories floated in the press, which means he is either considering exactly what is being reported, or he simply doesn't care to reassure ordinary people.
Either way He reveals himself as a wealthy big government patrician socialist. obsessed with playing labour's 'fairness' game, to try to win supporters who will never vote for him.
Fighting the last war etc.
Pollsters have a tricky job.
Inasmuch as the core vote or voters in general care about this at all, they rather want the small minority of the wealthy who abuse offshore trusts in this way to pay more tax.
Admittedly you raise an interesting, if slightly different, point - whether the government can just get on with governing well, or needs, like Blair, to forget about that and just chase short-term headlines, no matter how ridiculous the press nonsense is.
It's an interesting question, and I don't know the answer. I guess we'll find out in 2015.
Cannot fathom why if I earn 650k by working for it I pay about 250k in tax (depending on the time period over which I earn it), but if I get 650k because my family got lucky in the UK housing lottery I get the full sum no questions asked.
But as an aside,
Goldsmith is near the favourite for London mayor?
I may have been taken in by rumours
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.609028
Why should something be tax free when most of the increase came because of inflation ? Personally, I prefer IHT free allowance per child rather than a total. Why should a single child benefit more than, say, three children ?
I'm surprised it wasn't 70%
None of the pollsters models are broken, They are like your favourite tipster, when they tell you the percentage winner based on the horse's previous results, then tell you afterwards why they were wrong.
Though you might knock a few Labour seats off the predicted total for the negative impact the DK adjustment has on the SNP.
The differences are in Syria they put more direct fighters in and in Iraq they have been at the sponsored militia game for longer. Its just accelerated in recent times.
Some of those sponsored militias have been called out successfully by Maliki.
I remember the way YouGov were constantly attacked by Labour in the run up to the 2008 Mayoral election and in the end it was the people like Ken Livingstone that finished up looking silly.
ICM is getting a lot of stick lately, but their record in general elections is second to none - That is why they are perceived as "The Gold Standard" - Not, as some claim because they show the best results for the Tories, but because they are the best pollster in general elections.
Is that what this is?? really?? oh come on. Voters, and conservatives in particular, have a natural suspicion of big government, borne out, I guess by bitter experience. They know, instinctively, that given these powers HMRC would go after the little guy, not the rich bloke with the army of lawyers. We already have evidence of this, with HMRC being reprimanded for trying it on with poor pensioners over tax demands they did not owe.
Show me one poll in which UKIP voters do not agree we need to produce a surplus, they overwhelmingly want to end ringfencing of overseas aid for example
There are "targets" to be met, and the HRMC in common with most departments, go for the low hanging fruit, rather than the harder to reach ones at the top of the tree.
It is the "free" market in action.
Fitting that the glorious day's of July have given way to gloom and doom in August...
Not to watch the news is a comfortable position to be in. Then your outlook on the world is never challenged.
It does however have several downsides.
The stick ICM is getting right now seems warily similar to me...
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/ANP-summary-140527.pdf
Also, virtually anytime Yougov asks economic or fiscal questions (on austerity, business, taxes, public services, etc.), the numbers for UKIP supporters are much closer to Labour than they are to the Tories.
I'm sure now autumn has started early I'll find myself getting back into my usual evening news routine...
The whole world seems to be falling to pieces this August.
From the perspective of a giving money, it seems brutal that the government cut such a large slice. For many people, their family's prosperity is one big motivator in aspiring to be successful, and the government butting in their seems like an intrusion into something fundamental.
From the perspective of receiving money, it's plainly unfair that people can be so advantaged based on their parents' wealth and how many siblings they have. And the idea that you'd rather the government take money that you actually go out spending hour after hour, day after day, working to earn than money given to you through no merit of your own seems crazy.
To me, the latter perspective is ultimately the most persuasive. But they're both powerful arguments not just emotionally, but rationally based on value judgements about the society you want to live in. If you value the ability to provide for your family beyond your death, then the first argument makes sense. If you value equality of opportunity or fairness, or see the concentration of wealth as a bad thing, then the second makes sense.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28749702
Solutions are complex.
But unlike Linux, (Charlie Brown comics) some problems are so big and scary that they need facing rather than "running away" from.
The original was "No problem is so big and scary, it can't be run away from"
Commedians look into the soul of humanity for their material, it is a dark and scary place.
Of course it'd be ideal to somehow be able to run elections over and over, do a thousand or two and then say who the best pollster is, but since that's impossible, reasoning about the models is the only sensible thing you can do.
It's obviously fraught with opportunities to read in your own bias (see: Romney, Yes campaign), but short of either massively over-relying on a tiny number of elections or just flipping a coin, a bit of common sense is the best option we have.
Swapping one opiate for the other is not an uncommon practice. It is our only defence.