Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB Night hawks is now open
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB Night hawks is now open
If you’ve always been a lurker, Get Ready for This thread, as it gives you an opportunity to delurk, I’m hoping there will be No Limit to the number of lurkers delurking.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/may/29/eurozone-crisis-china-imf-ec-deficit
The evidence for that judgment is contained in a YouGov poll for The Times, which we publish today. It shows deep public scepticism about the leadership capabilities of Ed Miliband, the Labour leader. Asked to compare Mr Miliband with his predecessor, Gordon Brown, the public found Mr Miliband less in touch, less caring about ordinary people, less trustworthy, considerably less decisive, weaker, less competent and much less clear about what he stands for.
This was against Mr Brown, an unpopular, unelected prime minister who attracted a mere 29 per cent of the vote in the 2010 general election.
**Thank you The Times**
Aren't 2 Unlimited a bit too 90's?
A magnificently endowed female iirc
I thought PB Nighthawks was about anything. You are continuing your tirade against our future PM. So why change the thread ?
Anita was great.
As someone pointed out to me, I should be proud, that two different Labour supporting websites have run pieces, based on my thread headers or referencing them.
Technically, Charles, if your flat has ascended in value that much, then you're not a 'poor sod' in any traditional sense of the word.
What's wrong with buying super-prime London property at £400 per sq. foot?
Weirdly, and to this day I'm tripped out about it, they were supported during their break by, erm, David Gest! David Gest of Liza Minelli, painted-on eyebrows, plastic face fame. He couldn't sing, couldn't dance and didn't make any speeches. Just pranced about on stage for about 15mins with a mic saying things like 'yeah' and 'let's do it' to about 2500 confused and pissed party-goers.
Weird, weird, weird.
(We might say the same about Cameron's unenthusiastic right-wing members.)
Edit: I guess if you're not post-1981 Thatcher or Blair then politics is about getting unenthusiastic people nevertheless to vote for and support you.
I explicitly asked the head of the overseas admissions today (was at the F&P committmee meeting for one of the universities I'm involved with) about the visa impact.
She said that there is a lot of noise in the press, but in reality there has been b*gger all impact (this is a postgraduate university that takes 200-300 overseas students every year).
Overseas applications up 17% in the first 7 months of our academic year.
Care to comment?
Of course I could take on debt - but it's not prudent to take on debt with no means of paying it back.
The point is, why is it a just tax?
I'm very proud of the fact that I bought and paid for my flat myself.
Let me be honest, the Miliband polling isn't really that important at this stage. Everyone knows the next GE is in 2015, not tomorrow, and there will be much more exposure for Ed as the battle approaches than in the current skirmishes.
The focus since 2010 has been on internal Coalition turmoil, internal Conservative turmoil and the rise of UKIP. In many ways, Labour has both been quiet and had it easy in the comfy chair of Opposition. It has watched its principal opponents wrestle with the mess it left behind and then conveniently implode for their benefit.
On policy, I didn't have much sense of what a future Conservative Government would be like in 2008 and it hardly seems prudent for Labour to put all its ideas on the table so far out. Yes, there will need to be a credible costed economic policy and I'm sure the folk memory of the savaging of 1992 will counsel caution. In essence, there are parallels with 1997 - I suspect the public broadly don't mind about what is called austerity but they do want to see their personal financial situation improve which means rising income outstripping rises in things like fares and fuel.
All Miliband may have to do is to offer a continuation of Austerity Nice with the onus on improving personal incomes rather than slashing Government expenditure. That's going to be a fine line to walk and it may be Osborne will offer the bribe of a tax cut in 2016 but we also know he is planning the kind of spending cuts I suspect many on the Tory side would have liked in 2010.
I'm sure Labour are already planning how to position Miliband against Cameron with reference to interviews and tv debates. That definition will be critical - he'll get nowhere trying to out-charm Cameron so he either has to provoke him into his classic brittleness or out-tough him in terms of playing into southern suburban concerns over planning, transport and education as well as convincing people he won't abandon Austerity Nice in favour of excessive borrowing.
It also demonstrates the spiteful and rather pathetic agenda of the Labour and LibDems. Is this really a way to solve the problems of the country? or is it just playing to the gallery?
The paucity of ideas on the Left is rather depressing.
One of the big problems the country faces, and it is one that is going to get bigger, is the gap between the richest few percent who are seeing and will continue to see their living standards improve, and the rest who are seeing theirs stagnate or decline. It is not sustainable, at some stage something will have to give. I don't see the Tories even beginning to address this.
I have a friend who is a fantastically successful hedge fund manager (Socrates would not like him), and he is an enormous believer in introducing a wealth tax.
His rational for this is that the taxation system should exist to (a) encourage good things, like work, and (b) discourage bad things, like smoking. He particularly believes that capital should be put to good use, and the overall economy would move more smoothly if the system encouraged people to make sure their savings, etc., were earning a return. In other words, he believes a wealth tax would discourage people from having second homes they didn't use, and encourage people to convert unused land into houses, etc.
He has a host of other good reasons (companies would want to pay dividends at least equivalent to the wealth tax to stop their shareholders from being forced to sell shares), why it was good idea.
I always felt that wealth taxes were complicated, encouraged excessive leverage, and could be evaded by people like... errr... him. But he made a compelling case; and made me think about the tax and benefit systems more holistically.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-22707261?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dDVKampQMkFudENGeU9oNnBNZnF0Rnc#gid=0
A more rational approach to taxing wealth would be to increase the number of Council tax bands and to revalue houses (the current bands being several decades old).
It would also be reasonable to increase inheritance taxes, but this would also be more sensibly done in several steps.
for income tax, we pay the higher rate only on the amount above the threshold, and this is rightly seen as reasonable, with existing wealth taxes such as council tax and stamp duty we pay the higher rate on the entirety. It would be far fairer and would create fewer distortions if the higher rates only applied to the amount above the threshold.
And I am old enough to remember the manifesto promise by the LibDems to get rid of wealth tax in the form of council tax, and to have a local income tax. How does a Mansion tax fit with this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10086867/David-Camerons-circle-of-trusty-chums-is-shrinking.html
And (another) one for the Trekkies (an eclectic mix in my timeline...):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4n2dGwYcp9k
Of course the financial crisis in a number of ways changed that offering particularly 'Sharing the proceeds of growth' but in general the Tories seem a long way ahead of Labour at this stage certainly from a public perception. The situation demanded it. Now of course Miliband could be developing all sorts of things behind closed doors but none of us know. It may have been different if Cameron hadn't implemented Fixed Term Parliaments which does in some ways seem to have the impact of giving the opposition the luxury of taking a couple of years off.
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/79181/hancock_latest.html
Before the 2010 election I highlighted a paper about PM approval being the best forecaster of the next GE. The authors got the forecast almost spot on. A 6.9% lead for the Tories and 311 seats.
Well, they've updated their paper
http://ms.cc.sunysb.edu/~mlebo/Lebo and Norpoth.2012.pdf
Now, I need some arithmetically-minded person to check equation (2) on page 10. See also note 7 at the end.
Because, if I've done the sums right, and we plug in some numbers, the answer that pops out is DYNAMITE...
Clue: Cameron's IPSOS-MORI approval in May was "only" 36%. However the "two-party vote" was only 65%...
Are you enjoying your guest editorship a little too much?
Whilst the polling / media narrative could raise concerns for Labour / Ed Miliband, is that really a big thing at the moment?
Even a Tory like yourself must admit that it's not.
*Trembles*
But don't worry, I have a couple of Dave is crap threads in the pipeline.
Mind you, so far in my stint as Guest Editor, I've been called a deluded Lib Dem.
Quite right, Mr. Eagles. Excepting your perverse preference for the Queen of Bithynia over the son of Hamilcar you're a man of sound judgement.
"Will Dave lead the conservatives to victory in 2015 up there with the Battle of Alesia or will he lead the Tory party to an epochal defeat in 2015 on a par with the Carthaginian defeat at Zama"
That's why Mike is so good and successful - his personal opinions are hard to discern from his threads.
(1−0.771−(−0.661))∗0.549 is?
Both of them have been dealt hands that are unwinnable.
"it's not prudent to take on debt with no means of paying it back"
So you're not a Keynesian?
Burn 'im ... Burn 'im ... Burn 'im.
(0.89)∗0.549
0.48861
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/339856377621143552/photo/1
When did Balls or Brown suggest building up a budgetary surplus,? They are not Keynesians, they are fools.
0.48861+0.771∗7.3
0.48861+5.6283
6.11691
Claiming to be Keynesian is deranged (for Labour) because they never ran a surplus. They just want to spend more than they receive in taxation on a permanent basis.
Shame on them.
The only one of nine measures in which Mr Miliband emerged positively was on the question of his honesty: 39 per cent said he was honest against 24 per cent who said that he was dishonest. When measured against similar questions asked of Mr Brown after polling day in May 2010, the figures are unflattering to Mr Miliband.
More voters thought that Mr Brown cared about ordinary people (50 per cent versus 36 per cent for Mr Miliband); tried to do the right thing (56-39); or had a clear sense of purpose (51-27). The former Prime Minister also scored higher than his successor in terms of being trustworthy (34-29), decisive (36-19) or competent (42-28).
However, when voters were asked for a direct comparison between Mr Miliband and Mr Brown, they rated the present leader better than his predecessor. Thirty-two per cent said that Mr Miliband was a better leader than Mr Brown with 17 per cent saying he was worse. Forty-one per cent said that he was no better or no worse.
https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/339815735436144640
PM[t] is current PM approval, as defined in note 7. I will return to this at the end...
Adding previous gives subtotal:
8.03381
America asked Iraq to join the war on terror in September 2001.
In what way do you think Ed is a "real drag" on Labour by the way? Would a realistic alternative, say Cooper, have them in the high 40s in the polls do you think?
PM[t-1] is Brown's approval in 2010, negatived because he's Labour, or 4.167 (i.e. it was actually negative, but becomes a positive in the model. see note 7)
PM[t-2] is Blair's approval in 2005, or -5.68 (i.e. it was actually positive, but becomes a negative in the model. see note 7)
"Following the Appendix of Lebo and Norpoth (2006), we begin with MORI’s PM Approval value (in
percent) and divide this by the proportion of the two-party vote-share (of those certain to vote) in the same polls. From this we subtract 50 (to establish a midpoint) and multiply by -1 if the PM is from
Labour."
Do you have the original figures to calculate this, or should I just use your figure?
−0.771∗0.624∗PM[t−1]
−0.771∗0.624∗4.167
-2.004796...
- 2.34279552
!
The current PM[t-1] is the PM[t] used in the example on page 10, i.e. Brown's "approval" in 2010. Likewise the current PM[t-2] is the PM[t-1] on page 10 i.e. Blair's approval in 2005.
I think?
8.0338
+ {calc for PM[t]}
-2.3428
-2.0048
= 3.6862 + {calc for PM[t]}
Well, IPSOS-MORI (May 2013) had Cameron approval 36%, two-party vote 65% [34%+31%]
So I make PM[t] 100*(36/65)-50, or 5.38 5.538
Charge in London terror case: “@itvnews: Woolwich suspect Michael Adebowale charged with murder of Drummer Lee Rigby http://itv.co/175SuZU ”
Brown ran a deficit every year from 2002 onwards, and only had a surplus in the 98-01 period because he stuck to Conservative spending limits. The figure also excludes the hidden debt off balance sheet on PFI projects.
By all means fly the flag for government spending, but be honest enough to advocate higher taxes to pay for it. Do not pretend that you are doing my children a favour by passing them your debts.
Only when Labour are honest enough to repudiate the financial profligacy of the last labour govt will they be fit for government.
Edit: No! That's OK...
"When Brown got a £28 billion (IIRC) windfall from selling the mobile spectrum, he insisted on putting into paying down the debt"
In other words, he sold an asset to cover part of his annual deficit.
Unfortunately we've been doing this for decades under chancellors of every stripe. That's why huge tracts of our country are now owned by foreigners. The media talks this up as "inward investment" but Harold MacMillan got it right when he described it as "selling the family silver".
0.624∗5.38
3.3571
Making final total
7.0433
BUT I'm not sure about that "multiply by -1 for Labour" and how it impacts for changing previous signs. I don't understand the relevance of it, and that could massively affect the result.
7.0433"
There was a slight typo in my last calc, making the final result actually
7.142
So... the news is...
Lebo & Norpoth's model predicts the Tories will win the Popular Vote in 2015 by 7.1%!
No change since 2010!
The best way would be to move Ed Balls away from anything to do with money, and to promise to stick to coalition deficit reduction targets, even if this involves tax rises instead of spending cuts.
It was a key part of New Labours success in 97 to establish economic credibility, and that needs to be replicated.
With the first phase of the party’s policy review drawing to a close before the summer, Mr Miliband is aiming to use the next two months to show how he would “change the direction of Britain so it works for the many”.