Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB Night hawks is now open

SystemSystem Posts: 12,137
edited May 2013 in General

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.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Finally sense is beginning to prevail. From bloody-minded austerity to growth.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/may/29/eurozone-crisis-china-imf-ec-deficit
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,374
    Paywall

    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.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Why is Dan Hodges considered a Labour supporter ? He is a Tory through and through.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,374
    The most important criticism is that he has not articulated a credible economic policy. The Labour team trails its Conservative counterpart in the popular estimation, despite a poor growth rate and the fact that the public is sceptical about whether the Chancellor’s austerity programme is working. The sense that Labour’s profligate spending contributed to the debacle in the public finances lingers, compounded by Mr Miliband’s continued denial of responsibility.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,374
    Mr Miliband but perhaps most worrying of all is the verdict on the core leadership virtues of decisiveness and strength. Only 19 per cent think that he is decisive and 57 per cent say that he is liable to dither. Fewer than a fifth describe him as a strong leader and more than half say that he is weak.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,374
    Well that's the morning thread sorted.

    **Thank you The Times**
  • @TSE Has there been a decade jump in your oh so subtle music references?
    Aren't 2 Unlimited a bit too 90's?
    A magnificently endowed female iirc
  • glassfetglassfet Posts: 220
    The Times could have saved some ink by shortening their entire leader to "Ed Miliband, a bit crap"
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    @TSE

    I thought PB Nighthawks was about anything. You are continuing your tirade against our future PM. So why change the thread ?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,374

    @TSE Has there been a decade jump in your oh so subtle music references?
    Aren't 2 Unlimited a bit too 90's?
    A magnificently endowed female iirc

    Aye, 2 Unlimited were my favourite band of the 90s.

    Anita was great.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,374
    edited May 2013
    surbiton said:

    @TSE

    I thought PB Nighthawks was about anything. You are continuing your tirade against our future PM. So why change the thread ?

    There have been no tirades against Ed, I only go where the polling takes me.

    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.
  • glassfetglassfet Posts: 220
    @MrHarryCole: “@romillyweeks: Lib Dems now statement on Mike Hancock within half an hour” Hancock's Half Hour...
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    FPT rcs1000

    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?

  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115

    @TSE Has there been a decade jump in your oh so subtle music references?
    Aren't 2 Unlimited a bit too 90's?
    A magnificently endowed female iirc

    I was on a stag weekend at Bognor Regis Butlins a few years back, drunk and disoriented as I stumbled into the night club, when on stage were 2Unlimited! The star act!

    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.

  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    edited May 2013
    I went to a talk by a figure of the New Labour era who supported David for leader yesterday. No surprise that he wasn't optimistic about Ed's chances, then, but it did remind me that people that feel the same way must still 'be people' within Labour.

    (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.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    FPT tim re: university applications

    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?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    surbiton said:

    Why is Dan Hodges considered a Labour supporter ? He is a Tory through and through.

    His Mum is a Labour MP?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    Why is Dan Hodges considered a Labour supporter ? He is a Tory through and through.

    His Mum is a Labour MP?
    I didn't know if your Mum is a Labour MP then you are automatically a Labour supporter. Nick P's parents were Tories according to him.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    Charles said:

    FPT rcs1000

    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?

    If your flat has gone up by four million, remortgage it, pay the tax and stop whining.
    Life dealt you a lucky deal Charles, bleating about how tough it is when you've been given a head start is bloody painful
    It hasn't gone up by £4m.

    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?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    Charles said:

    FPT rcs1000

    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?

    If your flat has gone up by four million, remortgage it, pay the tax and stop whining.
    Life dealt you a lucky deal Charles, bleating about how tough it is when you've been given a head start is bloody painful
    All my Dad gave me was a great education (which is not nothing). Everything else has gone into a charitable foundation - I get to have a lot of fun giving money away but that is it.

    I'm very proud of the fact that I bought and paid for my flat myself.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,835
    Evening all :)

    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.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    I thought it was instructive that after the Woolwich incident, the media seemed more interested in what Nigel Farage had to say than what Ed Miliband had to say...
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Charles said:

    tim said:

    Charles said:

    FPT rcs1000

    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?

    If your flat has gone up by four million, remortgage it, pay the tax and stop whining.
    Life dealt you a lucky deal Charles, bleating about how tough it is when you've been given a head start is bloody painful
    All my Dad gave me was a great education (which is not nothing). Everything else has gone into a charitable foundation - I get to have a lot of fun giving money away but that is it.

    I'm very proud of the fact that I bought and paid for my flat myself.
    So, do you think my dad paid for my two houses ? Stop feeling sorry for yourself. Pay your taxes !
  • glassfetglassfet Posts: 220
    @MichaelLCrick: Nick Clegg asks Carmichael to convene urgent disciplinary meeting to consider Mike Hancock
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Charles said:

    tim said:

    Charles said:

    FPT rcs1000

    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?

    If your flat has gone up by four million, remortgage it, pay the tax and stop whining.
    Life dealt you a lucky deal Charles, bleating about how tough it is when you've been given a head start is bloody painful
    It hasn't gone up by £4m.

    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?
    It is not meant to be a just tax, or even an effective way to raise money. It is just like the 50% rate a way to demonstrate a dislike of the rich.

    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.
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    Toby Young's father was responsible for drafting the 1945 Labour manifesto.
    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    Why is Dan Hodges considered a Labour supporter ? He is a Tory through and through.

    His Mum is a Labour MP?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,630

    Charles said:

    tim said:

    Charles said:

    FPT rcs1000

    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?

    If your flat has gone up by four million, remortgage it, pay the tax and stop whining.
    Life dealt you a lucky deal Charles, bleating about how tough it is when you've been given a head start is bloody painful
    It hasn't gone up by £4m.

    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?
    It is not meant to be a just tax, or even an effective way to raise money. It is just like the 50% rate a way to demonstrate a dislike of the rich.

    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.

    Playing to the gallery, surely, is consistently misrepresenting and manipulating statistics to create a false impression about welfare recipients.

    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.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,983
    @foxinsox, charles

    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.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    taffys said:

    I thought it was instructive that after the Woolwich incident, the media seemed more interested in what Nigel Farage had to say than what Ed Miliband had to say...

    They probably wanted, and half expected, a more reactionary response from Farage than they got.

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Any views on the rights and wrongs of this?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-22707261?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    rcs1000 said:

    @foxinsox, charles

    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.

    I have no problem with taxes on wealth rather than income, but the proposed Mansion tax is designed to raise very little money, and to discomfort the very rich in London and surrounds. As is clear by the comments on this site it is motivated by spite rather than any real need to raise revenue.

    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?

  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    stodge said:

    Evening all :)
    blockquote>

    Good post.

    I think it will be intriguing to see how the two Eds present 'austerity nice'. I don't think it is doable.

    We are two years away from the next GE and many Labour supporters - I suspect - will not be willing to accept any cuts at all. Worse still, Len McCluskey. Mark Serwotka and co, will be spitting tacks if Labour make manifesto commitments to continue with austerity. There will be blood spilt if the two Eds go the austerity route.

    Ed Miliband and Ed Balls are leaving it late to say what they'll do and I'm intrigued as to whether they will be 'honest' or 'dishonest' in their economic commitments. The closer we get to the GE, the fresher the fall out of any big arguments (especially with the unions) will be in the public's mind. I think honesty with the public about the peril of our finances will be an impossible route for him to go down.

    At least with Osborne, unpopular though he is, people know where they stand. Osborne is all about austerity, for better or for worse. He was honest about it from the start, and whether you think that austerity-honesty is a millstone round his neck or not he at least can claim to be a man dealing in realities.

    If Ed Miliband is anti-austerity he needs to formulate a group of words which appear not to make his party look as though it's making unfunded spending commitments. He needs to ensure those words don't detach him from the real world of harsh, harsh times. Because if they do, the Tories and the media will blow holes in him.

    Unless he is a braver and smarter leader than I credit him for, I think he can only enter the campaign for GE2015 with a 'dishonest' offer to the electorate. Because if he makes a commitment to borrow and spend more to improve our economic prospects it will be fundamentally dishonest because he knows that when in office he'll be unable to carry it through (see Hollande, see the economic realities, see the fact our debt will be astronomical by then and see that our deficit will likely still be around £75billion).

    So for the two Eds, in my view, honesty equals ruin, dishonesty gives them a chance of winning.

    But that's just my take on it. But whether anyone agrees with me or not, I think it's a definitive fact that on the economy the two Eds have a hell of a circle to square.

  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,842
    Any rumours about what sanctions the LibDems are planning to impose on Mike Hancock? The Beeb are reporting that something is in the offing
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Any rumours about what sanctions the LibDems are planning to impose on Mike Hancock? The Beeb are reporting that something is in the offing

    How about some Bromide in his tea?
  • NextNext Posts: 826

    Any rumours about what sanctions the LibDems are planning to impose on Mike Hancock? The Beeb are reporting that something is in the offing

    Forced to be a Lib Dem member for life?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Provide him with a free transfer to the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia?
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    'David Cameron’s circle of trusty chums is shrinking':

    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
  • stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    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.

    Well I think thats an extremely optimistic view of Miliband who increasingly seems comatose in comparison with how Cameron was in 2007/08. Its not true that we had no idea of the Tory positions. We had already had grammargate. They had already had their policy reviews through the summer of 2007 during the Brown bounce (with the furore over taxing supermarket car parks and Minimum Alcohol Pricing and so forth) and then there was the 2007 party conference where they unveiled a fair number of policies in readiness to face the election that never was which they successfully saw off.

    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.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    The public may or may not be wrong about the Conservative party being divided. They are certainly wrong about some aspects of their assessment of Ed Miliband, as reported by the Times polling.
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    @tim - which woman leader do you think is most likely? May? Greening and Miller IMO lack the support of the party. Villiers probably not senior enough?
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited May 2013
    More bad news for Labour...

    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%...
  • carlcarl Posts: 750
    @TSE

    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.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,374
    RodCrosby said:

    More bad news for Labour...

    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%...

    Rod, if you want to do a thread on this, I'll be very happy to run it.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737



    Rod, if you want to do a thread on this, I'll be very happy to run it.

    Yes, I'd like another pair of eyes to check the equation first...

    *Trembles*
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,374
    carl said:

    @TSE

    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.

    When even supportive Labour websites are running pieces like mine, I think I'll stick to my editorial judgement rather than yours.

    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.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,725
    Good evening, everyone.

    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.
  • NextNext Posts: 826
    RodCrosby said:



    Rod, if you want to do a thread on this, I'll be very happy to run it.

    Yes, I'd like another pair of eyes to check the equation first...

    *Trembles*
    What do you want checking about it?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,374

    Good evening, everyone.

    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.

    Oh, there's a thread coming up soon which has the line

    "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"
  • carlcarl Posts: 750

    carl said:

    @TSE

    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.

    When even supportive Labour websites are running pieces like mine, I think I'll stick to my editorial judgement rather than yours.

    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.
    Fair enough. Clearly though you think Dave is less crap than Ed.

    That's why Mike is so good and successful - his personal opinions are hard to discern from his threads.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,509
    rcs1000 said:

    @foxinsox, charles

    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.

    Switzerland, hardly a bastion of socialism, has wealth taxes - e.g. 0.3% per year in Zurich for wealth above a certain level. I think this makes more sense in principle than property and land taxation, since it avoids distortions if X puts money in housing and Y in yachts or paintings. The conservative argument for it is that it discourages sloth - you can't just make your pile and then put your feet up.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Next said:

    RodCrosby said:



    Rod, if you want to do a thread on this, I'll be very happy to run it.

    Yes, I'd like another pair of eyes to check the equation first...

    *Trembles*
    What do you want checking about it?
    OK, let's break it down term by term.

    (1−0.771−(−0.661))∗0.549 is?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,374
    carl said:

    carl said:

    @TSE

    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.

    When even supportive Labour websites are running pieces like mine, I think I'll stick to my editorial judgement rather than yours.

    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.
    Fair enough. Clearly though you think Dave is less crap than Ed.

    That's why Mike is so good and successful - his personal opinions are hard to discern from his threads.
    No, I think Dave is equally crap as Ed, if not more.

    Both of them have been dealt hands that are unwinnable.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,725
    Mr. Eagles, would you also contend that Jugurtha was incompetent because he lost to Marius/Sulla?
  • @Charles

    "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.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,374

    Mr. Eagles, would you also contend that Jugurtha was incompetent because he lost to Marius/Sulla?

    Yes, but only because it has been ages since I read up on the Jugurthine War.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,630
    carl said:

    @TSE

    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.

    It's TSE's site right now. He has an editorial agenda just as Mike does. Endless Ed is Crap threads may be tedious to some, but others find them very reassuring. And when you get down to it, Ed is pretty crap and a real drag on Labour. Enjoy yourself by seeing how many ways there are to discuss the same subject over a relatively short period of time.

  • NextNext Posts: 826
    RodCrosby said:

    Next said:

    RodCrosby said:



    Rod, if you want to do a thread on this, I'll be very happy to run it.

    Yes, I'd like another pair of eyes to check the equation first...

    *Trembles*
    What do you want checking about it?
    OK, let's break it down term by term.

    (1−0.771−(−0.661))∗0.549 is?
    (0.229−(−0.661))∗0.549

    (0.89)∗0.549

    0.48861

  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    +0.771∗VOTE[t−1] is? I make VOTE[t-1] the Tory lead in 2010, or 7.3 (they turn percentages into integers)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,725
    Mr. Eagles, after you've finished with Journey to Altmortis, buy this book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1844159728/
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    @Charles

    "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.

    Keynes suggested spending in recessions, but also saving in good times so that things were financially equal over the economic cycle.

    When did Balls or Brown suggest building up a budgetary surplus,? They are not Keynesians, they are fools.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    +(−0.661)∗VOTE[t−2] is? I make VOTE[t-2] as -2.9, the Tory "lead" in 2005.
  • NextNext Posts: 826
    RodCrosby said:

    +0.771∗VOTE[t−1] is? I make VOTE[t-1] the Tory lead in 2010, or 7.3 (they turn percentages into integers)

    (Assuming using 7.3 and not 0.073)

    0.48861+0.771∗7.3

    0.48861+5.6283

    6.11691
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,725
    Indeed, Mr. Foxinsoxuk.

    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.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,374
    The Times headline/editorial write up of that YouGov poll is very misleading.

    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.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    "I asked Mike Hancock if he'd stand down as an MP if Lib Dems withdraw the whip. "Am I the type?" he replied, before confirming he wouldn't"

    https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/339815735436144640
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,374

    Mr. Eagles, after you've finished with Journey to Altmortis, buy this book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1844159728/

    Honestly, I have no time to read books these days, it depresses me.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    +0.624∗PM[t]

    PM[t] is current PM approval, as defined in note 7. I will return to this at the end...
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523

    "I asked Mike Hancock if he'd stand down as an MP if Lib Dems withdraw the whip. "Am I the type?" he replied, before confirming he wouldn't"

    https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/339815735436144640

    Hope he goesas another by-election would be fun.
  • NextNext Posts: 826
    edited May 2013
    RodCrosby said:

    +(−0.661)∗VOTE[t−2] is? I make VOTE[t-2] as -2.9, the Tory "lead" in 2005.

    1.9169

    Adding previous gives subtotal:

    8.03381
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,374
    Anyone watch the Iraq War Documentary on BBC2 this evening?

    America asked Iraq to join the war on terror in September 2001.
  • carlcarl Posts: 750

    carl said:

    @TSE

    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.

    It's TSE's site right now. He has an editorial agenda just as Mike does. Endless Ed is Crap threads may be tedious to some, but others find them very reassuring. And when you get down to it, Ed is pretty crap and a real drag on Labour. Enjoy yourself by seeing how many ways there are to discuss the same subject over a relatively short period of time.

    Fair enough. Though I could just read Dan Hodges columns for that sort of analysis, and I'd rather stick pins in my eyes!

    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?

  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523

    Anyone watch the Iraq War Documentary on BBC2 this evening?

    America asked Iraq to join the war on terror in September 2001.

    That would be funny if it wasn't so ****ed up.
  • NextNext Posts: 826
    edited May 2013
    RodCrosby said:

    +0.624∗PM[t]

    PM[t] is current PM approval, as defined in note 7. I will return to this at the end...

    We need the three PM approval ratings for the final three calculations.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited May 2013
    MrJones said:

    "I asked Mike Hancock if he'd stand down as an MP if Lib Dems withdraw the whip. "Am I the type?" he replied, before confirming he wouldn't"

    https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/339815735436144640

    Hope he goes as another by-election would be fun.
    I think it will require a hooded figure carrying a scythe.

  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited May 2013
    −0.771∗0.624∗PM[t−1] is?

    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)
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,374
    edited May 2013
    MrJones said:

    Anyone watch the Iraq War Documentary on BBC2 this evening?

    America asked Iraq to join the war on terror in September 2001.

    That would be funny if it wasn't so ****ed up.
    Tariq Aziz said yes, but Saddam said no, saying more people died in Iraq because of the Terrorism of UN sanctions than died in America on 9/11
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    –(−0.661)∗0.624∗PM[t−2] is?

    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)
  • NextNext Posts: 826
    RodCrosby said:

    −0.771∗0.624∗PM[t−1] is?

    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)

    Note 7 says:

    "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...
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,509

    @Charles

    "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.

    Keynes suggested spending in recessions, but also saving in good times so that things were financially equal over the economic cycle.

    When did Balls or Brown suggest building up a budgetary surplus,? They are not Keynesians, they are fools.
    When Brown got a £28 billion (IIRC) windfall from selling the mobile spectrum, he insisted on putting into paying down the debt - I remember much criticism from various interest groups at the time. It's one reason why debt as a proportion of GDP remained lower than he inherited through his time as Chancellor.
  • NextNext Posts: 826
    RodCrosby said:

    –(−0.661)∗0.624∗PM[t−2] is?

    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)

    –(−0.661)∗0.624∗(-5.68)

    - 2.34279552
  • NextNext Posts: 826
    Do you have PM[t]?

    !
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    "Do you have the original figures to calculate this, or should I just use your figure?"

    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?
  • NextNext Posts: 826
    So far we are at:

    8.0338
    + {calc for PM[t]}
    -2.3428
    -2.0048

    = 3.6862 + {calc for PM[t]}
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited May 2013
    "Do you have 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
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,374
    Keir Simmons ‏@KeirSimmons 1m

    Charge in London terror case: “@itvnews: Woolwich suspect Michael Adebowale charged with murder of Drummer Lee Rigby http://itv.co/175SuZU
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,630
    carl said:

    carl said:

    @TSE

    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.

    It's TSE's site right now. He has an editorial agenda just as Mike does. Endless Ed is Crap threads may be tedious to some, but others find them very reassuring. And when you get down to it, Ed is pretty crap and a real drag on Labour. Enjoy yourself by seeing how many ways there are to discuss the same subject over a relatively short period of time.

    Fair enough. Though I could just read Dan Hodges columns for that sort of analysis, and I'd rather stick pins in my eyes!

    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?

    He does not have the look or feel of a credible leader. He comes across very poorly on television and radio. His communication skills generally are very poor; he fails to connect. I think he has some interesting and important ideas, but if he can't get them across to voters he is a waste of time. I think with another leader Labour would be doing better. Ed should be leading a policy unit and doing his thing away from public view. But he is in charge and that is not going to change. Those of us hoping for an end to Tory rule had better hope Ed's many weak points are cancelled out by the general toxicity of the Tory brand.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    @Charles

    "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.

    Keynes suggested spending in recessions, but also saving in good times so that things were financially equal over the economic cycle.

    When did Balls or Brown suggest building up a budgetary surplus,? They are not Keynesians, they are fools.
    When Brown got a £28 billion (IIRC) windfall from selling the mobile spectrum, he insisted on putting into paying down the debt - I remember much criticism from various interest groups at the time. It's one reason why debt as a proportion of GDP remained lower than he inherited through his time as Chancellor.
    Nick,

    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.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited May 2013
    we've gone wrong somewhere, perhaps?

    Edit: No! That's OK...
  • carlcarl Posts: 750

    carl said:

    carl said:

    @TSE

    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.

    It's TSE's site right now. He has an editorial agenda just as Mike does. Endless Ed is Crap threads may be tedious to some, but others find them very reassuring. And when you get down to it, Ed is pretty crap and a real drag on Labour. Enjoy yourself by seeing how many ways there are to discuss the same subject over a relatively short period of time.

    Fair enough. Though I could just read Dan Hodges columns for that sort of analysis, and I'd rather stick pins in my eyes!

    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?

    I think with another leader Labour would be doing better.
    Who?
  • @NickPalmer

    "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".

  • NextNext Posts: 826
    RodCrosby said:

    "Do you have PM[t]?"

    Well, IPSOS-MORI had Cameron approval 36%, two-party vote 65% [34%+31%]

    So I make PM[t] 100*(36/65)-50, or 5.38

    The last calc is then: 0.624∗PM[t]

    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.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,630
    carl said:

    carl said:

    carl said:

    @TSE

    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.

    It's TSE's site right now. He has an editorial agenda just as Mike does. Endless Ed is Crap threads may be tedious to some, but others find them very reassuring. And when you get down to it, Ed is pretty crap and a real drag on Labour. Enjoy yourself by seeing how many ways there are to discuss the same subject over a relatively short period of time.

    Fair enough. Though I could just read Dan Hodges columns for that sort of analysis, and I'd rather stick pins in my eyes!

    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?

    I think with another leader Labour would be doing better.
    Who?

    Of those who stood in 2010 I imagine only Abbott would be doing worse, Ed's brother and Andy Burnham would be doing better. I'd say that Cooper would also be doing better. But Ed's going nowhere. Labour are stuck with him.

  • Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    edited May 2013
    The charges are that Michael Adebowale:
    1. On the 22 May 2013 within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court murdered Drummer Lee Rigby, contrary to Common Law.
    2. On the 22 May 2013 within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court had in his possession a firearm, namely a 9.4mm Dutch calibre KNIL Model 91 revolver, with intent by means thereof to cause persons to believe that unlawful violence would be used against him or her or another person, contrary to section 16A of the Firearms Act 1968.
    First appearance will be at Westminster Magistrates Court tommorrow. As he is charged with an indictable offence, he will be sent to the Crown Court for trial (presumably at the Bailey or Woolwich) under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. As Westminster Magistrates Court has no jurisdiction to grant bail in respect of these charges, we can expect a first appearance in the Crown Court on Friday or Monday at the latest. The case will almost certainly be tried by a High Court Judge, possibly Wilkie or Henriques JJ.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    "Making final total
    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!
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    carl said:

    carl said:

    carl said:

    @TSE

    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.

    It's TSE's site right now. He has an editorial agenda just as Mike does. Endless Ed is Crap threads may be tedious to some, but others find them very reassuring. And when you get down to it, Ed is pretty crap and a real drag on Labour. Enjoy yourself by seeing how many ways there are to discuss the same subject over a relatively short period of time.

    Fair enough. Though I could just read Dan Hodges columns for that sort of analysis, and I'd rather stick pins in my eyes!

    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?

    I think with another leader Labour would be doing better.
    Who?

    Of those who stood in 2010 I imagine only Abbott would be doing worse, Ed's brother and Andy Burnham would be doing better. I'd say that Cooper would also be doing better. But Ed's going nowhere. Labour are stuck with him.

    I do not think Ed M irredemable, he is too much of a blank cipher to have totally written himself off yet. He does need to demonstrate a break from the financial profligacy of the Last Labour government, and he needs to do it soon.

    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.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,374
    From the Times

    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”.
  • carlcarl Posts: 750

    carl said:

    carl said:

    carl said:

    @TSE

    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.

    It's TSE's site right now. He has an editorial agenda just as Mike does. Endless Ed is Crap threads may be tedious to some, but others find them very reassuring. And when you get down to it, Ed is pretty crap and a real drag on Labour. Enjoy yourself by seeing how many ways there are to discuss the same subject over a relatively short period of time.

    Fair enough. Though I could just read Dan Hodges columns for that sort of analysis, and I'd rather stick pins in my eyes!

    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?

    I think with another leader Labour would be doing better.
    Who?

    Of those who stood in 2010 I imagine only Abbott would be doing worse, Ed's brother and Andy Burnham would be doing better. I'd say that Cooper would also be doing better. But Ed's going nowhere. Labour are stuck with him.

    Blimey! You must really have a downer on EdM if you think Ed Balls or David Miliband could be doing better!
This discussion has been closed.