Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tories the big movers in the first week of GE15 Commons
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tories the big movers in the first week of GE15 Commons Spread betting
It had been a long time coming but the opening of GE15 commons seats spread betting market from Sporting Index was a big moment in the betting build up to next May.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
How can we have better border controls whilst being part of Europe and its free movement of people?
Even under the free movement articles countries are allowed to keep out undesirables, such as criminals. The right of free movement is not, in law, an absolute right. Identifying and stopping - those are the issues.
I want access to my trading positions as close to 100% of the time as possible.
Imagine how awful it would be for Ed if it became common knowledge that he was a legal tax dodger, given his publicly proclaimed disapproval of such practice, during the election campaign.
I guess it would erect another hurdle for those trying to sell him as PM on the doorstep.
If someone asks you about that while you're trying to sell him, will you really just say that you don't talk about people's private affairs, and that you've never criticised Cameron for his?
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/watch-liverpool-family-jailed-over-8113244
Even under the free movement articles countries are allowed to keep out undesirables, such as criminals. The right of free movement is not, in law, an absolute right. Identifying and stopping - those are the issues.
They're not criminals until they've been convicted. How do we stop them before that?
If the latter, full disclosure would be welcome. If a deed of variation was used and all parties agreed, then both Ed and BananaMan knowingly (or they can sue their accountants if they did not know) entered into a tax avoidance scheme that resulted in no IHT being paid. The same IHT he wants hard working families to pay. The Tories wanted only millionaires to pay, Labour wanted the plebs to pay. While exempting their own millionaires.
DC's father passed away in 2010. Were similar allegations made about his IHT? I know Labour accused him of using an off shore account for his investments.
There are rational arguments for or against this. Not least the practicality of oversight and accountability in all of this. But leaving all that aside the UK, that is the general public and certainly the tory party, do not want ever closer union.
Under those circumstances it perfectly rational to qualify free movement in an extension of the limits Cyclefree point out. Being flagrantly and unilaterally arbitary about it however is hardly clever since we have many of our own citizens living working abroad and we as a nation get benefits from emigration and immigration. Negotiating reform is clearly better on this and other issues, followed by a vote. Given the movements in the Eurozone its necessary anyway.
The hysteria over Romanians seems to have died down and the real target of opportunity for immigrant hatred coming from UKIP is mainly focussed on Pakistan and Muslims. Nothing to do with the EU.
They have delayed the opening of the market so that it can be properly staffed and supported.
At the moment they are the only game in town and it is to be welcomed that even on CON & LAB the spread is jut 6 seats. At GE10 at this stage it was 8 seats and at GE05 10 seats.
Spread betting is high risk high reward for the bookie as well so it is totally understandable that they don't want to be caught by overnight developments..
Remember Shadsy closes his Ladbrokes seats market when a new batch of Ashcroft marginal polling is in the offing.
The late Mr Cameron Snr was not a marxist to whom all property is theft.
They're not criminals until they've been convicted. How do we stop them before that?
If someone has not been convicted then, unless you can show that they are undesirable in some other way - within the provisions of EU law (e.g. if you can show that they are a threat to your society), you can't.
But if somone hasn't been convicted then you're getting into dangerous territory trying to limit their rights, absent some very clear evidence / justification e.g. when someone is mentally ill and sectioned or, as Cameron is now trying to do, with returnees from Syria.
While I don't know much about spread betting the markets must be on indivdual parties not overall.
However assuming those proportions and allowing 2 welsh nats and 18 NI seats (so they get 630/640ths of the above figures, this gives:
Labour 287
Cons 281
LD 31
SNP 20
UKIP 11
PC 2
NI 18
With 4 SF and 1 squeaker not voting that gives
Labour 287
Cons 280
LD 31
SNP 20
UKIP 11
PC 2
NI 14
Labour and LD have 318, 5 short of the 323 needed for a majority of 1. With SDLP they are still 2 short. Their only hope is supply and confidence from the SNP, which I think is unlikely
Conservative, LD and DUP would similarly be just short.unless they got supply and confidence from UKIP, which again I think is unlikely.
Looks like chaos followed by another election which might be just as inconclusive. Maybe there ought to be a thread on the bankrupting of the parties by four general elections in a year....
What Wheeler (No.2) conclusively demonstrates is that the so-called “referendum lock” championed by the Prime Minister is in fact worthless. It has repeatedly been asserted that there was a guarantee in law of a referendum when powers were passed to Luxembourg and Brussels. The government is about to agree, under article 10(5) of Protocol 36 to the Treaty on European Union, to a substantial extension of the scope of the primacy of EU law, an increase in the powers of the European Commission, and a substantial increase in the Court of Justice’s jurisdiction. The Divisional Court has held that the government may lawfully do this without even obtaining a resolution of either House of Parliament. It was not arguable that the government needed to pass an Act of Parliament, let alone hold a referendum. The “referendum lock”, then, is a fiction.
If not - then the implications for the Miliband family story are obvious. If they do, then fair enough.
City Spy: Red Ed does Marxism the Primrose Hill way
Ed Miliband has been keen to demand tax increases for the rich.
But "Red Ed" has taken a different approach to his own circumstances. He and his brother David inherited a £1.5 million Primrose Hill house from their Marxist academic father Ralph — and at the time exploited an ingenious but complicated loophole to reduce death duties greatly.
When Ralph died in 1994, aged 70, leaving his estate, the Miliband boys agreed a "deed of variation" which allowed a lot more wealth to cascade down the generations — rather than be seized by the state in the more orthodox Marxist fashion.
http://www.standard.co.uk/business/city-spy-red-ed-does-marxism-the-primrose-hill-way-6519479.html
"Best leading man Oscar?"
Certainly a possibility
Irony Alert. Tory leaflet attacks Reckless cos he "Studied politics at *OXFORD*" (h/t @politic_animal):
So Labour will attack Cameron for PPE.
Tories go after Ed M, Ed Balls & Yvette, Reeves and others for same failing.
And @SeanT will blog I told you all PPE's are useless, mendacious bastards or something similar.
Proved wills are public documents. Since a DOV effectively replaces the will, I assume it must be also. How else would the press have got wind of it?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/14/ed-miliband-stop-telling-people-how-awful-their-lives-are-deborah-orr
Can't see KT winning with such rubbish, now or in May 2015.
"things we can not say at the moment, for legal reasons, but we expect them to come out..."
@paulwaugh @politic_animal Views of Conservative MPs who were asked to deliver this range from "total crap" to "fucking stupid".
This may take you there. twitter.com/paulwaugh/media
Then the Tory slogan has been lifted from Simon Hughes - The Straight Choice...
If the Tories finish 3rd, justice might be done.
If you'd say something like GO should be chancellor for life, we'd get a result.
I had a bad experience with SPIN a few years ago when I could hardly ever get on. I got tired of waiting, and checking it several times a day, just to see if they could be arsed to activate it.
I find Shadsy's constituency seat markets are rarely closed, and he gets them out asap. SPIN seemed to be down for several consecutive days this week - or at least they did when I checked, which is generally early evening.
Not good enough.
Was that a mistype or are you just not a fan of Sally's husband?
Assuming the SDLP wouldn't support them (which they normally would do) they'd need 319 MPs to vote against them to bring them down in a vote of no confidence.
Where would those votes come from?
It'd require something like SNP, UKIP, Conservatives and the DUP to all unite to bring the government down (20 + 11 + 280 + 8) with a majority of 1. They'd have to present a single united front without a single rebel.
The odds of such unlikely bedfellows doing that are remote. I could only see that happening if the government was so spectacularly incompetent that it alienated absolutely everybody, and had nothing left to offer any of the minor parties.
In those circumstances, it'd be much more likely the Liberal Democrats had jumped ship first, which might trigger the no-confidence vote in itself anyway.
In practice, such a government would survive the full-term (with a lot of jockeying and horse-trading along the way) assuming it kept the Lab-LD coalition together.
Where the bookie fixes the odds then that is totally different and you cannot expect any firm to operate 24/7. I'm told that they'll be open ever day but not overnight.
If you don't like it then go elsewhere.
Even if 2015 were to be another double-election year, I doubt there'd be a third in 2016, never mind a fourth (though the Scottish voters might be getting fed up of going to the polls by then).
(well, at the very least, not the way SPIN currently run it)
Talking of bright sparks....up pops Hazel Blears. What was she doing to the selection panel in Salford that tempted them to choose her as their candidate?
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/533324509475270656
However, the market is right.
The Speaker should be counted in the analysis and he should be counted as Con.
The reason is simple - whilst he doesn't vote, the 3 Deputy Speakers also don't vote - and because the Speaker was originally Con, Lab has to supply two Deputy Speakers and Con only supplies one Deputy Speaker.
So - either count the Speaker as Con or if you don't do that you must deduct two from Lab and one from Con for Deputy Speakers.
Which is why the BBC election results website simply counts the Speaker as Con.
In this case I presume it was varied so the Miliband children got it. He presumably didn't need the cash himself. The estate would still have had to pay IHT on it. Miliband could have got the same effect by inheriting it himself and then immediately gifting it to his children and surviving seven years.
To claim it is "an ingenious and complicated loophole to cascade wealth down the generations" is ridiculous! A non-story.
Like the C and N leaflets it is parochial and rather sad. Imagine the fuss if Labour in Witney did the same to Dave.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4267078.ece?CMP=Spklr-111792380-Editorial-TWITTER-thetimes-20141114-Comment and Opinion&linkId=10542662
The sad thing about that leaflet is that there's not a single policy mentioned on there.
Is she saying that Reckless is an immigrant, come to take a job off an indigenous local? Yes she is. How does that play with her friends in the local Sikh community?
And why can't she get the basics right - For instance Rochester & Strood should be bold in the first line to correspond with London; and so on.
Cannot understand what CCHQ are up to here. Some kitchen sink.
It is rather poor.
"I have to say, putting out a leaflet that essentially says "we made a really crap selection choice last time; trust us to get it right now", is asking a lot of the public."
I agree and anyway when you are competing against the market leader in shits there's no point in a negative campaign. Far smarter to try to show your nice side not easy with their candidate I know but it's their best chance
It's in parenthesis so it should not be put in bold. Back to school Ishmael.
As to the rest, you would say that wouldn't you? In the previous thread you attempted to defend a bad statute by invoking the fact that under the constitution parliament is responsible -it is indeed technically responsible, but this is the sort of silly semantic rabbit hole that people don't want to follow you down, therefore they just give up. It's clever debating, but who does it actually convince? I have heard you defend the right of Judges to overrule the Home Secretary on deporting preachers of hate, and now turn around and defend the right of the Home Secretary to replace judges. The only common thread is defending what the Cameron regime happens to be doing at the time.
I've put my money where my mouth is and taken a small bet at 18.5 that the Tories win. They probably won't but I think it is value based on this leaflet and the strategy it implies.
'It is not an ingenious and complicated loophole to reduce death duties greatly'
Yes,a Deed of Variation is just for fun.
'It can have a retrospective effect for IHT and CGT purposes, allowing for the variation to avoid charges to IHT and CGT that may otherwise arise in relation to lifetime gifts by that beneficiary provided it is made within two years of the deceased's death.
Although a variation may be made by an exchange of assets in an estate and, in rare cases, a sale, it is most commonly made by a beneficiary making a gift of his interest or a part of it.
In effect, this is a transfer of value for IHT purposes and a disposal of the asset for CGT purposes. However, if certain conditions are met, the transfer can be treated as having been made by the deceased rather than the beneficiary, consequently avoiding a charge to IHT and CGT on the beneficiary's gift.''
' Thirteen people have been arrested over a trafficking ring which saw a pregnant woman almost tricked into an abortion following a sham marriage.
The 20-year-old from Slovakia was sold for up to £15,000 by a gang in Greater Manchester who organised a marriage to a man facing deportation, police said. '
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-30033201
Remember the predictions of what the future of Britain would be like from the 1960s or 1970s or 1980s ? The science fiction stories of the time or the Tomorrow's World type programs.
What they predicted was a bright, shiny Britain of growing equality. All peace and prosperity and progress.
Instead we get parts of Britain turning into the most backward parts of the Balkans or the most lawless parts of the North West Frontier.
Meanwhile the 1% continually increase their control of the country's wealth while the government borrows money to subsidise immigrant carwashers and sandwich makers.
Its fashionable to sneer that some people want to turn the clock back.
They don't.
There are very few people nostalgic for outside toilets and yearning for the chance to swing a pick in a field or at a pitface.
What people actually want is the future they were promised, not the future they are getting.
eh?
'He presumably didn't need the cash himself.'
Plausible, considering he was dead...
IIRC Reckless was the Conservative candidate in 2001 and 2005 as well.
Which also shows a significant commitment to the area and contrasts Reckless favourably to politicians parachuted into a safe seat.
I wouldn't mind seeing an analysis of Reckless' wedding guests. Daniel Hannon was best man!
http://markreckless.com/2011/10/03/mr-and-mrs-reckless/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11230833/Nicola-Sturgeon-puts-second-referendum-at-top-of-agenda.html
Otherwise, good post and well up to your usual standard.
Personally I see history as a continuum of the people vs. those small numbers of people who would oppress them -with left wing philosophies and regimes of course being amongst the most pernicious, so not a 'left wing' view -more a traditional liberal view. Cobden & Bright etc.
You seem to have taken a rather personal dislike to Ms Tolhurst. Would have have anything to do with certain tweets she made some months prior to being selected? That she was called an anti Israeli activist by some of the Jewish press was a little ridiculous. Danny Finkelstein who is Jewish and a one nation Tory strongly criticised Israeli actions in Gaza in the Times.
This government knows it needs the votes of eurosceptics, but it's as committed to the EU as any other government has been.
Absolutely not, my name is a nod to "Moby Dick" and not an ethnic marker, and I know nothing about her tweets. I just thought she sounded rather a dud on the radio, and am perplexed as to what CCHQ are up to - I would expect them to be micro-managing her campaign down to the level of writing and designing her leaflets for her.
I was talking about Ed.
The father died. His estate paid IHT in the usual way.
Ed didn't need the cash himself so he passed it by DOV to his children. In the fullness of time they will have to pay IHT on it.
He could have taken it and immediately gifted it to his children. If he lived 7 years he would not have to pay IHT on it. DOV was a simpler alternative.
It's a feeble story and I'm personally going to stop giving it airtime.
a) he's not financially astute
b) he expected to die within 7 years
Ralph M died in 1994, leaving everything to his wife in his will. Silly man! For he thereby lost the use of his own nil-rate IHT band [£150k in 1994]. Note there would have been no tax to pay at that point anyway, since spousal transfers are exempt. Say it was a property worth £600k. At some point in the future, assuming Mrs Miliband took no further steps to mitigate, on her death the full value including any uplift would become liable to IHT (less the nil-rate band allowance current at her death)
The DOV was simply used so as not to waste Ralph's NRB. The DOV gave the sons 20% each of the house [40% in total, or £150k] thereby utilising the NRB. Mrs M was left with shares of the house worth 60% [say £360k] As stated above, this would be tax-neutral for the Revenue at that point in time. Still no tax due.
The notional benefit to the family would be around £60k [40% tax on £150k] had Mrs M died shortly thereafter, (ignoring any quick-succession reliefs and property uplift) But she's still alive and well 20 years later.
So the Miliband boys got a share of the house, which their father could have written himself into his will, had he been well advised. This of course could become subject to CGT or IHT at some later date [too complex to speculate, depending on when they sold, transferred, died and what reliefs were available depending on their personal circumstances at the time].
The ironic thing is that the Labour government altered the rules in 2009 to allow widow/ers to make use of a spouse's unused NRB. [I personally benefited from this change after the death of my Dad last year.]
So, had the Milibands not done a DOV in 1994, Mrs M would now have an effective NRB of £650k.[current NRB is £325k]
Lets do the calcs, on her demise:
Current scenario (assumed). Value of house reputedly £1.6m, of which Mrs M owns 60%, or £960k. On death (assuming no other assets), tax due is (£960k-£325k)*40% = £254k
Had they not done the DOV, and Mrs M remained in sole possession, tax due is (£1.6m - £650k)*40% = £380k
So a benefit of £126k, over 20 years after Ralph's death, note.
Hardly a huge sum, and one Ralph could have saved himself if he had written his will the same way as the DOV.
A non-story, really.