Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Farage in trouble in Thanet S while Clegg could be struggli

1356

Comments

  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    Speedy said:

    I finished the analysis of the new constituency polls and added them into the lot with the others.
    We now have polls in 114 constituencies, 62 CON seats, 37 LD, 14 LAB and 1 GRN seat.
    Out of those the CON are losing 40 and gain 9, LAB gains 48, LD lose 17, UKIP gain 3 and GRN lose 1.
    The percentage change of votes in all constituency polls since 2010 (my favourite gauge) is CON-8.5, LAB+4, LD-13, UKIP+15.5 for a swing of just over 6% to Labour.

    In seats where swings actually matter:

    CON seats swings:
    To LAB 5.5 (same as comres poll yesterday), to UKIP 12.

    LAB seats swings:
    From CON 6.5, to UKIP 7.5

    LD seats swings:
    To CON 3.5, to LAB 10.5, to UKIP 14

    Irony alert, UKIP are registering a greater rise in Labour seats (18.5%) than in Tory seats(16%), but because Labour are up since 2010 the swing is much smaller. In my opinion UKIP have done a strategic mistake of targeting Labour voters instead of Tory voters, I think fate had a hand on this one as UKIP had faced only westminter by-elections in safe Labour seats until recently, so they had to tailor their policies to the average Labour voter at the expence of Tory voters.

    The VI has moved considerably since some of the earlier polls.

    Even today's batch has the Tories down by 7.5% on average from 2010 and Labour up by 3%, so not very different from the average of all 114. And with 114 polls most of them taken this year, a few outliers are not capable to corrupt the result.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    @Peter_The_Punter check your inbox, I've clarified the bet now. I think I misunderestimated the english language and logic in my original formulation.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited November 2014
    Speedy said:

    isam said:

    Speedy said:

    isam said:

    Any idea how UKIP went up or stayed put in every table in South Thanet compared to last Ashcroft poll but down 4 in the headline figure?

    The undeciders and the refusers are reallocated on their 2010 vote, so it favours the Tories and Labour
    Yes but wasn't that the case in Ashcroft's July poll as well?

    UKIP improved from July to Nov in the tables, but went down in the headline. If the methodology was the same, that shouldn't happen should it?
    Without the reallocation by past vote of undeciders and refusers the result is UKIP 36, CON 33, LAB 26. Is that ok now?
    I understand that the reallocation hurts the UKIP score, but what I am saying is that each table shows an increase in UKIP score from Jul-Nov.

    Both Jul & Nov tables were then reallocated, and the result was 33 in Jul and 29 in Nov

  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 38s39 seconds ago
    BREAKING Mitchell has lost. Judge satisfied he did say 'Pleb'
    0 replies 0 retweets 0 favorites
    Reply Retweet Favorite
    More
  • #Plebgate - Judge says on balance of probability Mitchell did say words attributed to him...
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @ChrisMasonBBC: Former Government chief whip Andrew Mitchell has lost his High Court libel
    action over the "Plebgate" incident.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    dr_spyn said:

    Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 38s39 seconds ago
    BREAKING Mitchell has lost. Judge satisfied he did say 'Pleb'
    0 replies 0 retweets 0 favorites
    Reply Retweet Favorite
    More

    Interesting - one person's word against the other - judge sides with the copper.

    Hope he appeals.
  • That will make a nice safe seat for some lucky SPAD.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited November 2014

    TOPPING said:

    on topic:

    for the Cons to have made a pledge and to have failed so fantastically worries me greatly.

    Forget about whether immigrants do or don't contribute positively to the host nation (they do, slightly, but at the expense, surprise surprise, of those they displace in the workforce).

    Cam said that it would come down, not only did it not come down but the rise should greatly concern people that it is "out of control". Well if the govt wants to reduce it and it rises then it is transparently out of control.

    I am worried about what reaction this might inspire in other parties or in the voters.

    I want immigration to slow down. I do not want a knee-jerk, soundbite policy from any party to slow it down.

    It is going to be a very tricky one for him to deal with in a TV debate, if there is one, and especially of Farage is included.
    There was a debate on it on todays Daily Politics and Farage slaughtered Mark Pritchard, with Andrew Neil almost giggling at how easy it was
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    isam said:

    Speedy said:

    isam said:

    Speedy said:

    isam said:

    Any idea how UKIP went up or stayed put in every table in South Thanet compared to last Ashcroft poll but down 4 in the headline figure?

    The undeciders and the refusers are reallocated on their 2010 vote, so it favours the Tories and Labour
    Yes but wasn't that the case in Ashcroft's July poll as well?

    UKIP improved from July to Nov in the tables, but went down in the headline. If the methodology was the same, that shouldn't happen should it?
    Without the reallocation by past vote of undeciders and refusers the result is UKIP 36, CON 33, LAB 26. Is that ok now?
    I understand that the reallocation hurts the UKIP score, but what I am saying is that each table shows an increase in UKIP score from Jul-Nov.

    Both Jul & Nov tables were then reallocated, and the result was 33 in Jul and 29 in Nov

    I'll look at that tonight.
  • isam said:

    There was a debate on it on todays Daily Politics and Farage slaughtered Mark Pritchard, with Andrew Neil almost giggling at how easy it was

    Yes, carping from the sidelines is always easy.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 1m1 minute ago
    BROKEN: Andrew Mitchell loses #plebgate trial as judge rules he "did speak the words alleged" or something close to them

    I don't believe that Mitchell said that so I'll go for "something close to them".
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    First signs of story on BBC.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30235009
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Speedy said:

    isam said:

    Speedy said:

    isam said:

    Speedy said:

    isam said:

    Any idea how UKIP went up or stayed put in every table in South Thanet compared to last Ashcroft poll but down 4 in the headline figure?

    The undeciders and the refusers are reallocated on their 2010 vote, so it favours the Tories and Labour
    Yes but wasn't that the case in Ashcroft's July poll as well?

    UKIP improved from July to Nov in the tables, but went down in the headline. If the methodology was the same, that shouldn't happen should it?
    Without the reallocation by past vote of undeciders and refusers the result is UKIP 36, CON 33, LAB 26. Is that ok now?
    I understand that the reallocation hurts the UKIP score, but what I am saying is that each table shows an increase in UKIP score from Jul-Nov.

    Both Jul & Nov tables were then reallocated, and the result was 33 in Jul and 29 in Nov

    I'll look at that tonight.
    Ta
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:

    There was a debate on it on todays Daily Politics and Farage slaughtered Mark Pritchard, with Andrew Neil almost giggling at how easy it was

    Yes, carping from the sidelines is always easy.
    Sorry?
  • I have come to the conclusion that I live in a parallel universe. In the UK I live in, it is extremely hard for non-EU people to get visas to come to this country and it has been since before 2010; while benefits are not handed out like confetti.

    A bloke at our work whose girlfriend is Australian is now in his fifth month of misery after she was forced to leave the country to go back to Oz to apply for a visa to come and live here with him. Meanwhile, my son, who left university in the summer and has been out of work since (now got a job, thankfully) was denied all benefits of any kind because his girlfriend, with whom he lives, was working more than a certain number of hours a week.

    It's all anecdote. But I can't help feeling that there is a magic hole through which you can pass that opens up a range of state-fed delights that people I know have not been able to find; or that, actually, things are a lot more complicated than some posters on here and many newspapers let on.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Speedy said:

    Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 1m1 minute ago
    BROKEN: Andrew Mitchell loses #plebgate trial as judge rules he "did speak the words alleged" or something close to them

    I don't believe that Mitchell said that so I'll go for "something close to them".

    Wow just wow.

  • Must say, I don't have confidence in that finding.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    O/T
    Sky news
    "The judge deciding whether former chief whip Andrew Mitchell called a policeman a "pleb" has said he does not think the officer would have made it up."

    Don't know either way I really dont. Having not heard all the evidence etc.

    however in saying that given that plod was reported to have made up witnesses that wern't even there and accounts submitted as evidence that apparently did not actully take place this is quite an interesting statement from M'lud.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    By the way, QT tonight from Romford, interesting to see how Kipper inclined the audience is. NO UKIP rep on though
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    Fucking hell our libel system must be the most broken in the world.

    Money for old rope for lawyers.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410

    Must say, I don't have confidence in that finding.

    Neither do I.
  • There is (as ever) a very good Guardian live blog on Plebgate, which lays out the judge's reasoning quite clearly:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/nov/27/scotland-should-control-income-tax-says-smith-commission-reaction-politics-live-blog

  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    @pulpstar @peter_the_punter

    Yeah i'm fine with that bet. I'll email PtP. I hope, for peter's sanity that there is no dispute :)

    Outcomes:

    Clegg HOLD Hallam & Lib Dem Hold Solihull +£25 to PONG
    Clegg LOSES Hallam & Lib Dem Lose Solihull +£25 to PULPSTAR
    CLegg Hold Hallam, Lib Dem Lose Solihull = £0 wash
    Clegg Lose Hallam, Lib Dem Hold Solihull = £0 wash
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    TGOHF said:

    Speedy said:

    Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 1m1 minute ago
    BROKEN: Andrew Mitchell loses #plebgate trial as judge rules he "did speak the words alleged" or something close to them

    I don't believe that Mitchell said that so I'll go for "something close to them".

    Wow just wow.

    I think the reason Mitchell lost was that there was no evidence he did not say what was alleged that he said.
    Since there was no concrete evidence either side, the judge went with the policeman's testimony, in my opinion.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Fucking hell our libel system must be the most broken in the world.

    Money for old rope for lawyers.

    The lawyers win either way, but it is strange that Andrew Mitchell took the risk of litigation. A big mistake (as it usually is).
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    Speedy said:

    TGOHF said:

    Speedy said:

    Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 1m1 minute ago
    BROKEN: Andrew Mitchell loses #plebgate trial as judge rules he "did speak the words alleged" or something close to them

    I don't believe that Mitchell said that so I'll go for "something close to them".

    Wow just wow.

    I think the reason Mitchell lost was that there was no evidence he did not say what was alleged that he said.
    Since there was no concrete evidence either side, the judge went with the policeman's testimony, in my opinion.
    Stinks to high heaven.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    by-election?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,960
    edited November 2014
    Mr. Speedy, Mitchell lost because he could not prove his innocence?

    And here was I thinking guilt was the thing that had to be proved [not a go at you, incidentally, but the judge].

    If there's no concrete evidence and that's ok then we might as well employ witchsmellers.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    isam said:

    There was a debate on it on todays Daily Politics and Farage slaughtered Mark Pritchard, with Andrew Neil almost giggling at how easy it was

    Yes, carping from the sidelines is always easy.
    Telling the voters you are going to reducing immigration and then not doing of course is much harder...
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Speedy said:

    TGOHF said:

    Speedy said:

    Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 1m1 minute ago
    BROKEN: Andrew Mitchell loses #plebgate trial as judge rules he "did speak the words alleged" or something close to them

    I don't believe that Mitchell said that so I'll go for "something close to them".

    Wow just wow.

    I think the reason Mitchell lost was that there was no evidence he did not say what was alleged that he said.
    Since there was no concrete evidence either side, the judge went with the policeman's testimony, in my opinion.
    He seems like a decent old fashioned bloke this lying copper who made stuff up.

    Yes I'm now convinced..
  • Pulpstar said:

    @Peter_The_Punter check your inbox, I've clarified the bet now. I think I misunderestimated the english language and logic in my original formulation.

    Thanks, Pulpstar, it's in.

    I have forwarded it to the Professor of Philology at the University of Confusion for decoding, and will let you have the results in due course.

  • Are there going to be loads of posts demanding apologies from posters who'd demanded apologies from those who had decided Mitchell was guilty, or will everyone wait to see if there's an appeal?
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    There is (as ever) a very good Guardian live blog on Plebgate, which lays out the judge's reasoning quite clearly:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/nov/27/scotland-should-control-income-tax-says-smith-commission-reaction-politics-live-blog

    The key in how we reached this verdict:

    Sean O'Neill ✔ @TimesCrime
    Follow
    PC Ian Richardson (who spoke to @thetimes in Feb) praised as objective, sensible and impressive by judge
  • Pulpstar said:

    Fucking hell our libel system must be the most broken in the world.

    Money for old rope for lawyers.

    The lawyers win either way, but it is strange that Andrew Mitchell took the risk of litigation. A big mistake (as it usually is).
    Shush.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited November 2014

    I have come to the conclusion that I live in a parallel universe. In the UK I live in, it is extremely hard for non-EU people to get visas to come to this country and it has been since before 2010; while benefits are not handed out like confetti.

    A bloke at our work whose girlfriend is Australian is now in his fifth month of misery after she was forced to leave the country to go back to Oz to apply for a visa to come and live here with him. Meanwhile, my son, who left university in the summer and has been out of work since (now got a job, thankfully) was denied all benefits of any kind because his girlfriend, with whom he lives, was working more than a certain number of hours a week.

    It's all anecdote. But I can't help feeling that there is a magic hole through which you can pass that opens up a range of state-fed delights that people I know have not been able to find; or that, actually, things are a lot more complicated than some posters on here and many newspapers let on.

    The reality is that some categories are very easy and others are not. I have no idea how skilled your colleague's girlfriend is, but it seems absurd that it's easier to come if you have no skills whatsoever from the subcontinent but are part of an arranged marriage, than it does if you've just graduated from the University of Sydney with a PhD in Economics.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited November 2014
    Indigo said:

    isam said:

    There was a debate on it on todays Daily Politics and Farage slaughtered Mark Pritchard, with Andrew Neil almost giggling at how easy it was

    Yes, carping from the sidelines is always easy.
    Telling the voters you are going to reducing immigration and then not doing of course is much harder...
    The laughing matter was that Pritchard started saying how much we needed immigration when asked why the government failed to reduce it.

    So Neil just said "Why pledge to reduce it then?"
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    RodCrosby said:

    by-election?

    Easy Tory hold I would guess, if that were the case.
  • Are there going to be loads of posts demanding apologies from posters who'd demanded apologies from those who had decided Mitchell was guilty, or will everyone wait to see if there's an appeal?

    I was thinking that. We need apologies for demanding apologies.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    isam said:

    Socrates said:

    isam said:

    UKIP in the lead in Thanet South until weighting by 2010 vote is applied

    Farage wasn't the candidate then, and UKIP got 3% of the vote Nationally in 2010. If you think that is of no significance/that he might be a drag on the UKIP vote rather than a boost for it then I guess you could back the Tories

    Exactly the same weighting adjustment was made in Lord A's Rochester poll and still it overstated UKIP by 5%.

    Dream on. You are in trouble.

    On what basis is a 14 point swing towards you "in trouble"? If Farage wins South Thanet it will be a huge achievement. I think he'll do it, but no-one has ever pretended it's anything but a huge uphill struggle.
    There are kippers all over the web announcing they're going to win 40 seats in 2015 so I suggest that actually rather a lot of have people have pretended it's anything but a huge uphill struggle.

    I am reminded of Napoleon's snark at his marshals on the morning of Waterloo: "Because you have all been beaten by Wellington, you consider him a great general. Well I am telling you he is a bad general, the English are a bad army, and the whole affair will be like eating breakfast."

    As Farage has demonstrated 5 times already, winning Westminster seats is much harder than eating breakfast.

    Farage's presumed leader bonus didn't play out in Buckingham in 2010.
    "Farage's presumed leader bonus didn't play out in Buckingham in 2010"

    Ha!
    Not at all true.

    He soared far above the other candidates
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    Mr. Speedy, Mitchell lost because he could not prove his innocence?

    And here was I thinking guilt was the thing that had to be proved [not a go at you, incidentally, but the judge].

    If there's no concrete evidence and that's ok then we might as well employ witchsmellers.

    He lost because he could not prove that the police officer was lying.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865

    Mr. Speedy, Mitchell lost because he could not prove his innocence?

    And here was I thinking guilt was the thing that had to be proved [not a go at you, incidentally, but the judge].

    If there's no concrete evidence and that's ok then we might as well employ witchsmellers.

    Agree entirely, but doesn't libel work on different and lower parameters? Perhaps One of our regular posting lawyers might enlighten ?
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Speedy said:

    There is (as ever) a very good Guardian live blog on Plebgate, which lays out the judge's reasoning quite clearly:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/nov/27/scotland-should-control-income-tax-says-smith-commission-reaction-politics-live-blog

    The key in how we reached this verdict:

    Sean O'Neill ✔ @TimesCrime
    Follow
    PC Ian Richardson (who spoke to @thetimes in Feb) praised as objective, sensible and impressive by judge
    So basically the judge like the cut of one man's jib more than the other ?
  • Alex Massie: So, the judge in #plebgate libel action decides plebs do not have 'the wit, imagination or inclination' to make stuff up. Sorted.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Speedy said:

    There is (as ever) a very good Guardian live blog on Plebgate, which lays out the judge's reasoning quite clearly:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/nov/27/scotland-should-control-income-tax-says-smith-commission-reaction-politics-live-blog

    The key in how we reached this verdict:

    Sean O'Neill ✔ @TimesCrime
    Follow
    PC Ian Richardson (who spoke to @thetimes in Feb) praised as objective, sensible and impressive by judge
    Yet PC Richardson claimed in numerous press reports that he didn't hear the exchange.


  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Indigo said:

    Speedy said:

    There is (as ever) a very good Guardian live blog on Plebgate, which lays out the judge's reasoning quite clearly:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/nov/27/scotland-should-control-income-tax-says-smith-commission-reaction-politics-live-blog

    The key in how we reached this verdict:

    Sean O'Neill ✔ @TimesCrime
    Follow
    PC Ian Richardson (who spoke to @thetimes in Feb) praised as objective, sensible and impressive by judge
    So basically the judge like the cut of one man's jib more than the other ?
    He liked the cut of the chap who claims not to have heard the exchange more.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Sky talking of £1m legal bill for Mitchell...
  • antifrank said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Fucking hell our libel system must be the most broken in the world.

    Money for old rope for lawyers.

    The lawyers win either way, but it is strange that Andrew Mitchell took the risk of litigation. A big mistake (as it usually is).
    Shush.
    Don't worry, people will continue to engage in stupid litigation, as they have for centuries!
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    TGOHF said:

    Mosque-go ?

    KentOnline ‏@Kent_Online 2h2 hours ago
    #Ukip South Thanet member 'no longer on twitter' after mistaking cathedral for mosque: http://bit.ly/1rqz7X8

    If all the thick Kippers obsessed with Islam/Muslims disappeared UKIP would be polling behind the loonies.
    Keep insulting the people you need to win back for a majority. It's pretty clear the Tories are the thick ones if that's their strategy.
    Considering the insults you Kippers throw around without foundation....
    You spend more time insulting Kippers than any Kipper poster on here does insulting Tories. And then you're surprised when other posters don't defend you.
    Pointing out the facts isn't an insult.

    Stick to blaming Theresa May for prison escapes
    The "fact" that the vast majority of UKIP supporters are thick and obsessed with Muslims? Apparently you're too thick to be able to know what a fact is.

    And Theresa May is so thick, she pledges to reduce immigration by 60% and ends up increasing it.
    That was Cameron's pledge, not May's. He got to be PM by telling the voters what they wanted to hear and May got lumbered with the blame when they couldn't deliver it. Cameron may be full of shit, but neither of them is thick.
    Theresa May has repeated the pledge herself. And even if she didn't agree with it, you have to be pretty damn useless to try to achieve major reductions in immigration and actually go backwards.
    Have they gone backwards on non-EU? I thought the issue was a big rise in EU immigration?

    If so, isn't the answer:

    - We've done a good job on reducing non-EU immigration
    - Because of the strong performance of the economy, we are a very attractive country for EU immigrants, vote of confidence, etc
    - We can't do anything about this because of the agreements signed by the last Labour government (can you hang tenuously on Lisbon)?
    - But we are working on our planned renegotiation, which we will put to a vote
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited November 2014
    Indigo said:

    Speedy said:

    There is (as ever) a very good Guardian live blog on Plebgate, which lays out the judge's reasoning quite clearly:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/nov/27/scotland-should-control-income-tax-says-smith-commission-reaction-politics-live-blog

    The key in how we reached this verdict:

    Sean O'Neill ✔ @TimesCrime
    Follow
    PC Ian Richardson (who spoke to @thetimes in Feb) praised as objective, sensible and impressive by judge
    So basically the judge like the cut of one man's jib more than the other ?
    I haven't posted this since the Nigel Evans trial, you lose some you win some:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyos-M48B8U
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    This is Mitchell vs The Sun isn't it...

    “For the reasons given I am satisfied at least on the balance of probabilities that Mr Mitchell did speak the words alleged or something so close to them as to amount to the same including the politically toxic word pleb.”

    Isn't that a maHOOssive judgement call by the judge ?

    Is he deciding on Rowland vs Mitchell too ?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited November 2014
    Socrates said:


    A government with a majority in parliament is quite able to change the law as necessary. The vast majority of immigrants, EU and non-EU are not educated to university level. We could easily reduce how many of them are coming here without "serious economic damage".

    We're talking about stopping people bringing family over to make a serious dent in low-skilled foreign immigration, which would involve leaving both the EU and the ECHR. The Tories don't have a parliamentary majority to do this. In any case if UKIP people are to believed these things would make the UK a prosperous and wonderful place, which would result in British people living overseas moving back and result in net immigration.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    edited November 2014
    There seems to be no reporting of exactly how the Scottish Income Tax is actually going to work in practice.

    Per Newsnight: Approx 7% of Income Tax is raised in Scotland at the moment.

    Scotland is approx 9% of UK population and gets approx 10% of public spending.

    So at the moment Scotland effectively gets 10% of the Income Tax raised.

    Under the new arrangements, Scotland sets its own Income Tax. If rates are unchanged it will only collect the amount equal to 7%.

    So what about the other 3% (ie 30% of the money Scotland now gets)? Is Scotland giving this money up? Surely not? It will still get it via the Barnett formula.

    Result: Nothing changes. Scotland still gets an amount equal to 10% of UK Income tax receipts.

    It's like giving a child £10 pocket money. You then say "look after yourself - do a paper round." The child earns £7 delivering papers. You then still give the child £3 to top them up. So they still end up with a total of £10.

    So Scotland isn't actually going to be raising all of its Income Tax at all.

    I guess it's all far too complicated for the BBC or anyone to actually report it in a way anyone will understand. But it is a total farce. Either Scotland should collect its own tax or it shouldn't.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    Pulpy, do you want to do a fun low stakes, limited exposure spread bet too?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    While we're thinking about Cameron going backwards on his pledge on immigration, it's also worth out his big cap on the EU budget was destroyed today:

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/540523/Britain-pay-34bn-to-fill-EU-Black-Hole
  • isam said:

    By the way, QT tonight from Romford, interesting to see how Kipper inclined the audience is. NO UKIP rep on though

    Is Barry Dennis on the panel?

    Not watching if he isn't.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Charles said:

    isam said:

    Socrates said:

    isam said:

    UKIP in the lead in Thanet South until weighting by 2010 vote is applied

    Farage wasn't the candidate then, and UKIP got 3% of the vote Nationally in 2010. If you think that is of no significance/that he might be a drag on the UKIP vote rather than a boost for it then I guess you could back the Tories

    Exactly the same weighting adjustment was made in Lord A's Rochester poll and still it overstated UKIP by 5%.

    Dream on. You are in trouble.

    On what basis is a 14 point swing towards you "in trouble"? If Farage wins South Thanet it will be a huge achievement. I think he'll do it, but no-one has ever pretended it's anything but a huge uphill struggle.
    There are kippers all over the web announcing they're going to win 40 seats in 2015 so I suggest that actually rather a lot of have people have pretended it's anything but a huge uphill struggle.

    I am reminded of Napoleon's snark at his marshals on the morning of Waterloo: "Because you have all been beaten by Wellington, you consider him a great general. Well I am telling you he is a bad general, the English are a bad army, and the whole affair will be like eating breakfast."

    As Farage has demonstrated 5 times already, winning Westminster seats is much harder than eating breakfast.

    Farage's presumed leader bonus didn't play out in Buckingham in 2010.
    "Farage's presumed leader bonus didn't play out in Buckingham in 2010"

    Ha!
    Not at all true.

    He soared far above the other candidates
    Ha he didn't manage that... & he wasn't the leader!
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    TGOHF said:

    He liked the cut of the chap who claims not to have heard the exchange more.

    If I heard correctly, the Judge also liked the officer who was sacked for gross misconduct.

    @DanHannanMEP: Two lessons to draw from the #plebgate case.
    1. Never get involved in a libel action.
    2. Seriously, NEVER get involved in a libel action.
  • Pong said:

    Pulpy, do you want to do a fun low stakes, limited exposure spread bet too?

    Please, spare us......!!!!!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    RodCrosby said:

    Sky talking of £1m legal bill for Mitchell...

    I'm guessing he doesn't have that sort of cash.

    Which means the lawyers are going to become creditors to his bankruptcy...
  • Mr. Speedy, Mitchell lost because he could not prove his innocence?

    And here was I thinking guilt was the thing that had to be proved [not a go at you, incidentally, but the judge].

    If there's no concrete evidence and that's ok then we might as well employ witchsmellers.

    It was nothing to do with guilt or innocence, it was a civil case not a criminal one. Mitchell brought the action so it was up to him to show that his version of events was the correct one. He could not. That's the way it works.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    MikeL said:

    There seems to be no reporting of exactly how the Scottish Income Tax is actually going to work in practice.

    Per Newsnight: Approx 7% of Income Tax is raised in Scotland at the moment.

    Scotland is approx 9% of UK population and gets approx 10% of public spending.

    So at the moment Scotland effectively gets 10% of the Income Tax raised.

    Under the new arrangements, Scotland sets its own Income Tax. If rates are unchanged it will only collect the amount equal to 7%.

    So what about the other 3% (ie 30% of the money Scotland now gets)? Is Scotland giving this money up? Surely not? It will still get it via the Barnett formula.

    Result: Nothing changes. Scotland still gets an amount equal to 10% of UK Income tax receipts.

    It's like giving a child £10 pocket money. You then say "look after yourself - do a paper round." The child earns £7 delivering papers. You then still give the child £3 to top them up. So they still end up with a total of £10.

    So Scotland isn't actually going to be raising all of its Income Tax at all.

    I guess it's all far too complicated for the BBC or anyone to actually report it in a way anyone will understand. But it is a total farce. Either Scotland should collect its own tax or it shouldn't.

    You misunderstand - if the child negociates a pay rise to £8 from the paper round he now gets £11. So an extra quid to spend on "social justice".
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited November 2014

    Socrates said:


    A government with a majority in parliament is quite able to change the law as necessary. The vast majority of immigrants, EU and non-EU are not educated to university level. We could easily reduce how many of them are coming here without "serious economic damage".

    We're talking about stopping people bringing family over to make a serious dent in low-skilled foreign immigration, which would involve leaving both the EU and the ECHR. The Tories don't have a parliamentary majority to do this. In any case if UKIP people are to believed these things would make the UK a prosperous and wonderful place, which would result in British people living overseas moving back and result in net immigration.
    There's just over a million British expats living abroad. Even if half of them moved back in one year, that is lower than one year's gross immigration. It would be, at most, a temporary effect.

    Oh, and cutting low skilled EU immigration would have a big dent without changing family migration. Plus, most non-EU immigrants in the UK are low skilled, so it must be more than family migration there too.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited November 2014
    Pulpstar said:

    RodCrosby said:

    Sky talking of £1m legal bill for Mitchell...

    I'm guessing he doesn't have that sort of cash.

    Which means the lawyers are going to become creditors to his bankruptcy...
    Don't get too excited. Probably insured - v common in a libel case.
  • Scott_P said:

    TGOHF said:

    He liked the cut of the chap who claims not to have heard the exchange more.

    If I heard correctly, the Judge also liked the officer who was sacked for gross misconduct.

    @DanHannanMEP: Two lessons to draw from the #plebgate case.
    1. Never get involved in a libel action.
    2. Seriously, NEVER get involved in a libel action.

    Or, if you do, make sure you are insured. That's what I did when it happened to me.

  • Are there going to be loads of posts demanding apologies from posters who'd demanded apologies from those who had decided Mitchell was guilty, or will everyone wait to see if there's an appeal?

    I was thinking that. We need apologies for demanding apologies.

    This risks turning into a Melchett 'he poohpoohed my poohpooh' thread...
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    His case was blown before he started it really was. He was never going to win this one.

    Guido
    "Mr Justice Warby said evidence from Mitchell’s chums; Lord Coe, Sir Richard Ottaway MP and others expressing doubt Mr Mitchell would ever use the word ’pleb’, would be permitted. Submissions about Metropolitan Police officers creating fake witnesses were refused"

    Never quite understood how such important evidence of potential false evidence was not allowed as a defence yet Plod could still use and report on all the hearsay incidents that were said to have occured previously to this incident in question?
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    edited November 2014
    Speedy said:

    Indigo said:

    Speedy said:

    There is (as ever) a very good Guardian live blog on Plebgate, which lays out the judge's reasoning quite clearly:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/nov/27/scotland-should-control-income-tax-says-smith-commission-reaction-politics-live-blog

    The key in how we reached this verdict:

    Sean O'Neill ✔ @TimesCrime
    Follow
    PC Ian Richardson (who spoke to @thetimes in Feb) praised as objective, sensible and impressive by judge
    So basically the judge like the cut of one man's jib more than the other ?
    I haven't posted this since the Nigel Evans trial, you lose some you win some:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyos-M48B8U
    "We have heard, for example, from Mr Bex Bissell - a man who by his own admission is a liar, a humbug, a hypocrite, a vagabond, a loathsome spotted reptile and a self-confessed chicken strangler. You may choose, if you wish, to believe the transparent tissue of odious lies which streamed on and on from his disgusting, greedy, slavering lips. That is entirely a matter for you."
  • Andrew Mitchell was worth around £2 million in 2012
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited November 2014

    Pong said:

    Pulpy, do you want to do a fun low stakes, limited exposure spread bet too?

    Please, spare us......!!!!!
    It's fine peter, you love compliated bets :)

    Ok, Pulpy;

    Basically, you think the tories majority in solihull will be larger than Cleggs in Sheffield.

    I think Cleggs majority in Sheffield will be larger than the tories majority in Solihull

    Therefore, we take the tory majority % in solihull (which may be negative if the LD's win) and take away the LD majority % in Sheffield (again, this would be negative if clegg loses).

    The result will either be positive or negative.

    The more positive the result, the more I pay you.

    The more negative, the more you pay me.

    We can agree a stake and a max exposure.

    Interested?
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited November 2014
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326

    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    TGOHF said:

    Mosque-go ?

    KentOnline ‏@Kent_Online 2h2 hours ago
    #Ukip South Thanet member 'no longer on twitter' after mistaking cathedral for mosque: http://bit.ly/1rqz7X8

    If all the thick Kippers obsessed with Islam/Muslims disappeared UKIP would be polling behind the loonies.
    It's an easy mistake to make, TSE.

    I've often trotted round for a quick confession only to find myself kneeling before a puzzled-looking Imam.
    I'd like to see a poll asking people to identify what type of religious building Westminster cathedral is from just a picture. I know the building as I lived near there, but it does look more like a mosque than a cathedral.
    I used to work opposite, Socco. It's one of London's hidden treasures.

    Nevertheless I think anybody who mistakes it for a mosque needs a trip to Specsavers. The absence of a separate entrance for Ladies is a bit of a giveaway.
    I'm not sure you can easily tell the entrance labels from the backshot of a news report. The reality is that, unlike most British cathedrals, it's built in the Byzantine style, and Islamic architecture followed the Byzantine style from the Dome of the Rock onwards.
    OK, Socco, point taken.

    I can in fact see the similarities. I still think the culprit deserves his or her place in the Twitter For Dummies class, next to Ms Thornbury.
    For God's sake, it's got a huge picture of Jesus over the front door. If that's not a clue that it's not a mosque, I don't know what is.

    I used to live next door to it too.

  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    TGOHF said:

    Indigo said:

    Speedy said:

    There is (as ever) a very good Guardian live blog on Plebgate, which lays out the judge's reasoning quite clearly:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/nov/27/scotland-should-control-income-tax-says-smith-commission-reaction-politics-live-blog

    The key in how we reached this verdict:

    Sean O'Neill ✔ @TimesCrime
    Follow
    PC Ian Richardson (who spoke to @thetimes in Feb) praised as objective, sensible and impressive by judge
    So basically the judge like the cut of one man's jib more than the other ?
    He liked the cut of the chap who claims not to have heard the exchange more.
    That judge has been involved in some interesting decisions before
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/373420/The-judge-who-backed-Abu-Qatada
  • Moses_ said:

    Mr. Speedy, Mitchell lost because he could not prove his innocence?

    And here was I thinking guilt was the thing that had to be proved [not a go at you, incidentally, but the judge].

    If there's no concrete evidence and that's ok then we might as well employ witchsmellers.

    Agree entirely, but doesn't libel work on different and lower parameters? Perhaps One of our regular posting lawyers might enlighten ?
    Steady, Moses. Can you imagine what they would charge Mike for that?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    Pong said:

    Pong said:

    Pulpy, do you want to do a fun low stakes, limited exposure spread bet too?

    Please, spare us......!!!!!
    It's fine peter, you love compliated bets :)

    Ok, Pulpy;

    Basically, you think the tories majority in solihull will be larger than Cleggs in Sheffield.

    I think Cleggs majority in Sheffield will be larger than the tories majority in Solihull

    Therefore, we take the tory majority % in solihull (which may be negative if the LD's win) and take away the LD majority % in Sheffield (again, this would be negative if clegg loses).

    The result will either be positive or negative.

    The more positive the result, the more I pay you.

    The more negative, the more you pay me.

    We can agree a stake and a max exposure.

    Interested?
    £2 a point for charity :O)
  • dr_spyn said:

    Speedy said:

    Indigo said:

    Speedy said:

    There is (as ever) a very good Guardian live blog on Plebgate, which lays out the judge's reasoning quite clearly:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/nov/27/scotland-should-control-income-tax-says-smith-commission-reaction-politics-live-blog

    The key in how we reached this verdict:

    Sean O'Neill ✔ @TimesCrime
    Follow
    PC Ian Richardson (who spoke to @thetimes in Feb) praised as objective, sensible and impressive by judge
    So basically the judge like the cut of one man's jib more than the other ?
    I haven't posted this since the Nigel Evans trial, you lose some you win some:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyos-M48B8U
    "We have heard, for example, from Mr Bex Bissell - a man who by his own admission is a liar, a humbug, a hypocrite, a vagabond, a loathsome spotted reptile and a self-confessed chicken strangler. You may choose, if you wish, to believe the transparent tissue of odious lies which streamed on and on from his disgusting, greedy, slavering lips. That is entirely a matter for you."
    'self confessed player of the pink oboe' surely? When did this 'chicken strangler' PC version come along? Sheesh.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Moses_ said:

    Submissions about Metropolitan Police officers creating fake witnesses were refused"

    Incredible.
  • Socrates here's my evidence.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2008/nov/03/greenpolitics-liberaldemocrats

    The polling on the kippers misjudging Asians/Muslims I've previously linked for you and is on the YouGov website.

    Plus when I posted the Cathderal story one of your fellow travellers in UKIP said something along the lines of under LibLabCon it was inevitable that Westminster Cathedral would soon be a mosque.
  • Socrates said:

    There's just over a million British expats living abroad.

    Citation needed.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624
    Artist said:

    Not too many surprises in the Con-LD battleground. Two observations:
    -John Hemmings has the mother of all incumbency boosts.
    -Conservatives unchanged in Watford since last poll, the LD selection has tore into Labour share.

    John Hemmings MP has posted on this site in the past (I got into a barney with him regarding Alchemy/Phoenix/Rover)
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Patrick said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Speedy said:

    Indigo said:

    Speedy said:

    There is (as ever) a very good Guardian live blog on Plebgate, which lays out the judge's reasoning quite clearly:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/nov/27/scotland-should-control-income-tax-says-smith-commission-reaction-politics-live-blog

    The key in how we reached this verdict:

    Sean O'Neill ✔ @TimesCrime
    Follow
    PC Ian Richardson (who spoke to @thetimes in Feb) praised as objective, sensible and impressive by judge
    So basically the judge like the cut of one man's jib more than the other ?
    I haven't posted this since the Nigel Evans trial, you lose some you win some:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyos-M48B8U
    "We have heard, for example, from Mr Bex Bissell - a man who by his own admission is a liar, a humbug, a hypocrite, a vagabond, a loathsome spotted reptile and a self-confessed chicken strangler. You may choose, if you wish, to believe the transparent tissue of odious lies which streamed on and on from his disgusting, greedy, slavering lips. That is entirely a matter for you."
    'self confessed player of the pink oboe' surely? When did this 'chicken strangler' PC version come along? Sheesh.
    "Then we have been forced to listen to the pitiful whining of Mr Norma St.John Scott - a scrounger, parasite, pervert, a worm, a self-confessed player of the pink oboe; a man (or woman) who by his (or her) own admission chews pillows! It would be hard to imagine, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, a more discredited and embittered man, a more unreliable witness upon whose testimony to convict a man who you may rightly think should have become Prime Minister of his country or President of the world. You may on the other hand choose to believe the evidence of Mrs Scott - in which case I can only say that you need psychiatric help of the type provided by the excellent Dr Gleadle."

    Plebgate the latest Whitehall Farce.
  • Anyone stupid enough to sue for libel when he himself was his only witness.. seems to lack a certain ability to make a judgement of the evident risk of failure..

    Given that Mitchell appears to be a thoroughly rude and unpleasant person judging by the evidence presented by other politicians , he also appears to be suffering from a deluded sense of his own credibility.
  • The best thing about plebgate on PB were the posters who said Dave would never fire a chum then swiftly changed direction to say Dave sat on evidence that would have cleared Mitchell
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    @Pong When the Tories romp home by 7% in Solihull and Clegg squeaks it by 4% in Hallam you give £6 to charity :)
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865

    Moses_ said:

    Mr. Speedy, Mitchell lost because he could not prove his innocence?

    And here was I thinking guilt was the thing that had to be proved [not a go at you, incidentally, but the judge].

    If there's no concrete evidence and that's ok then we might as well employ witchsmellers.

    Agree entirely, but doesn't libel work on different and lower parameters? Perhaps One of our regular posting lawyers might enlighten ?
    Steady, Moses. Can you imagine what they would charge Mike for that?
    Ha!
    I meant is there a lower level of proof required in a civil case to the " beyond reasonable doubt" in a criminal case

    *throws spade away*
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    Pulpstar said:

    @Pong When the Tories romp home by 7% in Solihull and Clegg squeaks it by 4% in Hallam you give £6 to charity :)

    Ok we're on.

    For charity :)
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    Socrates said:

    There's just over a million British expats living abroad.

    Citation needed.
    Closer to 5 million http://britishexpats.com/news/latest-news/expats-world-hands/
  • Pulpstar said:

    @Pong When the Tories romp home by 7% in Solihull and Clegg squeaks it by 4% in Hallam you give £6 to charity :)

    What exactly is the bet you're offering to me?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Socrates said:

    There's just over a million British expats living abroad.

    Citation needed.
    http://britishexpats.com/articles/moving-abroad/more-than-1-million-british-expats-living-abroad/
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited November 2014
    Moses_ said:

    His case was blown before he started it really was. He was never going to win this one.

    Guido
    "Mr Justice Warby said evidence from Mitchell’s chums; Lord Coe, Sir Richard Ottaway MP and others expressing doubt Mr Mitchell would ever use the word ’pleb’, would be permitted. Submissions about Metropolitan Police officers creating fake witnesses were refused"

    Never quite understood how such important evidence of potential false evidence was not allowed as a defence yet Plod could still use and report on all the hearsay incidents that were said to have occured previously to this incident in question?

    They should have used the judge from the Nigel Evans trial.
    This whole story is indicative of public belief vs trial outcomes, most people thought that Evans was going to lose his trial and then he won, and most people thought that Mitchell was going to win and then he lost, in both cases as in most cases the judge's beliefs about the case are paramount to the outcome.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410

    Anyone stupid enough to sue for libel when he himself was his only witness.. seems to lack a certain ability to make a judgement of the evident risk of failure..

    Given that Mitchell appears to be a thoroughly rude and unpleasant person judging by the evidence presented by other politicians , he also appears to be suffering from a deluded sense of his own credibility.

    Is Rowland vs Mitchell still ongoing or is that decided by this case.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326

    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    TGOHF said:

    Mosque-go ?

    KentOnline ‏@Kent_Online 2h2 hours ago
    #Ukip South Thanet member 'no longer on twitter' after mistaking cathedral for mosque: http://bit.ly/1rqz7X8

    If all the thick Kippers obsessed with Islam/Muslims disappeared UKIP would be polling behind the loonies.
    It's an easy mistake to make, TSE.

    I've often trotted round for a quick confession only to find myself kneeling before a puzzled-looking Imam.
    I'd like to see a poll asking people to identify what type of religious building Westminster cathedral is from just a picture. I know the building as I lived near there, but it does look more like a mosque than a cathedral.
    Nah, there aren't any minarets!
    A Byzantine campanile looks pretty similar to a minaret.
    Should've gone to specsavers :)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Cathedral
    It's easy enough to work out the thought processes in play here.

    The building looks 'different', and it's in London. Ergo it's foreign. And it's got a tower. Red Alert. At this point the Muslim klaxon sounds in the Kipper mind, and rather than does some basic research, a lightbulb sparks into life above a sign marked 'Mosque'.
    My impression of The Twitterati, Watcher, is that there is not generally a lot of thought being processed.
    Twitter and thought are mutually exclusive, IMO.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410

    Pulpstar said:

    @Pong When the Tories romp home by 7% in Solihull and Clegg squeaks it by 4% in Hallam you give £6 to charity :)

    What exactly is the bet you're offering to me?
    @Pong got there first, and I don't want too much exposure ^_~
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046
    Charles said:

    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    TGOHF said:

    Mosque-go ?

    KentOnline ‏@Kent_Online 2h2 hours ago
    #Ukip South Thanet member 'no longer on twitter' after mistaking cathedral for mosque: http://bit.ly/1rqz7X8

    If all the thick Kippers obsessed with Islam/Muslims disappeared UKIP would be polling behind the loonies.
    Keep insulting the people you need to win back for a majority. It's pretty clear the Tories are the thick ones if that's their strategy.
    Considering the insults you Kippers throw around without foundation....
    You spend more time insulting Kippers than any Kipper poster on here does insulting Tories. And then you're surprised when other posters don't defend you.
    Pointing out the facts isn't an insult.

    Stick to blaming Theresa May for prison escapes
    The "fact" that the vast majority of UKIP supporters are thick and obsessed with Muslims? Apparently you're too thick to be able to know what a fact is.

    And Theresa May is so thick, she pledges to reduce immigration by 60% and ends up increasing it.
    That was Cameron's pledge, not May's. He got to be PM by telling the voters what they wanted to hear and May got lumbered with the blame when they couldn't deliver it. Cameron may be full of shit, but neither of them is thick.
    Theresa May has repeated the pledge herself. And even if she didn't agree with it, you have to be pretty damn useless to try to achieve major reductions in immigration and actually go backwards.
    Have they gone backwards on non-EU? I thought the issue was a big rise in EU immigration?

    If so, isn't the answer:

    - We've done a good job on reducing non-EU immigration
    - Because of the strong performance of the economy, we are a very attractive country for EU immigrants, vote of confidence, etc
    - We can't do anything about this because of the agreements signed by the last Labour government (can you hang tenuously on Lisbon)?
    - But we are working on our planned renegotiation, which we will put to a vote
    Don't get bogged down in the detail.

    They pledged to reduce immigration, immigration went up.

    They need to come up with a coherent response.

    That said, I would not be surprised to hear EdM next Weds lead on this and somehow simultaneously be outraged that the Cons haven't brought down immigration and delighted that immigration is so "healthy". He has form.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    edited November 2014
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    @Pong When the Tories romp home by 7% in Solihull and Clegg squeaks it by 4% in Hallam you give £6 to charity :)

    What exactly is the bet you're offering to me?
    @Pong got there first, and I don't want too much exposure ^_~
    Bah no one is willing to bet on Clegg not winning Hallam
  • Mr. Moses, that sounds rotten.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624
    tlg86 said:

    Not wanting to doubt the figures, but can someone explain why the constituency question makes such a difference? I get why a Labour voter would vote Lib Dem (though that is questionable!), but I don't get why someone saying they'd vote Tory in a standard question would then switch to the Lib Dems in a constituency question?

    I might be being a bit thick here, but do these people understand that by voting Lib Dem instead of Tory they may prevent a Tory majority? Or do they love their local Lib Dem MP that much?

    Tomorrow I will be at the 40th birthday party of a friend of mine. He is a true blue tory, with (he will happily admit) UKIP sympathies.

    But he's in Southwark, and will be voting for Simon Hughes because:

    1. He believes Simon Hughes is a sincere guy, who didn't bow to pressure on gay marriage.
    2. He thinks he's been an excellent local MP who's been very responsive when they're been issues.
    3. He would rather have a LibDem MP than a Labour one.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    edited November 2014

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    @Pong When the Tories romp home by 7% in Solihull and Clegg squeaks it by 4% in Hallam you give £6 to charity :)

    What exactly is the bet you're offering to me?
    @Pong got there first, and I don't want too much exposure ^_~
    Bah
    If Clegg wins and the Tories don't win Solihull you have bragging rights about it for all eternity though :P
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    TGOHF said:

    MikeL said:

    There seems to be no reporting of exactly how the Scottish Income Tax is actually going to work in practice.

    Per Newsnight: Approx 7% of Income Tax is raised in Scotland at the moment.

    Scotland is approx 9% of UK population and gets approx 10% of public spending.

    So at the moment Scotland effectively gets 10% of the Income Tax raised.

    Under the new arrangements, Scotland sets its own Income Tax. If rates are unchanged it will only collect the amount equal to 7%.

    So what about the other 3% (ie 30% of the money Scotland now gets)? Is Scotland giving this money up? Surely not? It will still get it via the Barnett formula.

    Result: Nothing changes. Scotland still gets an amount equal to 10% of UK Income tax receipts.

    It's like giving a child £10 pocket money. You then say "look after yourself - do a paper round." The child earns £7 delivering papers. You then still give the child £3 to top them up. So they still end up with a total of £10.

    So Scotland isn't actually going to be raising all of its Income Tax at all.

    I guess it's all far too complicated for the BBC or anyone to actually report it in a way anyone will understand. But it is a total farce. Either Scotland should collect its own tax or it shouldn't.

    You misunderstand - if the child negociates a pay rise to £8 from the paper round he now gets £11. So an extra quid to spend on "social justice".
    No, I do understand that thanks - I didn't want my post to be any longer!

    I assume the £3 is effectively fixed - though is that actually the case? Does it remain exactly £3 forever? Or does it rise - eg with CPI or nominal GDP? And does it change if Scotland's population as a % of the UK changes?

    But whatever those fine details, Scotland will not be raising all of its Income Tax. A very large chunk of England/Wales/NI Income Tax will still be being passed to Scotland.

    And everyone should be aware of that. Yet there is no mention of it in any reports.
This discussion has been closed.