Given that we now know that the Tory's Jim Messina was behind the push polling in Rochester, and given how many threads on here are devoted to polling, isn't it a surprise that OGH hasn't written a thread about it?
It's probably the biggest controversy in polling this year, and only I have mentioned it
When OGH thought UKIP had got the Survation question mixed up he was all over it on twitter.. but now, nothing
Do you have a link to show it definitely was Jim Messina?
This site quotes from The Times
"The mystery of the phone polling the Tories say isn’t being done for them
A consultancy founded by Jim Messina, a former White House official [who was Barack Obama’s 2012 Campaign Manager and is now working for the Conservative Party], has surveyed voters in key marginal seats, by-election contests and the Scottish referendum.
The Conservatives insist that they have not commissioned the work by Messina Quantitative Research, describing it as an independent company. However, a party spokesman refused to deny that the business was sharing its findings with Tory strategists.
Ukip suggested that the Conservatives had reached an arm’s-length arrangement with MQR in order to bypass the £100,000 spending limit for by-election campaigns, including that in Rochester and Strood.
“It’s very odd that Jim Messina is calling people and saying that it’s for independent purposes,” a Ukip source said. “What are they doing with this information? He’s not polling Rochester and Strood on behalf of Barack Obama.”…
Call operatives from the company told survey respondents in the constituency that they were not working on behalf of any political parties but added: “If we collect enough information we may publish the results.” A spokesman for MQR declined to explain what this meant…"
Given that Jim Messina has threatened to sue people for making that allegation you shouldn't make that sort of allegation.
FYI - Bankrupts can't be MPs
Well if you are convinced then that's down to you. I know what I think, and what any impartial person would make of it.
... and also what you would think if it wasn't the Tories doing it
Just for complete disclosure, I won't go into further details, but I'm more knowledgeable about the Messina story than most, so unless people can back up their assertions of push polling with a link from reputable site then that allegation isn't going to be allowed on PB.
That's because it was TSE push polling in Rochester
Well, let's start here, shall we ? On the assumption that health care and education are ring-fenced and defence spending is more likely to go up than go down we have roughly £150 billion on pensions and £250 billion on everything else (including defence).
Given a Conservative Government largely elected by the elderly hasn't got a death wish, pensions won't be touched either so that leaves the weight of the cuts to fall on £110 billion of welfare and £250 billion of everything else (including defence).
A cut of £55 billion looks a bit more substantial now, doesn't it ?
So on your figures they need to cut 55/360 = 15%.
The BBC widely reported last week that a single person with two children on minimum wage gets £527 per week net in their pocket = £27,404.
Do you have a link to show it definitely was Jim Messina?
This site quotes from The Times
That article doesn't use the phrase push polling.
Given that Jim Messina has threatened to sue people for making that allegation you shouldn't make that sort of allegation.
FYI - Bankrupts can't be MPs
Well if you are convinced then that's down to you. I know what I think, and what any impartial person would make of it.
... and also what you would think if it wasn't the Tories doing it
Just for complete disclosure, I won't go into further details, but I'm more knowledgeable about the Messina story than most, so unless people can back up their assertions of push polling with a link from reputable site then that allegation isn't going to be allowed on PB.
The Times isn't a reputable source?
It has denial from Messina/MQR they didn't conduct any push polling.
Given that we now know that the Tory's Jim Messina was behind the push polling in Rochester, and given how many threads on here are devoted to polling, isn't it a surprise that OGH hasn't written a thread about it?
It's probably the biggest controversy in polling this year, and only I have mentioned it
When OGH thought UKIP had got the Survation question mixed up he was all over it on twitter.. but now, nothing
Do you have a link to show it definitely was Jim Messina?
Careful here. Messina threatened to sue for defamation when UKIP first alleged this:
Given that we now know that the Tory's Jim Messina was behind the push polling in Rochester, and given how many threads on here are devoted to polling, isn't it a surprise that OGH hasn't written a thread about it?
It's probably the biggest controversy in polling this year, and only I have mentioned it
When OGH thought UKIP had got the Survation question mixed up he was all over it on twitter.. but now, nothing
Do you have a link to show it definitely was Jim Messina?
e/
That article doesn't use the phrase push polling.
Given that Jim Messina has threatened to sue people for making that allegation you shouldn't make that sort of allegation.
FYI - Bankrupts can't be MPs
Well if you are convinced then that's down to you. I know what I think, and what any impartial person would make of it.
... and also what you would think if it wasn't the Tories doing it
Just for complete disclosure, I won't go into further details, but I'm more knowledgeable about the Messina story than most, so unless people can back up their assertions of push polling with a link from reputable site then that allegation isn't going to be allowed on PB.
That's because it was TSE push polling in Rochester
Nope, because I spent an hour discussing the polling with Damian of Survation a few weeks ago when the story break
Christ, I deserve to be horsewhipped for that shameless bit of name dropping.
Do you have a link to show it definitely was Jim Messina?
This site quotes from The Times
That article doesn't use the phrase push polling.
Given that Jim Messina has threatened to sue people for making that allegation you shouldn't make that sort of allegation.
FYI - Bankrupts can't be MPs
Well if you are convinced then that's down to you. I know what I think, and what any impartial person would make of it.
... and also what you would think if it wasn't the Tories doing it
Just for complete disclosure, I won't go into further details, but I'm more knowledgeable about the Messina story than most, so unless people can back up their assertions of push polling with a link from reputable site then that allegation isn't going to be allowed on PB.
The Times isn't a reputable source?
It has denial from Messina/MQR they didn't conduct any push polling.
So your original assertion was incorrect
Douglas Carswell MP @DouglasCarswell · Oct 20 For the record, @grantshapps is on record denying that the Conservative party has used smear push polling tactics. Let's see if that holds.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · Oct 20 @DouglasCarswell@grantshapps Was the alleged push polling automated like in US or was live interviewer used? Interested to know specifics
Do you have a link to show it definitely was Jim Messina?
This site quotes from The Times
That article doesn't use the phrase push polling.
Given that Jim Messina has threatened to sue people for making that allegation you shouldn't make that sort of allegation.
FYI - Bankrupts can't be MPs
Well if you are convinced then that's down to you. I know what I think, and what any impartial person would make of it.
... and also what you would think if it wasn't the Tories doing it
Just for complete disclosure, I won't go into further details, but I'm more knowledgeable about the Messina story than most, so unless people can back up their assertions of push polling with a link from reputable site then that allegation isn't going to be allowed on PB.
The Times isn't a reputable source?
It has denial from Messina/MQR they didn't conduct any push polling.
MQR said: “These allegations are baseless . . . and it is disappointing they would be levelled. MQR is an independent research company that holds itself to the highest professional standards.”
Do you have a link to show it definitely was Jim Messina?
This site quotes from The Times
That article doesn't use the phrase push polling.
Given that Jim Messina has threatened to sue people for making that allegation you shouldn't make that sort of allegation.
FYI - Bankrupts can't be MPs
Well if you are convinced then that's down to you. I know what I think, and what any impartial person would make of it.
... and also what you would think if it wasn't the Tories doing it
Just for complete disclosure, I won't go into further details, but I'm more knowledgeable about the Messina story than most, so unless people can back up their assertions of push polling with a link from reputable site then that allegation isn't going to be allowed on PB.
The Times isn't a reputable source?
It has denial from Messina/MQR they didn't conduct any push polling.
MQR said: “These allegations are baseless . . . and it is disappointing they would be levelled. MQR is an independent research company that holds itself to the highest professional standards.”
Yeah I have read it
Someone from a company called MQR phoned up Mark Reckless and giggled when they realised who they had called because
"There was a question that she didn't think appropriate to ask me" - Mark Reckless
and
"The Conservatives insist that they have not commissioned the work by Messina Quantitative Research, describing it as an independent company. However, a party spokesman refused to deny that the business was sharing its findings with Tory strategists.
LBC poll yesterday gave Miliband and Balls a 72% trust over the economy against a score of 27% for Osborne, the word trust has very different connotations from the words used in the usual question.It implies a levelnof compassion not an arid plan which discounts human harm.Labour will win in 2015 because they are not a bunch of Tory toffs.
Given that we now know that the Tory's Jim Messina was behind the push polling in Rochester, and given how many threads on here are devoted to polling, isn't it a surprise that OGH hasn't written a thread about it?
It's probably the biggest controversy in polling this year, and only I have mentioned it
When OGH thought UKIP had got the Survation question mixed up he was all over it on twitter.. but now, nothing
Do you have a link to show it definitely was Jim Messina?
e/
That article doesn't use the phrase push polling.
Given that Jim Messina has threatened to sue people for making that allegation you shouldn't make that sort of allegation.
FYI - Bankrupts can't be MPs
Well if you are convinced then that's down to you. I know what I think, and what any impartial person would make of it.
... and also what you would think if it wasn't the Tories doing it
Just for complete disclosure, I won't go into further details, but I'm more knowledgeable about the Messina story than most, so unless people can back up their assertions of push polling with a link from reputable site then that allegation isn't going to be allowed on PB.
That's because it was TSE push polling in Rochester
Nope, because I spent an hour discussing the polling with Damian of Survation a few weeks ago when the story break
Christ, I deserve to be horsewhipped for that shameless bit of name dropping.
You'd be dead by now if you were whipped every time you've done that...
An accusation of push polling and a consequent law suit for libel would see the latter certainly fail . There is no legally defined definition of what push polling is and some people have differing ideas so the whole thing would be nebulous .
An accusation of push polling and a consequent law suit for libel would see the latter certainly fail . There is no legally defined definition of what push polling is and some people have differing ideas so the whole thing would be nebulous .
I think it's just an excuse not to talk about how hard the Tories tried to no avail to be honest
An accusation of push polling and a consequent law suit for libel would see the latter certainly fail . There is no legally defined definition of what push polling is and some people have differing ideas so the whole thing would be nebulous .
An accusation of push polling and a consequent law suit for libel would see the latter certainly fail . There is no legally defined definition of what push polling is and some people have differing ideas so the whole thing would be nebulous .
Yeah but defending that suit would cost money.
And bringing a losing law suit would cost even more including paying the defendant's costs ,
Given that we now know that the Tory's Jim Messina was behind the push polling in Rochester, and given how many threads on here are devoted to polling, isn't it a surprise that OGH hasn't written a thread about it?
It's probably the biggest controversy in polling this year, and only I have mentioned it
When OGH thought UKIP had got the Survation question mixed up he was all over it on twitter.. but now, nothing
Do you have a link to show it definitely was Jim Messina?
e/
That article doesn't use the phrase push polling.
Given that Jim Messina has threatened to sue people for making that allegation you shouldn't make that sort of allegation.
FYI - Bankrupts can't be MPs
Well if you are convinced then that's down to you. I know what I think, and what any impartial person would make of it.
... and also what you would think if it wasn't the Tories doing it
Just for complete disclosure, I won't go into further details, but I'm more knowledgeable about the Messina story than most, so unless people can back up their assertions of push polling with a link from reputable site then that allegation isn't going to be allowed on PB.
That's because it was TSE push polling in Rochester
Nope, because I spent an hour discussing the polling with Damian of Survation a few weeks ago when the story break
Christ, I deserve to be horsewhipped for that shameless bit of name dropping.
You'd be dead by now if you were whipped every time you've done that...
Who is he anyway?
He's the Chief Executive of Survation, who do UKIP's polling for them.
So the state gives them net welfare of £13,884 (obviously gross welfare is a bit higher and they pay a bit of Income Tax and NI).
So how about we cut that £13,884 by 15% - that's £2,083.
Result - they take home £25,312.
Do you think the country would live with that?
The state would still be increasing their gross earnings by 87%. Wonder how that would compare internationally?
That is of course only one side of the equation and still represents a 7.6% reduction in real terms on their income which is probably about what I've had over the last five years.
The other side is or might be the previously free local services which they could have used for which they might have to pay or which might haver disappeared completely following Council cuts. As an example, if their housing benefit is cut, what about their rent ?
It's not a zero-sum game and changes in one area have huge implications elsewhere.
WTF is "push polling"? Not heard of it before 5pm today.
Some people consider what Messina's company did in Rochester.Strood was push polling . Other people including Messina himself say that it was not . The Conservatives who received the benefits of feed back from the polling without apparently paying anything towards the costs have said nothing . Think that sums it up .
Given that we now know that the Tory's Jim Messina was behind the push polling in Rochester, and given how many threads on here are devoted to polling, isn't it a surprise that OGH hasn't written a thread about it?
It's probably the biggest controversy in polling this year, and only I have mentioned it
When OGH thought UKIP had got the Survation question mixed up he was all over it on twitter.. but now, nothing
Do you have a link to show it definitely was Jim Messina?
e/
That article doesn't use the phrase push polling.
Given that Jim Messina has threatened to sue people for making that allegation you shouldn't make that sort of allegation.
FYI - Bankrupts can't be MPs
Well if you are convinced then that's down to you. I know what I think, and what any impartial person would make of it.
... and also what you would think if it wasn't the Tories doing it
Just for complete disclosure, I won't go into further details, but I'm more knowledgeable about the Messina story than most, so unless people can back up their assertions of push polling with a link from reputable site then that allegation isn't going to be allowed on PB.
That's because it was TSE push polling in Rochester
Nope, because I spent an hour discussing the polling with Damian of Survation a few weeks ago when the story break
Christ, I deserve to be horsewhipped for that shameless bit of name dropping.
You'd be dead by now if you were whipped every time you've done that...
Who is he anyway?
He's the Chief Executive of Survation, who do UKIP's polling for them.
An accusation of push polling and a consequent law suit for libel would see the latter certainly fail . There is no legally defined definition of what push polling is and some people have differing ideas so the whole thing would be nebulous .
Yeah but defending that suit would cost money.
And bringing a losing law suit would cost even more including paying the defendant's costs ,
So the state gives them net welfare of £13,884 (obviously gross welfare is a bit higher and they pay a bit of Income Tax and NI).
So how about we cut that £13,884 by 15% - that's £2,083.
Result - they take home £25,312.
Do you think the country would live with that?
The state would still be increasing their gross earnings by 87%. Wonder how that would compare internationally?
That is of course only one side of the equation and still represents a 7.6% reduction in real terms on their income which is probably about what I've had over the last five years.
The other side is or might be the previously free local services which they could have used for which they might have to pay or which might haver disappeared completely following Council cuts. As an example, if their housing benefit is cut, what about their rent ?
It's not a zero-sum game and changes in one area have huge implications elsewhere.
Sure - but welfare is a major area for likely cuts and to my mind (and I suspect quite a few others) the current amounts being paid look extremely generous. And even after 15% cuts they will still look generous.
Far more generous than France or Germany (as widely reported by BBC last week).
LBC poll yesterday gave Miliband and Balls a 72% trust over the economy against a score of 27% for Osborne, the word trust has very different connotations from the words used in the usual question.It implies a levelnof compassion not an arid plan which discounts human harm.Labour will win in 2015 because they are not a bunch of Tory toffs.
LBC poll yesterday gave Miliband and Balls a 72% trust over the economy against a score of 27% for Osborne, the word trust has very different connotations from the words used in the usual question.It implies a levelnof compassion not an arid plan which discounts human harm.Labour will win in 2015 because they are not a bunch of Tory toffs.
Link - was it a scientific poll ?
So LBC "poll" managed find polar opposite of every other polling organisation. BS alert going on...was it an online click-athon that was overrun by the same people pushing #CameornMustGo every day?
LBC poll yesterday gave Miliband and Balls a 72% trust over the economy against a score of 27% for Osborne, the word trust has very different connotations from the words used in the usual question.It implies a levelnof compassion not an arid plan which discounts human harm.Labour will win in 2015 because they are not a bunch of Tory toffs.
Link - was it a scientific poll ?
If Ed and Ed did have a 45% lead in economic competence, they'd be laughing all the way to number 10.
If the video I just watched is not a fake, David Moyes has outdone Steve McLaren in how to look like a Brit Abroad when interviewed as manager of a foreign club.
I tried very hard not to listen to any of the autumn statement yesterday because I didn't have time for the bullshit circus surrounding it but this morning when it had developed into vox pops with researchers clearly parading the stupidest people they could find I took an interest.
The first girl said she liked Osborne's statement. Yes she liked what he'd promised for her area. Yes she thought it would be good for her and her family. Yes she was thinking of buying a house and she liked what he was doing for house buyers......"So on the whole would you consider voting Conservative". "No" she said she'd be voting UKIP. "What would UKIP do that would be better?".
"They'd stop immigration" she said.
I then went to watch Paddington (an anti UKIP film for children) and on coming out I put the radio on and the first thing I heard was ".....but they're not doing anything about immigration" so I switched off and decided I'd go and look at some Christmas decorations.
I tried very hard not to listen to any of the autumn statement yesterday because I didn't have time for the bullshit circus surrounding it but this morning when it had developed into vox pops with researchers clearly parading the stupidest people they could find I took an interest.
The first girl said she liked Osborne's statement. Yes she liked what he'd promised for her area. Yes she thought it would be good for her and her family. Yes she was thinking of buying a house and she liked what he was doing for house buyers......"So on the whole would you consider voting Conservative". "No" she said she'd be voting UKIP. "What would UKIP do that would be better?".
"They'd stop immigration" she said.
I then went to watch Paddington (an anti UKIP film for children) and on coming out I put the radio on and the first thing I heard was ".....but they're not doing anything about immigration" so I switched off and decided I'd go and look at some Christmas decorations.
WTF is "push polling"? Not heard of it before 5pm today.
It's a political tactic where you try to spread propaganda about your opponent under the guise of polling. Most famously, Karl Rove ran a campaign for George W. Bush during the 2000 primary, where they ran a poll asking southern Republican voters before the South Carolina primary if they were "less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew he had an illegitimate black child". It referred to the Vietnamese orphan he had adopted.
So the state gives them net welfare of £13,884 (obviously gross welfare is a bit higher and they pay a bit of Income Tax and NI).
So how about we cut that £13,884 by 15% - that's £2,083.
Result - they take home £25,312.
Do you think the country would live with that?
The state would still be increasing their gross earnings by 87%. Wonder how that would compare internationally?
That is of course only one side of the equation and still represents a 7.6% reduction in real terms on their income which is probably about what I've had over the last five years.
The other side is or might be the previously free local services which they could have used for which they might have to pay or which might haver disappeared completely following Council cuts. As an example, if their housing benefit is cut, what about their rent ?
It's not a zero-sum game and changes in one area have huge implications elsewhere.
Sure - but welfare is a major area for likely cuts and to my mind (and I suspect quite a few others) the current amounts being paid look extremely generous. And even after 15% cuts they will still look generous.
Far more generous than France or Germany (as widely reported by BBC last week).
LBC poll yesterday gave Miliband and Balls a 72% trust over the economy against a score of 27% for Osborne, the word trust has very different connotations from the words used in the usual question.It implies a levelnof compassion not an arid plan which discounts human harm.Labour will win in 2015 because they are not a bunch of Tory toffs.
Your little fingers must be red raw, the number of times you did that poll.....
Well, let's start here, shall we ? On the assumption that health care and education are ring-fenced and defence spending is more likely to go up than go down we have roughly £150 billion on pensions and £250 billion on everything else (including defence).
Given a Conservative Government largely elected by the elderly hasn't got a death wish, pensions won't be touched either so that leaves the weight of the cuts to fall on £110 billion of welfare and £250 billion of everything else (including defence).
A cut of £55 billion looks a bit more substantial now, doesn't it ?
Not especially.
Pensions funding includes public sector pensions, there are plenty of ways to squeeze there - lower employer contributions, higher employee ones, an overall cap on entitlements,changes to early retirement entitlements, squeezing out employees on the old gold plated schemes etc etc.
As for state pensioners you just start changing the ages at which certain things become payable, reform/remove fripperies like Winter Fuel Payment, Xmas bonus, free bus passes, free TV licences etc.
The imposition of a meaningful habitual residence test and more widely used contributory principle will eat into the welfare bill, reductions in the local housing allowance cap would slice big chunks off the housing benefit bill.
The amalgamation of Child Benefit and the Child Tax Credit would generate savings. A freeze on CHB equals close to a 15% cut over a Parliament.
The overseas aid budget is ripe for a law that says 0.7% only at times of surplus;
The DCMS and DFID could be dismantled - I'm sure Britain will survive their departure.
Raise or drop the bar for entitlements to all manner of benefits and then the cost changes.
And there's always the old way of squeezing a 'ring fenced' budget - just move activity into it that was previously in a different column.
On the death of Jeremy Thorpe despite his colourful personal life, there is no doubt he helped revive the Liberal Party and pave the way for their eventual return to government
So the state gives them net welfare of £13,884 (obviously gross welfare is a bit higher and they pay a bit of Income Tax and NI).
So how about we cut that £13,884 by 15% - that's £2,083.
Result - they take home £25,312.
Do you think the country would live with that?
The state would still be increasing their gross earnings by 87%. Wonder how that would compare internationally?
That is of course only one side of the equation and still represents a 7.6% reduction in real terms on their income which is probably about what I've had over the last five years.
The other side is or might be the previously free local services which they could have used for which they might have to pay or which might haver disappeared completely following Council cuts. As an example, if their housing benefit is cut, what about their rent ?
It's not a zero-sum game and changes in one area have huge implications elsewhere.
Sure - but welfare is a major area for likely cuts and to my mind (and I suspect quite a few others) the current amounts being paid look extremely generous. And even after 15% cuts they will still look generous.
Far more generous than France or Germany (as widely reported by BBC last week).
Do you have a link for that last statement?
No, sorry.
But figures were on main BBC1 news during reports on immigration - they were comparing what Polish person with two children coming to the UK would get in UK and other main European countries.
Sure - but welfare is a major area for likely cuts and to my mind (and I suspect quite a few others) the current amounts being paid look extremely generous. And even after 15% cuts they will still look generous.
Far more generous than France or Germany (as widely reported by BBC last week).
So you're going to tell hard-working people that you're cutting their income by 7.5% that they should be happy because they'd be worse off in France or Germany.
Pensions funding includes public sector pensions, there are plenty of ways to squeeze there - lower employer contributions, higher employee ones, an overall cap on entitlements,changes to early retirement entitlements, squeezing out employees on the old gold plated schemes etc etc.
As for state pensioners you just start changing the ages at which certain things become payable, reform/remove fripperies like Winter Fuel Payment, Xmas bonus, free bus passes, free TV licences etc.
The imposition of a meaningful habitual residence test and more widely used contributory principle will eat into the welfare bill, reductions in the local housing allowance cap would slice big chunks off the housing benefit bill.
The amalgamation of Child Benefit and the Child Tax Credit would generate savings. A freeze on CHB equals close to a 15% cut over a Parliament.
The overseas aid budget is ripe for a law that says 0.7% only at times of surplus;
The DCMS and DFID could be dismantled - I'm sure Britain will survive their departure.
Raise or drop the bar for entitlements to all manner of benefits and then the cost changes.
And there's always the old way of squeezing a 'ring fenced' budget - just move activity into it that was previously in a different column.
So now we're seeing the meat of the 2015 Conservative Manifesto.
Abolition of Winter Fuel Payments, the Christmas bonus, bus passes and tv licences. I( see - that'll shore up the core Tory vote.
As for the rest of the "wish list", any idea what the actual savings would like or have you simply plucked all the bits of Government you want to wreak some kind of revenge on.
Have we finally reached the point where getting rid of Ed as leader is no longer feasible?
Yes I think so. Which means that bets on Ed Miliband being next Prime Minister are bets on Labour forming the next government. You can back Labour most seats at evens with William Hill and Ed Miliband at 11/10 as next Prime Minister with Ladbrokes and Coral. The latter is a much better bet, because Ed Miliband may well be Prime Minister even if Labour do not get most seats:
Conversely, Ed Miliband may well not be Prime Minister even if Labour do get most seats. Regardless, both are good prices compared to betfair. William Hill have gone out of their way to arb at evens, yet they still rate a Labour Majority more likely than a Tory one, curiously.
Most Punters are likely to be PB Tories with more disposable income?
If I remember correctly, at one point just days or maybe amonth before GE2010, the Labour spread was 210-215 ? Labour won 258.
I don't think the same mistake will be made this time or , at least, the size will be far smaller.
I think the current spreads are about right. Maybe an over-reaction from 2010. The SNP spread is interesting. Currently, they are in a position to win above 40. But Labour starts winning 2.5 seats for every 1% swing in its favour.
UKIP. 9 - 11. It is small enough for PBers to start identifying them. Which ones are they ?
Sure - but welfare is a major area for likely cuts and to my mind (and I suspect quite a few others) the current amounts being paid look extremely generous. And even after 15% cuts they will still look generous.
Far more generous than France or Germany (as widely reported by BBC last week).
So you're going to tell hard-working people that you're cutting their income by 7.5% that they should be happy because they'd be worse off in France or Germany.
I doubt such a viewpoint would be widely welcome.
Of course the recipients won't like it - because everyone personally wants as much as possible.
The question is - is the amount being paid out reasonable? If it's much more than comparable countries then that is a pointer to what many people will think.
Most Punters are likely to be PB Tories with more disposable income?
If I remember correctly, at one point just days or maybe amonth before GE2010, the Labour spread was 210-215 ? Labour won 258.
I don't think the same mistake will be made this time or , at least, the size will be far smaller.
I think the current spreads are about right. Maybe an over-reaction from 2010. The SNP spread is interesting. Currently, they are in a position to win above 40. But Labour starts winning 2.5 seats for every 1% swing in its favour.
UKIP. 9 - 11. It is small enough for PBers to start identifying them. Which ones are they ?
Sporting don't think UKIP will win 9-11 specific seats. But they have to pitch it that high because (a) I expect they're getting buyers, and (b) the upside is so much bigger than the downside: UKIP could win 50.
It's like a batsman coming to the wicket: the spreads will quote 40-45 but the bookies will quote over/under 33.5; they amount to the same expectation.
In practice UKIP will win Clacton. /saunters out of office
So the state gives them net welfare of £13,884 (obviously gross welfare is a bit higher and they pay a bit of Income Tax and NI).
So how about we cut that £13,884 by 15% - that's £2,083.
Result - they take home £25,312.
Do you think the country would live with that?
The state would still be increasing their gross earnings by 87%. Wonder how that would compare internationally?
That is of course only one side of the equation and still represents a 7.6% reduction in real terms on their income which is probably about what I've had over the last five years.
The other side is or might be the previously free local services which they could have used for which they might have to pay or which might haver disappeared completely following Council cuts. As an example, if their housing benefit is cut, what about their rent ?
It's not a zero-sum game and changes in one area have huge implications elsewhere.
Sure - but welfare is a major area for likely cuts and to my mind (and I suspect quite a few others) the current amounts being paid look extremely generous. And even after 15% cuts they will still look generous.
Far more generous than France or Germany (as widely reported by BBC last week).
Do you have a link for that last statement?
No, sorry.
But figures were on main BBC1 news during reports on immigration - they were comparing what Polish person with two children coming to the UK would get in UK and other main European countries.
I saw that
They also said that even without in work benefits, a single Polish male would be much better off in the UK (£197 as opposed to £125 a week I think)
Not to mention free healthcare etc
Looking at it from their point of view it must be great.. working abroad in a nice country, getting paid more, loads of other blokes your age to knock about with/share digs. lots of young women about too. Great time to be a young Eastern European
The pity is, as with any experimental socialist society, the rich tend to lose out.. and our working class are part of the rich in EU terms
I tried very hard not to listen to any of the autumn statement yesterday because I didn't have time for the bullshit circus surrounding it but this morning when it had developed into vox pops with researchers clearly parading the stupidest people they could find I took an interest.
The first girl said she liked Osborne's statement. Yes she liked what he'd promised for her area. Yes she thought it would be good for her and her family. Yes she was thinking of buying a house and she liked what he was doing for house buyers......"So on the whole would you consider voting Conservative". "No" she said she'd be voting UKIP. "What would UKIP do that would be better?".
"They'd stop immigration" she said.
I then went to watch Paddington (an anti UKIP film for children) and on coming out I put the radio on and the first thing I heard was ".....but they're not doing anything about immigration" so I switched off and decided I'd go and look at some Christmas decorations.
Woger - you got it the wrong way round - for about 24 hrs pb.com was mainly free of talk of "immigration". "kick em out" and "keep Trumpton for the Brits" - it was a brief respite from the non stop echo chamber of purple. Unfortunately normal service has resumed.
Sure - but welfare is a major area for likely cuts and to my mind (and I suspect quite a few others) the current amounts being paid look extremely generous. And even after 15% cuts they will still look generous.
Far more generous than France or Germany (as widely reported by BBC last week).
So you're going to tell hard-working people that you're cutting their income by 7.5% that they should be happy because they'd be worse off in France or Germany.
I doubt such a viewpoint would be widely welcome.
Of course the recipients won't like it - because everyone personally wants as much as possible.
The question is - is the amount being paid out reasonable? If it's much more than comparable countries then that is a pointer to what many people will think.
Like so many on here, you confuse "reasoned argument" with politics. The policy, if it were to be the policy, would be manna from heaven for Labour who would dress it up, misrepresent it and demonise those trying to sell it.
A Tory (or whoever) trying to defend it would try their best but would come unstuck with the "are you reducing the standard of living for some of the poorest people" question.
People on here can spout whatever claptrap ideas they want but the idea has to be sold to a sceptical electorate.
If you are a couple where the mother is at home and the father earns £43,000 - well above the 40% higher rate tax threshold and there are four Children, the family would still qualify for £900 child tax credit per year.
For every extra pound he earns he pays 40% tax 2% national insurance and 41% tax credit withdrawal. So his marginal tax rate is a very Dennis Healeyite 83%
It also means that every pound he puts into a pension gets him 40% tax relief, 41% tax credit not withdrawn and 2% NI relief if paid by salary sacrifice.
That means that every pound extra he puts into the pension costs him 17p. So it is in his interest to put as much as he can afford into a pension (especially now you don't have to buy an annuity with it). It also means there is absolutely no incentive for overtime, extra work etc.
This might go some way to explaining why tax take has not risen as expected.!
Re the deficit - what is the UK's average annual deficit as a % of GDP from say 1970 to 2007 (ie before everything went out of control)?
I don't know but I would imagine it would be something in the region of 2% to 3%.
So far, Osborne has cut the deficit from 10% to 5% of GDP. I know he wants a surplus and that would be desirable but in practice if he can get it down to the long term average (say 2% to 3%?) then I would have thought everyone would be broadly happy with that.
If the above is what ends up happening it surely wouldn't be too painful at all - it would imply that 2/3rds of the reduction had already been done - and that is over a period some of which had very low growth.
If we get reasonable growth it doesn't look too bad.
Absolutely, a 2-3% deficit would be fine. We've run a deficit for something like 100 of the last 150 years. But what passes for "the Left" are too scared to say that because they've bought into the ridiculous hysteria about how any debt is evil and will come and kill us in the night if we don't cut cut cut.
We should actually aim for 2-3% deficit. Even Germany, that great prudent nation and the architect of the Euro straight jacket do not ask for anything less than that. Getting the deficit even lower is pure macho posturing.
If you are a couple where the mother is at home and the father earns £43,000 - well above the 40% higher rate tax threshold and there are four Children, the family would still qualify for £900 child tax credit per year.
For every extra pound he earns he pays 40% tax 2% national insurance and 41% tax credit withdrawal. So his marginal tax rate is a very Dennis Healeyite 83%
It also means that every pound he puts into a pension gets him 40% tax relief, 41% tax credit not withdrawn and 2% NI relief if paid by salary sacrifice.
That means that every pound extra he puts into the pension costs him 17p. So it is in his interest to put as much as he can afford into a pension (especially now you don't have to buy an annuity with it). It also means there is absolutely no incentive for overtime, extra work etc.
This might go some way to explaining why tax take has not risen as expected.!
Are there that many people earning over 43k with 4 children putting money into pensions? In any event its surely clear that people should be encouraged to save for pensions so its not a bad thing.
Sure - but welfare is a major area for likely cuts and to my mind (and I suspect quite a few others) the current amounts being paid look extremely generous. And even after 15% cuts they will still look generous.
Far more generous than France or Germany (as widely reported by BBC last week).
So you're going to tell hard-working people that you're cutting their income by 7.5% that they should be happy because they'd be worse off in France or Germany.
I doubt such a viewpoint would be widely welcome.
Of course the recipients won't like it - because everyone personally wants as much as possible.
The question is - is the amount being paid out reasonable? If it's much more than comparable countries then that is a pointer to what many people will think.
Like so many on here, you confuse "reasoned argument" with politics. The policy, if it were to be the policy, would be manna from heaven for Labour who would dress it up, misrepresent it and demonise those trying to sell it.
A Tory (or whoever) trying to defend it would try their best but would come unstuck with the "are you reducing the standard of living for some of the poorest people" question.
People on here can spout whatever claptrap ideas they want but the idea has to be sold to a sceptical electorate.
I am not a complete idiot thanks - of course politicians may say all kind of things.
I'm well aware (and have posted on here many times) that 99.9% of people have no knowledge / interest in any detailed policies / numbers / "reasoned arguments" / or most other things for that matter.
I was merely posting the figures on here in case the odd person (0.000000001% of the electorate) found them to be of some interest.
Most Punters are likely to be PB Tories with more disposable income?
If I remember correctly, at one point just days or maybe amonth before GE2010, the Labour spread was 210-215 ? Labour won 258.
I don't think the same mistake will be made this time or , at least, the size will be far smaller.
I think the current spreads are about right. Maybe an over-reaction from 2010. The SNP spread is interesting. Currently, they are in a position to win above 40. But Labour starts winning 2.5 seats for every 1% swing in its favour.
UKIP. 9 - 11. It is small enough for PBers to start identifying them. Which ones are they ?
OTOH
Odds on (4) Clacton, Thurrock, Boston, S Thanet
3/1 or shorter (11) Rochester, Grimsby, Rotherham, Yarmouth, Castle Point, N Thanet, Cannock Chase, Dover, S Bas & E Thurrock, Folkestone, Sittingbourne
10/1 or shorter (19) Camborne & Redruth, Rother Valley, NW Cambs, Gillingham & Rainham, Dudley North, Newcasltle Under Lyme, Plymouth Moor View, Telford, Walsall North, Christchurch, East Devon, Spelthorne, Bognor & Litlehampton, Bournemouth West, Bexhill & Battle, Dartford, Hornchurch and Upminster, Romford, Wolver SE
Looking at it from their point of view it must be great.. working abroad in a nice country, getting paid more, loads of other blokes your age to knock about with/share digs. lots of young women about too. Great time to be a young Eastern European
The pity is, as with any experimental socialist society, the rich tend to lose out.. and our working class are part of the rich in EU terms
You missed out preferential access to the best free education in England.
It is very difficult to get a non-Catholic child into a state Catholic school in London; they have been completely displaced.
If you are a couple where the mother is at home and the father earns £43,000 - well above the 40% higher rate tax threshold and there are four Children, the family would still qualify for £900 child tax credit per year.
For every extra pound he earns he pays 40% tax 2% national insurance and 41% tax credit withdrawal. So his marginal tax rate is a very Dennis Healeyite 83%
It also means that every pound he puts into a pension gets him 40% tax relief, 41% tax credit not withdrawn and 2% NI relief if paid by salary sacrifice.
That means that every pound extra he puts into the pension costs him 17p. So it is in his interest to put as much as he can afford into a pension (especially now you don't have to buy an annuity with it). It also means there is absolutely no incentive for overtime, extra work etc.
This might go some way to explaining why tax take has not risen as expected.!
Are there that many people earning over 43k with 4 children putting money into pensions? In any event its surely clear that people should be encouraged to save for pensions so its not a bad thing.
No but I suspect plenty of people with less children not looking to earn more and shovelling money into pensions because their marginal tax rate is 73%. (20% Tax, 12% NI and 41% Tax Credit withdrawal).
I am not a complete idiot thanks - of course politicians may say all kind of things.
I'm well aware (and have posted on here many times) that 99.9% of people have no knowledge / interest in any detailed policies / numbers / "reasoned arguments" / or most other things for that matter.
I was merely posting the figures on here in case the odd person (0.000000001% of the electorate) found them to be of some interest.
No disrespect intended but you have to remember this site is full of political activists so the fraction of one per cent you seek may be even more elusive here.
"Most Punters are likely to be PB Tories with more disposable income?"
One of life's great conundrums; Why would people not support the party who seeks to represent the dispossessed and instead support the party of the privileged?
In a highly evolved society It just seems so counter intuitive.
Different people must be betting on Overall Majority and Most Seats on Betfair because Labour are still significantly ahead with the Most Seats market but it's almost neck-and-neck with Overall Majority.
Most Punters are likely to be PB Tories with more disposable income?
If I remember correctly, at one point just days or maybe amonth before GE2010, the Labour spread was 210-215 ? Labour won 258.
I don't think the same mistake will be made this time or , at least, the size will be far smaller.
I think the current spreads are about right. Maybe an over-reaction from 2010. The SNP spread is interesting. Currently, they are in a position to win above 40. But Labour starts winning 2.5 seats for every 1% swing in its favour.
UKIP. 9 - 11. It is small enough for PBers to start identifying them. Which ones are they ?
OTOH
Odds on (4) Clacton, Thurrock, Boston, S Thanet
3/1 or shorter (11) Rochester, Grimsby, Rotherham, Yarmouth, Castle Point, N Thanet, Cannock Chase, Dover, S Bas & E Thurrock, Folkestone, Sittingbourne
10/1 or shorter (19) Camborne & Redruth, Rother Valley, NW Cambs, Gillingham & Rainham, Dudley North, Newcasltle Under Lyme, Plymouth Moor View, Telford, Walsall North, Christchurch, East Devon, Spelthorne, Bognor & Litlehampton, Bournemouth West, Bexhill & Battle, Dartford, Hornchurch and Upminster, Romford, Wolver SE
There's 34 to be getting on with
OK. Let's take the top 15. There was a poll , in fact, after the scandal was reported in Rotherham and Labour was still leading comfortably. Grimsby, post Mitchell is a possible candidate. What are Labour's odds for Thurrock ? The rest are Tory seats, right ?
Beyond.....Spelthorne ? For God's sake, the bookies are having a laugh !
I am not a complete idiot thanks - of course politicians may say all kind of things.
I'm well aware (and have posted on here many times) that 99.9% of people have no knowledge / interest in any detailed policies / numbers / "reasoned arguments" / or most other things for that matter.
I was merely posting the figures on here in case the odd person (0.000000001% of the electorate) found them to be of some interest.
No disrespect intended but you have to remember this site is full of political activists so the fraction of one per cent you seek may be even more elusive here.
And I'm well aware of that as well thanks - no idea why you feel the need to keep telling me things that are blindingly obvious.
Pensions funding includes public sector pensions, there are plenty of ways to squeeze there - lower employer contributions, higher employee ones, an overall cap on entitlements,changes to early retirement entitlements, squeezing out employees on the old gold plated schemes etc etc.
As for state pensioners you just start changing the ages at which certain things become payable, reform/remove fripperies like Winter Fuel Payment, Xmas bonus, free bus passes, free TV licences etc.
The imposition of a meaningful habitual residence test and more widely used contributory principle will eat into the welfare bill, reductions in the local housing allowance cap would slice big chunks off the housing benefit bill.
The amalgamation of Child Benefit and the Child Tax Credit would generate savings. A freeze on CHB equals close to a 15% cut over a Parliament.
The overseas aid budget is ripe for a law that says 0.7% only at times of surplus;
The DCMS and DFID could be dismantled - I'm sure Britain will survive their departure.
Raise or drop the bar for entitlements to all manner of benefits and then the cost changes.
And there's always the old way of squeezing a 'ring fenced' budget - just move activity into it that was previously in a different column.
The old age pensions are paid from current NI contributions, so its not a tax issue or a govt spending issue. Public sector pensions are contributory, some are self funded and not taxpayer funded. The contributions have indeed been increased haven't they? And the actual number of public servants being employed has gone down and will continue to go down. The pension age is rising, steps are being taken to encourage private pensions ie by relaxing rules on annuities. This should lead to less reliance on benefits.
It is the rise in other associated benefits that are possibly the 'problem' - eg disability. This govt have made efforts I think tighten up on that. Lets not forget that the govt could just possibly perhaps maybedo the same with less money. It, the tory led one, has had some success with this.
The old age pensions are paid from current NI contributions, so its not a tax issue or a govt spending issue. Public sector pensions are contributory, some are self funded and not taxpayer funded. The contributions have indeed been increased haven't they? And the actual number of public servants being employed has gone down and will continue to go down. The pension age is rising, steps are being taken to encourage private pensions ie by relaxing rules on annuities. This should lead to less reliance on benefits.
It is the rise in other associated benefits that are possibly the 'problem' - eg disability. This govt have made efforts I think tighten up on that. Lets not forget that the govt could just possibly perhaps maybedo the same with less money. It, the tory led one, has had some success with this.
The situation on "public sector pensions" isn't clear. There are two sorts of schemes - the Funded and the Unfunded. The former includes the Local Government Pension Scheme (LPGS) into which both employer and employee make contributions and the money is invested. In recent times, and certainly since 2008, the contributions have increased sharply especially for higher wage earners and the final pay-out terms have changed.
The problem is the pre-2008 provisions were very generous and successive Governments have honoured them so those with long service in the pre-2008 eras coming up to retirement are still going to do very well and this overhang of entitlements is going to continue for another 15-20 years.
The Fire Brigade and I believe the Military Pension Schemes are Unfunded - these are the ones which were targeted last autumn as not being transferrable outside the UK. I don't know how these work.
We were here in the 1980s with "Private Pensions". Everyone was going to invest in stocks and shares and make their retirement pots that way but it didn't happen. Those who bought into the privatisations took the money and ran while a proper savings culture was never properly established.
Most Punters are likely to be PB Tories with more disposable income?
If I remember correctly, at one point just days or maybe amonth before GE2010, the Labour spread was 210-215 ? Labour won 258.
I don't think the same mistake will be made this time or , at least, the size will be far smaller.
I think the current spreads are about right. Maybe an over-reaction from 2010. The SNP spread is interesting. Currently, they are in a position to win above 40. But Labour starts winning 2.5 seats for every 1% swing in its favour.
UKIP. 9 - 11. It is small enough for PBers to start identifying them. Which ones are they ?
OTOH
Odds on (4) Clacton, Thurrock, Boston, S Thanet
3/1 or shorter (11) Rochester, Grimsby, Rotherham, Yarmouth, Castle Point, N Thanet, Cannock Chase, Dover, S Bas & E Thurrock, Folkestone, Sittingbourne
10/1 or shorter (19) Camborne & Redruth, Rother Valley, NW Cambs, Gillingham & Rainham, Dudley North, Newcasltle Under Lyme, Plymouth Moor View, Telford, Walsall North, Christchurch, East Devon, Spelthorne, Bognor & Litlehampton, Bournemouth West, Bexhill & Battle, Dartford, Hornchurch and Upminster, Romford, Wolver SE
There's 34 to be getting on with
OK. Let's take the top 15. There was a poll , in fact, after the scandal was reported in Rotherham and Labour was still leading comfortably. Grimsby, post Mitchell is a possible candidate. What are Labour's odds for Thurrock ? The rest are Tory seats, right ?
Beyond.....Spelthorne ? For God's sake, the bookies are having a laugh !
Oh sorry are you only asking about Lab>UKIP? I thought you meant which seats might UKIP win to justify a 9-11 spread quote
There was an election last month in Rotherham and Lab were 1% in front I think
Lab are 9/4 in Thurrock which is currently a Tory seat (Timur Aker/Jim Davidson etc)
Telford is a Labour seat as is Rother Valley, but I am not sure which others are, you'd know better than me
I don't want to try to compete with Eagle in his name dropping but aged 17 George Carman got me off a charge of parking on a zebra crossing.I like to think cutting his teeth on me gave him the confidence to take on some of his later challenges!
Pensions funding includes public sector pensions, there are plenty of ways to squeeze there - lower employer contributions, higher employee ones, an overall cap on entitlements,changes to early retirement entitlements, squeezing out employees on the old gold plated schemes etc etc.
As for state pensioners you just start changing the ages at which certain things become payable, reform/remove fripperies like Winter Fuel Payment, Xmas bonus, free bus passes, free TV licences etc.
The imposition of a meaningful habitual residence test and more widely used contributory principle will eat into the welfare bill, reductions in the local housing allowance cap would slice big chunks off the housing benefit bill.
The amalgamation of Child Benefit and the Child Tax Credit would generate savings. A freeze on CHB equals close to a 15% cut over a Parliament.
The overseas aid budget is ripe for a law that says 0.7% only at times of surplus;
The DCMS and DFID could be dismantled - I'm sure Britain will survive their departure.
Raise or drop the bar for entitlements to all manner of benefits and then the cost changes.
And there's always the old way of squeezing a 'ring fenced' budget - just move activity into it that was previously in a different column.
The old age pensions are paid from current NI contributions
No they're not.
Government revenue is not hypothecated - it all goes into a general pot. If pensions were paid from current NI contributions they would rise and fall with NI income. They don't.
I don't want to try to compete with Eagle in his name dropping but aged 17 George Carman got me off a charge of parking on a zebra crossing.I like to think cutting his teeth on me gave him the confidence to take on some of his later challenges!
7 a.m. it's genius George 7 p.m. it's colossal cuts
or should that be colossal klutz ?
There will be cuts and tax rises - on pretty much everyone - whoever wins.
I don't believe that the Tories will achieve the cuts that must happen if their figures are to be believed but I think they will try. I don't believe that Labour will even try since they simply don't accept that the deficit is a problem. Their raison d'etre is to spend money, in their own eyes, more "fairly" than anyone else. Labour will, however, soon find that taxing the bankers living in mansions will not get them the money they want and everyone will be taxed more. And get fewer services.
Neither party is being honest with the electorate on this.
Most Punters are likely to be PB Tories with more disposable income?
If I remember correctly, at one point just days or maybe amonth before GE2010, the Labour spread was 210-215 ? Labour won 258.
I don't think the same mistake will be made this time or , at least, the size will be far smaller.
I think the current spreads are about right. Maybe an over-reaction from 2010. The SNP spread is interesting. Currently, they are in a position to win above 40. But Labour starts winning 2.5 seats for every 1% swing in its favour.
UKIP. 9 - 11. It is small enough for PBers to start identifying them. Which ones are they ?
OTOH
Odds on (4) Clacton, Thurrock, Boston, S Thanet
3/1 or shorter (11) Rochester, Grimsby, Rotherham, Yarmouth, Castle Point, N Thanet, Cannock Chase, Dover, S Bas & E Thurrock, Folkestone, Sittingbourne
10/1 or shorter (19) Camborne & Redruth, Rother Valley, NW Cambs, Gillingham & Rainham, Dudley North, Newcasltle Under Lyme, Plymouth Moor View, Telford, Walsall North, Christchurch, East Devon, Spelthorne, Bognor & Litlehampton, Bournemouth West, Bexhill & Battle, Dartford, Hornchurch and Upminster, Romford, Wolver SE
There's 34 to be getting on with
OK. Let's take the top 15. There was a poll , in fact, after the scandal was reported in Rotherham and Labour was still leading comfortably. Grimsby, post Mitchell is a possible candidate. What are Labour's odds for Thurrock ? The rest are Tory seats, right ?
Beyond.....Spelthorne ? For God's sake, the bookies are having a laugh !
There was an election last month in Rotherham and Lab were 1% in front I think
On a turnout of around 15% , on a GE turnout they will be well ahead .
I'm beyond despondent with Osborne it's just sit him out till he goes and hope the next one in might have a clue about the economy. Waste of 5 years frankly.
Pensions funding includes public sector pensions, there are plenty of ways to squeeze there - lower employer contributions, higher employee ones, an overall cap on entitlements,changes to early retirement entitlements, squeezing out employees on the old gold plated schemes etc etc.
As for state pensioners you just start changing the ages at which certain things become payable, reform/remove fripperies like Winter Fuel Payment, Xmas bonus, free bus passes, free TV licences etc.
The imposition of a meaningful habitual residence test and more widely used contributory principle will eat into the welfare bill, reductions in the local housing allowance cap would slice big chunks off the housing benefit bill.
The amalgamation of Child Benefit and the Child Tax Credit would generate savings. A freeze on CHB equals close to a 15% cut over a Parliament.
The overseas aid budget is ripe for a law that says 0.7% only at times of surplus;
The DCMS and DFID could be dismantled - I'm sure Britain will survive their departure.
Raise or drop the bar for entitlements to all manner of benefits and then the cost changes.
And there's always the old way of squeezing a 'ring fenced' budget - just move activity into it that was previously in a different column.
The old age pensions are paid from current NI contributions
No they're not.
Government revenue is not hypothecated - it all goes into a general pot. If pensions were paid from current NI contributions they would rise and fall with NI income. They don't.
I suggest you read the accounts of the National Insurance Fund. This is an actuarially calculated fund so that NICs are set at a level to pay future state pensions - but current year pensions are paid out of the fund. This is why there are annual surpluses in the Fund.
I'm beyond despondent with Osborne it's just sit him out till he goes and hope the next one in might have a clue about the economy. Waste of 5 years frankly.
Do you think Balls will have more of a clue than Osborne?
7 a.m. it's genius George 7 p.m. it's colossal cuts
or should that be colossal klutz ?
There will be cuts and tax rises - on pretty much everyone - whoever wins.
I don't believe that the Tories will achieve the cuts that must happen if their figures are to be believed but I think they will try. I don't believe that Labour will even try since they simply don't accept that the deficit is a problem. Their raison d'etre is to spend money, in their own eyes, more "fairly" than anyone else. Labour will, however, soon find that taxing the bankers living in mansions will not get them the money they want and everyone will be taxed more. And get fewer services.
Neither party is being honest with the electorate on this.
well of course they won't but the long list of reforms needed in the economy hasn't got any shorter and if the politicos don't do it now when we're heading into the peak of the cycle ( yes it's that bad ) then it will be pandemonium and real pain when it's forced on them at the next downturn.
Most Punters are likely to be PB Tories with more disposable income?
If I remember correctly, at one point just days or maybe amonth before GE2010, the Labour spread was 210-215 ? Labour won 258.
I don't think the same mistake will be made this time or , at least, the size will be far smaller.
I think the current spreads are about right. Maybe an over-reaction from 2010. The SNP spread is interesting. Currently, they are in a position to win above 40. But Labour starts winning 2.5 seats for every 1% swing in its favour.
UKIP. 9 - 11. It is small enough for PBers to start identifying them. Which ones are they ?
OTOH
Odds on (4) Clacton, Thurrock, Boston, S Thanet
3/1 or shorter (11) Rochester, Grimsby, Rotherham, Yarmouth, Castle Point, N Thanet, Cannock Chase, Dover, S Bas & E Thurrock, Folkestone, Sittingbourne
10/1 or shorter (19) Camborne & Redruth, Rother Valley, NW Cambs, Gillingham & Rainham, Dudley North, Newcasltle Under Lyme, Plymouth Moor View, Telford, Walsall North, Christchurch, East Devon, Spelthorne, Bognor & Litlehampton, Bournemouth West, Bexhill & Battle, Dartford, Hornchurch and Upminster, Romford, Wolver SE
There's 34 to be getting on with
OK. Let's take the top 15. There was a poll , in fact, after the scandal was reported in Rotherham and Labour was still leading comfortably. Grimsby, post Mitchell is a possible candidate. What are Labour's odds for Thurrock ? The rest are Tory seats, right ?
Beyond.....Spelthorne ? For God's sake, the bookies are having a laugh !
There was an election last month in Rotherham and Lab were 1% in front I think
On a turnout of around 15% , on a GE turnout they will be well ahead .
Bigger turn out than the opinion poll
I will offer you the best odds in the world on Labour winning if you like?
I'm beyond despondent with Osborne it's just sit him out till he goes and hope the next one in might have a clue about the economy. Waste of 5 years frankly.
Do you think Balls will have more of a clue than Osborne?
7 a.m. it's genius George 7 p.m. it's colossal cuts
or should that be colossal klutz ?
Statler calling Waldorf. He produced a political statement that got him some good headlines and, probably, helped his party. What more did you expect?
Hope the factory move went OK.
Yes move ok so far, but have to restart all the machinery next week that's when we see if it's gone smoothly or not.
Re GO, the headlines didn't even last 24 hours, it's the story of every statement since 1997, spin quickly followed by reality. Headlines don't fix the economy.
Osborne may have just pulled a blinder here, get everyone talking about the need for deep cuts, remind the electorate that we are far from out of the woods, and panic the electorate through fear of economageddon to stick with nanny, even though the medicine tastes bad. If all was painted to be rosy the unthankful electorate would be tempted to let the magic money tree believers back in
Re the deficit - what is the UK's average annual deficit as a % of GDP from say 1970 to 2007 (ie before everything went out of control)?
I don't know but I would imagine it would be something in the region of 2% to 3%.
So far, Osborne has cut the deficit from 10% to 5% of GDP. I know he wants a surplus and that would be desirable but in practice if he can get it down to the long term average (say 2% to 3%?) then I would have thought everyone would be broadly happy with that.
If the above is what ends up happening it surely wouldn't be too painful at all - it would imply that 2/3rds of the reduction had already been done - and that is over a period some of which had very low growth.
If we get reasonable growth it doesn't look too bad.
Absolutely, a 2-3% deficit would be fine. We've run a deficit for something like 100 of the last 150 years. But what passes for "the Left" are too scared to say that because they've bought into the ridiculous hysteria about how any debt is evil and will come and kill us in the night if we don't cut cut cut.
We should actually aim for 2-3% deficit. Even Germany, that great prudent nation and the architect of the Euro straight jacket do not ask for anything less than that. Getting the deficit even lower is pure macho posturing.
And then what happens when we have the next recession? We blow up the debt by another 30% or so of GDP. And we end up spending even more on interest payments - money that could go towards schools and hospitals. We always hear from the left how it's terrible that we have to listen to the markets. Well once we have paid off our debt, we won't have to.
Mr. Llama, there may be an advantage for Osborne by allowing others to bang on about cuts. If he'd led, as it were, with that, Labour would now be arguing it's a choice he's making, gosh is't he nasty. Later (in the election, or after it?) Osborne may try and present the large cuts as a fait accompli - "As all agree, these cuts are necessary", having the conclusion without the political fuss of an argument.
Colossal cuts are disturbing. I'm not sure what else local authorities can do, once next year's cuts are implemented.
If you can't look at the work of your local council and see the scope for doing away with pointless jobs/projects, then you aren't looking hard enough.
What is necessary is for local government to focus on core services and stop indulging in pork barrel spending by councillors with pet projects.
There is massive bloat in too many areas of the public sector. It does need radical reform and a focus on what is necessary for serving the needs of the local communities - rather than the whims of those in power.
Looking more widely, this sort of approach is necessary across all public bodies. I have seen some of the grants made by the Arts Council - and it is shocking what they fund. Writers have been given £10k and £15k to 'help them finish their novels'. There is absolutely no need whatsoever for the state to fund the creation of a work of fiction. None. And that is just scratching the surface.
There has been too much growth in the public sector - and it needs to be reduced - across the board.
I didn't see any explanation yesterday of why the deficit is still forecast to fall this year despite being up for the first 7 months.
I know about debt interest being forecast to be much lower in future years but I wouldn't have thought that would be the explanation for the turnaround in the next 5 months.
Does anyone know? I think this could be quite a big political risk for the Government if the deficit does actually rise (I don't think missing the target matters much; but an actual rise vs last year would look very bad).
Forecast at Budget based on 10 months actual will be just before the start of the campaign. If up after 10 months then hard to forecast a fall!
Mr. Llama, there may be an advantage for Osborne by allowing others to bang on about cuts. If he'd led, as it were, with that, Labour would now be arguing it's a choice he's making, gosh is't he nasty. Later (in the election, or after it?) Osborne may try and present the large cuts as a fait accompli - "As all agree, these cuts are necessary", having the conclusion without the political fuss of an argument.
That is as maybe, Mr. Dancer, but just salami slicing budgets to cut the deficit is never going to bring about a sustainable future. Sooner or later someone is going to have to make a start on real supply-side reform and get HMG to get out of those areas of life that are not essential.
Colossal cuts are disturbing. I'm not sure what else local authorities can do, once next year's cuts are implemented.
If you can't look at the work of your local council and see the scope for doing away with pointless jobs/projects, then you aren't looking hard enough.
What is necessary is for local government to focus on core services and stop indulging in pork barrel spending by councillors with pet projects.
There is massive bloat in too many areas of the public sector. It does need radical reform and a focus on what is necessary for serving the needs of the local communities - rather than the whims of those in power.
Looking more widely, this sort of approach is necessary across all public bodies. I have seen some of the grants made by the Arts Council - and it is shocking what they fund. Writers have been given £10k and £15k to 'help them finish their novels'. There is absolutely no need whatsoever for the state to fund the creation of a work of fiction. None. And that is just scratching the surface.
There has been too much growth in the public sector - and it needs to be reduced - across the board.
I don't give a monkey's about the Arts Council. I do care about holding the hand of a woman, medically trapped in a car, while we wait 38 minutes for an Ambulance. I do care that the new police station in my nearest town has been built with no cells, so that every time someone gets nicked, two coppers have to travel to Leicester, taking them off beat. I really, really do care that, in a few years time, fire engines will be in short supply in my county, insufficiently crewed, without the resilliance to cope with more than one small incident at a time.
I realise that the public sector is something most on here despise, but you're in danger of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I didn't see any explanation yesterday of why the deficit is still forecast to fall this year despite being up for the first 7 months.
I know about debt interest being forecast to be much lower in future years but I wouldn't have thought that would be the explanation for the turnaround in the next 5 months.
Does anyone know? I think this could be quite a big political risk for the Government if the deficit does actually rise (I don't think missing the target matters much; but an actual rise vs last year would look very bad).
Forecast at Budget based on 10 months actual will be just before the start of the campaign. If up after 10 months then hard to forecast a fall!
A lot of tax gets paid in January. It may be that this year, or Jan 15, will be bigger than last. I seem to remember comment about the 45p change affects things relative to previous years as did the 50p change in 2010 the other way. But this may be irellevant. Corporation tax? I don't know - but it is running ahead of previous years from what I have read. Spending? Is spending front loaded somehow? The economy generally. Does VAT and other payments get collected 3 months or whatever in arrears? Then previous good months come though later?
The projections come from the OBR. Have they given any reasons?
Comments
The BBC widely reported last week that a single person with two children on minimum wage gets £527 per week net in their pocket = £27,404.
Minimum wage (assume 40 hours) = 40 * 6.50 = £260 per week = £13,520.
So the state gives them net welfare of £13,884 (obviously gross welfare is a bit higher and they pay a bit of Income Tax and NI).
So how about we cut that £13,884 by 15% - that's £2,083.
Result - they take home £25,312.
Do you think the country would live with that?
The state would still be increasing their gross earnings by 87%. Wonder how that would compare internationally?
So your original assertion was incorrect
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1478661.ece
http://www.markpack.org.uk/87787/mystery-phone-polling-tories-say-isnt-done/
Christ, I deserve to be horsewhipped for that shameless bit of name dropping.
Douglas Carswell MP @DouglasCarswell · Oct 20
For the record, @grantshapps is on record denying that the Conservative party has used smear push polling tactics. Let's see if that holds.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · Oct 20
@DouglasCarswell @grantshapps Was the alleged push polling automated like in US or was live interviewer used? Interested to know specifics
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1478661.ece
http://www.markpack.org.uk/87787/mystery-phone-polling-tories-say-isnt-done/
(Santa doesn't exist either)
MQR said: “These allegations are baseless . . . and it is disappointing they would be levelled. MQR is an independent research company that holds itself to the highest professional standards.”
Someone from a company called MQR phoned up Mark Reckless and giggled when they realised who they had called because
"There was a question that she didn't think appropriate to ask me" - Mark Reckless
and
"The Conservatives insist that they have not commissioned the work by Messina Quantitative Research, describing it as an independent company. However, a party spokesman refused to deny that the business was sharing its findings with Tory strategists.
Good old clean politics!
Who is he anyway?
The other side is or might be the previously free local services which they could have used for which they might have to pay or which might haver disappeared completely following Council cuts. As an example, if their housing benefit is cut, what about their rent ?
It's not a zero-sum game and changes in one area have huge implications elsewhere.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA
Rather than trying to change someones response with leading questions, push polling is where they try to change someones mind with leading questions.
Think that sums it up .
Far more generous than France or Germany (as widely reported by BBC last week).
The first girl said she liked Osborne's statement. Yes she liked what he'd promised for her area. Yes she thought it would be good for her and her family. Yes she was thinking of buying a house and she liked what he was doing for house buyers......"So on the whole would you consider voting Conservative". "No" she said she'd be voting UKIP. "What would UKIP do that would be better?".
"They'd stop immigration" she said.
I then went to watch Paddington (an anti UKIP film for children) and on coming out I put the radio on and the first thing I heard was ".....but they're not doing anything about immigration" so I switched off and decided I'd go and look at some Christmas decorations.
Nick Cohen @NickCohen4 15m15 minutes ago
Thorpe leads the choir in singing "while hitmen shot their dogs by night" @PrivateEyeNews Xmas cover 1977
Pensions funding includes public sector pensions, there are plenty of ways to squeeze there - lower employer contributions, higher employee ones, an overall cap on entitlements,changes to early retirement entitlements, squeezing out employees on the old gold plated schemes etc etc.
As for state pensioners you just start changing the ages at which certain things become payable, reform/remove fripperies like Winter Fuel Payment, Xmas bonus, free bus passes, free TV licences etc.
The imposition of a meaningful habitual residence test and more widely used contributory principle will eat into the welfare bill, reductions in the local housing allowance cap would slice big chunks off the housing benefit bill.
The amalgamation of Child Benefit and the Child Tax Credit would generate savings. A freeze on CHB equals close to a 15% cut over a Parliament.
The overseas aid budget is ripe for a law that says 0.7% only at times of surplus;
The DCMS and DFID could be dismantled - I'm sure Britain will survive their departure.
Raise or drop the bar for entitlements to all manner of benefits and then the cost changes.
And there's always the old way of squeezing a 'ring fenced' budget - just move activity into it that was previously in a different column.
http://fullfact.org/sites/fullfact.org/files/styles/large/public/GDP_Eurostat_government_social_protection_spending.JPG?itok=x2M-USIb
Not surprising when you get an extra £3k a year for every child you have:
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/benefits_w/benefits_welfare_benefits_reform_e/benefits_uc_universal_credit_new/benefits_uc_how_much_will_you_get/benefits_uc_calculation_step_2_calculate_your_maximum_amount/uc71_uc_maximum_amount_the_child_element.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/11273678/Jeremy-Thorpe-obituary.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
"Do you agree with Senator Smith that there should be unfettered immigration of Mexican paedophiles to your School District?"
But figures were on main BBC1 news during reports on immigration - they were comparing what Polish person with two children coming to the UK would get in UK and other main European countries.
I doubt such a viewpoint would be widely welcome.
Abolition of Winter Fuel Payments, the Christmas bonus, bus passes and tv licences. I( see - that'll shore up the core Tory vote.
As for the rest of the "wish list", any idea what the actual savings would like or have you simply plucked all the bits of Government you want to wreak some kind of revenge on.
I don't think the same mistake will be made this time or , at least, the size will be far smaller.
I think the current spreads are about right. Maybe an over-reaction from 2010. The SNP spread is interesting. Currently, they are in a position to win above 40. But Labour starts winning 2.5 seats for every 1% swing in its favour.
UKIP. 9 - 11. It is small enough for PBers to start identifying them. Which ones are they ?
The question is - is the amount being paid out reasonable? If it's much more than comparable countries then that is a pointer to what many people will think.
It's like a batsman coming to the wicket: the spreads will quote 40-45 but the bookies will quote over/under 33.5; they amount to the same expectation.
In practice UKIP will win Clacton. /saunters out of office
They also said that even without in work benefits, a single Polish male would be much better off in the UK (£197 as opposed to £125 a week I think)
Not to mention free healthcare etc
Looking at it from their point of view it must be great.. working abroad in a nice country, getting paid more, loads of other blokes your age to knock about with/share digs. lots of young women about too. Great time to be a young Eastern European
The pity is, as with any experimental socialist society, the rich tend to lose out.. and our working class are part of the rich in EU terms
A Tory (or whoever) trying to defend it would try their best but would come unstuck with the "are you reducing the standard of living for some of the poorest people" question.
People on here can spout whatever claptrap ideas they want but the idea has to be sold to a sceptical electorate.
For every extra pound he earns he pays 40% tax 2% national insurance and 41% tax credit withdrawal. So his marginal tax rate is a very Dennis Healeyite 83%
It also means that every pound he puts into a pension gets him 40% tax relief, 41% tax credit not withdrawn and 2% NI relief if paid by salary sacrifice.
That means that every pound extra he puts into the pension costs him 17p. So it is in his interest to put as much as he can afford into a pension (especially now you don't have to buy an annuity with it). It also means there is absolutely no incentive for overtime, extra work etc.
This might go some way to explaining why tax take has not risen as expected.!
In any event its surely clear that people should be encouraged to save for pensions so its not a bad thing.
I'm well aware (and have posted on here many times) that 99.9% of people have no knowledge / interest in any detailed policies / numbers / "reasoned arguments" / or most other things for that matter.
I was merely posting the figures on here in case the odd person (0.000000001% of the electorate) found them to be of some interest.
Odds on (4)
Clacton, Thurrock, Boston, S Thanet
3/1 or shorter (11)
Rochester, Grimsby, Rotherham, Yarmouth, Castle Point, N Thanet, Cannock Chase, Dover, S Bas & E Thurrock, Folkestone, Sittingbourne
10/1 or shorter (19)
Camborne & Redruth, Rother Valley, NW Cambs, Gillingham & Rainham, Dudley North, Newcasltle Under Lyme, Plymouth Moor View, Telford, Walsall North, Christchurch, East Devon, Spelthorne, Bognor & Litlehampton, Bournemouth West, Bexhill & Battle, Dartford, Hornchurch and Upminster, Romford, Wolver SE
There's 34 to be getting on with
It is very difficult to get a non-Catholic child into a state Catholic school in London; they have been completely displaced.
"Most Punters are likely to be PB Tories with more disposable income?"
One of life's great conundrums; Why would people not support the party who seeks to represent the dispossessed and instead support the party of the privileged?
In a highly evolved society It just seems so counter intuitive.
Or satire; Peter Cook's take on the Judge's summing up of the Thorpe trial:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyos-M48B8U
Beyond.....Spelthorne ? For God's sake, the bookies are having a laugh !
Public sector pensions are contributory, some are self funded and not taxpayer funded. The contributions have indeed been increased haven't they? And the actual number of public servants being employed has gone down and will continue to go down.
The pension age is rising, steps are being taken to encourage private pensions ie by relaxing rules on annuities. This should lead to less reliance on benefits.
It is the rise in other associated benefits that are possibly the 'problem' - eg disability. This govt have made efforts I think tighten up on that.
Lets not forget that the govt could just possibly perhaps maybedo the same with less money. It, the tory led one, has had some success with this.
Clacton
Thurrock
Castle Point
South Thanet
Gillingham & Rainham
Great Yarmouth
Boston & Skegness
Dozens of second places on top of that, and about 15% in the popular vote.
The problem is the pre-2008 provisions were very generous and successive Governments have honoured them so those with long service in the pre-2008 eras coming up to retirement are still going to do very well and this overhang of entitlements is going to continue for another 15-20 years.
The Fire Brigade and I believe the Military Pension Schemes are Unfunded - these are the ones which were targeted last autumn as not being transferrable outside the UK. I don't know how these work.
We were here in the 1980s with "Private Pensions". Everyone was going to invest in stocks and shares and make their retirement pots that way but it didn't happen. Those who bought into the privatisations took the money and ran while a proper savings culture was never properly established.
There was an election last month in Rotherham and Lab were 1% in front I think
Lab are 9/4 in Thurrock which is currently a Tory seat (Timur Aker/Jim Davidson etc)
Telford is a Labour seat as is Rother Valley, but I am not sure which others are, you'd know better than me
7 a.m. it's genius George
7 p.m. it's colossal cuts
or should that be colossal klutz ?
Government revenue is not hypothecated - it all goes into a general pot. If pensions were paid from current NI contributions they would rise and fall with NI income. They don't.
Surely
7 a.m. Alanbrooke despondent
7 p.m. Alanbrooke ecstatic?
Or is there no pleasing some people.....?
are you saying he was a maso sadist ?
I don't believe that the Tories will achieve the cuts that must happen if their figures are to be believed but I think they will try. I don't believe that Labour will even try since they simply don't accept that the deficit is a problem. Their raison d'etre is to spend money, in their own eyes, more "fairly" than anyone else. Labour will, however, soon find that taxing the bankers living in mansions will not get them the money they want and everyone will be taxed more. And get fewer services.
Neither party is being honest with the electorate on this.
Hope the factory move went OK.
I will offer you the best odds in the world on Labour winning if you like?
Re GO, the headlines didn't even last 24 hours, it's the story of every statement since 1997, spin quickly followed by reality. Headlines don't fix the economy.
"are you saying he was a maso sadist ?"
I think you're confusing me with his more celebrated client.....
"Bunnies can and will go to France...."
......You remember while you were swirling in a cloud of dope at Johnny Roadhouse's on Oxford Rd.......
"He must have been a child prodigy at the bar."
He was defending the child prodigy!
Mr. Llama, there may be an advantage for Osborne by allowing others to bang on about cuts. If he'd led, as it were, with that, Labour would now be arguing it's a choice he's making, gosh is't he nasty. Later (in the election, or after it?) Osborne may try and present the large cuts as a fait accompli - "As all agree, these cuts are necessary", having the conclusion without the political fuss of an argument.
What is necessary is for local government to focus on core services and stop indulging in pork barrel spending by councillors with pet projects.
There is massive bloat in too many areas of the public sector. It does need radical reform and a focus on what is necessary for serving the needs of the local communities - rather than the whims of those in power.
Looking more widely, this sort of approach is necessary across all public bodies. I have seen some of the grants made by the Arts Council - and it is shocking what they fund. Writers have been given £10k and £15k to 'help them finish their novels'. There is absolutely no need whatsoever for the state to fund the creation of a work of fiction. None. And that is just scratching the surface.
There has been too much growth in the public sector - and it needs to be reduced - across the board.
I know about debt interest being forecast to be much lower in future years but I wouldn't have thought that would be the explanation for the turnaround in the next 5 months.
Does anyone know? I think this could be quite a big political risk for the Government if the deficit does actually rise (I don't think missing the target matters much; but an actual rise vs last year would look very bad).
Forecast at Budget based on 10 months actual will be just before the start of the campaign. If up after 10 months then hard to forecast a fall!
I do care about holding the hand of a woman, medically trapped in a car, while we wait 38 minutes for an Ambulance. I do care that the new police station in my nearest town has been built with no cells, so that every time someone gets nicked, two coppers have to travel to Leicester, taking them off beat. I really, really do care that, in a few years time, fire engines will be in short supply in my county, insufficiently crewed, without the resilliance to cope with more than one small incident at a time.
I realise that the public sector is something most on here despise, but you're in danger of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/12/grumpy-osborne-complains-about-hyperbolic-bbcquestions-about-cuts/
Corporation tax? I don't know - but it is running ahead of previous years from what I have read.
Spending? Is spending front loaded somehow?
The economy generally. Does VAT and other payments get collected 3 months or whatever in arrears? Then previous good months come though later?
The projections come from the OBR. Have they given any reasons?