Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Latest polling from Thanet South has Farage trailing the To
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Latest polling from Thanet South has Farage trailing the Tories by 5% – yet in the betting he’s a 62% chance
So when earlier this month Lord Ashcroft published his latest round there was a rush of activity when apparently obvious bargain appeared. One such one was Nigel Farage’s Thanet South where following the numbers being available the UKIP price of 2/5 eased to 5/6. An earlier Ashcroft poll had had Farage with a 3% lead. The latest put the Tories 5% ahead.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Although, she would - of course - have lose more votes to UKIP.
Party leaders tend to get a boost where they stand.
Farage is a crap campaigner.
Punters beware.
Look at his attendance in Thanet South in recent months.
He doesn't want to do the hard work.
It is possible whoever wins in Thanet South will gets around 32% of the vote, in that scenario every vote counts, and every time he fails to canvass, he's not picking up votes.
I get it now.
Brave...
ComRes ITN poll that will terrify Labour. 33% support cutting spending to 1930's levels, 26% oppose. Lab praying it was the game changer.
Labour ................ 283 - 289
Conservatives ..... 278 - 284
Still no apparent boost for the Blues from the Autumn Statement.
Whoever wins, we lose.
@Quincel provided the tip
The latest Ashcroft poll showed UKIP improving their score on all counts in the raw data compared to the previous poll, but with a final score of 4-5% less thanks to DNV2010 allocations.
Maybe that allocation is right, but I think that's why the price hasn't really dropped too much.. after Rochester and Clacton, the reliance on 2010s DNVs staying at home has emptied too many wallets (I think the bwin bet is just clueless odds compiling, they love a ricket)
It would be better to slow the rate of spending cuts even if it takes longer to get the country's finances back on track.
Agree 52%
Disagree 25%
DK 22%
Hodges is being misleading, 33% don't say they support cutting spending to 1930's levels, it's 33% think it will be good for them personally.
Government has to have the courage to grasp the nettle. To date, all this Government has done is to poke it with a stick. Still at least that's better than the previous lot who feed the nettle with copious quantities of fertilizer.
"Women should have to be discrete when breast feeding in public places such as restaurants and cafes" +56% / -30%
http://comres.co.uk/poll/1346/itv-news-autumn-statement-poll.htm
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I'd like a poll phrasing the question as "Do you support Britain reducing its debt, closing the deficit and spending only the money the state accrues in taxation?" or similar.
I believe gov't spending cuts are just over 2%, after 5 years of 'austerity'.
No: 60 million
Yes: Nigel Farage
Agree 67%
Disagree 18%
From the same comres poll
What might be true is that the govt are aiming for spending 6 times the level of the 1930's.
And its all no doubt far too nuanced for a poll to remind people that for most of the period in question, capital spending by government, on roads, hospitals and schools and other infrastructure was a lot higher than it is now, gross investment reaching 10% or more of GDP at times in the 1960s and 1970s. Currently it is just over 3.5%.
In a pre-privatization era, the nationalised industries swelled public sector investment.
Women NOT should be allowed to Breast feed in public places like restaurants and cafes.
Agree 20%
Disagree 65%
Once again the liberal metropolitan elite are more in touch with the public than Farage.
The real question is: has anyone seen anyone breastfeeding in public in a "non-discreet" manner?
I have not. Can you genuinely recall a single occasion were you've seen a woman breastfeed in a "non-discreet" manner?
UKIP is on the side of the public by making a ridiculous contention: that there are millions of women ostentatiously breastfeeding in public.
If only......
Hello Mr Artist. If Farage wins by one vote then the punters win and the odds are right.
Simply cutting spending (and there's a vindictive undercurrent about aspects of this which is far from pleasant) and only then in a few areas (excluding the NHS, education and defence seems foolish) only looks at half the problem.
Conservatives only seem to want to talk about the spending but it's also about getting money in via tax receipts, asset sales and the like. The public finances truly went over the cliff when the income dried up in 2007-08. The collapse in income tax, corporation tax and VAT receipts threw the splurge in spending into sharp relief.
The priority must be to get money in as much as it is to stop spending. Indeed, the more money Government receives, the more it can allocate to debt finance. The problem is even though the Coalition raised VAT, there's next to no mention of raising taxes but this is unavoidable.
Whether we like it or not, taxes have to rise - that means both direct and indirect taxation. Nobody will say it because the debate on taxation has been locked down for two decades but raising basic rate tax to 25p for example would bring in much needed revenue as would further asset sales.
Conservative policy, like the debate, is narrow and one-sided. Given the scale of the problem, we need to look at the other side of the fence.
As I mentioned below its almost meaningless assigning "Don't Know" to the 2010 Vote when it wasn't Farage and when UKIP were a non-factor in the election. Absent that adjustment, UKIP are in the lead in the poll.
Having discussed th effect on the NPotUK the reporter then went on the talk about events “South of the border!”
I wonder what words would have been used in early September and before!
I wouldn't be surprised if Brand went through the card, he only has soundbites in his locker.
"Racist" "Scaremongering" "Romanians" "twitter" "Trumpton" "Breastfeeding" all look certs to me
Farage must be odds on to say either "complete madness" or "utter lunacy", though I don't think he will be aggressive towards Brand. Brand will almost certainly be aggressive to Farage, especially if a couple of jokes fall flat.
http://sportsbeta.ladbrokes.com/Question-Time-Specials/Buzzword-Bingo/Politics-N-1z0xtp9Z1z0xtp4Z1z141ng/
Just banter
It's been very noticeable that the "greying" rather than grey vote has become a lot more amenable to the Tories in recent months. The 55-64 group.
Osborne (and Webb's) pension reforms?
"Boris Johnson says that breastfeeding mothers should be 'discreet'"
It would be very much in the interests of a eurosceptic member of public to state they would vote for UKIP to a pollster, in the hopes that if other people agreed, the government would be pushed towards a more eurosceptic position. In the same way a metropolitan Labour supporter beginning to feel let down might not seriously consider voting green at all, but there is nothing to lose by giving EdM the impression that his support it waning.
I think not: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-30298382
It's not like a woman starts flashing her tits when she breastfeeds.
For those who are unaware it basically looks like she is cuddling her baby.
The Coalition raised VAT but didn't, for instance, raise the basic or higher rate of income tax. Indeed, the higher rate was cut in the Omnishambles Budget of 2012.
Given the nature of the fiscal emergency, it seems curious that more widescale tax rises weren't implemented as a way of generating revenue and reducing the deficit. That's NOT to say spending cuts shouldn't be made and I part company with those who claim that the NHS, Education and even Defence are somehow "special cases" which should avoid any cuts at all.
Fuel duty is a useful fundraiser for the Government and so is stamp duty. Gimmicks on the periphery of these are just that - a serious Chancellor committing to reducing the deficit wouldn't have been afraid to try to generate more revenue.
The problem is Osborne is a political Chancellor - he's not serious about the deficit whatever his weasel words.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ostentatious
I fully expect taxes to rise after the election whoever gets in. No party is going to campaign on the sort of increases necessary though.
A basic rate of income tax of 25% would mean the average worker would be paying 37p per pound of taxable income to HMG. I doubt many people would vote for that.
As for more asset sales, fine but they are of no use in cutting the deficit and would be a spit on the ocean when looking at total debt.
So who is Ed actually talking to?
For this reason I certainly do not think that we should be looking at ways to perpetuate an unsustainable system by pumping yet more tax payers money into it. We need to radically rethink the whole provision of public services with a view to massive cuts and a wholesale change in our ideas about what the State should and should not be doing.
Anyone who thinks we can just allow the State to continue to spend larger and larger proportions of GDP really isn't living in the real world.
It is notable that the top 1% of income earners pay over 30% of the income tax raised. That is a high level of re-distribution whilst not providing major incentives on them to modify their arrangements.
Petrol has to be a target. City AM today was talking about a quid a litre in a few months time. That won;t last, whoever gets in.
The problem is what can you tax without actually reducing your take. By any objective measure, the 50% top rate of tax took in less money than the current 45% rate, because higher taxes encourage more avoidance and more emigration - as Mr Healey found out in 1976.
If you increase corporation tax companies start to move to countries with lower taxes like Ireland, or they start to shed jobs because they dont have so much spare money, which means you start paying more benefits for people rather than receiving their income tax.
If you increase personal taxation, less gets spent in shops, lots of business struggle, pay less tax, shed staff etc. Also the most saleable, most mobile members of society tend to drift off to more welcoming counties. We are already losing the majority of our medical graduates to Australia, if we put up taxes more will go, similarly more of our best IT staff will go to the USA etc.
There might be room to squeeze £1-2bn out of tax before it start to have negative effects on the economy, but really thats just a rounding error when we are talking about trying to close a £108bn spending gap.
http://www.nakedcleaners.co.uk/
and they did raise other taxes too.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/comment/11217375/Tax-rises-how-the-Coalition-spared-those-in-the-middle.html
In the short to medium term, the requitrement is to bring the budget into balance and that means raising more income AND cutting spending until the two meet somewhere.
There are of course two options - one is to see the State withdraw from a range of activities (that needs to be defined). The other is to raise taxes to an amount which makes the current arrangements sustainable (that also needs to be defined).
(only kidding Socrates!)
Of course, it's probably very poor business sense for Claridges to discriminate against breastfeeding women, but there should be no bars on them doing so, beyond their own self interest.
Sure we can dominate some niche markets with involve high end skills for a few more years, but it wont last, if you look at the global education league tables the top five are all Asian countries. The question British politicians continually dodge is "why should people bring their business to Britain", because the answer is the reasons are dwindling, and if we start putting up taxes, they will dwindle faster.