politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Even though he’s projecting that LAB will lost three quarte

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Even though he’s projecting that LAB will lost three quarters of its Scottish MPs Baxter HAS the party 32 ahead overall

The monthly prediction from the grand-daddy of general election prediction sites, Electoral Calculus, came out overnight and saw a sharp reduction in LAB seats reflecting the latest polling.

Read the full story here

GeoffM

First!

Charles

The Ed Miliband of PB... Nearly, but not quite, first

audreyanne

Interesting that he projects 17 LibDem seats Mike. How many do you think they will get?

That means, according to him, 40 yellows up for grabs.

At the end of this week I'll post the first of my 4 pre-election monthly projections and will give the rationale. Some on here will be surprised I think. They will be based on an algorithm with minimal latitude for my own preference.

PClipp

Far more than that, audreyanne. Baxter is well past its sell-by date.

felix

Baxter is a good rough guide but lacks nuance.

MikeSmithson

audreyanne said:

Interesting that he projects 17 LibDem seats Mike. How many do you think they will get?

That means, according to him, 40 yellows up for grabs.

At the end of this week I'll post the first of my 4 pre-election monthly projections and will give the rationale. Some on here will be surprised I think. They will be based on an algorithm with minimal latitude for my own preference.

Presumably Lynton is advising you

logical_song

Labour/SNP/PC coalition likely on these numbers.

Pulpstar

Mike - What do you think of Hills redefining "other " Government every 20 seconds . Or were the operators I spoke to clueless ?

audreyanne

MikeSmithson said:

audreyanne said:

Interesting that he projects 17 LibDem seats Mike. How many do you think they will get?

That means, according to him, 40 yellows up for grabs.

At the end of this week I'll post the first of my 4 pre-election monthly projections and will give the rationale. Some on here will be surprised I think. They will be based on an algorithm with minimal latitude for my own preference.

Presumably Lynton is advising you

Mike, how many LibDem seats do you envisage, or would you rather not say because of how it would be seized upon? I can understand if so.

Pulpstar

Lib Dems will get more than 17 - Sutton and Cheam Eastleigh and Cambridge should see them to 20 at least.

Robert_Of_Sheffield

Under that prediction, a Lib-Lab coalition wouldn't quite have a majority, technically. Sinn Fein MPs don't vote in the Commons, but that would still leave Lib-Lab coalition with a minuscule majority. In principle, they could come to some arrangement with the SNP, but I don't see that working well.

We'd probably be looking at another election pretty soon.

DavidL

I think we are all likely to agree that the Lib Dems will probably have at least 10 more seats than this so the question must be at whose expense?

I also think that the SNP will not do quite as well as this which will give Labour perhaps another 10 seats. Add these together and Labour are still short of a majority but even further ahead of the Tories. It shows how far the Tories have to improve from their current position. I cannot recall an election campaign that has had that sort of impact since at least 1992. It is not impossible that this will swing the tory's way but it seems a big ask to me and it gets bigger the longer the two main parties stay pretty much locked together. If the Tories are to be the largest party they need to move decisively ahead and soon. So far there is no sign of that.

DavidL

I should also say that although I am confident that the Lib Dems will get more seats than this I am getting less confident that their share of the vote will increase markedly for very similar reasons to the Tories. Their loss of 2/3 of their 2010 vote is looking increasingly permanent. I still think they will claw back some support but they may struggle to get to 50% of their vote in 2010. I think that improvement will come at the cost of Labour and the greens and will shave another couple of percent off Labour but the effect is not going to be as great as the Tories once hoped.

[Deleted User]

Do you think Gordon Brown or any of the Scottish Labour contingent in Westminster have any idea how this looks to an English taxpayer? :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11383152/Gordon-Brown-to-promise-Scots-higher-pensions-and-benefits.html

audreyanne

Pulpstar said:

Lib Dems will get more than 17 - Sutton and Cheam Eastleigh and Cambridge should see them to 20 at least.

So you keep telling us

JackW

I regret to say Martin Baxter as an election forecaster falls into the category of "just a bit of fun".

Compared to my ARSE his model is but a historical footnote in the annals of the genre.

audreyanne

DavidL said:

I think we are all likely to agree that the Lib Dems will probably have at least 10 more seats than this

Absolutely not and don't try and claw everyone in to your own preference. There are reasoned arguments for and against the LibDems being either side of Baxter's 17 seats based on current polling.

OblitusSumMe

DavidL said:

If the Tories are to be the largest party they need to move decisively ahead and soon. So far there is no sign of that.

With five parties, plus the Nationalists, now in contention to one extent or another, there is, I think, more potential than normal for the campaign itself to change voting intention. It also means that the connection between national polling numbers and seats won could be more distorted than normal.

Excepting the scenario where the campaign of one side self-destructs, I think this election will be competitive right down to the wire.

audreyanne

p.s. who's that sassy lass in your new avatar, Pulpstar?

audreyanne

DavidL said:

If the Tories are to be the largest party they need to move decisively ahead and soon.

Hyperbole alert.

Pulpstar

audreyanne said:

p.s. who's that sassy lass in your new avatar, Pulpstar?

No idea

foxinsoxuk

audreyanne said:

DavidL said:

I think we are all likely to agree that the Lib Dems will probably have at least 10 more seats than this

Absolutely not and don't try and claw everyone in to your own preference. There are reasoned arguments for and against the LibDems being either side of Baxter's 17 seats based on current polling.

I did my own trawl of the LD seats yesterday and came to 29. I see Slugger O'toole came to 30, and Shadsy's bar is 28.5.

I placed a few stakes as a result.

Scott_P

@BBCNormanS: Labour say "lot of public resentment" over Boots boss 'catastrophe' comments and "this is an argument we can win"

Really?

He said Ed would be a disaster. That is not an argument that is readily winnable...

Scott_P

@tnewtondunn: EXCL: Ed Miliband’s former friend Martin Winter warns Labour may lose 20 seats to UKIP because of him http://t.co/E5Qxk1oqqA

foxinsoxuk

OblitusSumMe said:

DavidL said:

If the Tories are to be the largest party they need to move decisively ahead and soon. So far there is no sign of that.

With five parties, plus the Nationalists, now in contention to one extent or another, there is, I think, more potential than normal for the campaign itself to change voting intention. It also means that the connection between national polling numbers and seats won could be more distorted than normal.

Excepting the scenario where the campaign of one side self-destructs, I think this election will be competitive right down to the wire.

It seems quite likely that the wheels will fall off at least one campaign. Nonetheless this is going to be a very uncertain election. Possible that stock markets may wobble a bit and create some value too.

SquareRoot

Not sure if this is common knowledge, but petrol can Maude not standing in Horsham at the GE

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/01/francis-maude-step-down-mp-cabinet-office-horsham-general-election

Sean_F

DavidL said:

I should also say that although I am confident that the Lib Dems will get more seats than this I am getting less confident that their share of the vote will increase markedly for very similar reasons to the Tories. Their loss of 2/3 of their 2010 vote is looking increasingly permanent. I still think they will claw back some support but they may struggle to get to 50% of their vote in 2010. I think that improvement will come at the cost of Labour and the greens and will shave another couple of percent off Labour but the effect is not going to be as great as the Tories once hoped.

A shift of 1% leaves the parties at Con 279, Lab 286, even without any incumbency factor, so there's everything to play for.

foxinsoxuk

Scott_P said:

@tnewtondunn: EXCL: Ed Miliband’s former friend Martin Winter warns Labour may lose 20 seats to UKIP because of him http://t.co/E5Qxk1oqqA

My prediction for UKIP is 3-4 seats, but I expect that at least one of these will be in an unexpected place, so have picked out a few in the second tier with tempting odds, but 20 from Labour? Not likely.

Pulpstar

Scott_P said:

@tnewtondunn: EXCL: Ed Miliband’s former friend Martin Winter warns Labour may lose 20 seats to UKIP because of him http://t.co/E5Qxk1oqqA

Where on earth does he get 20 from ?

5, on a bad night for Labour - maybe.

Dudley North, Rother Valley, Rotherham, Great Grimsby - can't see so many others.

audreyanne

foxinsoxuk said:

audreyanne said:

DavidL said:

I think we are all likely to agree that the Lib Dems will probably have at least 10 more seats than this

Absolutely not and don't try and claw everyone in to your own preference. There are reasoned arguments for and against the LibDems being either side of Baxter's 17 seats based on current polling.

I did my own trawl of the LD seats yesterday and came to 29. I see Slugger O'toole came to 30, and Shadsy's bar is 28.5.

I placed a few stakes as a result.

The last time the LibDems polled in single figures they won 6 seats.*

I'll say more in my 1st GE projection on Feb 8th.

(*1970 as the Liberals).

Millsy

So this is a prediction based on current polls staying as they are, or how the polls might shift in the next few months?

Cyclefree

Leaving aside the wisdom or not of attacking Boots I must say I had some sympathy with Labour's response to Pessina's comments i.e. that a tax exile living in Monaco may not have the best view of what's best for Britain.

If Labour do form a government, it will be taxpayers here who bear the brunt not those who neither live nor vote here.

foxinsoxuk

Pulpstar said:

Scott_P said:

@tnewtondunn: EXCL: Ed Miliband’s former friend Martin Winter warns Labour may lose 20 seats to UKIP because of him http://t.co/E5Qxk1oqqA

Where on earth does he get 20 from ?

5, on a bad night for Labour - maybe.

Dudley North, Rother Valley, Rotherham, Great Grimsby - can't see so many others.

Leicester West is one of my longer shot UKIP bets. The demographics are more WWC than the other Leicester seats, and there is significant EU migration. I can see that the Tories and others here voting a bit tactically. Should be a safe hold for Liz Kendall, unless the Labour campaign collapses in chaos.

Scott_P

Balls. Talking Balls.

@steve_hawkes: Ed Balls tells Radio 4 Labour are offering a more "pro business agenda" than either the PM or George Osborne - UK PLC would disagree

AndyJS

Baxter is self-evidently not taking into account personal votes for incumbent LD MPs and I honestly think that will lead to his projection being inaccurate on election day.

Pulpstar

AndyJS said:

Baxter is self-evidently not taking into account personal votes for incumbent LD MPs and I honestly think that will lead to his projection being inaccurate on election day.

Southport is a Con gain according to this on UNS I think, one look at the Ashcroft poll shows Pugh's personal vote.

Scott_P

@BBCNormanS: Labour say "lot of public resentment" over Boots boss 'catastrophe' comments and "this is an argument we can win"

@Pop_Pendleton: @BBCNormanS @DPJHodges Not in Erewash and Broxtowe they won't. Lots of us work at Boots.

foxinsoxuk

Cyclefree said:

Leaving aside the wisdom or not of attacking Boots I must say I had some sympathy with Labour's response to Pessina's comments i.e. that a tax exile living in Monaco may not have the best view of what's best for Britain.

If Labour do form a government, it will be taxpayers here who bear the brunt not those who neither live nor vote here.

The tax antics of Boots, Google, Amazon, Starbucks etc show why we need some sort of viable turnover tax. It should be a priority at the Treasury, whatever the colour of the government. Having paid my Self Assessment this weekend, I get annoyed at these shysters that pay next to nothing.

saddened

Pulpstar said:

Scott_P said:

@tnewtondunn: EXCL: Ed Miliband’s former friend Martin Winter warns Labour may lose 20 seats to UKIP because of him http://t.co/E5Qxk1oqqA

Where on earth does he get 20 from ?

5, on a bad night for Labour - maybe.

Dudley North, Rother Valley, Rotherham, Great Grimsby - can't see so many others.

I can see the potential to lose 20 seats because of Labour votes going to UKIP in tight contests, but the actual seat won't go UKIP.

rottenborough

foxinsoxuk said:

Pulpstar said:

Scott_P said:

@tnewtondunn: EXCL: Ed Miliband’s former friend Martin Winter warns Labour may lose 20 seats to UKIP because of him http://t.co/E5Qxk1oqqA

Where on earth does he get 20 from ?

5, on a bad night for Labour - maybe.

Dudley North, Rother Valley, Rotherham, Great Grimsby - can't see so many others.

Leicester West is one of my longer shot UKIP bets. The demographics are more WWC than the other Leicester seats, and there is significant EU migration. I can see that the Tories and others here voting a bit tactically. Should be a safe hold for Liz Kendall, unless the Labour campaign collapses in chaos.

There are a few of us on here who are on Kendall for leader at long odds who will hope you are wrong that there's a risk in her back yard!

TGOHF

Sourby backers like me must be clutching those bets lips more fondly this morning. Boots HQ under threat from Ed.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. Foxinsox, turnover tax sounds like madness. If a business makes 0 profit but has a £300,000 turnover, asking it to be taxed (as a business) is silly.

Indigo

Pulpstar said:

Scott_P said:

@tnewtondunn: EXCL: Ed Miliband’s former friend Martin Winter warns Labour may lose 20 seats to UKIP because of him http://t.co/E5Qxk1oqqA

Where on earth does he get 20 from ?

5, on a bad night for Labour - maybe.

Dudley North, Rother Valley, Rotherham, Great Grimsby - can't see so many others.

I think he misspoke himself maybe. I can't see UKIP getting 20 seats, I can easily see Labour losing 20 seats because their majority wanders off to UKIP and the CONs or the LDs get the seat, but I suspect the same is going to happen to CON seats as well.

AlastairMeeks

On topic, the Independent reports on a study coming out today on the SNP's prospects from the University of Strathclyde:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-faces-crisis-in-scotlandas-yes-voters-stay-with-snp-for-general-election-10016933.html

foxinsoxuk

rottenborough said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Pulpstar said:

Scott_P said:

@tnewtondunn: EXCL: Ed Miliband’s former friend Martin Winter warns Labour may lose 20 seats to UKIP because of him http://t.co/E5Qxk1oqqA

Where on earth does he get 20 from ?

5, on a bad night for Labour - maybe.

Dudley North, Rother Valley, Rotherham, Great Grimsby - can't see so many others.

Leicester West is one of my longer shot UKIP bets. The demographics are more WWC than the other Leicester seats, and there is significant EU migration. I can see that the Tories and others here voting a bit tactically. Should be a safe hold for Liz Kendall, unless the Labour campaign collapses in chaos.

There are a few of us on here who are on Kendall for leader at long odds who will hope you are wrong that there's a risk in her back yard!

I am backing Liz at 50/1 too, but I looked at all the local seats for predictors of kipperism and came up with this one and Burton (If ever there was a town eager to elect a Man in a Pub!).

Both should be safe Labour really, just worth covering if kipper surgers are not completely demented.

Pulpstar

https://www.betfair.com/sport/politics

Has a Con gains from Lib Dem market

Conservative gains market seems to be based off of UNS - 16 -20 gains at 6-4 is a nonsense price when you compare it to individual seat prices

Anyway due to the sticky nature and massive personal votes of Lib Dems particularly in Lib Dem-Conservative contests (Lib Dem vs SNP and Lib Dem vs Labour are a different matter altogether)

1-5 at 14-1 is value.

6-10 3-1 is a fair price, but I'm on that already at 11-2.

SquareRoot

Ed Balls along with his master fecked UK PLC, in opposition he has made every call incorrectly. Noone wants to listen to him.

Pulpstar

Pulpstar said:

https://www.betfair.com/sport/politics

Has a Con gains from Lib Dem market

Conservative gains market seems to be based off of UNS - 16 -20 gains at 6-4 is a nonsense price when you compare it to individual seat prices

Anyway due to the sticky nature and massive personal votes of Lib Dems particularly in Lib Dem-Conservative contests (Lib Dem vs SNP and Lib Dem vs Labour are a different matter altogether)

1-5 at 14-1 is value.

6-10 3-1 is a fair price, but I'm on that already at 11-2.

I'm saying this as someone who has piled against the yellows in Solihull, Wells and Somerton & Frome btw - DYOR.

foxinsoxuk

Pulpstar said:

https://www.betfair.com/sport/politics

Has a Con gains from Lib Dem market

Conservative gains market seems to be based off of UNS - 16 -20 gains at 6-4 is a nonsense price when you compare it to individual seat prices

Anyway due to the sticky nature and massive personal votes of Lib Dems particularly in Lib Dem-Conservative contests (Lib Dem vs SNP and Lib Dem vs Labour are a different matter altogether)

1-5 at 14-1 is value.

6-10 3-1 is a fair price, but I'm on that already at 11-2.

I think so too. Though my forecast was for 10 Con gains.

AndyJS

antifrank said:

On topic, the Independent reports on a study coming out today on the SNP's prospects from the University of Strathclyde:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-faces-crisis-in-scotlandas-yes-voters-stay-with-snp-for-general-election-10016933.html

Interesting, it means large Labour majorities in the Glasgow area may be under threat whereas smaller ones in the east coast area may not be so much.

SquareRoot

foxinsoxuk said:

Cyclefree said:

Leaving aside the wisdom or not of attacking Boots I must say I had some sympathy with Labour's response to Pessina's comments i.e. that a tax exile living in Monaco may not have the best view of what's best for Britain.

If Labour do form a government, it will be taxpayers here who bear the brunt not those who neither live nor vote here.

The tax antics of Boots, Google, Amazon, Starbucks etc show why we need some sort of viable turnover tax. It should be a priority at the Treasury, whatever the colour of the government. Having paid my Self Assessment this weekend, I get annoyed at these shysters that pay next to nothing.

The tax antics of those who pay by self assessment need to be sorted out, there are far too many things that are allowable/claimed against tax that are not open to r the humble PAYE taxpayer

Pulpstar

foxinsoxuk said:

rottenborough said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Pulpstar said:

Scott_P said:

@tnewtondunn: EXCL: Ed Miliband’s former friend Martin Winter warns Labour may lose 20 seats to UKIP because of him http://t.co/E5Qxk1oqqA

Where on earth does he get 20 from ?

5, on a bad night for Labour - maybe.

Dudley North, Rother Valley, Rotherham, Great Grimsby - can't see so many others.

Leicester West is one of my longer shot UKIP bets. The demographics are more WWC than the other Leicester seats, and there is significant EU migration. I can see that the Tories and others here voting a bit tactically. Should be a safe hold for Liz Kendall, unless the Labour campaign collapses in chaos.

There are a few of us on here who are on Kendall for leader at long odds who will hope you are wrong that there's a risk in her back yard!

I am backing Liz at 50/1 too, but I looked at all the local seats for predictors of kipperism and came up with this one and Burton (If ever there was a town eager to elect a Man in a Pub!).

Both should be safe Labour really, just worth covering if kipper surgers are not completely demented.

Hah I arbed Burton with Conservative and Labour when the prices were both wrong (The Con one was too long at 4-6 actually) but I made sure to take 100-1 on UKIP there - struck me as the sort of place that could do my money if I didn't take a saver there

rottenborough

TGOHF said:

Sourby backers like me must be clutching those bets lips more fondly this morning. Boots HQ under threat from Ed.

Still no LibDem candidate in Broxtowe though. Those voters - reduced as they be - will have to go somewhere if LDs don't find someone.

AlastairMeeks

AndyJS said:

antifrank said:

On topic, the Independent reports on a study coming out today on the SNP's prospects from the University of Strathclyde:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-faces-crisis-in-scotlandas-yes-voters-stay-with-snp-for-general-election-10016933.html

Interesting, it means large Labour majorities in the Glasgow area may be under threat whereas smaller ones in the east coast area may not be so much.

That is my theory:

http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/bedtime-stories-extending-my-thoughts.html

Scott_P

Labour's coherent policy platform...

@MaxWindCowie: Tad confused. Boots boss should STFU because he lives in Europe but business leaders are right to be worried about leaving the EU. Got that?

TGOHF

rottenborough said:

TGOHF said:

Sourby backers like me must be clutching those bets lips more fondly this morning. Boots HQ under threat from Ed.

Still no LibDem candidate in Broxtowe though. Those voters - reduced as they be - will have to go somewhere if LDs don't find someone.

They didn't vote for the red candidate in 2010 - I don't see many reasons to rethink.

bigjohnowls

JackW said:

I regret to say Martin Baxter as an election forecaster falls into the category of "just a bit of fun".

Compared to my ARSE his model is but a historical footnote in the annals of the genre.

Baxter almost identical to BJESUS.

Trust BJESUS.

Jacks ARSE will be as wildly inaccurate as MCARSE

AndyJS

Pulpstar said:

Scott_P said:

@tnewtondunn: EXCL: Ed Miliband’s former friend Martin Winter warns Labour may lose 20 seats to UKIP because of him http://t.co/E5Qxk1oqqA

Where on earth does he get 20 from ?

5, on a bad night for Labour - maybe.

Dudley North, Rother Valley, Rotherham, Great Grimsby - can't see so many others.

Other possibilities: Walsall North, Hartlepool, Stoke Central, Stoke North, B'ham Northfield, Heywood&Middleton, Wrexham, Alyn&Deeside, Penistone&Stocksbridge.

I don't think UKIP will take any of these but they could put themselves in useful second positions for the next election.

Pulpstar

antifrank said:

AndyJS said:

antifrank said:

On topic, the Independent reports on a study coming out today on the SNP's prospects from the University of Strathclyde:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-faces-crisis-in-scotlandas-yes-voters-stay-with-snp-for-general-election-10016933.html

Interesting, it means large Labour majorities in the Glasgow area may be under threat whereas smaller ones in the east coast area may not be so much.

That is my theory:

http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/bedtime-stories-extending-my-thoughts.html

Hmm just added £40 of Ayrshire central at 6-4 -

Any "special Labour cases" in Ayrshire ?

AlastairMeeks

Eric Joyce gives thoughtful analysis on the balance in Scotland:

http://ericjoyce.co.uk/2015/02/scots-populism/

It's a great shame that such a talented man has such inner demons.

bigjohnowls

Boots derives a large portion of its revenue from public funds (they say 40%), while avoiding an estimated £1.2 billion in taxes over the past seven years by claiming tax relief on costs that have nothing to do with the UK business. - See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/06/11/pay-up-boots/#sthash.WQs5N7mv.dpuf

Presumably Ed closing this little loophole would be a disaster for whom?

AndyJS

Pulpstar said:

antifrank said:

AndyJS said:

antifrank said:

On topic, the Independent reports on a study coming out today on the SNP's prospects from the University of Strathclyde:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-faces-crisis-in-scotlandas-yes-voters-stay-with-snp-for-general-election-10016933.html

Interesting, it means large Labour majorities in the Glasgow area may be under threat whereas smaller ones in the east coast area may not be so much.

That is my theory:

http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/bedtime-stories-extending-my-thoughts.html

Hmm just added £40 of Ayrshire central at 6-4 -

Any "special Labour cases" in Ayrshire ?

IMO Ayr, Carrick & Cumnock is likely to stay Labour, North Ayrshire is likely to go SNP and Central Ayrshire will be close.

hucks67

The Lib Dems will retain atleast 30 seats, because where they are popular, they remain so. Look at the council by-election results, near where they have an MP. They have retained seats and even won them from other parties.

I think the predictions showing Labout and Tories both with around 280 seats is probably about right. It will then be about which party can form a coalition and it may take a few weeks to resolve. I think the Lib Dems may opt to work with Labour and the SNP will offer limited support from opposition.

rottenborough

TGOHF said:

rottenborough said:

TGOHF said:

Sourby backers like me must be clutching those bets lips more fondly this morning. Boots HQ under threat from Ed.

Still no LibDem candidate in Broxtowe though. Those voters - reduced as they be - will have to go somewhere if LDs don't find someone.

They didn't vote for the red candidate in 2010 - I don't see many reasons to rethink.

Do you think this applies across the country? LD - Lab switchers are the core of Ed's strategy.

Roger

I feel a Labour poster campaign coming on based on the multi award winning Economist ads of the early 2000's......................

"I DONT READ THE ECONOMIST"

(management trainee aged 42)

Perhaps something like

"LABOUR ARE BAD FOR BRITAIN"

(72 year old tax exile owner of Boots living in Monaco)

AndyJS

hucks67 said:

The Lib Dems will retain atleast 30 seats, because where they are popular, they remain so. Look at the council by-election results, near where they have an MP. They have retained seats and even won them from other parties.

I think the predictions showing Labout and Tories both with around 280 seats is probably about right. It will then be about which party can form a coalition and it may take a few weeks to resolve. I think the Lib Dems may opt to work with Labour and the SNP will offer limited support from opposition.

Another scenario is Con + LD + DUP, not in coalition as such but with a confidence and supply arrangement. If you assume the LDs get 30 seats and the DUP 8, that means the Tories would have to reach 285 to make it possible. At the moment it looks like they might just be able to reach that level.

AlastairMeeks

hucks67 said:

The Lib Dems will retain atleast 30 seats, because where they are popular, they remain so. Look at the council by-election results, near where they have an MP. They have retained seats and even won them from other parties.

I think the predictions showing Labout and Tories both with around 280 seats is probably about right. It will then be about which party can form a coalition and it may take a few weeks to resolve. I think the Lib Dems may opt to work with Labour and the SNP will offer limited support from opposition.

If the Conservatives have 280 seats and the Lib Dems have 30 or so, the two together will not command a majority. So there would be a Labour-led government of some variety.

rottenborough

hucks67 said:

The Lib Dems will retain atleast 30 seats, because where they are popular, they remain so. Look at the council by-election results, near where they have an MP. They have retained seats and even won them from other parties.

I think the predictions showing Labout and Tories both with around 280 seats is probably about right. It will then be about which party can form a coalition and it may take a few weeks to resolve. I think the Lib Dems may opt to work with Labour and the SNP will offer limited support from opposition.

If they are both on around 280, then surely it would be a continuation of present coalition? Cameron gets first go as PM. Clegg is hardly going to be busting a gut to go with Labour.

What would he get from Lab that couldn't get from Tories? Possibly House of Lords reform - as it seems clear Cameron will struggle to deliver this even if he wants to.

Moses_

Scott_P said:

@BBCNormanS: Labour say "lot of public resentment" over Boots boss 'catastrophe' comments and "this is an argument we can win"

Really?

He said Ed would be a disaster. That is not an argument that is readily winnable...

Agreed..

"Lots of public resentment" falls in the same league as "everyone knows" the "British public recognises" etc etc for when Labour haven't got a clue let alone any proof that anyone supports there point being put forward but have to make it seem like everyone is behind them so they can big up what they saying. Most commonly used when the NHS is mentioned used a lot by Miliband and also by Burnham. Link to any speech on anything by Ed and most stuff by Burnham.

AndyJS

Study forecasts 48 LD seats in contrast to Baxter's 17:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/01/2016-general-election-prediction?CMP=share_btn_tw

Author: Prof Paul Whiteley at the University of Essex, co-director of the British Election Study from 2001 to 2012.

AlastairMeeks

Are Labour going to attack every business leader who speaks out against them? Or just the first half dozen or so?

malcolmg

foxinsoxuk said:

Cyclefree said:

Leaving aside the wisdom or not of attacking Boots I must say I had some sympathy with Labour's response to Pessina's comments i.e. that a tax exile living in Monaco may not have the best view of what's best for Britain.

If Labour do form a government, it will be taxpayers here who bear the brunt not those who neither live nor vote here.

The tax antics of Boots, Google, Amazon, Starbucks etc show why we need some sort of viable turnover tax. It should be a priority at the Treasury, whatever the colour of the government. Having paid my Self Assessment this weekend, I get annoyed at these shysters that pay next to nothing.

For sure and the first party to really take an interest in sorting tax out and chasing these lowlifes will walk an election. Neither Tories or Labour are really interested in fixing it.

bigjohnowls

I predict a small LAB lead in Populus and bad Scottish polling for LAB from LA.

What do others think?

DecrepitJohnL

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. Foxinsox, turnover tax sounds like madness. If a business makes 0 profit but has a £300,000 turnover, asking it to be taxed (as a business) is silly.

The problem is that corporations making squillions can reduce that taxable profit to zero by setting up another company that charges the operating company for marketing or patent licensing or some such. This other company will be based in a low-tax country. In real life it is more complicated as dozens of shell companies are used to shuffle money round the world. If you google "Hollywood accounting" to see why no film, no matter how successful, ever makes a net profit, the principles are the same but more entertaining and easier to follow.

At the £300,000 level of your comment, the issue is more likely a sole trader or small business owner taking money as dividends rather than salary, and therefore being taxed at a lower rate.

EDIT Doubtless the real tax experts will comment later.

nigel4england

bigjohnowls said:

Boots derives a large portion of its revenue from public funds (they say 40%), while avoiding an estimated £1.2 billion in taxes over the past seven years by claiming tax relief on costs that have nothing to do with the UK business. - See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/06/11/pay-up-boots/#sthash.WQs5N7mv.dpuf

Presumably Ed closing this little loophole would be a disaster for whom?

If Ed does close that loophole will he do the same with the Guardian Media Group?

Indigo

bigjohnowls said:

Boots derives a large portion of its revenue from public funds (they say 40%), while avoiding an estimated £1.2 billion in taxes over the past seven years by claiming tax relief on costs that have nothing to do with the UK business. - See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/06/11/pay-up-boots/#sthash.WQs5N7mv.dpuf

Presumably Ed closing this little loophole would be a disaster for whom?

It would be a disaster for UK PLC when the company put up its prices to cover its loses.

bigjohnowls

rottenborough said:

hucks67 said:

The Lib Dems will retain atleast 30 seats, because where they are popular, they remain so. Look at the council by-election results, near where they have an MP. They have retained seats and even won them from other parties.

I think the predictions showing Labout and Tories both with around 280 seats is probably about right. It will then be about which party can form a coalition and it may take a few weeks to resolve. I think the Lib Dems may opt to work with Labour and the SNP will offer limited support from opposition.

If they are both on around 280, then surely it would be a continuation of present coalition? Cameron gets first go as PM. Clegg is hardly going to be busting a gut to go with Labour.

What would he get from Lab that couldn't get from Tories? Possibly House of Lords reform - as it seems clear Cameron will struggle to deliver this even if he wants to.

Cant see anything other than EICIPM on those numbers Lab and SNP almost maj without Respect Green

Indigo

Moses_ said:

"Lots of public resentment" falls in the same league as "everyone knows" the "British public recognises" etc etc for when Labour haven't got a clue let alone any proof that anyone supports there point being put forward but have to make it seem like everyone is behind them so they can big up what they saying.

Sounds like Sir Humphrey anyway.

"Say that the results have been questioned"
"What if they haven't?"
"Ask some, then they have!"

Flightpath

malcolmg said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Cyclefree said:

Leaving aside the wisdom or not of attacking Boots I must say I had some sympathy with Labour's response to Pessina's comments i.e. that a tax exile living in Monaco may not have the best view of what's best for Britain.

If Labour do form a government, it will be taxpayers here who bear the brunt not those who neither live nor vote here.

The tax antics of Boots, Google, Amazon, Starbucks etc show why we need some sort of viable turnover tax. It should be a priority at the Treasury, whatever the colour of the government. Having paid my Self Assessment this weekend, I get annoyed at these shysters that pay next to nothing.

For sure and the first party to really take an interest in sorting tax out and chasing these lowlifes will walk an election. Neither Tories or Labour are really interested in fixing it.

The tories have done nothing but chase people and businesses for tax. All the celebs being chased were in the papers over the weekend. 43000 people are being sued for £7.2 billion in back tax.

bigjohnowls

PB Tories love a good tax loophole its what put the Great in Britain.

How greedy does global capitalism have to get before PB Tories recognise something needs to be done?

rottenborough

Moses_ said:

Scott_P said:

@BBCNormanS: Labour say "lot of public resentment" over Boots boss 'catastrophe' comments and "this is an argument we can win"

Really?

He said Ed would be a disaster. That is not an argument that is readily winnable...

Agreed..

"Lots of public resentment" falls in the same league as "everyone knows" the "British public recognises" etc etc for when Labour haven't got a clue let alone any proof that anyone supports there point being put forward but have to make it seem like everyone is behind them so they can big up what they saying. Most commonly used when the NHS is mentioned used a lot by Miliband and also by Burnham. Link to any speech on anything by Ed and most stuff by Burnham.

I think Lab could have turned this very quickly to their advantage by applying an extremely honed response and focussing on it and no other comment. They should have said, "as an individual he is entitled to his opinion - but why is his company HQ in Switzerland?" Just keep hammering on this question. The problem is you have 100s of Labour MPs and Spads who can twitter any old response which the news picks up.

HYUFD

MalcG Osborne promised a new tax on Google, Amazon, Apple and Starbucks etc last year
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30420571

Indigo

malcolmg said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Cyclefree said:

Leaving aside the wisdom or not of attacking Boots I must say I had some sympathy with Labour's response to Pessina's comments i.e. that a tax exile living in Monaco may not have the best view of what's best for Britain.

If Labour do form a government, it will be taxpayers here who bear the brunt not those who neither live nor vote here.

The tax antics of Boots, Google, Amazon, Starbucks etc show why we need some sort of viable turnover tax. It should be a priority at the Treasury, whatever the colour of the government. Having paid my Self Assessment this weekend, I get annoyed at these shysters that pay next to nothing.

For sure and the first party to really take an interest in sorting tax out and chasing these lowlifes will walk an election. Neither Tories or Labour are really interested in fixing it.

Problem is some fool suggested joining the EU, which was designed to make it easy to move your money to low tax jurisdictions, free movement of goods, services, capital and people and all that.

bigjohnowls said:

PB Tories love a good tax loophole its what put the Great in Britain.

How greedy does global capitalism have to get before PB Tories recognise something needs to be done?

See above.

HYUFD

Lab-SNP deal almost certain on these figures, but still a few months to go

bigjohnowls

Indigo said:

bigjohnowls said:

Boots derives a large portion of its revenue from public funds (they say 40%), while avoiding an estimated £1.2 billion in taxes over the past seven years by claiming tax relief on costs that have nothing to do with the UK business. - See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/06/11/pay-up-boots/#sthash.WQs5N7mv.dpuf

Presumably Ed closing this little loophole would be a disaster for whom?

It would be a disaster for UK PLC when the company put up its prices to cover its loses.

Your definition of disaster is on par with Boots bloke catastrophe one.

TGOHF

bigjohnowls said:

PB Tories love a good tax loophole its what put the Great in Britain.

How greedy does global capitalism have to get before PB Tories recognise something needs to be done?

Jobs create tax revenue.

anotherDave

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. Foxinsox, turnover tax sounds like madness. If a business makes 0 profit but has a £300,000 turnover, asking it to be taxed (as a business) is silly.

Isn't VAT a turnover tax?

bigjohnowls

TGOHF said:

bigjohnowls said:

PB Tories love a good tax loophole its what put the Great in Britain.

How greedy does global capitalism have to get before PB Tories recognise something needs to be done?

Jobs create tax revenue.

Only if they pay enough for tax revenues to exceed tax credits (another subsidy to global capitalist tax dodgers IMO)

Indigo

rottenborough said:

I think Lab could have turned this very quickly to their advantage by applying an extremely honed response and focussing on it and no other comment. They should have said, "as an individual he is entitled to his opinion - but why is his company HQ in Switzerland?" Just keep hammering on this question. The problem is you have 100s of Labour MPs and Spads who can twitter any old response which the news picks up.

Problem is lefties, and Cameroons like to have their cake and eat it. We join a trade block that is explicitly built to let you move your money around it in the most efficient manner possible, that is explicitly designed to let you set up different parts of your company in different regions to run your business in the most efficient manner, and then they bitch when people do just that. We also in a company structure have Directors which are legally required to run the company in the best interests of the shareholders, and then we expect them to run the company in a way that pays more tax when they have legal options to not do so.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Dave, it's a sales tax.

If I ran a bookie that made exactly 0 profit, turnover tax would mean I (effectively) make a loss. [I don't think VAT affects bookies].

rogerh

A couple of comments on Electoral Calculus in relation to likely Lib Dem seat numbers.
First he uses UNS. Many Lib Dems reject this method as they say that it does non reflect the incumbancy factor which is the basis of the LD's fortress strategy.However the 2010 GE results using UNS v 2005 were remarkably close to the actual LD seat numbers.
Second Martin Baxter uses a mean of poll results.The mean is heavily influenced by the number of pools by each polling company.Therefore frequent pollsters like You Gov as opposed to the monthly ICM weight the vote sharss he uses.On the whole You gov tend st o under record Lib Dems.Thus the seat results maybe a little on the low side from this factor.
Personally my approach will be to use ICM the gold standard shares for the GE, and use UNS calculated seperately for England and Scotland.

Indigo

anotherDave said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. Foxinsox, turnover tax sounds like madness. If a business makes 0 profit but has a £300,000 turnover, asking it to be taxed (as a business) is silly.

Isn't VAT a turnover tax?

No, you are collecting VAT from the end customer on behalf of HMRC, you collect the VAT, deduct from it any VAT you paid to other suppliers and pass on the balance to HMRC. If your inputs and outputs are the same, you might have turned over a lot of money, but you wont be paying any VAT.

CD13

I don't take a lot of notice of business leaders when they speak out. They're advocates for their own benefit, in the same way that union leaders are advocates for their members' own parochial interests. The country as a whole is irrelevant. I could add that political parties tend to be exactly the same.

But in two years time, when Pessino makes a case for GB staying in Europe, Labour will be falling over themselves to say "Listen to this man, he knows what he's talking about."

anotherDave

Pulpstar said:

Scott_P said:

@tnewtondunn: EXCL: Ed Miliband’s former friend Martin Winter warns Labour may lose 20 seats to UKIP because of him http://t.co/E5Qxk1oqqA

Where on earth does he get 20 from ?

5, on a bad night for Labour - maybe.

Dudley North, Rother Valley, Rotherham, Great Grimsby - can't see so many others.

The seats identified by the Fabians UKIP report?

http://www.fabians.org.uk/revolt-on-the-left-labours-ukip-problem-and-how-it-can-be-overcome/

MarkSenior

Some of us remember Baxter's forecasts in the last parliament of the Lib Dems getting 0 seats at around a national VI of 13% in polls at the time . It took several months of ridicule before he admitted his then current methodology was rubbish and revamped it .

Roger

AF

"Are Labour going to attack every business leader who speaks out against them? Or just the first half dozen or so?"

Just the first. 'Bogeyman' is always singular

steve_garner

Another day starts badly for Labour and this time it's the vice chancellors filleting their policies. Having lashed out at Milburn/Hutton and Boots presumably it's time for Labour to tell the profs to STFU.

MarqueeMark

UKIP 1, LibDems 17 look ball-park. Not sure that Labour will still be 1% ahead come May. I still think Tories could squeak largest party with a 3-4% lead. And given the way the Labour campaign is misfiring, that should be easily exceeded.

If UKIP takes votes disproportionately from Labour in the Midlands, that could certainly influence the outcome in 20 seats. I also reckon that with Labour, LibDems, Greens and UKIP (and MK in Cornwall) all fighting over the same pool of non-Tory votes in the South-west, that will give the blues a springboard for big gains here. Could be very little that isn't coloured blue in Somerset, Devon and Cornwall come May. Exeter* and Yeovil to be a bridge too far in one go, but otherwise, Bristol before the blue tide is halted.

*Exeter is interesting. Taken by Gwyneth Dunwoody in 1966, but 1970 to 1997 solidly blue. Now a red pimple in a sea of blue and yellow. Ten and a half thousand LibDem votes to plunder (not even a candidate yet) should see Labour safe, but the Labour vote has fallen from 49.8% to 38.2% over the last two General Elections. I suspect that UKIP could hold some attraction for the Labour vote there. Another seat where a good UKIP performance could make things tight - their last two outings have been only 3% though.

TGOHF

bigjohnowls said:

TGOHF said:

bigjohnowls said:

PB Tories love a good tax loophole its what put the Great in Britain.

How greedy does global capitalism have to get before PB Tories recognise something needs to be done?

Jobs create tax revenue.

Only if they pay enough for tax revenues to exceed tax credits (another subsidy to global capitalist tax dodgers IMO)

Tax credits cover employer NICs, employee NICs and employee IT ? Who knew...

anotherDave

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Dave, it's a sales tax.

If I ran a bookie that made exactly 0 profit, turnover tax would mean I (effectively) make a loss. [I don't think VAT affects bookies].

Yes, but sales revenue and turnover are the same thing.