The Tartan Stalinists: Forced sales of country estates. Snooping state guardians for every child. Contempt for the wealthy... and Britain. Fantasy? No, it's the stark reality of an SNP landslide
You wait ages for Labour policies, then 3 come along at once:
@LabourPolicies: If elected, Labour will force Landlords to offer 3 year leases, and ban landlords from above inflation rent hikes on their tenants.
Too many big multi-nationals are putting Profit before Passenger in our UK Bus Network. Labour will introduce Not for Profit bussing in May
If UK Crown Dependent Tax Havens have not opened their books by 7th November 2015, Ed Miliband, if PM, will internationally blacklist them.
I wonder what impact '3 year leases with pegged increases' will have on rents?
Oh, and Ed can't 'internationally blacklist' anyone - only the OECD can do that, and they'd have to blacklist the US, France, Germany & Spain too....
I wonder what impact 3 year leases will have on deposits? Although Labour say there would be a 6 month probationary period. But really this is yet another labour policy which is all mouth and no trousers. The Guardian points out -- ''There would be some exemptions under this regime. Miliband's plans allow landlords with buy-to-let mortgages taken out prior to the legislation taking effect to continue using shorter agreements where the mortgage small print does not cater for longer tenancies.'' ''There would also be provision for new tenants such as students or workers on temporary contracts to request shorter-term tenancies, subject to the landlord agreeing to this.'' In fact even the Guardian has to admit -- ''the average length of time a private renter had lived at their current address was 3.8 years'' Labour waffle about ceilings on rent increases saying the RICS is working on something. Again even the Guardian is forced to point out that the RICS say it, "is not developing proposals on rent benchmarks for the private rented sector, and we do not recommend that a government introduce a ceiling on rent increases".
The whole thing is rather indicative. As long as the Tories talk sound economics, which means controlling spending and people profiting from work risk and investment, and Labour preach the politics of envy and free money - then the tories will struggle to get re-elected.
Yes, it's a shame when politicians pander to their core vote.
"Director-general of the Institute of Economic Affairs Mark Littlewood criticises the extension of the pensioner bond scheme and accuses the government of trying to buy votes. "This announcement well and truly proves that we are not all in it together... a direct subsidy to wealthy pensioners from the working-age population", he tells the BBC News Channel."
My point with Charles is that HMG does indeed have the powers you mention but is choosing to kick the issue into the long international grass. Is Liechtenstein really going to vote openness in taxation - colour me cyncial ?
Furthermore since the FD of UK plc Mr G Osborne also has an obligation to run the country in the best interests of his shareholder ( us ) then he should damn well be closing the tax holes and collecting the cash. That's his job.
Well, Osborne has done deals with Switzerland and Luxembourg, so he's making progress.
Liechtenstein is, I'd agree, the murkiest cess-pit in Europe. So to judge Osborne solely on whether he drains that particular swamp is a little unfair.
Overall he's making good progress - just google "Ingenious Media HMRC" (without the inverted commas) for an example. Slightly surprised you seem to have missed it in the news.
Yes he has but nontheless he still has much more he should be doing and as I have pointed out time is money.
Same should apply to UK plc.
Sometimes in international negotiations you can only move at the pace of the slowest - but he's made decent progress.
And on items such as the patent box (not sure where the German whinges stand) he's at least making sure we are competitive.
Of course Charles.
But plugging the hole doesn't stop negotiations continuing does it ? And sometimes the pressure is what is needed to cut the Gordian knot.
Well what are you proposing that he does? He's introduced GAAR, HMRC are much more aggressive, he's pressuring the havens.
You may either know or remember better than me Charles, but I seem to recall Osborne and the Tories being appalled at the amount of tax evasion and avoidance going on when they examined the books. Now we get labour complaining about tax havens they spent 13 years doing nothing about whilst their economic policies encouraged their use.
You wait ages for Labour policies, then 3 come along at once:
@LabourPolicies: If elected, Labour will force Landlords to offer 3 year leases, and ban landlords from above inflation rent hikes on their tenants.
Too many big multi-nationals are putting Profit before Passenger in our UK Bus Network. Labour will introduce Not for Profit bussing in May
If UK Crown Dependent Tax Havens have not opened their books by 7th November 2015, Ed Miliband, if PM, will internationally blacklist them.
I wonder what impact '3 year leases with pegged increases' will have on rents?
Oh, and Ed can't 'internationally blacklist' anyone - only the OECD can do that, and they'd have to blacklist the US, France, Germany & Spain too....
I wonder what impact 3 year leases will have on deposits? Although Labour say there would be a 6 month probationary period. But really this is yet another labour policy which is all mouth and no trousers. The Guardian points out -- ''There would be some exemptions under this regime. Miliband's plans allow landlords with buy-to-let mortgages taken out prior to the legislation taking effect to continue using shorter agreements where the mortgage small print does not cater for longer tenancies.'' ''There would also be provision for new tenants such as students or workers on temporary contracts to request shorter-term tenancies, subject to the landlord agreeing to this.'' In fact even the Guardian has to admit -- ''the average length of time a private renter had lived at their current address was 3.8 years'' Labour waffle about ceilings on rent increases saying the RICS is working on something. Again even the Guardian is forced to point out that the RICS say it, "is not developing proposals on rent benchmarks for the private rented sector, and we do not recommend that a government introduce a ceiling on rent increases".
The whole thing is rather indicative. As long as the Tories talk sound economics, which means controlling spending and people profiting from work risk and investment, and Labour preach the politics of envy and free money - then the tories will struggle to get re-elected.
Within the space of a few lines, you say this policy is "all mouth and no trousers", then go on to say how disastrous it would be. It can't be both a meaningless policy AND something which would have such dire consequences at the same time!
This is definitely one of Labour's trump cards, young people (and their parents) ARE furious at extortionate rents. Although for the purposes of presentation to the public, they'll need to present it in a more simple way (just "stop landlords ripping you off" would do) because the full technical explanation is going to leave people nonplussed.
Carlotta Vance Given the SNP is backed by multimillionaires Sir Sean Connery, Sir Brian Souter and Brian Cox I doubt its contempt for the wealthy will be universal, especially as Salmond also wanted to cut corporation tax and opposed Labour's planned restoration of the 50% top tax rate
You wait ages for Labour policies, then 3 come along at once:
@LabourPolicies: If elected, Labour will force Landlords to offer 3 year leases, and ban landlords from above inflation rent hikes on their tenants.
Too many big multi-nationals are putting Profit before Passenger in our UK Bus Network. Labour will introduce Not for Profit bussing in May
If UK Crown Dependent Tax Havens have not opened their books by 7th November 2015, Ed Miliband, if PM, will internationally blacklist them.
I wonder what impact '3 year leases with pegged increases' will have on rents?
Oh, and Ed can't 'internationally blacklist' anyone - only the OECD can do that, and they'd have to blacklist the US, France, Germany & Spain too....
I wonder what impact 3 year leases will have on deposits? Although Labour say there would be a 6 month probationary period. But really this is yet another labour policy which is all mouth and no trousers. The Guardian points out -- ''There would be some exemptions under this regime. Miliband's plans allow landlords with buy-to-let mortgages taken out prior to the legislation taking effect to continue using shorter agreements where the mortgage small print does not cater for longer tenancies.'' ''There would also be provision for new tenants such as students or workers on temporary contracts to request shorter-term tenancies, subject to the landlord agreeing to this.'' In fact even the Guardian has to admit -- ''the average length of time a private renter had lived at their current address was 3.8 years'' Labour waffle about ceilings on rent increases saying the RICS is working on something. Again even the Guardian is forced to point out that the RICS say it, "is not developing proposals on rent benchmarks for the private rented sector, and we do not recommend that a government introduce a ceiling on rent increases".
The whole thing is rather indicative. As long as the Tories talk sound economics, which means controlling spending and people profiting from work risk and investment, and Labour preach the politics of envy and free money - then the tories will struggle to get re-elected.
This is definitely one of Labour's trump cards, young people (and their parents) ARE furious at extortionate rents. Although for the purposes of presentation to the public, they'll need to present it in a more simple way (just "stop landlords ripping you off" would do) because the full technical explanation is going to leave people nonplussed.
Then how is a policy that will likely lead to increased rents going to help? Unless Labour are actually proposing rent control?
Carlotta Vance Given the SNP is backed by multimillionaires Sir Sean Connery, Sir Brian Souter and Brian Cox I doubt its contempt for the wealthy will be universal, especially as Salmond also wanted to cut corporation tax and opposed Labour's planned restoration of the 50% top tax rate
Sturgeon's SNP may be a different animal from Salmond's.....
The other reason why have a very negative balance of payments is massive inflows of foreign money looking for safety.
If you have large capital inflows, it is very hard to run a positive current account or balance of payments.
It is technically impossible (unless you have even larger countervailing capital investments elsewhere). Net current account + capital flows should equal zero, at least in theory.
But these capital flows are not good for us. We are selling assets (typically London real estate) to buy consumables. This will eventually lead to poverty unless it stops. We already have a situation where the profits on foreign owned assets in the UK are earning substantially more than our investments abroad. As many south American countries found once you get into that scenario it is very difficult to improve your standard of living in a sustainable way.
Carlotta But it will be Salmond who will effectively be leading the SNP at Westminster if he wins Gordon, and of course Andy Murray, another Yes backer and multimillionaire and Surrey and Miami resident is hardly a communist either
UKIP are full of ex BNP racists, it was their natural home after the BNP internal squabbles took hold.
Absolute rubbish and lies from #SquareRoot. Let us see you your data and link, and if you show something from the BMP website, one can only assume that you are a disgruntled ex member.
SquareRoot, dr_spyn, lancashire_tory and hucks67 earned the Name Dropper badge. All aliases used by SquareRoot.
Is this the first sign of a slight panic in the Tory ranks?
No
I am sure, were he here, that Phil "Us Blues" Roberts would reassure you that the only ones panicking are Labour MPs who thought they had safe seats for life...
You wait ages for Labour policies, then 3 come along at once:
@LabourPolicies: If elected, Labour will force Landlords to offer 3 year leases, and ban landlords from above inflation rent hikes on their tenants.
Too many big multi-nationals are putting Profit before Passenger in our UK Bus Network. Labour will introduce Not for Profit bussing in May
If UK Crown Dependent Tax Havens have not opened their books by 7th November 2015, Ed Miliband, if PM, will internationally blacklist them.
I wonder what impact '3 year leases with pegged increases' will have on rents?
Oh, and Ed can't 'internationally blacklist' anyone - only the OECD can do that, and they'd have to blacklist the US, France, Germany & Spain too....
.. ..
Within the space of a few lines, you say this policy is "all mouth and no trousers", then go on to say how disastrous it would be. It can't be both a meaningless policy AND something which would have such dire consequences at the same time!
This is definitely one of Labour's trump cards, young people (and their parents) ARE furious at extortionate rents. Although for the purposes of presentation to the public, they'll need to present it in a more simple way (just "stop landlords ripping you off" would do) because the full technical explanation is going to leave people nonplussed.
Go back and look, since this thread is already too long and needs a snip. I said 'labour preach the politics of envy and free money'. A dog whistle. 'preach' I did not say 'disastrous' I pointed out the lack of real meaning in it other than peddling the politics of envy. Indeed I pointed out a downright lie in it about their claims for RICS support. ('presentation to the public'? Give me a break!!) Try reading and a bit of english comprehension. The policy is meaningless rubbish. The RICS denounce it and its got so many exemptions and varies so little from the current norm as to be facile. But the fact that you think the avowed intention is a good idea - ie that people who have made an investment should then subsidise parents of students - proves my point. Labour Policy 101, 'If you can't give away free money give away other peoples'.'
BTW its Labour that ruined private pensions and forced people to turn to property investment.
UKIP are full of ex BNP racists, it was their natural home after the BNP internal squabbles took hold.
Absolute rubbish and lies from #SquareRoot. Let us see you your data and link, and if you show something from the BMP website, one can only assume that you are a disgruntled ex member.
SquareRoot, dr_spyn, lancashire_tory and hucks67 earned the Name Dropper badge. All aliases used by SquareRoot.
So... anyone you don't like you brand as me. Well firstly and categorically I do not post as anyone else, and secondly, you are talking bollocks. Farage tried to say that the BNP were finished, the thing he forgot to say was that they had all migrated to UKIP.
Is this the first sign of a slight panic in the Tory ranks?
No
I am sure, were he here, that Phil "Us Blues" Roberts would reassure you that the only ones panicking are Labour MPs who thought they had safe seats for life...
Well I am fairly sure there will just as many Tory MPs losing their seats as Labour ones, even with the SNP tide in Scotland.
UKIP are full of ex BNP racists, it was their natural home after the BNP internal squabbles took hold.
Absolute rubbish and lies from #SquareRoot. Let us see you your data and link, and if you show something from the BMP website, one can only assume that you are a disgruntled ex member.
SquareRoot, dr_spyn, lancashire_tory and hucks67 earned the Name Dropper badge. All aliases used by SquareRoot.
Labour's links to the BNP in Heywood and Middleton:
As for the possibility of a referendum in 2016, it doesn't matter as the main problem is that like with the 2017 promise it's a promise AFTER the election.
Voters are deeply suspicious of pre-election promises, UKIP voters even more when it comes to pre-election promises from Cameron. That's what made the 2017 promise a failure and that is what the 2016 promise will become, voters don't buy it.
UKIP are full of ex BNP racists, it was their natural home after the BNP internal squabbles took hold.
Absolute rubbish and lies from #SquareRoot. Let us see you your data and link, and if you show something from the BMP website, one can only assume that you are a disgruntled ex member.
SquareRoot, dr_spyn, lancashire_tory and hucks67 earned the Name Dropper badge. All aliases used by SquareRoot.
Labour's links to the BNP in Heywood and Middleton:
UKIP are full of ex BNP racists, it was their natural home after the BNP internal squabbles took hold.
Absolute rubbish and lies from #SquareRoot. Let us see you your data and link, and if you show something from the BMP website, one can only assume that you are a disgruntled ex member.
SquareRoot, dr_spyn, lancashire_tory and hucks67 earned the Name Dropper badge. All aliases used by SquareRoot.
Labour's links to the BNP in Heywood and Middleton:
Jokingly I don't think that "Top Tory Ensnared In Tax Probe" will win many UKIP votes for the Tories.
Hah yes I noted that too.
Must confess when I first saw the Sunday Times pic and the header I thought to myself 'Not another sarcastic anti Tory thread from Mike S'. Shame on me.
As for the possibility of a referendum in 2016, it doesn't matter as the main problem is that like with the 2017 promise it's a promise AFTER the election.
Voters are deeply suspicious of pre-election promises, UKIP voters even more when it comes to pre-election promises from Cameron. That's what made the 2017 promise a failure and that is what the 2016 promise will become, voters don't buy it.
Cameron doesn't really have much of a choice: He cannot get a referendum past the LDs now, so he has to offer one for the next parliament, ensuring that it is a red line in any coalition negotiations.
UKIP are full of ex BNP racists, it was their natural home after the BNP internal squabbles took hold.
Absolute rubbish and lies from #SquareRoot. Let us see you your data and link, and if you show something from the BMP website, one can only assume that you are a disgruntled ex member.
SquareRoot, dr_spyn, lancashire_tory and hucks67 earned the Name Dropper badge. All aliases used by SquareRoot.
Labour's links to the BNP in Heywood and Middleton:
But probably only UKIP actively targeted BNP voters?
Funny how many hand wringers make excuses and empathise with isolated Muslims drawn to extremist ideology, even to the extent if rehabilating those who go and fight for Isis and al Qaeda, but want to permanently write off and discard anyone who voted bnp
As for the possibility of a referendum in 2016, it doesn't matter as the main problem is that like with the 2017 promise it's a promise AFTER the election.
Voters are deeply suspicious of pre-election promises, UKIP voters even more when it comes to pre-election promises from Cameron. That's what made the 2017 promise a failure and that is what the 2016 promise will become, voters don't buy it.
Cameron doesn't really have much of a choice: He cannot get a referendum past the LDs now, so he has to offer one for the next parliament, ensuring that it is a red line in any coalition negotiations.
The problem is credibility, Cameron doesn't have any on that particular issue of Europe. Even if he was in government alone no one believes that he would actually do anything concrete on that issue (or as a matter of fact any issue not just Europe). The LD's might be an excuse but it doesn't work when the Tory leader is perceived as a Liberal too.
Coalitions are always a disaster especially for the minor party because it makes everyone dissatisfied to a various degree, and opens the accusation that coalition leaders are sellouts.
UKIP are full of ex BNP racists, it was their natural home after the BNP internal squabbles took hold.
Hmmm... I voted UKIP at the Euros last year. I can't quite recall ever joining the BNP...
If you "can't quite recall ever joining the BNP" I suggest you simply don't know your arse from your elbow.
Stuff and Nonsense! See my posts and graphs from upthread, Mr ELBOW Denier
I regret to say your pretty graphs and ELBOW is suffering from Over-YouGovitis which is a severe inflammation caused by a hugely excessive daily application of Kellnerism to the body politic.
Funny how many hand wringers make excuses and empathise with isolated Muslims drawn to extremist ideology, even to the extent if rehabilating those who go and fight for Isis and al Qaeda, but want to permanently write off and discard anyone who voted bnp
Most of the hand wringers would presumably expect the extremists to reject their former views before welcoming them into the fold?
@faisalislam: Chief minister of Gibraltar tells #murnaghan has written to @Ed_Miliband about his "unfair" characterisation of territory as a "tax haven"
Disaster for Labour etc etc.
Faisal Islam: Gibraltar CM (Gibraltar Labour Party) says Germany and Spain would also end up on @Ed_Miliband 's tax haven secrecy blacklist
No, you're right, its another triumph!
Mr Islam is incorrect (although he is probably abbreviating for the purposes of Twitter)
It's the Gibraltar Socialist Labour Party. The Gibraltar Labour Party closed down in 2005 through lack of interest and their members split - joining parties to the left and right of their position.
This is definitely one of Labour's trump cards, young people (and their parents) ARE furious at extortionate rents. Although for the purposes of presentation to the public, they'll need to present it in a more simple way (just "stop landlords ripping you off" would do) because the full technical explanation is going to leave people nonplussed.
That is my fundamental concern about Miliband's Labour.
They're pretty good at identifying issues - rent is one of them; the lack of transparency on energy pricing another.
But they come up with terrible, ill-thought through solutions.
Rent controls, for instance, have been tried in many places and many times. And they never work. They end up with run down properties, with voids, with poor quality supply. Ultimately - if allowed to - they end up with Rackman.
I'd look at four areas instead (some inter-related):
- to increase supply of housing - to reform housing benefit in such a way that it doesn't support high prices - to encourage institutional investment into the sector - (related to 3) to use local government's negotiating power as a big buyer of local housing to maintain decent prices
It's 3 and 4 that are most important. I can see, for instance, a model whereby a pension fund builds a block of housing. It then agrees a long-term (say 30 year) rental agreement with a local government or a housing association for a prospective yield of RPI+2% (better than gilts). It would then outsource the management of the block to a third party (but not the council) who would charge an agreed fee that could either be charged back to the council or to the tenants.
Jokingly I don't think that "Top Tory Ensnared In Tax Probe" will win many UKIP votes for the Tories.
Hah yes I noted that too.
Must confess when I first saw the Sunday Times pic and the header I thought to myself 'Not another sarcastic anti Tory thread from Mike S'. Shame on me.
Entirely unrelated to the election coming up, I'm sure.
How is taking a chunk of money off people (£7.5 billion...) and hanging on to it for several years in return for interest - ie encouraging savings in the manner of tax free ISAs or Premium Bonds - 'free money'?
This is definitely one of Labour's trump cards, young people (and their parents) ARE furious at extortionate rents. Although for the purposes of presentation to the public, they'll need to present it in a more simple way (just "stop landlords ripping you off" would do) because the full technical explanation is going to leave people nonplussed.
That is my fundamental concern about Miliband's Labour.
They're pretty good at identifying issues - rent is one of them; the lack of transparency on energy pricing another.
But they come up with terrible, ill-thought through solutions.
Rent controls, for instance, have been tried in many places and many times. And they never work. They end up with run down properties, with voids, with poor quality supply. Ultimately - if allowed to - they end up with Rackman.
I'd look at four areas instead (some inter-related):
- to increase supply of housing - to reform housing benefit in such a way that it doesn't support high prices - to encourage institutional investment into the sector - (related to 3) to use local government's negotiating power as a big buyer of local housing to maintain decent prices
It's 3 and 4 that are most important. I can see, for instance, a model whereby a pension fund builds a block of housing. It then agrees a long-term (say 30 year) rental agreement with a local government or a housing association for a prospective yield of RPI+2% (better than gilts). It would then outsource the management of the block to a third party (but not the council) who would charge an agreed fee that could either be charged back to the council or to the tenants.
If only the Tories and the LD's had done something about that while in GOVERNMENT for 5 YEARS, then Labour wouldn't have tried to offer solutions for political reasons for the general election.
Funny how many hand wringers make excuses and empathise with isolated Muslims drawn to extremist ideology, even to the extent if rehabilating those who go and fight for Isis and al Qaeda, but want to permanently write off and discard anyone who voted bnp
Most of the hand wringers would presumably expect the extremists to reject their former views before welcoming them into the fold?
How do you expect to find that out when it comes to ex bnp voters now voting for another party?
UKIP are full of ex BNP racists, it was their natural home after the BNP internal squabbles took hold.
Hmmm... I voted UKIP at the Euros last year. I can't quite recall ever joining the BNP...
If you "can't quite recall ever joining the BNP" I suggest you simply don't know your arse from your elbow.
Stuff and Nonsense! See my posts and graphs from upthread, Mr ELBOW Denier
I regret to say your pretty graphs and ELBOW is suffering from Over-YouGovitis which is a severe inflammation caused by a hugely excessive daily application of Kellnerism to the body politic.
Fight! Fight! In the North corner JackW the Caber Giant Killer. He only shows his ARSE on occasion but is usually worth the wait.
In the South corner Sunil_Prasannan the lightning fast Pressman. He ELBOWS his way to the center of the ring quite frequently and sometimes dazzles.
Jokingly I don't think that "Top Tory Ensnared In Tax Probe" will win many UKIP votes for the Tories.
Hah yes I noted that too.
Must confess when I first saw the Sunday Times pic and the header I thought to myself 'Not another sarcastic anti Tory thread from Mike S'. Shame on me.
Join the club, Mr O!
I was confused too.
Then I saw who wrote the thread and realised it was just TSE winding us up.
Entirely unrelated to the election coming up, I'm sure.
How is taking a chunk of money off people (£7.5 billion...) and hanging on to it for several years in return for interest - ie encouraging savings in the manner of tax free ISAs or Premium Bonds - 'free money'?
Of course it's free money, inflation is way below 4%.
This is definitely one of Labour's trump cards, young people (and their parents) ARE furious at extortionate rents. Although for the purposes of presentation to the public, they'll need to present it in a more simple way (just "stop landlords ripping you off" would do) because the full technical explanation is going to leave people nonplussed.
That is my fundamental concern about Miliband's Labour.
They're pretty good at identifying issues - rent is one of them; the lack of transparency on energy pricing another.
But they come up with terrible, ill-thought through solutions.
Rent controls, for instance, have been tried in many places and many times. And they never work. They end up with run down properties, with voids, with poor quality supply. Ultimately - if allowed to - they end up with Rackman.
I'd look at four areas instead (some inter-related):
- to increase supply of housing - to reform housing benefit in such a way that it doesn't support high prices - to encourage institutional investment into the sector - (related to 3) to use local government's negotiating power as a big buyer of local housing to maintain decent prices
It's 3 and 4 that are most important. I can see, for instance, a model whereby a pension fund builds a block of housing. It then agrees a long-term (say 30 year) rental agreement with a local government or a housing association for a prospective yield of RPI+2% (better than gilts). It would then outsource the management of the block to a third party (but not the council) who would charge an agreed fee that could either be charged back to the council or to the tenants.
If only the Tories and the LD's had done something about that while in GOVERNMENT for 5 YEARS, then Labour wouldn't have tried to offer solutions for political reasons for the general election.
Housing has been a disappointment, yes. (1) [supply] They tried to reform planning permission, but ended up running into nimbyism. That said, there have been early signs of greater release of unneeded government land for building (2) [housing benefit reform] They should have done this more thoughtfully - they've capped the amount, which is a start, despite the complaints, but not reformed it (3) [institutional investment] some signs of this: e.g. Aviva http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/39673e36-bb0f-11e2-b289-00144feab7de.html#axzz3RAIzxiTs (4) [negotiating power] some positive changes on the % of market rate that they pay
It's difficult to do this kind of structural reform in the economic climate where the priority has to be to reduce government spending. Good long-term projects often have a short term cost.
Entirely unrelated to the election coming up, I'm sure.
How is taking a chunk of money off people (£7.5 billion...) and hanging on to it for several years in return for interest - ie encouraging savings in the manner of tax free ISAs or Premium Bonds - 'free money'?
PS if you follow the Times' links through you can read, ''The banks responded within hours, with Virgin Money raising the rate on its one-year cash Isa to 1.7 per cent, so that the account offers a better return to higher-rate taxpayers than the one-year pensioner bond once tax is taken into account.''
3. Corporation tax, many countries (including Ireland) have adjusted their taxation to encourage companies to be based there. If you want equal taxation between countries, then you are talking about a form of one-world government and just look at the useless example of the UN.
The tax rate is a canard, Ireland could set their coproation tax rate at 100% and companies would still headquarter there.
The point is the sweet heart deals that Ireland and Luxembourg sign with the companies that mean that all the European revenues that are funnelled through them (bar the Luxembourg or Irish portion) goes tax free. The profits made in the rest of Europe become stateless in terms of taxation.
That will end in the reasonably near future as there is no way the rest of the EU will continue to put up with having tax take stolen from them.
Jokingly I don't think that "Top Tory Ensnared In Tax Probe" will win many UKIP votes for the Tories.
Hah yes I noted that too.
Must confess when I first saw the Sunday Times pic and the header I thought to myself 'Not another sarcastic anti Tory thread from Mike S'. Shame on me.
I promise that this afternoon's thread will be unambiguous.
Been through all the constituencies and this is my list of not impossible to win seats for UKIP at some point in the next few years, split into five bands of likelihood. There are 123 in total:
Band 1, (14): Basildon South, Boston, Camborne, Castle Point, Clacton, Cleethorpes, Dudley N, Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Portsmouth S, Rochester, Thanet S, Thurrock, Walsall N.
Band 2, (23): Basildon&Billericay, Brigg, Cannock, Chatham, Dudley S, Eastleigh, Folkestone, Gillingham, Harlow, Hartlepool, Heywood, Isle of Wight, Louth, Plymouth Moor View, Portsmouth N, Rother Valley, Rotherham, St Ives, Staffs Moorlands, Suffolk W, Thanet N, Torbay, Worthing E.
Band 3, (28): Amber Valley, B'ham Northfield, Cambs NE, Cambs NW, Devon N, Devon W, Dover, Forest of Dean, Gainsborough, Gosport, Harwich, Leics NW, Mansfield, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Norfolk NW, Norfolk SW, Rochford, Sherwood, Sittingbourne, Sleaford, South Holland, Stoke C, Stoke N, Telford, Warwickshire N, Wentworth, Worthing W, Wyre Forest.
Band 4, (31): Aldridge, Alyn, Ashfield, Bognor Regis, Cambs SE, Christchurch, Devon E, Don Valley, Faversham, Fylde, Grantham, Havant, Kettering, Lincoln, Maidstone, Maldon, New Forest E, New Forest W, Penistone, Peterborough, Plymouth Sutton, Redditch, St Austell, Stoke S, Tamworth, Totnes, Vale of Clwyd, Waveney, Weaver Vale, Witham, Wolverhampton NE.
Band 5, (27): Aldershot, Barnsley C, Barnsley E, Bexhill, Bexleyheath, Blackpool S, Bolsover, Bootle, Delyn, Dorset S, Durham NW, Gravesham, Halesowen, Hampshire NW, Hemsworth, Hornchurch, Hull E, Hull N, Huntingdon, Poole, Rayleigh, Romford, Stone, Truro, Walsall S, Wrexham, Yeovil.
Jokingly I don't think that "Top Tory Ensnared In Tax Probe" will win many UKIP votes for the Tories.
Hah yes I noted that too.
Must confess when I first saw the Sunday Times pic and the header I thought to myself 'Not another sarcastic anti Tory thread from Mike S'. Shame on me.
I promise that this afternoon's thread will be unambiguous.
You mean something not often heard on PB then ....
UKIP are full of ex BNP racists, it was their natural home after the BNP internal squabbles took hold.
Hmmm... I voted UKIP at the Euros last year. I can't quite recall ever joining the BNP...
If you "can't quite recall ever joining the BNP" I suggest you simply don't know your arse from your elbow.
Stuff and Nonsense! See my posts and graphs from upthread, Mr ELBOW Denier
I regret to say your pretty graphs and ELBOW is suffering from Over-YouGovitis which is a severe inflammation caused by a hugely excessive daily application of Kellnerism to the body politic.
Fight! Fight! In the North corner JackW the Caber Giant Killer. He only shows his ARSE on occasion but is usually worth the wait.
In the South corner Sunil_Prasannan the lightning fast Pressman. He ELBOWS his way to the center of the ring quite frequently and sometimes dazzles.
6/4 the audience: Fight! Fight!
Fight stopped after 1min 12 secs of the first round after "Sunil "The Elbow" Pressman was knocked out following a withering attack of BREAKING WIND NEWS from JackW's ARSE.
JackW remains the undisputed PB TOTY of the World.
Entirely unrelated to the election coming up, I'm sure.
How is taking a chunk of money off people (£7.5 billion...) and hanging on to it for several years in return for interest - ie encouraging savings in the manner of tax free ISAs or Premium Bonds - 'free money'?
Of course it's free money, inflation is way below 4%.
Its interest. How is interest free money. The banks offer rates above inflation. Money is being taken from people they could use elsewhere in return for a rate of interest. In your dreams is it free money.
Funny how many hand wringers make excuses and empathise with isolated Muslims drawn to extremist ideology, even to the extent if rehabilating those who go and fight for Isis and al Qaeda, but want to permanently write off and discard anyone who voted bnp
Most of the hand wringers would presumably expect the extremists to reject their former views before welcoming them into the fold?
How do you expect to find that out when it comes to ex bnp voters now voting for another party?
It must be surely be a good thing if former BNP voters switch to more reasonable parties.
On topic, Cameron could probably do more to win over UKIP waverers by ruling out any further defence cuts in the next Parliament.
UKIP are full of ex BNP racists, it was their natural home after the BNP internal squabbles took hold.
Hmmm... I voted UKIP at the Euros last year. I can't quite recall ever joining the BNP...
If you "can't quite recall ever joining the BNP" I suggest you simply don't know your arse from your elbow.
Stuff and Nonsense! See my posts and graphs from upthread, Mr ELBOW Denier
I regret to say your pretty graphs and ELBOW is suffering from Over-YouGovitis which is a severe inflammation caused by a hugely excessive daily application of Kellnerism to the body politic.
Well said Jack. Far too much weight being given to the pollster. Best just to take the last survey from each firm and not give lower weightings to phone pollsters because, inevitably, they have smaller samples.
At the last election five of the top six firms were phone pollsters - five of the bottom six were online.
UKIP are full of ex BNP racists, it was their natural home after the BNP internal squabbles took hold.
Hmmm... I voted UKIP at the Euros last year. I can't quite recall ever joining the BNP...
If you "can't quite recall ever joining the BNP" I suggest you simply don't know your arse from your elbow.
Stuff and Nonsense! See my posts and graphs from upthread, Mr ELBOW Denier
I regret to say your pretty graphs and ELBOW is suffering from Over-YouGovitis which is a severe inflammation caused by a hugely excessive daily application of Kellnerism to the body politic.
Only 5 out of 10 polls this week were YouGovs
Besides, as we at the Sunil on Sunday remind Lord Ashcroft each week, ELBOW is merely a snapshot, not a prediction!!!
For those that missed it yesterday, I've put up a post on how the remaining Lib Dems after the next election might approach the question of deciding who to support in government:
Really excellent piece of evidence based analysis with serious betting consequences. Very well done. Thank you antifrank.
The only thing I can add, as a LibDem defector*, is my own voting strategy. In a LibDem/Tory marginal I would vote LibDem - better a LibDem MP than a Tory MP. In a LibDem/Lab marginal, I would vote Labour to help increase the number of Labour MPs. If my fellow defectors feel the same way, it will introduce a Labour bias that perhaps is not reflected in the polling.
* Although I am a defector in the polls (I reply Labout when asked how I will vote in the next GE) I have rejoined the LibDem Party so that I have a vote in the LibDem Leadership elections after next May.
If you don't mind saying, who are you intending to vote for? I appreciate the MPs are not the be-all-and-end-all of LD leadership elections, but surely Farron should be a shade of odds-on rather than a shade of odds-against?
Yes - I'll be voting for Farron, and I agree he should be a shade of odd-on.
UKIP are full of ex BNP racists, it was their natural home after the BNP internal squabbles took hold.
Hmmm... I voted UKIP at the Euros last year. I can't quite recall ever joining the BNP...
If you "can't quite recall ever joining the BNP" I suggest you simply don't know your arse from your elbow.
Stuff and Nonsense! See my posts and graphs from upthread, Mr ELBOW Denier
I regret to say your pretty graphs and ELBOW is suffering from Over-YouGovitis which is a severe inflammation caused by a hugely excessive daily application of Kellnerism to the body politic.
Well said Jack. Far too much weight being given to the pollster. Best just to take the last survey from each firm and not give lower weightings to phone pollsters because, inevitably, they have smaller samples.
At the last election five of the top six firms were phone pollsters - five of the bottom six were online.
Thank you "O Great Bedford One".
Sunil would do better to average the YouGov offerings for the week into a single entry and then weight for past performance.
BTW ... I think you put the black spot on Burnley with your earlier intervention.
Entirely unrelated to the election coming up, I'm sure.
How is taking a chunk of money off people (£7.5 billion...) and hanging on to it for several years in return for interest - ie encouraging savings in the manner of tax free ISAs or Premium Bonds - 'free money'?
Of course it's free money, inflation is way below 4%.
Its interest. How is interest free money. The banks offer rates above inflation. Money is being taken from people they could use elsewhere in return for a rate of interest. In your dreams is it free money.
UKIP are full of ex BNP racists, it was their natural home after the BNP internal squabbles took hold.
Hmmm... I voted UKIP at the Euros last year. I can't quite recall ever joining the BNP...
If you "can't quite recall ever joining the BNP" I suggest you simply don't know your arse from your elbow.
Stuff and Nonsense! See my posts and graphs from upthread, Mr ELBOW Denier
I regret to say your pretty graphs and ELBOW is suffering from Over-YouGovitis which is a severe inflammation caused by a hugely excessive daily application of Kellnerism to the body politic.
Well said Jack. Far too much weight being given to the pollster. Best just to take the last survey from each firm and not give lower weightings to phone pollsters because, inevitably, they have smaller samples.
At the last election five of the top six firms were phone pollsters - five of the bottom six were online.
Ah, the ELBOW-denier-in-Chief chips in!
Well, this week's TNS online poll gave Labour a six-point lead (3% higher than any other this week), skewing the simple average Labour poll lead to 1.7%, which is higher than the ELBOW figure of 1.3%. It was the smallest weighted base of any poll this week (566, even smaller than Lord Ashcroft's 591).
Some Muslims don't like Prophet Muhammad cartoons shocker.
I've seen bigger crowds at a Blue Peter Young Elephant Droppings Appreciation Society meeting.
You go in for Elephant droppings, are they tasty? How strange, but then there always are strange goings on in the Highlands.
I'm afraid I can't divulge any recipes for Auchentennach Fine Pies but rumour has it some ancestor utilised various parts of the mammoth that used to range in the glens as recently as 1745.
Funny how many hand wringers make excuses and empathise with isolated Muslims drawn to extremist ideology, even to the extent if rehabilating those who go and fight for Isis and al Qaeda, but want to permanently write off and discard anyone who voted bnp
Most of the hand wringers would presumably expect the extremists to reject their former views before welcoming them into the fold?
How do you expect to find that out when it comes to ex bnp voters now voting for another party?
It must be surely be a good thing if former BNP voters switch to more reasonable parties.
On topic, Cameron could probably do more to win over UKIP waverers by ruling out any further defence cuts in the next Parliament.
Unless they vote EDL, how could they not vote for a more reasonable party than BNP?
If Lord Ashcroft had polled Ross, Skye, Lochaber then the probability is that Charlie Kennedy would be behind on both questions. That is almost certain.
Lord Ashcroft's polls were better for the SNP, but had a high correlation to http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/ and where we have peaked inside the box (In Danny's seat) he is now out to 9-2 (One could argue he should be much longer based off the Ashcroft poll)
Where we haven't looked inside in Ross, Skye, Lochaber Charlie Kennedy is 1-3 on still.
Forget the fact he has a much bigger majority, the Ashcroft poll would have shown him a mile behind.
If Charlie's seat had been polled, the SNP would now be favourites in the seat. And people would have LUMPED on the SNP the night of the poll in Ross, Skye, Lochaber.
But I am guessing that both Danny and Charlie are doing considerably better when they are named as the Highlands of Scotland apparently "Vote for the man" - I have no idea if that's true or not, but it simply must be or Charlie Kennedy's price would be far worse. But where we've peaked inside Danny's seat the effect has sort of taken place....
In my opinion:
Backing Lib Dems in Danny's seat @ 9-2 and Backing SNP in Charlie's seat @ 2-1 is the correct course of action.
If you have no position already...
I'm already in on these seats with good positions, so won't be following my own advice here but it's an interesting thought experiment nonetheless.
If Lord Ashcroft had polled Ross, Skye, Lochaber then the probability is that Charlie Kennedy would be behind on both questions. That is almost certain.
Lord Ashcroft's polls were better for the SNP, but had a high correlation to http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/ and where we have peaked inside the box (In Danny's seat) he is now out to 9-2 (One could argue he should be much longer based off the Ashcroft poll)
Where we haven't looked inside in Ross, Skye, Lochaber Charlie Kennedy is 1-3 on still.
Forget the fact he has a much bigger majority, the Ashcroft poll would have shown him a mile behind.
If Charlie's seat had been polled, the SNP would now be favourites in the seat. And people would have LUMPED on the SNP the night of the poll in Ross, Skye, Lochaber.
But I am guessing that both Danny and Charlie are doing considerably better when they are named as the Highlands of Scotland apparently "Vote for the man" - I have no idea if that's true or not, but it simply must be or Charlie Kennedy's price would be far worse. But where we've peaked inside Danny's seat the effect has sort of taken place....
In my opinion:
Backing Lib Dems in Danny's seat @ 9-2 and Backing SNP in Charlie's seat @ 2-1 is the correct course of action.
If you have no position already...
I'm already in on these seats with good positions, so won't be following my own advice here but it's an interesting thought experiment nonetheless.
The LD defences will be run like mayoral campaigns where the incumbent MP will be the almost total focus not the party. Naming in the polling the person who is re-standing makes a huge difference to response. I'm not able to point to published data to support that but I know this to be the case.
At some stage Lord Ashcroft should change constituency question to include candidates names.
Comments
A very unsavoury character, methinks.
It happens the world over in almost every city.
It might be possible to work out a solution, but no one is interested.
#Conservatives v. #UKIP in ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week) since August
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/564401439385329664
Never seen that before........
Given the current state of the polls, shouldn't that be "Electoral Leader-Board Of the Weak"?
The Tartan Stalinists: Forced sales of country estates. Snooping state guardians for every child. Contempt for the wealthy... and Britain. Fantasy? No, it's the stark reality of an SNP landslide
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2943915/The-Tartan-Stalinists-Forced-sales-country-estates-Snooping-state-guardians-child-Contempt-wealthy-Britain-Fantasy-No-s-stark-reality-SNP-landslide.html
But really this is yet another labour policy which is all mouth and no trousers.
The Guardian points out --
''There would be some exemptions under this regime. Miliband's plans allow landlords with buy-to-let mortgages taken out prior to the legislation taking effect to continue using shorter agreements where the mortgage small print does not cater for longer tenancies.''
''There would also be provision for new tenants such as students or workers on temporary contracts to request shorter-term tenancies, subject to the landlord agreeing to this.''
In fact even the Guardian has to admit -- ''the average length of time a private renter had lived at their current address was 3.8 years''
Labour waffle about ceilings on rent increases saying the RICS is working on something.
Again even the Guardian is forced to point out that the RICS say it, "is not developing proposals on rent benchmarks for the private rented sector, and we do not recommend that a government introduce a ceiling on rent increases".
The whole thing is rather indicative. As long as the Tories talk sound economics, which means controlling spending and people profiting from work risk and investment, and Labour preach the politics of envy and free money - then the tories will struggle to get re-elected.
Yes, it's a shame when politicians pander to their core vote.
"Director-general of the Institute of Economic Affairs Mark Littlewood criticises the extension of the pensioner bond scheme and accuses the government of trying to buy votes. "This announcement well and truly proves that we are not all in it together... a direct subsidy to wealthy pensioners from the working-age population", he tells the BBC News Channel."
As Government cuts continue to bite police told: Stop investigating crime http://shr.gs/QYuNvdB
This is definitely one of Labour's trump cards, young people (and their parents) ARE furious at extortionate rents. Although for the purposes of presentation to the public, they'll need to present it in a more simple way (just "stop landlords ripping you off" would do) because the full technical explanation is going to leave people nonplussed.
But these capital flows are not good for us. We are selling assets (typically London real estate) to buy consumables. This will eventually lead to poverty unless it stops. We already have a situation where the profits on foreign owned assets in the UK are earning substantially more than our investments abroad. As many south American countries found once you get into that scenario it is very difficult to improve your standard of living in a sustainable way.
SquareRoot, dr_spyn, lancashire_tory and hucks67 earned the Name Dropper badge. All aliases used by SquareRoot.
I am sure, were he here, that Phil "Us Blues" Roberts would reassure you that the only ones panicking are Labour MPs who thought they had safe seats for life...
Saint Tony returning could be good for UKIP and the SNP imo.
I said 'labour preach the politics of envy and free money'. A dog whistle. 'preach' I did not say 'disastrous' I pointed out the lack of real meaning in it other than peddling the politics of envy. Indeed I pointed out a downright lie in it about their claims for RICS support. ('presentation to the public'? Give me a break!!)
Try reading and a bit of english comprehension.
The policy is meaningless rubbish. The RICS denounce it and its got so many exemptions and varies so little from the current norm as to be facile.
But the fact that you think the avowed intention is a good idea - ie that people who have made an investment should then subsidise parents of students - proves my point.
Labour Policy 101, 'If you can't give away free money give away other peoples'.'
BTW its Labour that ruined private pensions and forced people to turn to property investment.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/09/22/labour-cant-cry-ukip-racism-in-heywood-by-election-heres-why/
In Burnley:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/jun/14/localgovernment.politics
BNP activist now Labour councillor:
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/8200722.Former_BNP_activist_made_Blackburn_with_Darwen_s_culture_boss/
In Milton Keynes a former Nazi has been elected as a councillor for Labour:
http://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/local/former-nazi-wins-a-labour-council-seat-1-3826439
Voters are deeply suspicious of pre-election promises, UKIP voters even more when it comes to pre-election promises from Cameron.
That's what made the 2017 promise a failure and that is what the 2016 promise will become, voters don't buy it.
But probably only UKIP actively targeted BNP voters?
Cameron doesn't really have much of a choice: He cannot get a referendum past the LDs now, so he has to offer one for the next parliament, ensuring that it is a red line in any coalition negotiations.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2943672/Mandelson-Miliband-good-PM.html
Could be the kiss of death for Ed...
Big wodge of free money for over 65s.
Entirely unrelated to the election coming up, I'm sure.
Even if he was in government alone no one believes that he would actually do anything concrete on that issue (or as a matter of fact any issue not just Europe).
The LD's might be an excuse but it doesn't work when the Tory leader is perceived as a Liberal too.
Coalitions are always a disaster especially for the minor party because it makes everyone dissatisfied to a various degree, and opens the accusation that coalition leaders are sellouts.
http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002078.html#more
The main - the only - criticism is that Osborne is not trying to pull the wool over our eyes, something which is political not economic.
It's the Gibraltar Socialist Labour Party. The Gibraltar Labour Party closed down in 2005 through lack of interest and their members split - joining parties to the left and right of their position.
They're pretty good at identifying issues - rent is one of them; the lack of transparency on energy pricing another.
But they come up with terrible, ill-thought through solutions.
Rent controls, for instance, have been tried in many places and many times. And they never work. They end up with run down properties, with voids, with poor quality supply. Ultimately - if allowed to - they end up with Rackman.
I'd look at four areas instead (some inter-related):
- to increase supply of housing
- to reform housing benefit in such a way that it doesn't support high prices
- to encourage institutional investment into the sector
- (related to 3) to use local government's negotiating power as a big buyer of local housing to maintain decent prices
It's 3 and 4 that are most important. I can see, for instance, a model whereby a pension fund builds a block of housing. It then agrees a long-term (say 30 year) rental agreement with a local government or a housing association for a prospective yield of RPI+2% (better than gilts). It would then outsource the management of the block to a third party (but not the council) who would charge an agreed fee that could either be charged back to the council or to the tenants.
In the North corner JackW the Caber Giant Killer. He only shows his ARSE on occasion but is usually worth the wait.
In the South corner Sunil_Prasannan the lightning fast Pressman. He ELBOWS his way to the center of the ring quite frequently and sometimes dazzles.
6/4 the audience: Fight! Fight!
I was confused too.
Then I saw who wrote the thread and realised it was just TSE winding us up.
It's difficult to do this kind of structural reform in the economic climate where the priority has to be to reduce government spending. Good long-term projects often have a short term cost.
Is that 'free money'?
The point is the sweet heart deals that Ireland and Luxembourg sign with the companies that mean that all the European revenues that are funnelled through them (bar the Luxembourg or Irish portion) goes tax free. The profits made in the rest of Europe become stateless in terms of taxation.
That will end in the reasonably near future as there is no way the rest of the EU will continue to put up with having tax take stolen from them.
'a public clarification....of the statements no doubt unfairly attributed to you at an early opportunity'......
Once again, Ed has not done his homework and is tripped up by the facts.....
Band 1, (14): Basildon South, Boston, Camborne, Castle Point, Clacton, Cleethorpes, Dudley N, Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Portsmouth S, Rochester, Thanet S, Thurrock, Walsall N.
Band 2, (23): Basildon&Billericay, Brigg, Cannock, Chatham, Dudley S, Eastleigh, Folkestone, Gillingham, Harlow, Hartlepool, Heywood, Isle of Wight, Louth, Plymouth Moor View, Portsmouth N, Rother Valley, Rotherham, St Ives, Staffs Moorlands, Suffolk W, Thanet N, Torbay, Worthing E.
Band 3, (28): Amber Valley, B'ham Northfield, Cambs NE, Cambs NW, Devon N, Devon W, Dover, Forest of Dean, Gainsborough, Gosport, Harwich, Leics NW, Mansfield, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Norfolk NW, Norfolk SW, Rochford, Sherwood, Sittingbourne, Sleaford, South Holland, Stoke C, Stoke N, Telford, Warwickshire N, Wentworth, Worthing W, Wyre Forest.
Band 4, (31): Aldridge, Alyn, Ashfield, Bognor Regis, Cambs SE, Christchurch, Devon E, Don Valley, Faversham, Fylde, Grantham, Havant, Kettering, Lincoln, Maidstone, Maldon, New Forest E, New Forest W, Penistone, Peterborough, Plymouth Sutton, Redditch, St Austell, Stoke S, Tamworth, Totnes, Vale of Clwyd, Waveney, Weaver Vale, Witham, Wolverhampton NE.
Band 5, (27): Aldershot, Barnsley C, Barnsley E, Bexhill, Bexleyheath, Blackpool S, Bolsover, Bootle, Delyn, Dorset S, Durham NW, Gravesham, Halesowen, Hampshire NW, Hemsworth, Hornchurch, Hull E, Hull N, Huntingdon, Poole, Rayleigh, Romford, Stone, Truro, Walsall S, Wrexham, Yeovil.
The Thick of It is a documentary. The Quiet Bat People are teaching Miliband how to walk without falling over as we speak..
Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister
'Saint Tony returning could be good for UKIP and the SNP imo.
Good for everyone except Labour.
JackW remains the undisputed PB TOTY of the World.
On topic, Cameron could probably do more to win over UKIP waverers by ruling out any further defence cuts in the next Parliament.
Some Muslims don't like Prophet Muhammad cartoons shocker.
I've seen bigger crowds at a Blue Peter Young Elephant Droppings Appreciation Society meeting.
At the last election five of the top six firms were phone pollsters - five of the bottom six were online.
Besides, as we at the Sunil on Sunday remind Lord Ashcroft each week, ELBOW is merely a snapshot, not a prediction!!!
Sunil would do better to average the YouGov offerings for the week into a single entry and then weight for past performance.
BTW ... I think you put the black spot on Burnley with your earlier intervention.
Well, this week's TNS online poll gave Labour a six-point lead (3% higher than any other this week), skewing the simple average Labour poll lead to 1.7%, which is higher than the ELBOW figure of 1.3%. It was the smallest weighted base of any poll this week (566, even smaller than Lord Ashcroft's 591).
(I have sent you the Excel file)
........
If Lord Ashcroft had polled Ross, Skye, Lochaber then the probability is that Charlie Kennedy would be behind on both questions. That is almost certain.
Lord Ashcroft's polls were better for the SNP, but had a high correlation to http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/ and where we have peaked inside the box (In Danny's seat) he is now out to 9-2 (One could argue he should be much longer based off the Ashcroft poll)
Where we haven't looked inside in Ross, Skye, Lochaber Charlie Kennedy is 1-3 on still.
Forget the fact he has a much bigger majority, the Ashcroft poll would have shown him a mile behind.
If Charlie's seat had been polled, the SNP would now be favourites in the seat. And people would have LUMPED on the SNP the night of the poll in Ross, Skye, Lochaber.
But I am guessing that both Danny and Charlie are doing considerably better when they are named as the Highlands of Scotland apparently "Vote for the man" - I have no idea if that's true or not, but it simply must be or Charlie Kennedy's price would be far worse. But where we've peaked inside Danny's seat the effect has sort of taken place....
In my opinion:
Backing Lib Dems in Danny's seat @ 9-2 and Backing SNP in Charlie's seat @ 2-1 is the correct course of action.
If you have no position already...
I'm already in on these seats with good positions, so won't be following my own advice here but it's an interesting thought experiment nonetheless.
At some stage Lord Ashcroft should change constituency question to include candidates names.