Absolute rubbish. Do you think the bottom 30% of the population have the know-how to engage in tax avoidance?
Of course. They had the know-how to buy duty-free booze when it was available. That's tax avoidance, or sensible tax planning if you prefer. I wouldn't be surprised if amongst the 30% there's not a smidgen of outright illegal tax evasion as well, for example buying contraband fags and booze.
There has been a minor explosion of new pollsters from this site. Sunil as the new kid on the block has understanably been giving his poll plenty of exposure . The lead up to Jack's ARSE is now days with almost hourly updates and audreyanne's new piece of research IAACTTWGAOM (I Am Absolutely Certain The Tories Will Get An Overall Majority) though in for recalibration had become a regular morning feature.
Can I just say May the best person win
You may and I will.
JackW - PB TOTY Since 2010.
That's like Jeffrey Archer boasting that he's the reigning 100 yards record holder at Oxford University. They switched to 100 metres shortly after his record which has remained.
Movement to Labour on betfair, into 17.5, but small volumes. Still cannot understand why the huge Labour lay yesterday afternoon? They went to 30's at one stage. Anyone know?
Yeah, noone wants to bet on LabMaj.
If you take the reciprocal of the betfair odds, it'll give you the implied probability of the outcome occurring;
19/1 = 5% 29/1 = 3.3%
Basically, there's not much difference between the two. A few ticks down on the NOM price means the odds of the *unlikely* scenarios shoots up. Right now, on the overall majority market, LabMaj is pretty much just making the book up to a 100% overround.
Really.. If you put money into an ISa you are avoiding tax, if you put money into a pension scheme you are avoiding tax. If you make sure you don't trip a tax threshoild, you are avoiding tax, if you earn less than the single p;ersons tax threshold you are avoiding tax.
If you pay someone cash in hand, you are avoiding tax.. possibly illegally. If you pay someone who does not need to be registered for VAT, you are avoiding tax..
the list is endless and everyone does it.
Absolute rubbish. Do you think the bottom 30% of the population have the know-how to engage in tax avoidance?
Most certainly. Black Economy. Dodgy fags at the back of the pub, cash in hand jobs, all manner of schemes and scams.
"Miliband is likely to be very specific in what he repeats. In the Commons he referred to tax avoidance, not evasion, and did not describe Lord Fink directly as a dodgy donor. Tax avoidance is legal but deprives the Treasury of income."
Let's hope some journalist asks: "So, Mr. Miliband, for the avoidance of doubt, would you care to confirm that you were not in any way suggesting that Lord Fink is a 'dodgy donor? "
and a follow-up question:
"In that case, Mr Miliband, why did you mention Lord Fink at all?"
[It also beggars belief that anyone is defending Ed. He is showing himself unfit to be an MP, let alone PM]
What if the Miliband tax issue (eek, nearly wrote "dodge" wouldn't want Eddie suing) really blows up and dominates the press?
Imagine it became so big that Miliband was forced to resign and Labour somehow came up with a credible leader. I mean, surely they have one somewhere in their ranks.
Having a rich tory donor trying to sue EdM during the campaign would do wonders for his poll ratings.
Not going to happen, since Miliband won't repeat his exact comments outside the HoC.
Also, whether or not there's a case, I expect CCHQ would be doing everything possible to put off any legal action until after the election.
I'm not a lawyer, but suing for defamation is generally a precarious business. There's all sorts of stuff about 'public interest', fair reporting of allegations already in public domain etc etc. Much fun for lawyers and also time consuming.
And to repeat - outside of Miliband did not say Fink was 'dodgy'. This clearly is something which would have been defamatory (although they have to date not sued anybody over the dodgy dossier allegation). All he said was that Fink avoids tax by some measure or other. He has not even accused him of aggressive tax avoidance which is what the Tories are trying to clamp down on. This is the usual Labour nasty stuff - straight out of the 'Jennifer's Ear' playbook.
BES 2015 GE constituency forecast - median forecast:
Con - 296 Lab - 282 LD - 1 UKIP - 3 SNP - 47 PC - 1
I'm all for producing forecasts that diverge from the accepted wisdom. Otherwise what would be the point of modelling at all? For example, LD 11 would be an interesting forecast, stretching credulity but not snapping it.
But surely when you get these sorts of results, you need to re-check your assumptions.
The room is filled with academics, opinion pollsters and election experts including Fisher, Curtice, Ben Lauderdale, and Chris Wlezien.
Ed's model is based on proportionate swing with systematic variations for countries. Not adjusted for constituency idiosyncrasies or local factors.
He was challenged on it. He said the model shows LD and UKIP will have to defy swing to gain significant seats.
I pushed him for a number in the questions. He said he can't see any scenario where the LDs get more than 20 seats, even with local factors.
Really.. If you put money into an ISa you are avoiding tax, if you put money into a pension scheme you are avoiding tax. If you make sure you don't trip a tax threshoild, you are avoiding tax, if you earn less than the single p;ersons tax threshold you are avoiding tax.
If you pay someone cash in hand, you are avoiding tax.. possibly illegally. If you pay someone who does not need to be registered for VAT, you are avoiding tax..
the list is endless and everyone does it.
Absolute rubbish. Do you think the bottom 30% of the population have the know-how to engage in tax avoidance?
Most certainly. Black Economy. Dodgy fags at the back of the pub, cash in hand jobs, all manner of schemes and scams.
Those practices are illegal tax evasion, not avoidance.
BES 2015 GE constituency forecast - median forecast:
Con - 296 Lab - 282 LD - 1 UKIP - 3 SNP - 47 PC - 1
LOL, I had a bit of a double-take on that, thinking the Labour figure looked too high given the Con and SNP figures. Then I realised where the explanation lay...
Labour minority on those figures.
If it's a minority and a coalition with the SNP, is it double payout time ?
One of the weaknesses of PB within a political institution that is of course a naughty indulgence for us all is that OGH's mighty organ has a tendency to go all weak at the knees over a single opinion poll that it must be said has been shamelessly hyped and is frankly drearily within the margin of error.
For the want of doubt let PB be clear and being mindful of PBers bank balances, Swiss or not, that :
Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister
What was your prediction for the referendum, Yes @ 41%+/-1.5% with a certainty of 90-95% was it ?
The result was an outlier.
For over 2 years I was advising PB that YES would not win and the scale of the defeat was the only matter in question. I also advised early on that turnout would exceed 80% and my final projection, one month out, was 85%.
If I had stayed on PB to polling day the projection would have moved to around 56/44 - not too shabby but still 2 points out.
My success at GE's here and in the US is unparalleled in the history of mankind - I am of course TOTY and have been since 2010.
You'll need some good tips to retain that title this year.
Most certainly. Black Economy. Dodgy fags at the back of the pub, cash in hand jobs, all manner of schemes and scams.
Dog breeding for cash is a good one. People on benefits don't have vets bills (they can use the PDSA). Some PDSAs limit the number of pedigree pooches they will treat per customer
BES 2015 GE constituency forecast - median forecast:
Con - 296 Lab - 282 LD - 1 UKIP - 3 SNP - 47 PC - 1
LOL, I had a bit of a double-take on that, thinking the Labour figure looked too high given the Con and SNP figures. Then I realised where the explanation lay...
Labour minority on those figures.
If it's a minority and a coalition with the SNP, is it double payout time ?
Could be Con minority with UKIP and DUP grudging support, but either way it would be yucky.
As I've counselled before, try to arrange your affairs accordingly, if you can.
"I attended an otherwise tedious awards ceremony which was enlivened by Jimmy Carr as the host talking about his tax affairs. In his own words: "you realise that you're in really deep shit when the Prime Minister breaks away from the G20 summit to criticise you". "
LOL. I've always liked jimmy Carr.
Cyclefree take note.The classier tax avoider says 'fair cop' NOT 'it's no different from an ISA'
If you like the sneering hypocrite Jimmy Carr then the state of your mind is even weirder than Nigel Farage's.
Really.. If you put money into an ISa you are avoiding tax, if you put money into a pension scheme you are avoiding tax. If you make sure you don't trip a tax threshoild, you are avoiding tax, if you earn less than the single p;ersons tax threshold you are avoiding tax.
If you pay someone cash in hand, you are avoiding tax.. possibly illegally. If you pay someone who does not need to be registered for VAT, you are avoiding tax..
the list is endless and everyone does it.
Absolute rubbish. Do you think the bottom 30% of the population have the know-how to engage in tax avoidance?
Most certainly. Black Economy. Dodgy fags at the back of the pub, cash in hand jobs, all manner of schemes and scams.
Exactly - 'Tax Avoidance' covers a vast array of activity, not all of which involves highly paid accountants or tax havens - 'cash in hand' to avoid VAT has been around a very long time and everyone who indulges, know exactly why they do it.
BES 2015 GE constituency forecast - median forecast:
Con - 296 Lab - 282 LD - 1 UKIP - 3 SNP - 47 PC - 1
LOL, I had a bit of a double-take on that, thinking the Labour figure looked too high given the Con and SNP figures. Then I realised where the explanation lay...
Labour minority on those figures.
If it's a minority and a coalition with the SNP, is it double payout time ?
Could be Con minority with UKIP and DUP grudging support, but either way it would be yucky.
As I've counselled before, try to arrange your affairs accordingly, if you can.
How
DUP = 9, Con = 296, UKIP = 3.
SNP won't abstain. That can't command a majority in the house.
One of the weaknesses of PB within a political institution that is of course a naughty indulgence for us all is that OGH's mighty organ has a tendency to go all weak at the knees over a single opinion poll that it must be said has been shamelessly hyped and is frankly drearily within the margin of error.
For the want of doubt let PB be clear and being mindful of PBers bank balances, Swiss or not, that :
Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister
What was your prediction for the referendum, Yes @ 41%+/-1.5% with a certainty of 90-95% was it ?
The result was an outlier.
For over 2 years I was advising PB that YES would not win and the scale of the defeat was the only matter in question. I also advised early on that turnout would exceed 80% and my final projection, one month out, was 85%.
If I had stayed on PB to polling day the projection would have moved to around 56/44 - not too shabby but still 2 points out.
My success at GE's here and in the US is unparalleled in the history of mankind - I am of course TOTY and have been since 2010.
You'll need some good tips to retain that title this year.
ISAs and duty free shopping are two incredibly common forms of tax avoidance that literally millions, if not tens of millions of British people have used. Cash "discounts" is a very, very common form of tax evasion that regular people use for building and other trade work they need done, as well as buying goods/services from independent shops.
To characterise tax avoidance as anything other than very, very common is false.
The thing is, most people don't consider any of the above to be immoral (or illegal in the case of paying cash to evade VAT). If people have the means to avoid tax then they should do so. It is up to the government to close loopholes and reform the tax code. Tax avoidance is not illegal.
"I attended an otherwise tedious awards ceremony which was enlivened by Jimmy Carr as the host talking about his tax affairs. In his own words: "you realise that you're in really deep shit when the Prime Minister breaks away from the G20 summit to criticise you". "
LOL. I've always liked jimmy Carr.
Cyclefree take note.The classier tax avoider says 'fair cop' NOT 'it's no different from an ISA'
If you like the sneering hypocrite Jimmy Carr then the state of your mind is even weirder than Nigel Farage's.
I find Jimmy Carr fascinating.
He had an incredibly repressed upbringing, desperately trying to be the *perfect child* - then hit his mid 20's and had a kind of breakdown. Apparently he thought of becoming a counsellor at one point.
SNP won't abstain. That can't command a majority in the house.
Such a government doesn't actually need to command a majority as such, it just needs not to have a majority against it in a vote of confidence for a while. Whether there is a majority against it, at a particular time, depends on the partisan calculations the other parties are making.
It would be messy, though, and would eventually collapse in an undignified heap.
"I attended an otherwise tedious awards ceremony which was enlivened by Jimmy Carr as the host talking about his tax affairs. In his own words: "you realise that you're in really deep shit when the Prime Minister breaks away from the G20 summit to criticise you". "
LOL. I've always liked jimmy Carr.
Cyclefree take note.The classier tax avoider says 'fair cop' NOT 'it's no different from an ISA'
If you like the sneering hypocrite Jimmy Carr then the state of your mind is even weirder than Nigel Farage's.
I find Jimmy Carr fascinating.
He had an incredibly repressed upbringing, desperately trying to be the *perfect child* - then hit his mid 20's and had a kind of breakdown. Apparently he thought of becoming a counsellor at one point.
He's emotionally astute and utterly shameless.
Good on him.
He was a proper Catholic and Virgin until he was 26.
I've seen him live many times.
Even I wince at some of his jokes and feel guilty for laughing.
This poll chasing is utterly futile IMO... Turns the site into a bipolar partisan freak show... When they vary as wildly as they do they're more or less pointless, especially as all pollsters are trying out new models to fit the growing number of smaller parties
Matt Lebo of Stony Brook University "Victory without Power: A Forecast of the 2015 British Election"
Uses dynamic forecasting. Very strong historical correlation between positive PM ratings, electoral fatigue and electoral cycles. Cameron doing well historically and after one term historically Britain has generally supported party in power for 2 terms, rather than one.
He's back fitted the model to 1945. Predicts 18 of 18 results accurately - seat model 96% accuracy since 1945.
Prediction:
Con - 322 Lab - 254
1 million Monte Carlo simulations: 9.76% vote lead for Con. Uncertainty in model: 40.26% chance of Con majority and 98.68% chance of Con largest party.
I'm liking this Matt Lebo.
But have he and Dan Hodges ever been seen in the same room together?
SNP won't abstain. That can't command a majority in the house.
Such a government doesn't actually need to command a majority as such, it just needs not to have a majority against it in a vote of confidence for a while. Whether there is a majority against it, at a particular time, depends on the partisan calculations the other parties are making.
It would be messy, though, and would eventually collapse in an undignified heap.
If Labour had all the SNP seats would it make a difference ?
Really.. If you put money into an ISa you are avoiding tax, if you put money into a pension scheme you are avoiding tax. If you make sure you don't trip a tax threshoild, you are avoiding tax, if you earn less than the single p;ersons tax threshold you are avoiding tax.
If you pay someone cash in hand, you are avoiding tax.. possibly illegally. If you pay someone who does not need to be registered for VAT, you are avoiding tax..
the list is endless and everyone does it.
Absolute rubbish. Do you think the bottom 30% of the population have the know-how to engage in tax avoidance?
Most certainly. Black Economy. Dodgy fags at the back of the pub, cash in hand jobs, all manner of schemes and scams.
Those practices are illegal tax evasion, not avoidance.
That may be the case, but as we have seen this week, Labour have deliberately muddled them all into one.
This poll chasing is utterly futile IMO... Turns the site into a bipolar partisan freak show... When they vary as wildly as they do they're more or less pointless, especially as all pollsters are trying out new models to fit the growing number of smaller parties
Generally agree, though of course trends are interesting. What is curious is that we are supposed to believe that the polls are much more right now than they ever were and yet there are huge variations amongst the smaller parties and tweaks to methodology [herding?] almost every month.
I'm not expecting a 1992-size miss, but it might not be pretty.
If Labour had all the SNP seats would it make a difference ?
Yes, a huge difference.
What you have to remember is that the SNP are not on Labour's side, in fact Labour are their principal and only significant enemy. The SNP will be doing whatever is in their power to damage Labour, and they'll make their calculations on that basis and that basis alone.
Nice that the Swiss people get a say in such matters.
''...but said it was seeking talks with the EU in order not to violate other treaties including on the free movement of people.''
'Swiss industry lobby Swissmem linked the move to the Swiss National Bank's release of a franc cap last month, which sent the Swiss currency surging against the euro. The bilateral treaties between Switzerland and the EU are increasingly at risk, Swissmem said, jeopardizing EU access for Swiss firms at a time when they are struggling with a far stronger franc.'
If Labour had all the SNP seats would it make a difference ?
Yes, a huge difference.
What you have to remember is that the SNP are not on Labour's side, in fact Labour are their principal and only significant enemy. The SNP will be doing whatever is in their power to damage Labour, and they'll make their calculations on that basis and that basis alone.
I can't believe for a second they wouldn't vote that arrangement down. Scotland ruled by the DUP ?
There's an interesting article in the Times about the Lib Dems' prospects in the South West. Yougov have been asking voters how they would vote, in their own constituency, in a general election.
The figures for the South West come out at Con 37% (-6%) Lib Dem 17% (-17%) Labour 21% (+6%) UKIP 17% (+12%) and Greens 8% (+6%).
On these numbers, the Lib Dems would lose 12 seats out of 16 in the region; the Conservatives and Labour would each gain 6.
In practice, Peter Kellner thinks the Lib Dems will keep their losses down to 7 or 8.
Its a sectarian approach - one section of society - Conservatives - is bad, evil, should be ashamed to raise its head, called names "Tories", "sceptics", "Euro etc.
Basically all Labour has left now the money is gone.
If Labour had all the SNP seats would it make a difference ?
Yes, a huge difference.
What you have to remember is that the SNP are not on Labour's side, in fact Labour are their principal and only significant enemy. The SNP will be doing whatever is in their power to damage Labour, and they'll make their calculations on that basis and that basis alone.
I can't believe for a second they wouldn't vote that arrangement down. Scotland ruled by the DUP ?
There'd be riots.
They'd vote against it when Labour abstained, or find some other fig-leaf. Don't underestimate the suppleness of wee Nicola, and also don't forget that Labour may not see it as in their interests to strike immediately - they might be in the process of changing leader, for example.
What's this nonsense about paying someone cash in hand being tax evasion ? I have been out of country a while and the ongoing idiocies are starting not to surprise me....
However you pay someone it is surely up to them to decide if they are going to break the law by not declaring it fully, or not, it would be wholly improper to make the assumption that someone was going to break the law because you chose a method of payment which arguably might facilitate that course of action, otherwise you might as well argue that the shop that sells a thug a kitchen knife was an accessory to the robbery he subsequently made using it.
@lindayueh: #ECB has extended the total amount of Emergency Liquidity Assistance (ELA) that can be given to Greek banks by 5 billion euros: Handelsblatt
If Labour had all the SNP seats would it make a difference ?
Yes, a huge difference.
What you have to remember is that the SNP are not on Labour's side, in fact Labour are their principal and only significant enemy. The SNP will be doing whatever is in their power to damage Labour, and they'll make their calculations on that basis and that basis alone.
I can't believe for a second they wouldn't vote that arrangement down. Scotland ruled by the DUP ?
There'd be riots.
If the Conservatives were on 296 seats, the other parties would only vote them down if they thought a viable alternative government could be formed.
If Labour had all the SNP seats would it make a difference ?
Yes, a huge difference.
What you have to remember is that the SNP are not on Labour's side, in fact Labour are their principal and only significant enemy. The SNP will be doing whatever is in their power to damage Labour, and they'll make their calculations on that basis and that basis alone.
But Richard, the dynamic changes if the SNP sweeps the board. On May 8th, Labour could pretty much cease to exist north of the border - they would no longer be the enemy.
Matt Lebo of Stony Brook University "Victory without Power: A Forecast of the 2015 British Election"
Uses dynamic forecasting. Very strong historical correlation between positive PM ratings, electoral fatigue and electoral cycles. Cameron doing well historically and after one term historically Britain has generally supported party in power for 2 terms, rather than one.
He's back fitted the model to 1945. Predicts 18 of 18 results accurately - seat model 96% accuracy since 1945.
Prediction:
Con - 322 Lab - 254
1 million Monte Carlo simulations: 9.76% vote lead for Con. Uncertainty in model: 40.26% chance of Con majority and 98.68% chance of Con largest party.
I'm liking this Matt Lebo.
But have he and Dan Hodges ever been seen in the same room together?
He's American. But what he was saying chimed remarkably with what Rod Crosby has been saying for months.
After last time I'd be very cautious about betting against Rod.
But Richard, the dynamic changes if the SNP sweeps the board. On May 8th, Labour could pretty much cease to exist north of the border - they would no longer be the enemy.
True, but I think Nicola would want to put a stake through the heart, encase the body in concrete, and throw it into the Clyde just to be certain it didn't rise again from the dead.
If Labour had all the SNP seats would it make a difference ?
Yes, a huge difference.
What you have to remember is that the SNP are not on Labour's side, in fact Labour are their principal and only significant enemy. The SNP will be doing whatever is in their power to damage Labour, and they'll make their calculations on that basis and that basis alone.
I can't believe for a second they wouldn't vote that arrangement down. Scotland ruled by the DUP ?
There'd be riots.
They'd vote against it when Labour abstained, or find some other fig-leaf. Don't underestimate the suppleness of wee Nicola, and also don't forget that Labour may not see it as in their interests to strike immediately - they might be in the process of changing leader, for example.
Can't see it myself. I'm green on a Conservative minority but if those are the (almost unbelievable) final figures then that is a SNP-Labour minority.
There's an interesting article in the Times about the Lib Dems' prospects in the South West. Yougov have been asking voters how they would vote, in their own constituency, in a general election.
The figures for the South West come out at Con 37% (-6%) Lib Dem 17% (-17%) Labour 21% (+6%) UKIP 17% (+12%) and Greens 8% (+6%).
On these numbers, the Lib Dems would lose 12 seats out of 16 in the region; the Conservatives and Labour would each gain 6.
In practice, Peter Kellner thinks the Lib Dems will keep their losses down to 7 or 8.
It's a ridiculously silly and useless thing to say, but I either think the Lib Dems will do relatively well, or very very badly.
But Richard, the dynamic changes if the SNP sweeps the board. On May 8th, Labour could pretty much cease to exist north of the border - they would no longer be the enemy.
True, but I think they'd want to put a stake through the heart, encase the body in concrete, and throw it into the Clyde just to be certain it didn't rise again from the dead.
It rises from the dead if the line "Vote SNP, get Tories" is shown to be the case.
It rises from the dead and the SNP are CRUSHED.
Swingback ?
Labour would get an outright majority in Holyrood !
Its a sectarian approach - one section of society - Conservatives - is bad, evil, should be ashamed to raise its head, called names "Tories", "sceptics", "Euro etc.
Basically all Labour has left now the money is gone.
Quite, but what makes it stick in the craw is that Labour will get a poll boost from this. Face it, Ed won. Is it enough to change the perception he is a loser?
If Labour had all the SNP seats would it make a difference ?
Yes, a huge difference.
What you have to remember is that the SNP are not on Labour's side, in fact Labour are their principal and only significant enemy. The SNP will be doing whatever is in their power to damage Labour, and they'll make their calculations on that basis and that basis alone.
I can't believe for a second they wouldn't vote that arrangement down. Scotland ruled by the DUP ?
There'd be riots.
Why ?
Romanists are only 16% of the population in Scotland.
Its a sectarian approach - one section of society - Conservatives - is bad, evil, should be ashamed to raise its head, called names "Tories", "sceptics", "Euro etc.
Basically all Labour has left now the money is gone.
Quite, but what makes it stick in the craw is that Labour will get a poll boost from this. Face it, Ed won. Is it enough to change the perception he is a loser?
You think it's over ?
Every Labour MP and peer will now be having his affairs examined.
The problem with all forecast models is that they are right until they are not. I'm reminded of several during the 2012 U.S. presidential campaign that predicted a Romney victory and which claimed to have been 99% accurate since World War II or whenever.
Matt Lebo of Stony Brook University "Victory without Power: A Forecast of the 2015 British Election"
Uses dynamic forecasting. Very strong historical correlation between positive PM ratings, electoral fatigue and electoral cycles. Cameron doing well historically and after one term historically Britain has generally supported party in power for 2 terms, rather than one.
He's back fitted the model to 1945. Predicts 18 of 18 results accurately - seat model 96% accuracy since 1945.
Prediction:
Con - 322 Lab - 254
1 million Monte Carlo simulations: 9.76% vote lead for Con. Uncertainty in model: 40.26% chance of Con majority and 98.68% chance of Con largest party.
I'm liking this Matt Lebo.
But have he and Dan Hodges ever been seen in the same room together?
He's American. But what he was saying chimed remarkably with what Rod Crosby has been saying for months.
After last time I'd be very cautious about betting against Rod.
That's because Rod has been very fond of the Lebo & Norporth model since the last general election.
The question is whether UKIP will rise again, as they did with extra media coverage leading up to elections in May 2013 and May 2014, and following the defections last year.
Maybe the general election will be different, but with OFCOM designating them a major party I wouldn't be so sure. At the moment they are barely getting a look-in, and media coverage has only been good for them in the last few years.
Danczuk, the Barrow MP and about 8 others would quit the party imo if a deal was done with the SNP. Ed Balls could well not take a ministerial post either.
The problem with all forecast models is that they are right until they are not. I'm reminded of several during the 2012 U.S. presidential campaign that predicted a Romney victory and which claimed to have been 99% accurate since World War II or whenever.
Absolutely.
It's easy to work backwards from the result you envisage to create a model that *fits*
Please continue to post, we need more sanity on here!
Matt Lebo of Stony Brook University "Victory without Power: A Forecast of the 2015 British Election"
Uses dynamic forecasting. Very strong historical correlation between positive PM ratings, electoral fatigue and electoral cycles. Cameron doing well historically and after one term historically Britain has generally supported party in power for 2 terms, rather than one.
He's back fitted the model to 1945. Predicts 18 of 18 results accurately - seat model 96% accuracy since 1945.
Prediction:
Con - 322 Lab - 254
1 million Monte Carlo simulations: 9.76% vote lead for Con. Uncertainty in model: 40.26% chance of Con majority and 98.68% chance of Con largest party.
I'm liking this Matt Lebo.
But have he and Dan Hodges ever been seen in the same room together?
He's American. But what he was saying chimed remarkably with what Rod Crosby has been saying for months.
After last time I'd be very cautious about betting against Rod.
That's because Rod has been very fond of the Lebo & Norporth model since the last general election.
A-ha, the penny drops! That's what L&N stands for! Makes sense then :-)
Really.. If you put money into an ISa you are avoiding tax, if you put money into a pension scheme you are avoiding tax. If you make sure you don't trip a tax threshoild, you are avoiding tax, if you earn less than the single p;ersons tax threshold you are avoiding tax.
If you pay someone cash in hand, you are avoiding tax.. possibly illegally. If you pay someone who does not need to be registered for VAT, you are avoiding tax..
the list is endless and everyone does it.
Nice try but unfortunately most voters understand the difference between having an ISA and salting millions away in Swiss bank accounts.
The problem with all forecast models is that they are right until they are not. I'm reminded of several during the 2012 U.S. presidential campaign that predicted a Romney victory and which claimed to have been 99% accurate since World War II or whenever.
If the model has a decent theoretical basis then you can hope to identify ahead of time when its assumptions may no longer apply.
Take the forecast by Matt Lebo referred to below. It's prediction is made in part by looking at the PM approval rating. Thus the assumption here is that the essential question the electorate are answering at the election is whether they want a change, or are happy with the status quo.
This is then modified by making the observation that since 1945 British politics has swung back and forth between two parties. Obviously, it will take some time after turfing a party out of power for the electorate to forgive (or forget) the defects of their record. We can see how this applies by the blame still attached to the previous Labour government for the cuts.
Does the rise of UKIP break this pendulum? Well, the pendulum survived the Alliance in 1983, and so I think that FPTP will largely preserve the pendulum.
It's interesting that the model now has Cameron falling just short of an outright majority. That's a bit down, I think, on some of the figures Rod calculated with earlier PM approval ratings (the model uses the ratings from three months before the election I believe).
Tax efficiency is just another way of describing legal tax avoidance.
Tax avoidence is complying technically with the law while going against its intention. Obviously that's not a legal distinction (by its nature), .
You've undermined your own argument right there.
Under the rule of the law (yes that old thing again) certainty is needed. If the government wants to change the law to eliminate loopholes I'm all in favour. But while they exist and subject to any other relevant laws, taxpayers using them are acting lawfully.
Have you never heard of First Tier Tribunals?
The exact reason they exist is to deal with Tax Avoidance and only Tax Avoidance. Because Tax Efficiency is never questioned and Tax Evasion is dealt with as a Crime.
That's why the distinction is important. If you practise Tax Avoidance, you accept that because you are not using intended legistlative protocols to reduce your tax you are at risk of the structure being closed by legislation (which might eat up most of the costs you've paid out in Tax Advice) or the loophole not only being closed by being successfully challenged at the Tribunal by HMRC and you being handed a substantial bill for back tax, penalties and interest.
Put simple, under the law in the UK you can perfectly legally avoid tax and STILL end up with a big bill.
Since I'm currently dealing with exactly such a case I suspect I know rather more about this than you do.
For once Cyclefree you are in the wrong , you have been going on about it for a while yet now agree with above which is not what you were saying earlier. Everybody knows that lots of tax avoidance is really more than that and is always practiced by rich greedy shysters trying to pay less than was intended by legislation. It is wrong that rich people only can "avoid" tax.
One of the weaknesses of PB within a political institution that is of course a naughty indulgence for us all is that OGH's mighty organ has a tendency to go all weak at the knees over a single opinion poll that it must be said has been shamelessly hyped and is frankly drearily within the margin of error.
For the want of doubt let PB be clear and being mindful of PBers bank balances, Swiss or not, that :
Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister
What was your prediction for the referendum, Yes @ 41%+/-1.5% with a certainty of 90-95% was it ?
The result was an outlier.
For over 2 years I was advising PB that YES would not win and the scale of the defeat was the only matter in question. I also advised early on that turnout would exceed 80% and my final projection, one month out, was 85%.
If I had stayed on PB to polling day the projection would have moved to around 56/44 - not too shabby but still 2 points out.
My success at GE's here and in the US is unparalleled in the history of mankind - I am of course TOTY and have been since 2010.
Really.. If you put money into an ISa you are avoiding tax, if you put money into a pension scheme you are avoiding tax. If you make sure you don't trip a tax threshoild, you are avoiding tax, if you earn less than the single p;ersons tax threshold you are avoiding tax.
If you pay someone cash in hand, you are avoiding tax.. possibly illegally. If you pay someone who does not need to be registered for VAT, you are avoiding tax..
More important is "The report said that “economic liberals” in departments like the Treasury were willing to support widespread immigration “irrespective of the impact of immigration on population growth and on the lower paid”. It also claimed the chronic underfunding of the Home Office was the reason for backlog of 368,000 immigration cases."
I have long wondered at the malign influence of the social liberal views of Osborne on the Govt. A crackdown on immigration required more funds for the policing and enforcement in those areas. You spend money on the priorities. Cameron listed this as one. Osborne & the Treasury effectively undermined that. Cameron's management style is to "appoint and trust", unfortunately he trusted Osborne. So we end up with hundreds of thousands and not tens of thousands. Other examples of Osborne's influence on policies are in the marriage tax advantages and abortion limits (in weeks). Areas where Cameron wanted a different outcome.
Comments
I think 47 is pushing it for the SNP, and the Lib Dems on one seems incredible.
If you take the reciprocal of the betfair odds, it'll give you the implied probability of the outcome occurring;
19/1 = 5%
29/1 = 3.3%
Basically, there's not much difference between the two. A few ticks down on the NOM price means the odds of the *unlikely* scenarios shoots up. Right now, on the overall majority market, LabMaj is pretty much just making the book up to a 100% overround.
All he said was that Fink avoids tax by some measure or other. He has not even accused him of aggressive tax avoidance which is what the Tories are trying to clamp down on.
This is the usual Labour nasty stuff - straight out of the 'Jennifer's Ear' playbook.
Ed's model is based on proportionate swing with systematic variations for countries. Not adjusted for constituency idiosyncrasies or local factors.
He was challenged on it. He said the model shows LD and UKIP will have to defy swing to gain significant seats.
I pushed him for a number in the questions. He said he can't see any scenario where the LDs get more than 20 seats, even with local factors.
Farron ?
If it's a minority and a coalition with the SNP, is it double payout time ?
Fancy a bet on the Farron vs Carmichael LD majority?
Cannock chase Ukip tipped at 150/1 now 11/4
Thurrock Ukip (nap) 16/1 now 8/13
Dog breeding for cash is a good one. People on benefits don't have vets bills (they can use the PDSA). Some PDSAs limit the number of pedigree pooches they will treat per customer
As I've counselled before, try to arrange your affairs accordingly, if you can.
DUP = 9, Con = 296, UKIP = 3.
SNP won't abstain. That can't command a majority in the house.
To characterise tax avoidance as anything other than very, very common is false.
The thing is, most people don't consider any of the above to be immoral (or illegal in the case of paying cash to evade VAT). If people have the means to avoid tax then they should do so. It is up to the government to close loopholes and reform the tax code. Tax avoidance is not illegal.
He had an incredibly repressed upbringing, desperately trying to be the *perfect child* - then hit his mid 20's and had a kind of breakdown. Apparently he thought of becoming a counsellor at one point.
He's emotionally astute and utterly shameless.
Good on him.
It would be messy, though, and would eventually collapse in an undignified heap.
He runs 10,000 simulations to get to the median result.
@jon_mellon Who's the one LD left in your model? I think they will do rather better, but shows how important local retention will be
Jon Mellon @jon_mellon
@robfordmancs Varies by run through. North Norfolk, Bath, Yeovil and Westmorland and Lonsdale are the most common survivors
I've seen him live many times.
Even I wince at some of his jokes and feel guilty for laughing.
http://order-order.com/2015/02/12/flashback-when-the-milibands-avoided-tax/
But have he and Dan Hodges ever been seen in the same room together?
As Mike accurately forecast after going all Malleus Nattorum in the Indyref he might be the next Lib Leader.
I'm not expecting a 1992-size miss, but it might not be pretty.
What you have to remember is that the SNP are not on Labour's side, in fact Labour are their principal and only significant enemy. The SNP will be doing whatever is in their power to damage Labour, and they'll make their calculations on that basis and that basis alone.
I suspect Farron will get it though. I took 9/1 back in 2012
'Swiss industry lobby Swissmem linked the move to the Swiss National Bank's release of a franc cap last month, which sent the Swiss currency surging against the euro.
The bilateral treaties between Switzerland and the EU are increasingly at risk, Swissmem said, jeopardizing EU access for Swiss firms at a time when they are struggling with a far stronger franc.'
There'd be riots.
The figures for the South West come out at Con 37% (-6%) Lib Dem 17% (-17%) Labour 21% (+6%) UKIP 17% (+12%) and Greens 8% (+6%).
On these numbers, the Lib Dems would lose 12 seats out of 16 in the region; the Conservatives and Labour would each gain 6.
In practice, Peter Kellner thinks the Lib Dems will keep their losses down to 7 or 8.
Its a sectarian approach - one section of society - Conservatives - is bad, evil, should be ashamed to raise its head, called names "Tories", "sceptics", "Euro etc.
Basically all Labour has left now the money is gone.
After May, what will the Lib Dems have the fewest of? MEPs or MPs?
However you pay someone it is surely up to them to decide if they are going to break the law by not declaring it fully, or not, it would be wholly improper to make the assumption that someone was going to break the law because you chose a method of payment which arguably might facilitate that course of action, otherwise you might as well argue that the shop that sells a thug a kitchen knife was an accessory to the robbery he subsequently made using it.
After last time I'd be very cautious about betting against Rod.
I'm definitely thinking about selling them now.
http://goo.gl/9RfFdf
It rises from the dead and the SNP are CRUSHED.
Swingback ?
Labour would get an outright majority in Holyrood !
% obviously.
You're a shrewdie
Face it, Ed won.
Is it enough to change the perception he is a loser?
Romanists are only 16% of the population in Scotland.
5% band
Con - 291
Lab - 277
LD - 1
UKIP - 2
SNP - 44
PC - 1
95% band
Con - 301
Lab - 287
LD - 2
UKIP - 5
SNP - 50
PC - 2
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/02/nigel-farage-kicks-off-ukip-election-campaign-with-slogan-believe-in-britain/
Every Labour MP and peer will now be having his affairs examined.
Back to fiscal basics...
Thirty-five per cent of voters back a post-general election deal between the two old enemies which would be certain to cause alarm in England.
I reckon one thing though, Ed Balls next chancellor could well end up a loser if this comes to pass.
Ed will then be asked if he supports or condemns that tax avoidance.
Maybe the general election will be different, but with OFCOM designating them a major party I wouldn't be so sure. At the moment they are barely getting a look-in, and media coverage has only been good for them in the last few years.
But I think they'd do a deal.
It's easy to work backwards from the result you envisage to create a model that *fits*
Please continue to post, we need more sanity on here!
EM is not PM...
Take the forecast by Matt Lebo referred to below. It's prediction is made in part by looking at the PM approval rating. Thus the assumption here is that the essential question the electorate are answering at the election is whether they want a change, or are happy with the status quo.
This is then modified by making the observation that since 1945 British politics has swung back and forth between two parties. Obviously, it will take some time after turfing a party out of power for the electorate to forgive (or forget) the defects of their record. We can see how this applies by the blame still attached to the previous Labour government for the cuts.
Does the rise of UKIP break this pendulum? Well, the pendulum survived the Alliance in 1983, and so I think that FPTP will largely preserve the pendulum.
It's interesting that the model now has Cameron falling just short of an outright majority. That's a bit down, I think, on some of the figures Rod calculated with earlier PM approval ratings (the model uses the ratings from three months before the election I believe).
BBC Bias Is Destroying Serious Debate On Immigration Says New Report - Breitbart http://bit.ly/16XM3dv via @BreitbartNews
More important is "The report said that “economic liberals” in departments like the Treasury were willing to support widespread immigration “irrespective of the impact of immigration on population growth and on the lower paid”. It also claimed the chronic underfunding of the Home Office was the reason for backlog of 368,000 immigration cases."
I have long wondered at the malign influence of the social liberal views of Osborne on the Govt. A crackdown on immigration required more funds for the policing and enforcement in those areas. You spend money on the priorities. Cameron listed this as one. Osborne & the Treasury effectively undermined that. Cameron's management style is to "appoint and trust", unfortunately he trusted Osborne. So we end up with hundreds of thousands and not tens of thousands. Other examples of Osborne's influence on policies are in the marriage tax advantages and abortion limits (in weeks). Areas where Cameron wanted a different outcome.