Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » CON to LAB swing in 40 key marginals moves to 4.5% accordin

2

Comments

  • Pulpstar said:

    These seat models are all going to start heading Labour's way fairly soon if the polls don't start swinging back alot more than they have.

    Absolutely right and indeed it's already happening (and is referred to) in the Stephen Fisher model - every week from hereon is key!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    Scenario Probability
    Hung Parliament 0.91
    Labour Majority 0.07
    Conservative Majority 0.02

    Election forecast

    Scenario Probability
    Conservative Plurality 0.51
    Labour Plurality 0.48
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    GIN1138 said:

    Jacks ARSE disagrees

    Wonder who will be proved right either myself or JackW

    The ARSE has a good record (as does Rod Crosby) but as each day goes by without the Tories showing any real indication of recovery, it becomes harder to see quite where the votes are coming from to keep Cam in Downing Street.

    Obviously a Conservative majority is out of question (but was always highly unlikely) but at this rate you struggle to see beyond Lab largest party or a tiny Labour majority.

    So I understand but there is no coming back from Ed will NEVER be PM if EICIPM

    Or vice versa of course
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411

    Pulpstar said:

    These seat models are all going to start heading Labour's way fairly soon if the polls don't start swinging back alot more than they have.

    Absolutely right and indeed it's already happening (and is referred to) in the Stephen Fisher model - every week from hereon is key!
    I agree with your Conservative seat forecast but have decided to take £9 of Lab Maj at 17.0 and £6 of Lab Minority @ 7.26 today.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    Pulpstar said:

    These seat models are all going to start heading Labour's way fairly soon if the polls don't start swinging back alot more than they have.

    Absolutely right and indeed it's already happening (and is referred to) in the Stephen Fisher model - every week from hereon is key!
    Latest still assumes quite a bit of swingback making plurality a toss up (LAB 2.3 Betfair)

    http://electionsetc.com/2015/02/13/forecast-update-13-february-2015/
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,386

    GIN1138 said:

    IOS said:

    All we need to do is for Ed to hold this position for another 70 days and he is PM!

    And then what?

    Good point at least one year of sticking to Tory spending plans.

    But then what?
    It should absolutely scare Labour supporters to death just how unprepared Lab seem's to be for government, especially at this time of economic uncertainty.

    Labour has no real proposals for government, has a leader that is odd and can't relate to people and a shadow cabinet that is utterly ineffective.

    There is absolutely no reason at all why they should form the next government... Yet, it seems they are going to.

    Clearly the only reason for putting them into power is because the public want's/expects "the money tree" to be turned back on. When it doesn't get turned back on and people have to face up to the fact that irrespective of who is in Downing Street, the good times they knew in the 90's and 00's are over, there will be a LOT of unhappy people.

  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Thing what the models aren't factoring in is that I really don't think the press have anything left. What more can they throw at Ed?

    If anything they will be giving him a boost like the Sun did with Brown.

    I submit the Tories would have had a majority if the sun hadn't gone for Gordon over a dead service man.
  • antifrank said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Lib Dems on 8% looks... high.

    That's not too far out of line with what Lord Ashcroft has found. In his constituency polls on average, the Lib Dems are averaging around 6.5% or so (south of the border) in seats where they are not in contention:

    http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/missing-presumed-red-2010-lib-dems.html
    That's not good news for them, is it?
    It's totally irrelevant. Votes in seats where you are not in contention matter not. Votes where you are mean everything. You've get to get out of this vote shares fetish.

    You've missed my point, Mike. They need to be doing badly in these seats; it would indicate that more of their voters are concentrated where it matters.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    edited February 2015
    These think LAB Pluarilty (just) (1.79 con/ 2.30 Lab on Betfair)

    http://electionforecast.co.uk/
  • GIN1138 said:

    IOS said:

    All we need to do is for Ed to hold this position for another 70 days and he is PM!

    And then what?

    Good point at least one year of sticking to Tory spending plans.

    But then what?
    More like three, John.

    Whoever governs will not have much room for manoeuvre until 2018, at best.

    Btw, comparisons with Jack's ARSE are odious. You simply feed poll findings into an automatic calculator. His projections are based on careful sampling, judicious weighting, skill, experience, and copious amounts of best malt whisky.

    I'm afraid you cannot hope to compete.
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    What on earth are Betfair doing with their Labour odds for Thurrock:

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/thurrock/winning-party/bet-history/labour/today
  • saddosaddo Posts: 534
    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    IOS said:

    All we need to do is for Ed to hold this position for another 70 days and he is PM!

    And then what?

    Good point at least one year of sticking to Tory spending plans.

    But then what?
    It should absolutely scare Labour supporters to death just how unprepared Lab seem's to be for government, especially at this time of economic uncertainty.

    Labour has no real proposals for government, has a leader that is odd and can't relate to people and a shadow cabinet that is utterly ineffective.

    There is absolutely no reason at all why they should form the next government... Yet, it seems they are going to.

    Clearly the only reason for putting them into power is because the public want's/expects "the money tree" to be turned back on. When it doesn't get turned back on and people have to face up to the fact that irrespective of who is in Downing Street, the good times they knew in the 90's and 00's are over, there will be a LOT of unhappy people.

    There will be a serious risk of the Winter of Discontent from 78/9 being rerun, but much worse. The unions would be demanding their pounds of flesh, which there's no money to pay for and it will be topped up by England being ruled by Scottish minority votes.
    All potentially with weak Ed in charge.

    Horrific prospect.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    IOS said:

    All we need to do is for Ed to hold this position for another 70 days and he is PM!

    And then what?

    Good point at least one year of sticking to Tory spending plans.

    But then what?
    It should absolutely scare Labour supporters to death just how unprepared Lab seem's to be for government, especially at this time of economic uncertainty.

    Labour has no real proposals for government, has a leader that is odd and can't relate to people and a shadow cabinet that is utterly ineffective.

    There is absolutely no reason at all why they should form the next government... Yet, it seems they are going to.

    Clearly the only reason for putting them into power is because the public want's/expects "the money tree" to be turned back on. When it doesn't get turned back on and people have to face up to the fact that irrespective of who is in Downing Street, the good times they knew in the 90's and 00's are over, there will be a LOT of unhappy people.

    I think people feel austerity will be done fairer under LAB and that now is no time to cut so deep to generate money for tax cuts.

    Anyway could still go either way in my view.

    But EICIPM is not a 2.40 shot IMO (I reckon about 183 would be about right)
  • Pulpstar said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    ***** Betting Post *****

    Following a series of highly encouraging series of polling figures for Labour over the past 2 - 3 days, my "Bet of the Week" is for theTories to win FEWER than 284.5 seats on offer from bet365 at odds of 10/11 (1.91 decimal). Unless the Blues start to recover very soon they are starting to look like a busted flush.
    As ever, DYOR.

    I agree.

    As ever, DYOFR
    Audrey has some amazing findings though!!
    I miss Audrey's amiable ramblings.

    Free the PB One!
    Was audrey warned off, or is she just busy with her algorithms?

    I think she peed off OGH once too often.
    Suggestions that Uncle Vince is going to lose his seat are verboten ;) ?
    Presumably Socrates still banned too

    I thought Sean T was going to get it overturned?
    Is Socrates banned for raising Rotherham? If so that is terrible
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    GIN1138 said:

    IOS said:

    All we need to do is for Ed to hold this position for another 70 days and he is PM!

    And then what?

    Good point at least one year of sticking to Tory spending plans.

    But then what?
    More like three, John.

    Whoever governs will not have much room for manoeuvre until 2018, at best.

    Btw, comparisons with Jack's ARSE are odious. You simply feed poll findings into an automatic calculator. His projections are based on careful sampling, judicious weighting, skill, experience, and copious amounts of best malt whisky.

    I'm afraid you cannot hope to compete.
    BJESUS going to be more accurate though!!!! (We will see)
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    edited February 2015

    Pulpstar said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    ***** Betting Post *****

    Following a series of highly encouraging series of polling figures for Labour over the past 2 - 3 days, my "Bet of the Week" is for theTories to win FEWER than 284.5 seats on offer from bet365 at odds of 10/11 (1.91 decimal). Unless the Blues start to recover very soon they are starting to look like a busted flush.
    As ever, DYOR.

    I agree.

    As ever, DYOFR
    Audrey has some amazing findings though!!
    I miss Audrey's amiable ramblings.

    Free the PB One!
    Was audrey warned off, or is she just busy with her algorithms?

    I think she peed off OGH once too often.
    Suggestions that Uncle Vince is going to lose his seat are verboten ;) ?
    Presumably Socrates still banned too

    I thought Sean T was going to get it overturned?
    Is Socrates banned for raising Rotherham? If so that is terrible
    I seem to remember there may have been issues with accusations being made. We all know Labour are very litigious when it comes to Rotherham so have to tread carefully.

    Breitbart are shedding light on those allegations made by UKIP against the Conservative's star defector Amjad Bashir:

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/12/exclusive-tory-mep-reported-to-police-over-systematic-financial-fraud/
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,386
    edited February 2015
    saddo said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    IOS said:

    All we need to do is for Ed to hold this position for another 70 days and he is PM!

    And then what?

    Good point at least one year of sticking to Tory spending plans.

    But then what?
    It should absolutely scare Labour supporters to death just how unprepared Lab seem's to be for government, especially at this time of economic uncertainty.

    Labour has no real proposals for government, has a leader that is odd and can't relate to people and a shadow cabinet that is utterly ineffective.

    There is absolutely no reason at all why they should form the next government... Yet, it seems they are going to.

    Clearly the only reason for putting them into power is because the public want's/expects "the money tree" to be turned back on. When it doesn't get turned back on and people have to face up to the fact that irrespective of who is in Downing Street, the good times they knew in the 90's and 00's are over, there will be a LOT of unhappy people.

    There will be a serious risk of the Winter of Discontent from 78/9 being rerun, but much worse. The unions would be demanding their pounds of flesh, which there's no money to pay for and it will be topped up by England being ruled by Scottish minority votes.
    All potentially with weak Ed in charge.

    Horrific prospect.
    Thanks to The Blessed Margarets anti union/strike laws, it's MUCH harder for the Unions to bring the country to it's knee's than it was in the 70's.

    Even Ed wouldn't be silly enough to repeal Maggie's strike laws.... Would he? :O

  • saddo said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    IOS said:

    All we need to do is for Ed to hold this position for another 70 days and he is PM!

    And then what?

    Good point at least one year of sticking to Tory spending plans.

    But then what?
    It should absolutely scare Labour supporters to death just how unprepared Lab seem's to be for government, especially at this time of economic uncertainty.

    Labour has no real proposals for government, has a leader that is odd and can't relate to people and a shadow cabinet that is utterly ineffective.

    There is absolutely no reason at all why they should form the next government... Yet, it seems they are going to.

    Clearly the only reason for putting them into power is because the public want's/expects "the money tree" to be turned back on. When it doesn't get turned back on and people have to face up to the fact that irrespective of who is in Downing Street, the good times they knew in the 90's and 00's are over, there will be a LOT of unhappy people.

    There will be a serious risk of the Winter of Discontent from 78/9 being rerun, but much worse. The unions would be demanding their pounds of flesh, which there's no money to pay for and it will be topped up by England being ruled by Scottish minority votes.
    All potentially with weak Ed in charge.

    Horrific prospect.
    Only consolation if Ed does get in is that Socialism will be destroyed for a generation.
  • GIN1138 said:

    IOS said:

    All we need to do is for Ed to hold this position for another 70 days and he is PM!

    And then what?

    Good point at least one year of sticking to Tory spending plans.

    But then what?
    More like three, John.

    Whoever governs will not have much room for manoeuvre until 2018, at best.

    Btw, comparisons with Jack's ARSE are odious. You simply feed poll findings into an automatic calculator. His projections are based on careful sampling, judicious weighting, skill, experience, and copious amounts of best malt whisky.

    I'm afraid you cannot hope to compete.
    BJESUS going to be more accurate though!!!! (We will see)
    I am tempted to bring my Generic Universal Electoral Statistical Sampler into action.

  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    saddo said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    IOS said:

    All we need to do is for Ed to hold this position for another 70 days and he is PM!

    And then what?

    Good point at least one year of sticking to Tory spending plans.

    But then what?
    It should absolutely scare Labour supporters to death just how unprepared Lab seem's to be for government, especially at this time of economic uncertainty.

    Labour has no real proposals for government, has a leader that is odd and can't relate to people and a shadow cabinet that is utterly ineffective.

    There is absolutely no reason at all why they should form the next government... Yet, it seems they are going to.

    Clearly the only reason for putting them into power is because the public want's/expects "the money tree" to be turned back on. When it doesn't get turned back on and people have to face up to the fact that irrespective of who is in Downing Street, the good times they knew in the 90's and 00's are over, there will be a LOT of unhappy people.

    There will be a serious risk of the Winter of Discontent from 78/9 being rerun, but much worse. The unions would be demanding their pounds of flesh, which there's no money to pay for and it will be topped up by England being ruled by Scottish minority votes.
    All potentially with weak Ed in charge.

    Horrific prospect.
    Only consolation if Ed does get in is that Socialism will be destroyed for a generation.
    Wheras the Tories will be fine
  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 483

    Pulpstar said:

    These seat models are all going to start heading Labour's way fairly soon if the polls don't start swinging back alot more than they have.

    Absolutely right and indeed it's already happening (and is referred to) in the Stephen Fisher model - every week from hereon is key!
    Yes but it doesn't make sense that UKIP is down 3 and the 3 has been spread among the Greens, the LDs and Labour.
    I'm a UKIP member and about 2/3rds of Ukippers are natural Conservatives, the other third would be more at home in the Labour party if it were anti EU.
    I can see very few Ukippers moving to the Greens or the LDs, those on the left of UKIP gave up on Labour years ago and EdM isn't going to attract them back.
    More evidence is required.
  • hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758
    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    IOS said:

    All we need to do is for Ed to hold this position for another 70 days and he is PM!

    And then what?

    Good point at least one year of sticking to Tory spending plans.

    But then what?
    It should absolutely scare Labour supporters to death just how unprepared Lab seem's to be for government, especially at this time of economic uncertainty.

    Labour has no real proposals for government, has a leader that is odd and can't relate to people and a shadow cabinet that is utterly ineffective.

    There is absolutely no reason at all why they should form the next government... Yet, it seems they are going to.

    Clearly the only reason for putting them into power is because the public want's/expects "the money tree" to be turned back on. When it doesn't get turned back on and people have to face up to the fact that irrespective of who is in Downing Street, the good times they knew in the 90's and 00's are over, there will be a LOT of unhappy people.

    Perhaps the public don't like the way that the Tories conduct their politics, which is to go back to dividing the country. If you look at the polling by YouGov, the Tories are seen as representing one section of society i.e the people with money.

    While they may not be sure about Labour, they are willing to trust them to deliver a government that is fairer to more people. They realise that the country has a pile of debt and that there will be difficult spending choices. Labour are trusted more on NHS, schools and essential public services. Whereas the Tories are seen as wanting to make cuts, purely because they don't really support the public sector.

    Following the Banking crash and other scandals the public now have a total distrust of the wealthy elite in the City of London, with the Tories seen as being too friendly. When the Tories receive so much in donations from hedge fund managers, it is very difficult for them to also mention Labours close relationship with Bankers during the last government.

    Labour should win the election, as they represent more people than the Tories are likely to under Cameron. If the Tories want to become the natural party of government again, they have to move back to being a one nation party, with policies that appeal to more people.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331
    The Paul Bloomfield case is utterly beyond belief. We have a government chucking disabled people out of their homes, when they could be saving money by actually collecting some tax from millionaires. If Ed Miliband can come up with an even half-credible programme for putting shysters like Bloomfield behind bars, then the election is his.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,989
    GIN1138 said:


    It should absolutely scare Labour supporters to death just how unprepared Lab seem's to be for government, especially at this time of economic uncertainty.

    Labour has no real proposals for government, has a leader that is odd and can't relate to people and a shadow cabinet that is utterly ineffective.

    There is absolutely no reason at all why they should form the next government... Yet, it seems they are going to.

    Clearly the only reason for putting them into power is because the public want's/expects "the money tree" to be turned back on. When it doesn't get turned back on and people have to face up to the fact that irrespective of who is in Downing Street, the good times they knew in the 90's and 00's are over, there will be a LOT of unhappy people.

    I'm far from convinced any of that is true. To what extent is ANY Opposition ready for Government - similar comments were made about Blair in 1996-7 ?

    What astonishes me is the complete lack of political insight - the question is not why are people considering voting Labour in sufficient numbers to form the next Government but why, after five years, are they NOT voting Conservative ?

    Instead of banging on about the perceived failings of Labour, why not try some self-criticism from a Conservative viewpoint ? Has the Party, as part of a Coalition, comported itself well since 2010 ? Why have significant groups of those who supported Cameron in 2010 abandoned him now - immigration, the EU, the economy ?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,386
    hucks67 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    IOS said:

    All we need to do is for Ed to hold this position for another 70 days and he is PM!

    And then what?

    Good point at least one year of sticking to Tory spending plans.

    But then what?
    It should absolutely scare Labour supporters to death just how unprepared Lab seem's to be for government, especially at this time of economic uncertainty.

    Labour has no real proposals for government, has a leader that is odd and can't relate to people and a shadow cabinet that is utterly ineffective.

    There is absolutely no reason at all why they should form the next government... Yet, it seems they are going to.

    Clearly the only reason for putting them into power is because the public want's/expects "the money tree" to be turned back on. When it doesn't get turned back on and people have to face up to the fact that irrespective of who is in Downing Street, the good times they knew in the 90's and 00's are over, there will be a LOT of unhappy people.

    Perhaps the public don't like the way that the Tories conduct their politics, which is to go back to dividing the country. If you look at the polling by YouGov, the Tories are seen as representing one section of society i.e the people with money.

    While they may not be sure about Labour, they are willing to trust them to deliver a government that is fairer to more people. They realise that the country has a pile of debt and that there will be difficult spending choices. Labour are trusted more on NHS, schools and essential public services. Whereas the Tories are seen as wanting to make cuts, purely because they don't really support the public sector.

    Following the Banking crash and other scandals the public now have a total distrust of the wealthy elite in the City of London, with the Tories seen as being too friendly. When the Tories receive so much in donations from hedge fund managers, it is very difficult for them to also mention Labours close relationship with Bankers during the last government.

    Labour should win the election, as they represent more people than the Tories are likely to under Cameron. If the Tories want to become the natural party of government again, they have to move back to being a one nation party, with policies that appeal to more people.
    Perhaps, but I think the public are in for a terrible shock about what the Labour government (if it happens) will be like and I think Labour supporters have no comprehension of the unpopularity they will be facing by 2017.

  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    edited February 2015
    The last four weeks, since mid-Jan, must have been deeply disappointing for Conservative Central Office. By now they weould have been expecting to be seeing regular, consistent poll leads, albeit small ones, relying on a big push over the next 12 weeks to see them home with something >300 seats and a reasonable prospect therefore of continuing in Government. Instead the reverse has happened and Labour's already small lead is increasing. It's very difficult to see how the Tories are going to recover the position from here and if pushed, my current expectation is for them to win around 260-265 seats. On this basis, SkyBet's 12/1 on them winning between 226 - 250 seats looks like a worthwhile punt for small stakes.
    DYOR.
  • hucks67 said:



    Perhaps the public don't like the way that the Tories conduct their politics, which is to go back to dividing the country. If you look at the polling by YouGov, the Tories are seen as representing one section of society i.e the people with money.

    While they may not be sure about Labour, they are willing to trust them to deliver a government that is fairer to more people. They realise that the country has a pile of debt and that there will be difficult spending choices. Labour are trusted more on NHS, schools and essential public services. Whereas the Tories are seen as wanting to make cuts, purely because they don't really support the public sector.

    Following the Banking crash and other scandals the public now have a total distrust of the wealthy elite in the City of London, with the Tories seen as being too friendly. When the Tories receive so much in donations from hedge fund managers, it is very difficult for them to also mention Labours close relationship with Bankers during the last government.

    Labour should win the election, as they represent more people than the Tories are likely to under Cameron. If the Tories want to become the natural party of government again, they have to move back to being a one nation party, with policies that appeal to more people.

    I admit I am concerned at the way that rich people seem to have done best out of the recession. Generally I am not concerned about people becoming stinking rich as it has benefits for the rest of us, as does an economic system that allows them to do so. But they should pay their fair share of tax and should shoulder their fair portion of risk. If any of those who destroyed the banking system from within were now working at McDonalds to make ends meet, I would be happier, but they are probably enjoying comfortable retirements or indeed be re-employed by a banking sector that should actually regard them as unemployable.

    But I will still vote Tory as the only party that can deliver the correct economic system for growth and keep some sort of check on public expenditure.



  • The Paul Bloomfield case is utterly beyond belief. We have a government chucking disabled people out of their homes, when they could be saving money by actually collecting some tax from millionaires. If Ed Miliband can come up with an even half-credible programme for putting shysters like Bloomfield behind bars, then the election is his.

    I'm not sure the allegation is that they failed to collect the tax (belatedly) but that they failed to prosecute for such an allegedly blatant disregard of the tax laws.

  • hucks67 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    IOS said:

    All we need to do is for Ed to hold this position for another 70 days and he is PM!

    And then what?

    Good point at least one year of sticking to Tory spending plans.

    But then what?





    Labour should win the election, as they represent more people than the Tories are likely to under Cameron. If the Tories want to become the natural party of government again, they have to move back to being a one nation party, with policies that appeal to more people.
    Labour don't appeal to that many more, though, do they? Both them and the Tories are on around a third of the vote. Truth be told, none of the 3 main parties bring out any excitement.
    Us in the public sector realise that Labour cuts are going to be as bad as Tory cuts.
    Miliband will probably be PM, because he's not a Conservative. Most voters don't want him, or David Cameron in Downing Street.
    The problem is, that we don't really know what we want, only that it's not them.

  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,989
    GIN1138 said:


    Perhaps, but I think the public are in for a terrible shock about what the Labour government (if it happens) will be like and I think Labour supporters have no comprehension of the unpopularity they will be facing by 2017.

    Well, I'm sure the Conservatives under Boris will look every inch the next Government-in-waiting but the truth is unpopularity in 2017 won't prevent re-election in 2020.

  • The Paul Bloomfield case is utterly beyond belief. We have a government chucking disabled people out of their homes, when they could be saving money by actually collecting some tax from millionaires. If Ed Miliband can come up with an even half-credible programme for putting shysters like Bloomfield behind bars, then the election is his.

    I'm not sure the allegation is that they failed to collect the tax (belatedly) but that they failed to prosecute for such an allegedly blatant disregard of the tax laws.

    From the BBC report, it's not clear whether he eventually paid any tax or not.

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,386
    stodge said:

    GIN1138 said:


    It should absolutely scare Labour supporters to death just how unprepared Lab seem's to be for government, especially at this time of economic uncertainty.

    Labour has no real proposals for government, has a leader that is odd and can't relate to people and a shadow cabinet that is utterly ineffective.

    There is absolutely no reason at all why they should form the next government... Yet, it seems they are going to.

    Clearly the only reason for putting them into power is because the public want's/expects "the money tree" to be turned back on. When it doesn't get turned back on and people have to face up to the fact that irrespective of who is in Downing Street, the good times they knew in the 90's and 00's are over, there will be a LOT of unhappy people.

    I'm far from convinced any of that is true. To what extent is ANY Opposition ready for Government - similar comments were made about Blair in 1996-7 ?

    What astonishes me is the complete lack of political insight - the question is not why are people considering voting Labour in sufficient numbers to form the next Government but why, after five years, are they NOT voting Conservative ?

    Instead of banging on about the perceived failings of Labour, why not try some self-criticism from a Conservative viewpoint ? Has the Party, as part of a Coalition, comported itself well since 2010 ? Why have significant groups of those who supported Cameron in 2010 abandoned him now - immigration, the EU, the economy ?
    1. Blair had a HUGE prospectus for government. They were probably unprepared from the POV that they have been out of power for so long hardly anybody knew what being in government would be like, but in terms of Labour's policies there was a LOT of things they wanted to do in 1997 and a very clear direction they wanted to follow.

    2. As far as the Conservatives go, I think it's always been quite obvious they would become very unpopular and when Cameron/Osborne failed to secure a decent Conservative majority in 2010 (which would have given them some leeway to lose seats in 2015) most Con supporters realised it was quite likely this would be a one term Conservative led government.

    Mervyn King predicted that whoever won in 2010 would be "out of power for a generation" so I suppose the Tories are lucky things aren't a LOT worse.

    It's a double whammy for the Tories that the party is hated, the leader is a pretty terrible politician and they are in government at a time when they have to do a LOT of very unpopular things.

    But if Labour wins in May the storyline very quickly moves on and I just don't think the Labour government will be in any way credible.

  • saddosaddo Posts: 534
    stodge said:

    GIN1138 said:


    It should absolutely scare Labour supporters to death just how unprepared Lab seem's to be for government, especially at this time of economic uncertainty.

    Labour has no real proposals for government, has a leader that is odd and can't relate to people and a shadow cabinet that is utterly ineffective.

    There is absolutely no reason at all why they should form the next government... Yet, it seems they are going to.

    Clearly the only reason for putting them into power is because the public want's/expects "the money tree" to be turned back on. When it doesn't get turned back on and people have to face up to the fact that irrespective of who is in Downing Street, the good times they knew in the 90's and 00's are over, there will be a LOT of unhappy people.

    I'm far from convinced any of that is true. To what extent is ANY Opposition ready for Government - similar comments were made about Blair in 1996-7 ?

    What astonishes me is the complete lack of political insight - the question is not why are people considering voting Labour in sufficient numbers to form the next Government but why, after five years, are they NOT voting Conservative ?

    Instead of banging on about the perceived failings of Labour, why not try some self-criticism from a Conservative viewpoint ? Has the Party, as part of a Coalition, comported itself well since 2010 ? Why have significant groups of those who supported Cameron in 2010 abandoned him now - immigration, the EU, the economy ?
    Agree, for a government led by an ex communication adviser to Carlton Comm's to have such weak control of the narrative is terrible.
    The Tories have a very strong record over the last 4 1/2 years but you'd hardly spot it from what's being said. Luckily for them Ed is crap, so Labour aren't in the lead.
    An Ali Campbell led narrative & message management of Cameron's actual achievements would have the Tories miles ahead.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331

    The Paul Bloomfield case is utterly beyond belief. We have a government chucking disabled people out of their homes, when they could be saving money by actually collecting some tax from millionaires. If Ed Miliband can come up with an even half-credible programme for putting shysters like Bloomfield behind bars, then the election is his.

    I'm not sure the allegation is that they failed to collect the tax (belatedly) but that they failed to prosecute for such an allegedly blatant disregard of the tax laws.

    There's is a distinct lack of clarity about whether they've managed to collect any tax at all. And he certainly didn't pay any tax for 24 years. My point is that if Miliband can show he's serious about going after tax evaders, it would be the issue that could win him the election. I like most other people want to see the Revenue go after tax evaders in the same way that the DWP goes after benefit fraudsters.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    'The Party with the candidate who will make the best MP for my local area' 8%

    'The Party with the policies on issues important to me' 66%

    If evidence was needed that people vote for parties and not individual MP's
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,386
    saddo said:

    stodge said:

    GIN1138 said:


    It should absolutely scare Labour supporters to death just how unprepared Lab seem's to be for government, especially at this time of economic uncertainty.

    Labour has no real proposals for government, has a leader that is odd and can't relate to people and a shadow cabinet that is utterly ineffective.

    There is absolutely no reason at all why they should form the next government... Yet, it seems they are going to.

    Clearly the only reason for putting them into power is because the public want's/expects "the money tree" to be turned back on. When it doesn't get turned back on and people have to face up to the fact that irrespective of who is in Downing Street, the good times they knew in the 90's and 00's are over, there will be a LOT of unhappy people.

    I'm far from convinced any of that is true. To what extent is ANY Opposition ready for Government - similar comments were made about Blair in 1996-7 ?

    What astonishes me is the complete lack of political insight - the question is not why are people considering voting Labour in sufficient numbers to form the next Government but why, after five years, are they NOT voting Conservative ?

    Instead of banging on about the perceived failings of Labour, why not try some self-criticism from a Conservative viewpoint ? Has the Party, as part of a Coalition, comported itself well since 2010 ? Why have significant groups of those who supported Cameron in 2010 abandoned him now - immigration, the EU, the economy ?
    Agree, for a government led by an ex communication adviser to Carlton Comm's to have such weak control of the narrative is terrible.
    It's often the case that PR people are usually terrible at PR, LOL!

    Like telecommunications company's are usually the worst at communicating with their costumers...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411

    hucks67 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    IOS said:

    All we need to do is for Ed to hold this position for another 70 days and he is PM!

    And then what?

    Good point at least one year of sticking to Tory spending plans.

    But then what?





    Labour should win the election, as they represent more people than the Tories are likely to under Cameron. If the Tories want to become the natural party of government again, they have to move back to being a one nation party, with policies that appeal to more people.
    Labour don't appeal to that many more, though, do they? Both them and the Tories are on around a third of the vote. Truth be told, none of the 3 main parties bring out any excitement.
    Us in the public sector realise that Labour cuts are going to be as bad as Tory cuts.
    Miliband will probably be PM, because he's not a Conservative. Most voters don't want him, or David Cameron in Downing Street.
    The problem is, that we don't really know what we want, only that it's not them.

    Dave is Nicola is only relevant in ~60 seats.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,386
    edited February 2015
    stodge said:

    GIN1138 said:


    Perhaps, but I think the public are in for a terrible shock about what the Labour government (if it happens) will be like and I think Labour supporters have no comprehension of the unpopularity they will be facing by 2017.

    Well, I'm sure the Conservatives under Boris will look every inch the next Government-in-waiting but the truth is unpopularity in 2017 won't prevent re-election in 2020.

    I'm not convinced it will be Boris leading Tories after May. If the Tories are thrown out, I have a feeling the wider party will want to move on quickly from the posho's like Osborne, Boris, etc...

    I would suspect Boris goes in as favourite (but falls away as the favourite always does) and it goes to Theresa or maybe a complete outsider like Sajid Javid.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,989
    GIN1138 said:


    1. Blair had a HUGE prospectus for government. They were probably unprepared from the POV that they have been out of power for so long hardly anybody knew what being in government would be like, but in terms of Labour's policies there was a LOT of things they wanted to do in 1997 and a very clear direction they wanted to follow.

    2. As far as the Conservatives go, I think it's always been quite obvious they would become very unpopular and when Cameron/Osborne failed to secure a decent Conservative majority in 2010 (which would have given them some leeway to lose seats in 2015) most Con supporters realised it was quite likely this would be a one term Conservative led government.

    Mervyn King predicted that whoever won in 2010 would be "out of power for a generation" so I suppose the Tories are lucky things aren't a LOT worse.

    It's a double whammy for the Tories that the party is hated, the leader is a pretty terrible politician and they are in government at a time when they have to do a LOT of very unpopular things.

    But if Labour wins in May the storyline very quickly moves on and I just don't think the Labour government will be in any way credible.

    So the Conservatives are going to lose in May because they didn't quite win in 2010 and have had to do some unpopular things

    Really - that's it ? The argument boils down to "We're pretty bad but Labour would be worse".
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @ThomasNashe
    You can hardly blame the tax inspectors? look at the number of them in comparison to those we have too employ on benefit fraud?
    I am not very sure of the money involved here, but benefit fraud is essential to stop money being wasted.
    I know....
    What we need is one of our resident experts to show how much money is lost through tax , and how much due to benefit fraud.
    You can always trust PB for insight.

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,386
    stodge said:

    GIN1138 said:


    1. Blair had a HUGE prospectus for government. They were probably unprepared from the POV that they have been out of power for so long hardly anybody knew what being in government would be like, but in terms of Labour's policies there was a LOT of things they wanted to do in 1997 and a very clear direction they wanted to follow.

    2. As far as the Conservatives go, I think it's always been quite obvious they would become very unpopular and when Cameron/Osborne failed to secure a decent Conservative majority in 2010 (which would have given them some leeway to lose seats in 2015) most Con supporters realised it was quite likely this would be a one term Conservative led government.

    Mervyn King predicted that whoever won in 2010 would be "out of power for a generation" so I suppose the Tories are lucky things aren't a LOT worse.

    It's a double whammy for the Tories that the party is hated, the leader is a pretty terrible politician and they are in government at a time when they have to do a LOT of very unpopular things.

    But if Labour wins in May the storyline very quickly moves on and I just don't think the Labour government will be in any way credible.

    So the Conservatives are going to lose in May because they didn't quite win in 2010 and have had to do some unpopular things

    Really - that's it ? The argument boils down to "We're pretty bad but Labour would be worse".
    That's my reading of it. And by the way I'm NOT a Tory member and the Conservatives are NOT "my" party.

  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331
    GIN1138 said:

    stodge said:

    GIN1138 said:


    Perhaps, but I think the public are in for a terrible shock about what the Labour government (if it happens) will be like and I think Labour supporters have no comprehension of the unpopularity they will be facing by 2017.

    Well, I'm sure the Conservatives under Boris will look every inch the next Government-in-waiting but the truth is unpopularity in 2017 won't prevent re-election in 2020.

    I'm not convinced it will be Boris leading Tories after May. If the Tories are thrown out, I have a feeling the wider party will want to move on quickly from the posho's like Osborne, Boris, etc...

    I would suspect Boris goes in as favourite (but falls away as the favourite always does) and it goes to Theresa or maybe a complete outsider like Sajid Javid.
    I think Javid is really over-rated. He was seriously unimpressive in his Andrew Neil interview last weekend.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    @Mike: I do not agree this is a bad poll fro UKIP. Given these are Con/ Lab marginals [ and not just this time ], it is expected that others will be squeezed. In fact, it is the UKIP 15% which may have given such a largish swing to Labour.

    If all English marginal seats voted like this, as they say, EICIPM !!!!!!
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @GIN1138

    ' Blair had a HUGE prospectus for government'

    Easy to be popular when your giving money away like confetti.

    When was the last time a Labour government had to make cuts and tough decisions,the 1970's with Callaghan?
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331
    edited February 2015
    Smarmeron said:

    @ThomasNashe
    You can hardly blame the tax inspectors? look at the number of them in comparison to those we have too employ on benefit fraud?
    I am not very sure of the money involved here, but benefit fraud is essential to stop money being wasted.
    I know....
    What we need is one of our resident experts to show how much money is lost through tax , and how much due to benefit fraud.
    You can always trust PB for insight.

    Yes, it's about deterrence. I have no problem with benefit fraudsters going to jail. I'm just perplexed as to why tax evaders don't get treated in the same way - the potential savings from cases like Bloomfield's are far, far greater. We need some high profile convictions and imprisonments 'pour encourager les autres'.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    *Lucky
  • Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    edited February 2015

    From the BBC report, it's not clear whether he eventually paid any tax or not.

    Quite right too. The Crown is under a statutory duty not to disclose an individual's tax affairs to the world at large (Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, ss. 17-23). If the Crown has chosen not to institute criminal proceedings, it may not adversely speculate to the media about the matter.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @ThomasNashe
    There you run into a problem of human nature.
    Can you honestly expect someone to go after his friends, family and acquaintances when it is obviously the "others" who are to blame?
    That would mean questioning ones own judgement, a topic that seems lacking in some schools?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,989
    GIN1138 said:


    That's my reading of it. And by the way I'm NOT a Tory member and the Conservatives are NOT "my" party.

    I apologise if I have inferred that. My observation of your posts over time however is you write from an anti-Labour and often pro-Conservative perspective.

    I'm more than happy to accept you are not a Conservative member or supporter.

  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,975
    Firestopper

    "The problem is, that we don't really know what we want, only that it's not them."

    I just heard a vox pop with a voter in Chippenham. An ordinary worker in a donkey jacket who said he voted Lib Dem last time but he didn't think he was voting for the Tories. He was angry and wouldn't vote for them again.

    Clegg's decision to get intimate with the Tories was the biggest mistake by a mainstream party in my lifetime. If they'd remained independent I've no doubt UKIP would have been strangled at birth and they would now be serious contenders for government possibly as largest party.

    Even if they'd gone mid way in supporting the Tories they might have lived to fight another day. But what their voters couldn't stomach was the open love affair between Cameron Alexander Osborne and Clegg.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    This has been a bad week for the Tories !

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited February 2015
    Pulpstar said:
    Oh ! Deary me !! Any due diligence done. Or only too happy to get a UKIP defector ! Poor homework.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    GIN1138 said:

    stodge said:

    GIN1138 said:


    1. Blair had a HUGE prospectus for government. They were probably unprepared from the POV that they have been out of power for so long hardly anybody knew what being in government would be like, but in terms of Labour's policies there was a LOT of things they wanted to do in 1997 and a very clear direction they wanted to follow.

    2. As far as the Conservatives go, I think it's always been quite obvious they would become very unpopular and when Cameron/Osborne failed to secure a decent Conservative majority in 2010 (which would have given them some leeway to lose seats in 2015) most Con supporters realised it was quite likely this would be a one term Conservative led government.

    Mervyn King predicted that whoever won in 2010 would be "out of power for a generation" so I suppose the Tories are lucky things aren't a LOT worse.

    It's a double whammy for the Tories that the party is hated, the leader is a pretty terrible politician and they are in government at a time when they have to do a LOT of very unpopular things.

    But if Labour wins in May the storyline very quickly moves on and I just don't think the Labour government will be in any way credible.

    So the Conservatives are going to lose in May because they didn't quite win in 2010 and have had to do some unpopular things

    Really - that's it ? The argument boils down to "We're pretty bad but Labour would be worse".
    That's my reading of it. And by the way I'm NOT a Tory member and the Conservatives are NOT "my" party.

    You are even more right wing ?
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @surbiton
    It's like playing a game of "Scabby Queen" (old maid?) and realising you just copped the full whack.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    GIN1138 said:

    stodge said:

    GIN1138 said:


    Perhaps, but I think the public are in for a terrible shock about what the Labour government (if it happens) will be like and I think Labour supporters have no comprehension of the unpopularity they will be facing by 2017.

    Well, I'm sure the Conservatives under Boris will look every inch the next Government-in-waiting but the truth is unpopularity in 2017 won't prevent re-election in 2020.

    I'm not convinced it will be Boris leading Tories after May. If the Tories are thrown out, I have a feeling the wider party will want to move on quickly from the posho's like Osborne, Boris, etc...

    I would suspect Boris goes in as favourite (but falls away as the favourite always does) and it goes to Theresa or maybe a complete outsider like Sajid Javid.
    The pearl brigade will never vote for Javid.
  • @DavidL

    Agreed.

    I've just taken Lab Majority at 18. Not because think it will happen, but because it's a great trading bet.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    surbiton said:

    This has been a bad week for the Tories !

    The Watcher will be along shortly to claim not
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411

    surbiton said:

    This has been a bad week for the Tories !

    The Watcher will be along shortly to claim not
    Doubt it, he can be called many things but he's not a Conservative shill.
  • Through my rum-induced haze a few betting points after this memorable week.

    Take Lab Maj at 18. Labour are clearly undervalued so it's a good trading bet.

    There has got to be big trading bets on NZL if they lose to SRI tonight. The Kiwis should still go through and the draw favours them.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    @Bigjohnowls What do you think of the Daily Mail's attempts to keep Green-Red potential switchers onside ?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    I wonder what Rod Crosby and ARSE will be saying?

    Presumably just a blip and still Tory Maj 99% chance and Ed will NEVER be PM
  • surbiton said:

    @Mike: I do not agree this is a bad poll fro UKIP. Given these are Con/ Lab marginals [ and not just this time ], it is expected that others will be squeezed. In fact, it is the UKIP 15% which may have given such a largish swing to Labour.

    If all English marginal seats voted like this, as they say, EICIPM !!!!!!

    The entire Ukip strategy is predicated on the Tories being kicked out. So @MikeK is right – it's a good poll for Ukip.
  • Pulpstar said:
    Ed's problem is that these easy hits cannot last forever – they can't possibly persist for another 80 days.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    edited February 2015
    Pulpstar said:

    @Bigjohnowls What do you think of the Daily Mail's attempts to keep Green-Red potential switchers onside ?

    Missed it.

    You will be surprised to learn I do not read the Mail.

    What did i miss?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411

    I wonder what Rod Crosby and ARSE will be saying?

    Presumably just a blip and still Tory Maj 99% chance and Ed will NEVER be PM

    Rod Crosby is one good reason I'm not actually laying Conservative Majority DIRECTLY any more. However my guess is you should at least adjust the L&N model for Scotland. I beat JackW in terms of the Yes/No for the Scottish referendum so that doesn't worry me so much.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    To stop all our expert posters beavering away trying to find the answer to my earlier question.
    Thanks, but I have found a simple enough page for me to grasp and understand.
    Obviously far below your levels, but...
    http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-qa-benefit-fraud-perspective/15796
  • Stodge, i think you will find that most current Conservative supporters are reluctant to deliver a post mortem when the patient is still very much alive! It's worth noting that back in 2010 many of us acknowledged that this was likely to be a one term government and that things would look pretty ugly mid-term. Many of us also said that the Tories' best hope was that a recovering economy would result in the electorate giving them credit, and that we expected some measure of swing back as the election occurred. There is some evidence of that, but at the moment it looks like it might not be enough. In the meantime we have watched as others on here have repeatedly discussed various firewalls that have been made of straw, and we now see outlying polls showing a 3pt Labour lead heralded as evidence we are doomed. Unsurprisingly we are not prepared to give up.

    Why aren't the Tories doing better? The reasons are complex. In no order: (1) poor party management has impacted morale and unnecessarily driven defections of activists, supporters and one good MP; (2) the leadership has not demonstrated a commitment to the "all in it together principle" and have failed to connect with the electorate; (3) basic, unnecessary errors eg on boundary changes; (4) an insufficiently astute media operation; (5) it has had the courage to make tough decisions; (6) the electorate are still in fundamental denial about the extent to which we as a nation are living beyond our means and failing to invest (individually or collectively) sufficiently for the future; as a result the electorate is reluctant to take even the very gentle consequences of the austerity we have experienced; (7) there is a reluctance to give politicians due credit. If we had lost one million jobs during this parliament, had the lowest level of employment in record, were mired with the worst economic performance in the G7, had seen the NHS budget slashed and the NHS coping with fewer admissions than ever before and hosted the worst Olympics in history, how much blame would be attributed to government? The opposite is the case, and far from there being any praise or even recognition, we just move on to find the next thing we can grumble about; (8) failed pledges, particularly on immigration; (9) the collapse of the Lib Dems - the extent of which was unseen - has given Labour's polling credibility it does not warrant; (10) the rise of Ukip - part of a pan-European phenomenon and paradoxically now driven as much by Labour's failure as the Conservatives - has made it harder for Cameron to maintain a credible centrist approach; (11) the fundamental fault line that is the EU.

    I could go on. In short, the Conservative party is deeply flawed and has made mistakes. It has also, alongside the Lib Dems, governed remarkably well in very difficult circumstances. Britain is in a much better state today than it was in May 2010. That is the ultimate test, and that is why I will be voting Conservative in 2015
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Pulpstar said:

    @Bigjohnowls What do you think of the Daily Mail's attempts to keep Green-Red potential switchers onside ?

    The best play for the Tory press is to try to say a Labour government will cut as much as the Tories, so any anti-cuts people might as well go and vote for another party.

    For all the posturing about the "centre ground", if Labour were to hold onto their "core vote" (2010 vote + Red Liberals) and claw back just a bit of ground in Scotland, then EICIPM. The Tories' ONLY hope is to encourage Labour's voters to peel off to other parties as they were doing in the final months of 2014.
  • Smarmeron said:

    To stop all our expert posters beavering away trying to find the answer to my earlier question.
    Thanks, but I have found a simple enough page for me to grasp and understand.
    Obviously far below your levels, but...
    http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-qa-benefit-fraud-perspective/15796

    Utterly meaningless given that they lump legal tax avoidance with illegal tax evasion.

    Not surprising you seem to think it has validity as it clearly fails to understand the difference between legal and illegal just like you.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited February 2015

    @DavidL

    Agreed.

    I've just taken Lab Majority at 18. Not because think it will happen, but because it's a great trading bet.

    The best trading bet is probably laying NOM @ 1.24 IMO.

    There has to be at least a 10-20% chance of the polls being wrong enough, a 1992 type situation, or a known unknown between now & polling day (Spain terrorist attack et al) - my guess is this is at the back of people minds and consequently, NOM will have a floor of perhaps ~1.2.

    So laying NOM is a great trade-outable-for-low-loss bet, with excellent potential upside.
  • Through my rum-induced haze a few betting points after this memorable week.

    Take Lab Maj at 18. Labour are clearly undervalued so it's a good trading bet.

    There has got to be big trading bets on NZL if they lose to SRI tonight. The Kiwis should still go through and the draw favours them.

    I am on New Zealand over 5.5 sixes at 23/20, they went 5/7 in the recent games against SL, looks a great price to me.

    Also bought Buttler performance at 43 for a bit of fun.
  • Pulpstar said:

    I wonder what Rod Crosby and ARSE will be saying?

    Presumably just a blip and still Tory Maj 99% chance and Ed will NEVER be PM

    Rod Crosby is one good reason I'm not actually laying Conservative Majority DIRECTLY any more. However my guess is you should at least adjust the L&N model for Scotland. I beat JackW in terms of the Yes/No for the Scottish referendum so that doesn't worry me so much.
    The value seems to be in backing both parties for majorities then trading off. I've just taken Lab at 18. I'm going to wait until Sunday for the recent polling to push out the Tory Maj price, then back them.
  • Pong said:

    @DavidL

    Agreed.

    I've just taken Lab Majority at 18. Not because think it will happen, but because it's a great trading bet.

    The best trading bet is probably laying NOM @ 1.24 IMO.

    There has to be at least a 10-20% chance of the polls being wrong enough, a 1992 type situation, or a known unknown between now & polling day (Spain terrorist attack et al) - my guess is this is at the back of people minds and consequently, NOM will have a floor of perhaps ~1.2.

    So laying NOM is a great trade-outable-for-low-loss bet, with excellent potential upside.
    Fair point. Let me have a look...
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited February 2015

    Pulpstar said:
    Ed's problem is that these easy hits cannot last forever – they can't possibly persist for another 80 days.
    That's true, but it DOES give him a platform to potentially build on. It gives him a chance to launch into a message of "look, I may be a geek, but atleast I have the guts to stand up to fat cats, tax dodgers and big businesses unlike all the other politicians".

    Whether or not he grasps that opportunity is another question.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,195
    I notice some discussion of the Tory leadership. Just to say that Priti was in fine form at the dispatch box yesterday extolling the virtues of Scotch whisky. Leader in waiting.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Richard_Tyndall
    Yes, there is a difference between legal and illegal.
    One is stealing off the tax payer and risking a 10 year sentence, the other is just not paying tax in the first place. Of course a vanishingly minuscule amount of tax avoidance is also illegal, but in that case, it is a miss-demeanour, and prosecution is unlikely.
    All in it together eh?
  • Smarmeron said:

    @Richard_Tyndall
    Yes, there is a difference between legal and illegal.
    One is stealing off the tax payer and risking a 10 year sentence, the other is just not paying tax in the first place. Of course a vanishingly minuscule amount of tax avoidance is also illegal, but in that case, it is a miss-demeanour, and prosecution is unlikely.
    All in it together eh?

    In which case as I said - and you have just confirmed - the Fact Check page you so proudly quoted is garbage because they lump legal tax avoidance with illegal tax evasion and compare it with illegal benefit fraud.
  • Pong said:

    @DavidL

    Agreed.

    I've just taken Lab Majority at 18. Not because think it will happen, but because it's a great trading bet.

    The best trading bet is probably laying NOM @ 1.24 IMO.

    There has to be at least a 10-20% chance of the polls being wrong enough, a 1992 type situation, or a known unknown between now & polling day (Spain terrorist attack et al) - my guess is this is at the back of people minds and consequently, NOM will have a floor of perhaps ~1.2.

    So laying NOM is a great trade-outable-for-low-loss bet, with excellent potential upside.
    Fair point. Let me have a look...
    Yes, you are right. Taken a nibble.
  • Through my rum-induced haze a few betting points after this memorable week.

    Take Lab Maj at 18. Labour are clearly undervalued so it's a good trading bet.

    There has got to be big trading bets on NZL if they lose to SRI tonight. The Kiwis should still go through and the draw favours them.

    I am on New Zealand over 5.5 sixes at 23/20, they went 5/7 in the recent games against SL, looks a great price to me.

    Also bought Buttler performance at 43 for a bit of fun.
    Nice bet Nigel, but too niche for me after this much rum. I think the trading value has got to be hoping for the Kiwi defeat tonight, then backing them.
  • Danny565 said:

    Pulpstar said:
    Ed's problem is that these easy hits cannot last forever – they can't possibly persist for another 80 days.
    That's true, but it DOES give him a platform to potentially build on. It gives him a chance to launch into a message of "look, I may be a geek, but atleast I have the guts to stand up to fat cats, tax dodgers and big businesses unlike all the other politicians".

    Whether or not he grasps that opportunity is another question.
    He's actually extremely good at grasping those opportunities, so I don't doubt he will. My point is that those chances won't persist for 80 days. He's good attacking, poor when on the defence.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Richard_Tyndall
    Choose your weapon sir

    "The figures clash significantly with those produced by HMRC, the government's tax collecting body. The PCS-commissioned research estimates that over 2013 and 14 the UK lost £73.4bn to tax evasion ("tax lost when a person or company deliberately and unlawfully fails to declare income that they know is taxable or claims expenses that are not allowed") over the course of the studied period, dwarfing the official government estimate of £22.3bn."
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    Danny565 said:

    Pulpstar said:
    Ed's problem is that these easy hits cannot last forever – they can't possibly persist for another 80 days.
    That's true, but it DOES give him a platform to potentially build on. It gives him a chance to launch into a message of "look, I may be a geek, but atleast I have the guts to stand up to fat cats, tax dodgers and big businesses unlike all the other politicians".

    Whether or not he grasps that opportunity is another question.
    He's actually extremely good at grasping those opportunities, so I don't doubt he will. My point is that those chances won't persist for 80 days. He's good attacking, poor when on the defence.
    He can be good at grasping those opportunities, but often when he's starting to get some traction with one of his populist anti-fat-cat attacks, he suddenly drops it -- I suspect because he lets Ed Balls and the "Blairite" prats talk him out of being seen as supposedly "anti-business" or "anti-aspiration".
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    edited February 2015

    Through my rum-induced haze a few betting points after this memorable week.

    Take Lab Maj at 18. Labour are clearly undervalued so it's a good trading bet.

    There has got to be big trading bets on NZL if they lose to SRI tonight. The Kiwis should still go through and the draw favours them.

    I am on New Zealand over 5.5 sixes at 23/20, they went 5/7 in the recent games against SL, looks a great price to me.

    Also bought Buttler performance at 43 for a bit of fun.
    I am on Italy U20 with a 75 pt start against England U20's in the Rugby

    How to make a really one sided game have at least a bit of interest.

    Italy U20'S are really crap.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31463868

    Armando Iannucci tax claim sparks UKIP donor legal threat
    Chris Mason

    Looks like Armando Iannucci will be facing a lawsuit for deformation. Unless he offers an apology.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    You can be assured its been a very bad week for the Tories when there are so few Tory PBers around to jump to the Blues defence.
  • Smarmeron said:

    @Richard_Tyndall
    Choose your weapon sir

    "The figures clash significantly with those produced by HMRC, the government's tax collecting body. The PCS-commissioned research estimates that over 2013 and 14 the UK lost £73.4bn to tax evasion ("tax lost when a person or company deliberately and unlawfully fails to declare income that they know is taxable or claims expenses that are not allowed") over the course of the studied period, dwarfing the official government estimate of £22.3bn."

    Again utterly meaningless. The fact that research commissioned by a union provides unsubstantiated 'estimates' is hardly to be taken as reliable or unbiased. Nor should it be considered more accurate than the numbers produced by HMRC who do, after all, have access to at least some of the data.

    And to be honest quoting Richard Murphy - the man who seems to think there is no difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance - is laughable. It is like quoting Grant Shapps as an authority on how much the Tories deserve to win the next election.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Richard_Tyndall
    I fall mortally wounded at the feet of a worthy opponent, but as a boon sir, I would ask you....
    What figures do you believe?
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    MikeK said:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31463868

    Armando Iannucci tax claim sparks UKIP donor legal threat
    Chris Mason

    Looks like Armando Iannucci will be facing a lawsuit for deformation. Unless he offers an apology.

    Considering what Armando Iannucci looks like that typo made me laugh. Thanks MikeK.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362

    You can be assured its been a very bad week for the Tories when there are so few Tory PBers around to jump to the Blues defence.

    I've said labour have had a good week on last thread and the tories need now to bring they A-Game if they have one.

  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664

    You can be assured its been a very bad week for the Tories when there are so few Tory PBers around to jump to the Blues defence.

    I think the defence would go something like: the HSBC data were a gift to ed, not something of his own making. Even ed could hardly screw this one up. Further such gifts are unlikely. The "ed the avoider" story may yet bite him on the arse. A week is a long time in politics, and it'll only take another couple of Yougov leads to get the blues singing again.

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,195
    My thesis for Tory voters is that there are around 10% of people who 'ought' to be Tories - they either currently benefit from Tory policies, have done in the past or will do in the future. On top of that are 20% plus suffering from false consciousness who mistakenly believe that the Tories are on their side. When the news is full of stories about wealthy Tory tax dodgers a few escape the clutches of false consciousness and return to sensible voting intention.

    Do people think I could get a PhD for that?
  • Ishmael_X said:

    You can be assured its been a very bad week for the Tories when there are so few Tory PBers around to jump to the Blues defence.

    I think the defence would go something like: the HSBC data were a gift to ed, not something of his own making. Even ed could hardly screw this one up. Further such gifts are unlikely. The "ed the avoider" story may yet bite him on the arse. A week is a long time in politics, and it'll only take another couple of Yougov leads to get the blues singing again.

    You are basically right in that the HSBC stuff was a gift. Lucky break for Ed, which he exploited well, but a lucky break nevertheless.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    GeoffM said:

    MikeK said:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31463868

    Armando Iannucci tax claim sparks UKIP donor legal threat
    Chris Mason

    Looks like Armando Iannucci will be facing a lawsuit for deformation. Unless he offers an apology.

    Considering what Armando Iannucci looks like that typo made me laugh. Thanks MikeK.
    No problem. ;)
  • Smarmeron said:

    @Richard_Tyndall
    I fall mortally wounded at the feet of a worthy opponent, but as a boon sir, I would ask you....
    What figures do you believe?

    Well having read the latest Murphy report it certainly isn't him.

    He estimates that 10% of all sales in the UK are undeclared - amounting to £100 billion worth of sales. But he then estimates that these sales would account for £40 billion worth of tax revenue. Meaning that he believes all sales in the UK are taxed at 40%.

    I don't know what the real numbers should be. I do know that, given the choice between HMRC and the figures and illustrations produced by the PCS report, I would go with HMRC every time.

    And given how much I distrust and dislike government bodies that is quite an admission from me and simply shows how crap the PCS report is.
  • Perhaps some of the triumphalism of the Labour posters in the last couple of days is a tad premature. Come the election economic growth will be strong, unemployment falling, inflation negligible, wages rising and the tax threshold changes will benefit payslips in April. There's a budget to come too. Against that backdrop, and irrespective of noise around tax avoidance voters will have to consider Ed and Ed and decide can I take the chance?
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    MikeK said:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31463868

    Armando Iannucci tax claim sparks UKIP donor legal threat
    Chris Mason

    Looks like Armando Iannucci will be facing a lawsuit for deformation. Unless he offers an apology.

    If the allegations are completely false, I would be furious if someone attempted to trash my reputation on national television. He deserves everything he has coming to him.
  • My thesis for Tory voters is that there are around 10% of people who 'ought' to be Tories - they either currently benefit from Tory policies, have done in the past or will do in the future. On top of that are 20% plus suffering from false consciousness who mistakenly believe that the Tories are on their side. When the news is full of stories about wealthy Tory tax dodgers a few escape the clutches of false consciousness and return to sensible voting intention.

    Do people think I could get a PhD for that?

    Make sure you include the word "hegemony".

  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    Good news fellow PB'ers, it turns out that the wound wasn't mortal....he missed me completely!
    No champagne bottles popping?
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664

    My thesis for Tory voters is that there are around 10% of people who 'ought' to be Tories - they either currently benefit from Tory policies, have done in the past or will do in the future. On top of that are 20% plus suffering from false consciousness who mistakenly believe that the Tories are on their side. When the news is full of stories about wealthy Tory tax dodgers a few escape the clutches of false consciousness and return to sensible voting intention.

    Do people think I could get a PhD for that?

    It has no spelling mistakes, and contains the Marxist expression "false consciousness". You just need to stick in a reference to a seminal paper by Foucault, and you're home and dry.
This discussion has been closed.