Don't we normally get 'this is xxxxxxxx's highest score since...' Or 'this is xxxx's best ever score with this pollster' when such occasions are upon us?
"A nerdy weed is a threat when he goes into the conference chamber with Vladimir Putin and comes out with his underpants on his head."
To be fair to Ed, I'm sure he'd be very good at making the coffee. But that is always going to be a problem for an aspiring PM - does he look statesmanlike, has he gravitas? We won't know until it's too late.
Ed can come across as a sympathetic neighbour at best, but can he negotiate? "If you rake your foot off my neck, Mr Putin, I'll agree to stop crying."
But I had my doubts about Cameron, and still do.
This is another area where Ed could surely improve upon. Forget Obama-style rallies he doesn't have the charisma for, get out there and do some bruising interviews with Paxman and the like. He's eloquent and intelligent enough to hold his own and the public would respect him for it.
One of the very interesting milestones between now and the election is the Budget. It will be from what i am hearing a Conservative budget which will allow clear water between the LDs and the Tories. This was told to me recently by David Davies who is of the opinion that there wont even be a proper vote on this years budget just on the changes in taxation arrangements needed under the finance act. How much input the LDs will have had into this years budget will become clear the closer we get to it because it is probable they will try and leak everything but there maybe a couple of items that GO will not have told Danny Alexander about. As i said the budget will then form the basis of the Tories financial part of their manifesto.
Push IHT threshold up to a million would be good
Insurance Premium Tax is a likely candidate for an increase.
As an insurance broker I always look at this to see whether it will go up - however the Government traditionally does not like to tax (too heavily) 'prudent' actions by the populace. Since insurance is undoubtedly a great benefit and that people stand to lose fortunes without it (which the Government might have to pick up! Witness Pool-re and Flood-re) the Government tries not to discourage the purchase of insurance.
The reason why the level of Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) is 20% for travel insurance and warranties (purchased in shops/ garages) is that travel agents and high-street retailers realised that they could reduce the price of goods/ services (taxed at 20% VAT) and bump up the cost of insurance (taxed at 2.5%, 5% or 6% depending on the year.)
I would like to think you are right, but after Gideons pensions "reforms" I am not so sure. The whole point of forcing people to put their pension pot into an annuity was that it would give them an income for life that they could not get at the principal of, and so the government wouldn't have to fund their old age.
Thanks to Gideon, people can now p*ss their pension up the wall and will be a consequent drain on the social security budget in their dotage.
Sadly I don't think the people running the three main parties are clever enough to think forward as you suggest.
Populus changed their methodology about three weeks ago. Before then they used a 2010 party ID weighting, which resulted in significant down-weighting of parties that have gained support since 2010 - i.e. UKIP and the SNP. Mike posted an article in December about how Populus only had the SNP 3% ahead of Labour on average during November 2014.
Since the methodological change, the down-weighting of UKIP and SNP has been reduced significantly. SNP have been doing much better in their Scottish cross-breaks since then, e.g. today's is SNP 47, Lab 21, Con and LD 11 each.
Richard Nabavi, if you're around... I don't mean to pick a fight, not least because you're a gentleman and (usually) one of the most measured and persuasive Conservative supporters on here, but I think characterising a vote against the Conservatives in May as "voters deliberately wrecking the recovery" is unfair and counter-productive.
I agree that it would be a perverse and irrational result; I suspect you would agree with me that it would auger ill for the long-term sustainability - let alone success - of a democratic UK. But we Conservatives have to search our soul and try to understand why it is that even having delivered a solid economic result voters seem to regard the party with emotions ranging from begrudging acceptance to utter contempt, but not enthusiasm, let alone passion. If we do lose (I remain optimistic that we will not), undoubtedly a large measure of the defeat can be ascribed to the electorate being unwilling to accept even the small measure of restraint the Government has imposed. But mistakes, incompetence, poor policy design and implementation and, most of all, attitude have played a part. Quite simply, when you're palatable to only 37% of the electorate in optimum conditions, you've left yourself no room to manouver. No-one in the Conservative Party seems to be seriously focussed on the urgent need to broaden the party's appeal and find new and ways to engage with the sizeable mass of the electorate who are disenchanted with the party or politics in general. Blaming the voters is never a successful strategy, however wrong they are.
More to the point, those voting for other parties won't believe they are wrecking the recovery. In many cases they will be tribal party supporters who will not have given the recovery any thought. The Conservatives too benefit from tribal support. In other cases they will have been persuaded either that Labour have better policies, or a better approach; or will have other reasons for voting for another party (or at least not voting Conservative). You could argue that those voters are ignorant, or at least don't understand economic reality or the link between public finances and the services they rely on. But a vanishingly small number of voters will mark their ballot with the deliberate intention of wrecking Britain's recovery. And they will be massively outnumbered by the number of voters supporting Labour and other parties in the genuine, honest but (in my view) gravely mistaken belief that by doing so they will secure a better future.
It's absolutely fine to try to persuade people that allowing Labour in jeopardises our public finances and thereby our public services. But you won't win over a single convert by telling them their pleasant intention is malevolent.
As for NOAA http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/17/on-the-biases-caused-by-omissions-in-the-2014-noaa-state-of-the-climate-report/ ''but then NOAA clarifies their global surface temperature anomalies as “+0.69 ± 0.09” deg C. Alas, we discover that the new record high by 0.04 deg C is within the +/-0.09 deg C uncertainty of the dataset.'' ''So, according to NOAA, the chance that 2014 was the warmest on record was 48.0% and based on their table, the global surface temperature anomalies in 2014 appear in the range of “more unlikely than likely”.'' ''Therefore, NOAA has omitted the fact that data indicate El Niño conditions existed along the equatorial Pacific, outside of the region they use as an ENSO index, so they could claim ENSO “conditions remained neutral in this region during the entire year and the globe reached record warmth despite this. Of course, the intent of that NOAA statement was to give the impression that there was a general overall warming that could not be attributed to El Niño conditions, when, in fact, El Niño conditions did exist in 2014.''
This is another area where Ed could surely improve upon. Forget Obama-style rallies he doesn't have the charisma for, get out there and do some bruising interviews with Paxman and the like. He's eloquent and intelligent enough to hold his own and the public would respect him for it.
Very high risk strategy - while eloquent and intelligent, Miliband is not very good thinking on his feet and is uncomfortable when not dictating the flow of conversation. He also gets defensive quickly and resorts to irrelevance as a deflective strategy. That's fine on the Sunday morning sofa with Marr, but against a very good inquisitor I think Miliband would struggle badly. And recently he has created several hostages to fortune that could leave him very exposed.
Still think it's probably not a bad election to lose.
Oh please.
This comes out every single time.
I'm not suggesting any party should 'throw' it.
However if there is any sort of economic crisis (highly likely when you consider the Chinese economy, probable escalation of the middle east situation and the continued Eurozone shambles), we would very likely be into default territory with the UK's debt mountain.
As for NOAA http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/17/on-the-biases-caused-by-omissions-in-the-2014-noaa-state-of-the-climate-report/ ''but then NOAA clarifies their global surface temperature anomalies as “+0.69 ± 0.09” deg C. Alas, we discover that the new record high by 0.04 deg C is within the +/-0.09 deg C uncertainty of the dataset.'' ''So, according to NOAA, the chance that 2014 was the warmest on record was 48.0% and based on their table, the global surface temperature anomalies in 2014 appear in the range of “more unlikely than likely”.'' ''Therefore, NOAA has omitted the fact that data indicate El Niño conditions existed along the equatorial Pacific, outside of the region they use as an ENSO index, so they could claim ENSO “conditions remained neutral in this region during the entire year and the globe reached record warmth despite this. Of course, the intent of that NOAA statement was to give the impression that there was a general overall warming that could not be attributed to El Niño conditions, when, in fact, El Niño conditions did exist in 2014.''
I'd keep that quiet if I were you. Its doing Dave 'slash defence' Cameron no good whatsoever.
Well, do you think Defence will be boosted or kept as is under a Milliband government? I think not.
Defence spending will probably be in an even worse state under a left-wing Lab-SNP-SDLP-Green coalition; Miliband has very little interest in foreign policy.
But that's still no excuse for what the Conservatives are planning to do, or a reason to vote for them.
It sounds suspiciously like "picking numbers out of our backsides". Though coincidentally the same forecasting method has led me to 30 Lib Dem MPs in my own guesses.
I wonder how Nick Clegg would feel about that magic number of 30.
'Buzzing' by Russian planes testing UK defences (and NATO planes doing vice versa) has never stopped since the Cold War. Pilots have been known to smile, wave at each other, and pose for photographs. The only thing that has changed in recent times is the shreiking about it in the press, as 'evidence' of wicked Uncle Putin and his plans to take over the world.
Middle-class voters in some of Scotland’s most prosperous constituencies could rescue Ed Miliband and improve his chances of making it to Downing Street, according to unpublished doorstep canvassing revealed to The Independent.
It sounds suspiciously like "picking numbers out of our backsides". Though coincidentally the same forecasting method has led me to 30 Lib Dem MPs in my own guesses.
I wonder how Nick Clegg would feel about that magic number of 30.
Is it just me or does "remain competitive" in that Guardian article suggest that they are currently losing these seats?
On the basis of the projections, the party is on course to remain competitive in seats that would fall if there was landslide against the Lib Dems, such as Cheltenham, St Ives, Cardiff Central, Eastbourne, Solihull, Cheadle, Leeds North East, Cambridge and Bermondsey.
'Buzzing' by Russian planes testing UK defences (and NATO planes doing vice versa) has never stopped since the Cold War. Pilots have been known to smile, wave at each other, and pose for photographs. The only thing that has changed in recent times is the shreiking about it in the press, as 'evidence' of wicked Uncle Putin and his plans to take over the world.
I'm fully aware of what they, and we, normally get up to, however 'over flying' if it happened is a whole new ball game.
@Flockers_pb - I take your point, I was being a bit flippant with my choice of words. All the same, I think there is a very worrying and perverse anti-business mood, which Ed Miliband has tapped into and even encouraged.
It sounds suspiciously like "picking numbers out of our backsides". Though coincidentally the same forecasting method has led me to 30 Lib Dem MPs in my own guesses.
I wonder how Nick Clegg would feel about that magic number of 30.
Is it just me or does "remain competitive" in that Guardian article suggest that they are currently losing these seats?
On the basis of the projections, the party is on course to remain competitive in seats that would fall if there was landslide against the Lib Dems, such as Cheltenham, St Ives, Cardiff Central, Eastbourne, Solihull, Cheadle, Leeds North East, Cambridge and Bermondsey.
In which case there is plenty of value about.
We'll presumably get to see the detail soon enough, given that pollsters can't part-release polls.
If the Lib Dems take Leeds North East, I'll accept a name change to "Farage4WorldPresident".
On the economic front, it all feels a bit 1997. The conservatives ceding power just as the exchequer starts to coin it.
PSNB (ex. Banks) is still £74bn year to date, compared to £28bn in 1996-97.
Mind you, the big drop in government borrowing happened the next year, down to £6bn, so perhaps you are right and if/when Chancellor Ed Balls delivers the 2016 budget he will be able to announce to the house that the deficit has fallen far faster than forecast by the OBR...
Due to my exams I missed the employment data, glad to see (my own situation notwithstanding...) any threat that the gains might stop has been pushed back a little further. Similarly the economic inactivity stats, which were threatening to account for much of the decline in unemployment, are level. Finally the Exchequer can boast an almost full house of key stats.
It sounds suspiciously like "picking numbers out of our backsides". Though coincidentally the same forecasting method has led me to 30 Lib Dem MPs in my own guesses.
I wonder how Nick Clegg would feel about that magic number of 30.
Is it just me or does "remain competitive" in that Guardian article suggest that they are currently losing these seats?
On the basis of the projections, the party is on course to remain competitive in seats that would fall if there was landslide against the Lib Dems, such as Cheltenham, St Ives, Cardiff Central, Eastbourne, Solihull, Cheadle, Leeds North East, Cambridge and Bermondsey.
In which case there is plenty of value about.
We'll presumably get to see the detail soon enough, given that pollsters can't part-release polls.
If the Lib Dems take Leeds North East, I'll accept a name change to "Farage4WorldPresident".
I assume that should have been Leeds North West. This NE/NW confusion seems to be catching (qv. Ashcroft).
Populus are predicting both Labour and the Conservatives on 273 seats (with the SNP on 48!). You can get 33/1 with Ladbrokes on a tie. I'm not tempted.
The Guardian are increasingly becoming a parody of themselves. The lead UK story features George Osborne, but not in relation to the borrowing figures; instead they seem to think the big news is Osborne re-stating the position of all Chancellors of the last century or two in relation to who makes decisions on prosecuting tax evaders.
Middle-class voters in some of Scotland’s most prosperous constituencies could rescue Ed Miliband and improve his chances of making it to Downing Street, according to unpublished doorstep canvassing revealed to The Independent.
Middle-class voters in some of Scotland’s most prosperous constituencies could rescue Ed Miliband and improve his chances of making it to Downing Street, according to unpublished doorstep canvassing revealed to The Independent.
F1: McLaren slightly hampered by a dodgy seal design (new ones arrive tomorrow). Red Bull remain a little concerned about the Renault engine. We'll see whether that's fixed for the first race (reliability, although on pace it may also be relatively weak).
Mercedes have unreliable drivers, Hamilton had a fever, Rosberg a trapped nerve in his neck (though he's driving today). Hopefully neither problem will prove too serious.
Due to my exams I missed the employment data, glad to see (my own situation notwithstanding...) any threat that the gains might stop has been pushed back a little further. Similarly the economic inactivity stats, which were threatening to account for much of the decline in unemployment, are level. Finally the Exchequer can boast an almost full house of key stats.
Good data coming from Europe too now, as predicted by forward indicators. Interesting stamp duty figures, high end London is certainly slumping, neighbours and neighbours of relatives cutting prices and still no buyers.
It sounds suspiciously like "picking numbers out of our backsides". Though coincidentally the same forecasting method has led me to 30 Lib Dem MPs in my own guesses.
I wonder how Nick Clegg would feel about that magic number of 30.
Is it just me or does "remain competitive" in that Guardian article suggest that they are currently losing these seats?
On the basis of the projections, the party is on course to remain competitive in seats that would fall if there was landslide against the Lib Dems, such as Cheltenham, St Ives, Cardiff Central, Eastbourne, Solihull, Cheadle, Leeds North East, Cambridge and Bermondsey.
In which case there is plenty of value about.
We'll presumably get to see the detail soon enough, given that pollsters can't part-release polls.
If the Lib Dems take Leeds North East, I'll accept a name change to "Farage4WorldPresident".
I think there could be something in this tbh... note two big constituencies not named:
Wells; Somerton & Frome.
I've topped up in Somerton and taken some stake back in Solihull.
Richard Nabavi, if you're around... I don't mean to pick a fight, not least because you're a gentleman and (usually) one of the most measured and persuasive Conservative supporters on here, but I think characterising a vote against the Conservatives in May as "voters deliberately wrecking the recovery" is unfair and counter-productive.
I agree that it would be a perverse and irrational result; I suspect you would agree with me that it would auger ill for the long-term sustainability - let alone success - of a democratic UK. But we Conservatives have to search our soul and try to understand why it is that even having delivered a solid economic result voters seem to regard the party with emotions ranging from begrudging acceptance to utter contempt, but not enthusiasm, let alone passion. If we do lose (I remain optimistic that we will not), undoubtedly a large measure of the defeat can be ascribed to the electorate being unwilling to accept even the small measure of restraint the Government has imposed. But mistakes, incompetence, poor policy design and implementation and, most of all, attitude have played a part. Quite simply, when you're palatable to only 37% of the electorate in optimum conditions, you've left yourself no room to manouver. No-one in the Conservative Party seems to be seriously focussed on the urgent need to broaden the party's appeal and find new and ways to engage with the sizeable mass of the electorate who are disenchanted with the party or politics in general. Blaming the voters is never a successful strategy, however wrong they are.
More to the point, those voting for other parties won't believe they are wrecking the recovery. In many cases they will be tribal party supporters who will not have given the recovery any thought. The Conservatives too benefit from tribal support. In other cases they will have been persuaded either that Labour have better policies, or a better approach; or will have other reasons for voting for another party (or at least not voting Conservative). You could argue that those voters are ignorant, or at least don't understand economic reality or the link between public finances and the services they rely on. But a vanishingly small number of voters will mark their ballot with the deliberate intention of wrecking Britain's recovery. And they will be massively outnumbered by the number of voters supporting Labour and other parties in the genuine, honest but (in my view) gravely mistaken belief that by doing so they will secure a better future.
It's absolutely fine to try to persuade people that allowing Labour in jeopardises our public finances and thereby our public services. But you won't win over a single convert by telling them their pleasant intention is malevolent.
Populus are predicting both Labour and the Conservatives on 273 seats (with the SNP on 48!). You can get 33/1 with Ladbrokes on a tie. I'm not tempted.
Due to my exams I missed the employment data, glad to see (my own situation notwithstanding...) any threat that the gains might stop has been pushed back a little further. Similarly the economic inactivity stats, which were threatening to account for much of the decline in unemployment, are level. Finally the Exchequer can boast an almost full house of key stats.
Good data coming from Europe too now, as predicted by forward indicators. Interesting stamp duty figures, high end London is certainly slumping, neighbours and neighbours of relatives cutting prices and still no buyers.
"high end London is certainly slumping, neighbours and neighbours of relatives cutting prices and still no buyers."
Part-ELBOW for polls so far this week (inc. today's Sun YG) - LibDems on 8.2%, which, if sustained till Sunday, would be their highest weekly score since 24th August!
Middle-class voters in some of Scotland’s most prosperous constituencies could rescue Ed Miliband and improve his chances of making it to Downing Street, according to unpublished doorstep canvassing revealed to The Independent.
The SNP has a good record in providing family friendly policy at Holyrood, I doubt Labour would have any improvement in the "mothers" group than any other Scottish sub-sample.
Populus are predicting both Labour and the Conservatives on 273 seats (with the SNP on 48!). You can get 33/1 with Ladbrokes on a tie. I'm not tempted.
That analysis is one of the most convincing cases that the world is actually warming that I have ever seen.
I am agnostic on climate change and don't think we should prioritise energy policy certainly off the back of it.
But the article certainly makes a compelling statistical case for global warming.
O/T
I must admit to have been rather AGW-sceptic in the past, however there I agree that the evidence that we are warming is becoming more compelling.
How much of this is forcing and how much natural variation is still very questionable however.
I suspect we currently have less than 1% of the knowledge that we will have in say 20-30 years time on the subject, particularly if the big orange thing in the sky goes into a slumber as many solar scientists are now expecting.
It sounds suspiciously like "picking numbers out of our backsides". Though coincidentally the same forecasting method has led me to 30 Lib Dem MPs in my own guesses.
I wonder how Nick Clegg would feel about that magic number of 30.
Is it just me or does "remain competitive" in that Guardian article suggest that they are currently losing these seats?
On the basis of the projections, the party is on course to remain competitive in seats that would fall if there was landslide against the Lib Dems, such as Cheltenham, St Ives, Cardiff Central, Eastbourne, Solihull, Cheadle, Leeds North East, Cambridge and Bermondsey.
In which case there is plenty of value about.
We'll presumably get to see the detail soon enough, given that pollsters can't part-release polls.
If the Lib Dems take Leeds North East, I'll accept a name change to "Farage4WorldPresident".
I assume that should have been Leeds North West. This NE/NW confusion seems to be catching (qv. Ashcroft).
Earnings pick up coming too late for the Conservatives, end of year election and they would 5 or 6 ahead. 2 point lead in May if the economic indicators model works exactly, it doesn't always.
Due to my exams I missed the employment data, glad to see (my own situation notwithstanding...) any threat that the gains might stop has been pushed back a little further. Similarly the economic inactivity stats, which were threatening to account for much of the decline in unemployment, are level. Finally the Exchequer can boast an almost full house of key stats.
Good data coming from Europe too now, as predicted by forward indicators. Interesting stamp duty figures, high end London is certainly slumping, neighbours and neighbours of relatives cutting prices and still no buyers.
"high end London is certainly slumping, neighbours and neighbours of relatives cutting prices and still no buyers."
Part-ELBOW for polls so far this week (inc. today's Sun YG) - LibDems on 8.2%, which, if sustained till Sunday, would be their highest weekly score since 24th August
It sounds suspiciously like "picking numbers out of our backsides". Though coincidentally the same forecasting method has led me to 30 Lib Dem MPs in my own guesses.
I wonder how Nick Clegg would feel about that magic number of 30.
Is it just me or does "remain competitive" in that Guardian article suggest that they are currently losing these seats?
On the basis of the projections, the party is on course to remain competitive in seats that would fall if there was landslide against the Lib Dems, such as Cheltenham, St Ives, Cardiff Central, Eastbourne, Solihull, Cheadle, Leeds North East, Cambridge and Bermondsey.
In which case there is plenty of value about.
We'll presumably get to see the detail soon enough, given that pollsters can't part-release polls.
If the Lib Dems take Leeds North East, I'll accept a name change to "Farage4WorldPresident".
I think there could be something in this tbh... note two big constituencies not named:
Wells; Somerton & Frome.
I've topped up in Somerton and taken some stake back in Solihull.
No mention of Mid Dorset & N Poole either. You're using the information in the same way I am - looking for where isn't named.
I agree that it would be a perverse and irrational result; I suspect you would agree with me that it would auger ill for the long-term sustainability - let alone success - of a democratic UK. But we Conservatives have to search our soul and try to understand why it is that even having delivered a solid economic result voters seem to regard the party with emotions ranging from begrudging acceptance to utter contempt, but not enthusiasm, let alone passion. If we do lose (I remain optimistic that we will not), undoubtedly a large measure of the defeat can be ascribed to the electorate being unwilling to accept even the small measure of restraint the Government has imposed. But mistakes, incompetence, poor policy design and implementation and, most of all, attitude have played a part. Quite simply, when you're palatable to only 37% of the electorate in optimum conditions, you've left yourself no room to manouver. No-one in the Conservative Party seems to be seriously focussed on the urgent need to broaden the party's appeal and find new and ways to engage with the sizeable mass of the electorate who are disenchanted with the party or politics in general. Blaming the voters is never a successful strategy, however wrong they are.
More to the point, those voting for other parties won't believe they are wrecking the recovery. In many cases they will be tribal party supporters who will not have given the recovery any thought. The Conservatives too benefit from tribal support. In other cases they will have been persuaded either that Labour have better policies, or a better approach; or will have other reasons for voting for another party (or at least not voting Conservative). You could argue that those voters are ignorant, or at least don't understand economic reality or the link between public finances and the services they rely on. But a vanishingly small number of voters will mark their ballot with the deliberate intention of wrecking Britain's recovery. And they will be massively outnumbered by the number of voters supporting Labour and other parties in the genuine, honest but (in my view) gravely mistaken belief that by doing so they will secure a better future.
It's absolutely fine to try to persuade people that allowing Labour in jeopardises our public finances and thereby our public services. But you won't win over a single convert by telling them their pleasant intention is malevolent.
I agree with Cyclefree, a really excellent post. I wonder if the hatred of the Tories goes all the way back to just after WW2 where the wartime deprivation didn't seem to be lifted quickly enough.
It sounds suspiciously like "picking numbers out of our backsides". Though coincidentally the same forecasting method has led me to 30 Lib Dem MPs in my own guesses.
I wonder how Nick Clegg would feel about that magic number of 30.
Is it just me or does "remain competitive" in that Guardian article suggest that they are currently losing these seats?
On the basis of the projections, the party is on course to remain competitive in seats that would fall if there was landslide against the Lib Dems, such as Cheltenham, St Ives, Cardiff Central, Eastbourne, Solihull, Cheadle, Leeds North East, Cambridge and Bermondsey.
In which case there is plenty of value about.
We'll presumably get to see the detail soon enough, given that pollsters can't part-release polls.
If the Lib Dems take Leeds North East, I'll accept a name change to "Farage4WorldPresident".
I assume that should have been Leeds North West. This NE/NW confusion seems to be catching (qv. Ashcroft).
Reckon he def polled the wrong Cambs
How likely do you think it is that UKIP will poll higher in NW Cambs than NE Cambs?
75% chance, or 90%?
Not trying to make a point, just interested what number you would put on it.
That analysis is one of the most convincing cases that the world is actually warming that I have ever seen.
I am agnostic on climate change and don't think we should prioritise energy policy certainly off the back of it.
But the article certainly makes a compelling statistical case for global warming.
The article says ''it should be very clear that the probabilities calculated for the propaganda campaign to hype the latest record warming are pure nonsense with no relationship to reality. The behaviour of the global temperature series from NOAA in the 21st century is probabilistically unremarkable and consistent with the persistence characteristics of the temperature record as observed in the previous century.''
In articles elsewhere you can read that NOAA have deliberately misrepresented the effect of the 2014 El Nino
I particularly enjoyed one line in the Guardian article about Lib Dem private polling:
"Party officials say they have conducted less polling in Scotland where the Lib Dems faces the risk of losing more than half of their 11 seats, including the one held by Danny Alexander, the chief secretary to the Treasury."
I agree with Cyclefree, a really excellent post. I wonder if the hatred of the Tories goes all the way back to just after WW2 where the wartime deprivation didn't seem to be lifted quickly enough.
What I dont understand is if you voted Tory in 2010 why wouldn't you vote for them now?
Unemployment down Inflation very low Record employment Booming economy Low interest rates Personal allowance increased to £10,000 Deficit falling, tax income increasing
As a firm we have increased in size by 50% over the last 2 years and have taken on 16 apprentices in that time.
These are halcyon days yet the tories are on 31% in todays poll
Imagine if the economy was like France, what % would they be on?
I particularly enjoyed one line in the Guardian article about Lib Dem private polling:
"Party officials say they have conducted less polling in Scotland where the Lib Dems faces the risk of losing more than half of their 11 seats, including the one held by Danny Alexander, the chief secretary to the Treasury."
I particularly enjoyed one line in the Guardian article about Lib Dem private polling:
"Party officials say they have conducted less polling in Scotland where the Lib Dems faces the risk of losing more than half of their 11 seats, including the one held by Danny Alexander, the chief secretary to the Treasury."
It sounds suspiciously like "picking numbers out of our backsides". Though coincidentally the same forecasting method has led me to 30 Lib Dem MPs in my own guesses.
I wonder how Nick Clegg would feel about that magic number of 30.
Is it just me or does "remain competitive" in that Guardian article suggest that they are currently losing these seats?
On the basis of the projections, the party is on course to remain competitive in seats that would fall if there was landslide against the Lib Dems, such as Cheltenham, St Ives, Cardiff Central, Eastbourne, Solihull, Cheadle, Leeds North East, Cambridge and Bermondsey.
In which case there is plenty of value about.
We'll presumably get to see the detail soon enough, given that pollsters can't part-release polls.
If the Lib Dems take Leeds North East, I'll accept a name change to "Farage4WorldPresident".
I assume that should have been Leeds North West. This NE/NW confusion seems to be catching (qv. Ashcroft).
Reckon he def polled the wrong Cambs
How likely do you think it is that UKIP will poll higher in NW Cambs than NE Cambs?
75% chance, or 90%?
Not trying to make a point, just interested what number you would put on it.
Well the best odds are NW 5/1, NE 12/1 - so polling North West Cambs would make rather sense.
It sounds suspiciously like "picking numbers out of our backsides". Though coincidentally the same forecasting method has led me to 30 Lib Dem MPs in my own guesses.
I wonder how Nick Clegg would feel about that magic number of 30.
Is it just me or does "remain competitive" in that Guardian article suggest that they are currently losing these seats?
On the basis of the projections, the party is on course to remain competitive in seats that would fall if there was landslide against the Lib Dems, such as Cheltenham, St Ives, Cardiff Central, Eastbourne, Solihull, Cheadle, Leeds North East, Cambridge and Bermondsey.
In which case there is plenty of value about.
We'll presumably get to see the detail soon enough, given that pollsters can't part-release polls.
If the Lib Dems take Leeds North East, I'll accept a name change to "Farage4WorldPresident".
I assume that should have been Leeds North West. This NE/NW confusion seems to be catching (qv. Ashcroft).
Reckon he def polled the wrong Cambs
How likely do you think it is that UKIP will poll higher in NW Cambs than NE Cambs?
75% chance, or 90%?
Not trying to make a point, just interested what number you would put on it.
Looking at it, poss a rash comment... The NW Cambs candidate is a bit of a head honcho and will def get a lot of campaigning support I guarantee that. The raw numbers aren't all that different (no bnp running NW Cambs last time) so I'd say 75/25 NW fav?
I particularly enjoyed one line in the Guardian article about Lib Dem private polling:
"Party officials say they have conducted less polling in Scotland where the Lib Dems faces the risk of losing more than half of their 11 seats, including the one held by Danny Alexander, the chief secretary to the Treasury."
How convenient.
Half? Half?
I can't get the smile off my face.
Really. Half. Lol.
"More than half". It's technically accurate.
True. It's accurate in the same way as Creepy Jim's claim that Scottish Labour "won't lose a single seat to the SNP".
I particularly enjoyed one line in the Guardian article about Lib Dem private polling:
"Party officials say they have conducted less polling in Scotland where the Lib Dems faces the risk of losing more than half of their 11 seats, including the one held by Danny Alexander, the chief secretary to the Treasury."
How convenient.
Half? Half?
I can't get the smile off my face.
Really. Half. Lol.
Remember the European elections when they went from 11 MEPs to just clinging onto one. In the campaign itself they were acting very confiently and it was only in the last week that expectations management came into play. I guess this is what will happen in the GE as well
I particularly enjoyed one line in the Guardian article about Lib Dem private polling:
"Party officials say they have conducted less polling in Scotland where the Lib Dems faces the risk of losing more than half of their 11 seats, including the one held by Danny Alexander, the chief secretary to the Treasury."
How convenient.
Half? Half?
I can't get the smile off my face.
Really. Half. Lol.
"More than half". It's technically accurate.
I wonder what odds are available on losing less than half, I have an irrational urge to bet on some ludicrous long shots.
@Osborne budget giveaway: he does now have soom room for manoeuvre. I expect him to be highly tactical. Something that gives an immediate big political impact. Something 'Conservative' that forces Labour to deny or respond. Or to not be able to react to before the election. In other words, a game changer.
Falling petrol prices have not led to a recovery in the Conservative polling position, so I rule that out. The two great unreformed (and most unpopular) taxes are inheritance tax and council tax.
A rebranding/grading of council tax is possibly too risky that close to an election. But what if he links the two and kills two birds with one stone?
One of the Conservatives most famous tactical moves was Osborne annoucing the IHT threshold would be lifted in 2007 to £1million pounds. It led to an immediate uplift in the polls, and forced Gordon Brown to call off the election.
What if this time he implements it?
Expect him to be responsible (so as not to dilute the deficit message) and also to be fair (so as not to repaint the Tories as the party of the rich) - he would do both if he announced new council tax bands for high end value wealthy homes.
That'd allow him to say, if you're very wealthy we expect you to pay a little more of a contribution to fund local services whilst you're alive. However, if you're a middle-earner we will no longer confiscate your assets when you die.
Why have Populus suddenly decided UKIP will do better than they did before in the last month ?
Look at the party ID weighting. The target for UKIP is now 6%, was 4%.
Why 6% and not 8%? Or 2%?
Feels like it is mostly a guess to me.
#OblitusSumMe #Pulpstar You guys are are getting jittery, and panicking that UKIP are on the brink of another mighty surge, and that this Populus poll is the start of it.
Aus vs Bangladesh could be a washout meaning a point each and more woe for England!!
That could be the nail in the coffin and typical - would mean we needed to beat SL. Brings back memories I was in S Africa for the World cup where England got booted out because they refused to play in Zimbabwe - I ended up with tickets for 3 matches featuring Kenya
Why have Populus suddenly decided UKIP will do better than they did before in the last month ?
Look at the party ID weighting. The target for UKIP is now 6%, was 4%.
Why 6% and not 8%? Or 2%?
Feels like it is mostly a guess to me.
#OblitusSumMe #Pulpstar You guys are are getting jittery, and panicking that UKIP are on the brink of another mighty surge, and that this Populus poll is the start of it.
UKIP not peaking yet!
Why would I be feeling jittery about a UKIP surge, I'm backing them in quite a few seats and haven't outright backed against them anywhere. True I did lay off Boston yesterday but overall UKIP doing well is very good for me.
@Osborne budget giveaway: he does now have soom room for manoeuvre. I expect him to be highly tactical. Something that gives an immediate big political impact. Something 'Conservative' that forces Labour to deny or respond. Or to not be able to react to before the election. In other words, a game changer.
Falling petrol prices have not led to a recovery in the Conservative polling position, so I rule that out. The two great unreformed (and most unpopular) taxes are inheritance tax and council tax.
A rebranding/grading of council tax is possibly too risky that close to an election. But what if he links the two and kills two birds with one stone?
One of the Conservatives most famous tactical moves was Osborne annoucing the IHT threshold would be lifted in 2007 to £1million pounds. It led to an immediate uplift in the polls, and forced Gordon Brown to call off the election.
What if this time he implements it?
Expect him to be responsible (so as not to dilute the deficit message) and also to be fair (so as not to repaint the Tories as the party of the rich) - he would do both if he announced new council tax bands for high end value wealthy homes.
That'd allow him to say, if you're very wealthy we expect you to pay a little more of a contribution to fund local services whilst you're alive. However, if you're a middle-earner we will no longer confiscate your assets when you die.
How about a decent uplift of the higher tax threshold? that would be popular (with me :-)
I agree that it would be a perverse and irrational result; I suspect you would agree with me that it would auger ill for the long-term sustainability - let alone success - of a democratic UK. But we Conservatives have to search our soul and try to understand why it is that even having delivered a solid economic result voters seem to regard the party with emotions ranging from begrudging acceptance to utter contempt, but not enthusiasm, let alone passion. If we do lose (I remain optimistic that we will not), undoubtedly a large measure of the defeat can be ascribed to the electorate being unwilling to accept even the small measure of restraint the Government has imposed. But mistakes, incompetence, poor policy design and implementation and, most of all, attitude have played a part. Quite simply, when you're palatable to only 37% of the electorate in optimum conditions, you've left yourself no room to manouver. No-one in the Conservative Party seems to be seriously focussed on the urgent need to broaden the party's appeal and find new and ways to engage with the sizeable mass of the electorate who are disenchanted with the party or politics in general. Blaming the voters is never a successful strategy, however wrong they are.
More to the point, those voting for other parties won't believe they are wrecking the recovery. In many cases they will be tribal party supporters who will not have given the recovery any thought. The Conservatives too benefit from tribal support. In other cases they will have been persuaded either that Labour have better policies, or a better approach; or will have other reasons for voting for another party (or at least not voting Conservative). You could argue that those voters are ignorant, or at least don't understand economic reality or the link between public finances and the services they rely on. But a vanishingly small number of voters will mark their ballot with the deliberate intention of wrecking Britain's recovery. And they will be massively outnumbered by the number of voters supporting Labour and other parties in the genuine, honest but (in my view) gravely mistaken belief that by doing so they will secure a better future.
It's absolutely fine to try to persuade people that allowing Labour in jeopardises our public finances and thereby our public services. But you won't win over a single convert by telling them their pleasant intention is malevolent.
I agree with Cyclefree, a really excellent post. I wonder if the hatred of the Tories goes all the way back to just after WW2 where the wartime deprivation didn't seem to be lifted quickly enough.
I seem to recall that immediately after WWII there was a Labour government intent on rationing and nationalisation of everything. As WSC said the problem with Labour demanding equality was the outcome of misery for everyone.
If Lorely Burt hangs on in Solihull, it will be the best comeback since Lazarus. Quite apart from her ethereal majority, there's a councillor who is an ex-Lib Dem running as the Green candidate - the Greens didn't previously have a candidate in Solihull, and there are quite a few Greens on the council. I'm going to need a lot more than one poll from Survation to persuade me that she stands a sporting chance.
I particularly enjoyed one line in the Guardian article about Lib Dem private polling:
"Party officials say they have conducted less polling in Scotland where the Lib Dems faces the risk of losing more than half of their 11 seats, including the one held by Danny Alexander, the chief secretary to the Treasury."
How convenient.
Half? Half?
I can't get the smile off my face.
Really. Half. Lol.
"More than half". It's technically accurate.
I wonder what odds are available on losing less than half, I have an irrational urge to bet on some ludicrous long shots.
I couldn't resist a sneaky bet on Edi West given the "Yes" vote there and incumbency, I'm writing off Labour in that seat which might be wrong but hey ho.
One of the difficulties that all the lesser parties (Libdems, SNP, UKIP and to a lesser extent the Greens) face that does not affect Labour or the Tories is the fact their leading Westminster player have to fight tough constituency battles to get themselves elected.
Now for the greens that is partly offset by the fact that Natalie Bennett doesn't stand that much chance in Holborn so she can front up the Green campaign nationally. Alex Salmond has stood down and Nicola Sturgeon has taken over and will no doubt be the SNP's national voice during the campaign. As for UKIP this article sets out Farage's approach and explains why he has been largely invisible for the last couple of months. As the election gets closer he will move from wholly being on the local stage to joining the national debate.
Nigel Farage Is Avoiding The Media In His Bid To Get Into Parliament
But what of Nick Clegg now that there have been 3 (?) polls suggesting he may be behind in his seat? How much time has he had and will have to campaign in his seat? He has not only his duties for his Party but as DPM. Now given it must be his priority to retain his seat will that in turn effect his ability to fulfil his role as the Libdem's national figurehead and therefore impact their national vote share minimising any swingback effect.
Could it be whilst the Libdems are very effective in shoring up the seats they hold, their national vote share suffers because almost all the senior Libdems will be under severe pressure? Its not just Clegg. Almost all of their MPs are under real pressure so how much time will they have to put forward a coherent national campaign?
@Osborne budget giveaway: he does now have soom room for manoeuvre. I expect him to be highly tactical. Something that gives an immediate big political impact. Something 'Conservative' that forces Labour to deny or respond. Or to not be able to react to before the election. In other words, a game changer.
Falling petrol prices have not led to a recovery in the Conservative polling position, so I rule that out. The two great unreformed (and most unpopular) taxes are inheritance tax and council tax.
A rebranding/grading of council tax is possibly too risky that close to an election. But what if he links the two and kills two birds with one stone?
One of the Conservatives most famous tactical moves was Osborne annoucing the IHT threshold would be lifted in 2007 to £1million pounds. It led to an immediate uplift in the polls, and forced Gordon Brown to call off the election.
What if this time he implements it?
Expect him to be responsible (so as not to dilute the deficit message) and also to be fair (so as not to repaint the Tories as the party of the rich) - he would do both if he announced new council tax bands for high end value wealthy homes.
That'd allow him to say, if you're very wealthy we expect you to pay a little more of a contribution to fund local services whilst you're alive. However, if you're a middle-earner we will no longer confiscate your assets when you die.
How about a decent uplift of the higher tax threshold? that would be popular (with me :-)
He might but it won't have the same impact. The announcement at October party conference did not lead to a sustained improvement. It can too easily be painted as just affecting higher earners.
The thing about inheritance tax is: everything thinks that might have to pay it.
Also, interestingly, I note the freeze that Darling put in place in December 2009 expires on 5th April this year:
O/T I wonder if the Greek plan was to leave the Euro all along and they've strung out the discussion to allow as much money to be pulled out of the banks as possible!
I seem to recall that immediately after WWII there was a Labour government intent on rationing and nationalisation of everything. As WSC said the problem with Labour demanding equality was the outcome of misery for everyone."
Not really. The political centre of gravity was further left. The Tories in the late 1950s built more council houses than any other government has done.
@Osborne budget giveaway: he does now have soom room for manoeuvre. I expect him to be highly tactical. Something that gives an immediate big political impact. Something 'Conservative' that forces Labour to deny or respond. Or to not be able to react to before the election. In other words, a game changer.
Falling petrol prices have not led to a recovery in the Conservative polling position, so I rule that out. The two great unreformed (and most unpopular) taxes are inheritance tax and council tax.
A rebranding/grading of council tax is possibly too risky that close to an election. But what if he links the two and kills two birds with one stone?
One of the Conservatives most famous tactical moves was Osborne annoucing the IHT threshold would be lifted in 2007 to £1million pounds. It led to an immediate uplift in the polls, and forced Gordon Brown to call off the election.
What if this time he implements it?
Expect him to be responsible (so as not to dilute the deficit message) and also to be fair (so as not to repaint the Tories as the party of the rich) - he would do both if he announced new council tax bands for high end value wealthy homes.
How about a decent uplift of the higher tax threshold? that would be popular (with me :-)
I believe that will be the most likely bribe, I mean incentive, to the electorate on the basis that the money will be with people the quickest.
My guess is an above inflation rise of the tax threshold together with an even bigger uplift of the higher tax threshold.
IHT and council tax may well feature as manifesto issues if re-elected. The promise of couple of higher bands for council tax would certainly also grease the wheel for a potential link up with the Lib Dems again.
"I agree with Cyclefree, a really excellent post. I wonder if the hatred of the Tories goes all the way back to just after WW2 where the wartime deprivation didn't seem to be lifted quickly enough." -------- The first post war government was Labour, PM Atlee. This was the government that nationalised heaps of industry only to see production hit a nadir under the close scrutiny of the Unions. They also wasted the millions of dollars received under the Marshal Plan and had to devalue the Pound from just over $4 to $ 2:80, in 1948. Not Tory at all.
If Lorely Burt hangs on in Solihull, it will be the best comeback since Lazarus. Quite apart from her ethereal majority, there's a councillor who is an ex-Lib Dem running as the Green candidate - the Greens didn't previously have a candidate in Solihull, and there are quite a few Greens on the council. I'm going to need a lot more than one poll from Survation to persuade me that she stands a sporting chance.
I've just moved from having £125 against her to effectively £75. Hadn't noticed Mid Dorset & North Poole either, added that to the Lib Dem death list.
Comments
The reason why there will be tax cuts. The media will cover them alright.
I'd keep that quiet if I were you. Its doing Dave 'slash defence' Cameron no good whatsoever.
Thanks to Gideon, people can now p*ss their pension up the wall and will be a consequent drain on the social security budget in their dotage.
Sadly I don't think the people running the three main parties are clever enough to think forward as you suggest.
Since the methodological change, the down-weighting of UKIP and SNP has been reduced significantly. SNP have been doing much better in their Scottish cross-breaks since then, e.g. today's is SNP 47, Lab 21, Con and LD 11 each.
I agree that it would be a perverse and irrational result; I suspect you would agree with me that it would auger ill for the long-term sustainability - let alone success - of a democratic UK. But we Conservatives have to search our soul and try to understand why it is that even having delivered a solid economic result voters seem to regard the party with emotions ranging from begrudging acceptance to utter contempt, but not enthusiasm, let alone passion. If we do lose (I remain optimistic that we will not), undoubtedly a large measure of the defeat can be ascribed to the electorate being unwilling to accept even the small measure of restraint the Government has imposed. But mistakes, incompetence, poor policy design and implementation and, most of all, attitude have played a part. Quite simply, when you're palatable to only 37% of the electorate in optimum conditions, you've left yourself no room to manouver. No-one in the Conservative Party seems to be seriously focussed on the urgent need to broaden the party's appeal and find new and ways to engage with the sizeable mass of the electorate who are disenchanted with the party or politics in general. Blaming the voters is never a successful strategy, however wrong they are.
More to the point, those voting for other parties won't believe they are wrecking the recovery. In many cases they will be tribal party supporters who will not have given the recovery any thought. The Conservatives too benefit from tribal support. In other cases they will have been persuaded either that Labour have better policies, or a better approach; or will have other reasons for voting for another party (or at least not voting Conservative). You could argue that those voters are ignorant, or at least don't understand economic reality or the link between public finances and the services they rely on. But a vanishingly small number of voters will mark their ballot with the deliberate intention of wrecking Britain's recovery. And they will be massively outnumbered by the number of voters supporting Labour and other parties in the genuine, honest but (in my view) gravely mistaken belief that by doing so they will secure a better future.
It's absolutely fine to try to persuade people that allowing Labour in jeopardises our public finances and thereby our public services. But you won't win over a single convert by telling them their pleasant intention is malevolent.
In an apocalyptic scenario if the gulf stream gets affected/switched off then the UK turns into a snowball given the latitude we are at.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2960443/Teenage-British-Army-soldier-leaves-join-Kurdish-Peshmerga-fight-against-ISIS.html
18p and 38p rates please.
However if there is any sort of economic crisis (highly likely when you consider the Chinese economy, probable escalation of the middle east situation and the continued Eurozone shambles), we would very likely be into default territory with the UK's debt mountain.
What mythical credibility is this?
http://may2015.com/featured/introducing-the-new-statesman-political-index-lib-dems-to-win-at-least-30-seats/
That analysis is one of the most convincing cases that the world is actually warming that I have ever seen.
I am agnostic on climate change and don't think we should prioritise energy policy certainly off the back of it.
But the article certainly makes a compelling statistical case for global warming.
But that's still no excuse for what the Conservatives are planning to do, or a reason to vote for them.
I wonder how Nick Clegg would feel about that magic number of 30.
Why 6% and not 8%? Or 2%?
Feels like it is mostly a guess to me.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/wealthy-scottish-voters-could-offer-ed-miliband-a-route-to-no-10-10057853.html
It was all sounding so intriguing until I got to unpublished doorstep canvassing
Of course that isn't to say their are anti-SNP tactical voters.....
On the basis of the projections, the party is on course to remain competitive in seats that would fall if there was landslide against the Lib Dems, such as Cheltenham, St Ives, Cardiff Central, Eastbourne, Solihull, Cheadle, Leeds North East, Cambridge and Bermondsey.
In which case there is plenty of value about.
Be afraid when Russian Blackjacks start playing.
http://www.standard.co.uk/business/business-news/osborne-boosted-by-biggest-tax-surge-since-2008-as-january-sees-88bn-budget-surplus-10059056.html
Tick Tock. Tick Tock.
If the Lib Dems take Leeds North East, I'll accept a name change to "Farage4WorldPresident".
Mind you, the big drop in government borrowing happened the next year, down to £6bn, so perhaps you are right and if/when Chancellor Ed Balls delivers the 2016 budget he will be able to announce to the house that the deficit has fallen far faster than forecast by the OBR...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c6ffc518-b844-11e4-b6a5-00144feab7de.html#axzz3SHdpX68T
Populus are predicting both Labour and the Conservatives on 273 seats (with the SNP on 48!). You can get 33/1 with Ladbrokes on a tie. I'm not tempted.
43% SNP
24% Con
21% Lab
6% Lib
4% Green
3% UKIP
So basically, the wealthiest socio-economic group is... bad news for Labour.
Labour: Mothers 46%, women not parents 33%, fathers 35%, men not parents 33%
(TNS break down their results by gender, and parenthood.)
p.80
http://www2.tnsglobal.com/l/36112/2015-02-17/3ghkfh/36112/77704/BIF_datatables_18Feb2015.pdf
Mercedes have unreliable drivers, Hamilton had a fever, Rosberg a trapped nerve in his neck (though he's driving today). Hopefully neither problem will prove too serious.
Wells; Somerton & Frome.
I've topped up in Somerton and taken some stake back in Solihull.
PB's final summary is Cons ahead: 284.7 / 280.4
Worried about Miliband getting in?
The SNP has a good record in providing family friendly policy at Holyrood, I doubt Labour would have any improvement in the "mothers" group than any other Scottish sub-sample.
I think I have the blues a tiny bit lower than that, and Labour about 15 seats lower.
I must admit to have been rather AGW-sceptic in the past, however there I agree that the evidence that we are warming is becoming more compelling.
How much of this is forcing and how much natural variation is still very questionable however.
I suspect we currently have less than 1% of the knowledge that we will have in say 20-30 years time on the subject, particularly if the big orange thing in the sky goes into a slumber as many solar scientists are now expecting.
http://show.nojam.com/a2so/search.php?s_Name=morr&button=Search
75% chance, or 90%?
Not trying to make a point, just interested what number you would put on it.
In articles elsewhere you can read that NOAA have deliberately misrepresented the effect of the 2014 El Nino
Aus vs Bangladesh could be a washout meaning a point each and more woe for England!!
"Party officials say they have conducted less polling in Scotland where the Lib Dems faces the risk of losing more than half of their 11 seats, including the one held by Danny Alexander, the chief secretary to the Treasury."
How convenient.
I agree with Cyclefree, a really excellent post. I wonder if the hatred of the Tories goes all the way back to just after WW2 where the wartime deprivation didn't seem to be lifted quickly enough.
What I dont understand is if you voted Tory in 2010 why wouldn't you vote for them now?
Unemployment down
Inflation very low
Record employment
Booming economy
Low interest rates
Personal allowance increased to £10,000
Deficit falling, tax income increasing
As a firm we have increased in size by 50% over the last 2 years and have taken on 16 apprentices in that time.
These are halcyon days yet the tories are on 31% in todays poll
Imagine if the economy was like France, what % would they be on?
I can't get the smile off my face.
Really. Half. Lol.
Some comment from LA's camp would assist.
In the campaign itself they were acting very confiently and it was only in the last week that expectations management came into play.
I guess this is what will happen in the GE as well
Falling petrol prices have not led to a recovery in the Conservative polling position, so I rule that out. The two great unreformed (and most unpopular) taxes are inheritance tax and council tax.
A rebranding/grading of council tax is possibly too risky that close to an election. But what if he links the two and kills two birds with one stone?
One of the Conservatives most famous tactical moves was Osborne annoucing the IHT threshold would be lifted in 2007 to £1million pounds. It led to an immediate uplift in the polls, and forced Gordon Brown to call off the election.
What if this time he implements it?
Expect him to be responsible (so as not to dilute the deficit message) and also to be fair (so as not to repaint the Tories as the party of the rich) - he would do both if he announced new council tax bands for high end value wealthy homes.
That'd allow him to say, if you're very wealthy we expect you to pay a little more of a contribution to fund local services whilst you're alive. However, if you're a middle-earner we will no longer confiscate your assets when you die.
#Pulpstar
You guys are are getting jittery, and panicking that UKIP are on the brink of another mighty surge, and that this Populus poll is the start of it.
UKIP not peaking yet!
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/20/swinging-for-victory-how-the-political-landscape-in-scotland-is-changing
Now for the greens that is partly offset by the fact that Natalie Bennett doesn't stand that much chance in Holborn so she can front up the Green campaign nationally. Alex Salmond has stood down and Nicola Sturgeon has taken over and will no doubt be the SNP's national voice during the campaign. As for UKIP this article sets out Farage's approach and explains why he has been largely invisible for the last couple of months. As the election gets closer he will move from wholly being on the local stage to joining the national debate.
Nigel Farage Is Avoiding The Media In His Bid To Get Into Parliament
http://www.buzzfeed.com/emilyashton/nigel-farage-takes-on-kent
But what of Nick Clegg now that there have been 3 (?) polls suggesting he may be behind in his seat? How much time has he had and will have to campaign in his seat? He has not only his duties for his Party but as DPM. Now given it must be his priority to retain his seat will that in turn effect his ability to fulfil his role as the Libdem's national figurehead and therefore impact their national vote share minimising any swingback effect.
Could it be whilst the Libdems are very effective in shoring up the seats they hold, their national vote share suffers because almost all the senior Libdems will be under severe pressure? Its not just Clegg. Almost all of their MPs are under real pressure so how much time will they have to put forward a coherent national campaign?
The thing about inheritance tax is: everything thinks that might have to pay it.
Also, interestingly, I note the freeze that Darling put in place in December 2009 expires on 5th April this year:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rates-and-allowances-inheritance-tax-thresholds/rates-and-allowances-inheritance-tax-thresholds
Not really. The political centre of gravity was further left. The Tories in the late 1950s built more council houses than any other government has done.
"I agree with Cyclefree, a really excellent post. I wonder if the hatred of the Tories goes all the way back to just after WW2 where the wartime deprivation didn't seem to be lifted quickly enough."
--------
The first post war government was Labour, PM Atlee. This was the government that nationalised heaps of industry only to see production hit a nadir under the close scrutiny of the Unions. They also wasted the millions of dollars received under the Marshal Plan and had to devalue the Pound from just over $4 to $ 2:80, in 1948. Not Tory at all.