Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tomorrow night is Nigel Farage’s big opportunity

13»

Comments

  • tyson said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Will the leader debate be on the Radio by the way, may well be driving down the M1 when it is on.

    I'm sure it'll be on Radio 5 live.
    I listen to alot of radio, I mean alot, and sometimes you think it's a parallel universe when it comes to politics. Romney pummelled Obama in all three debates, I mean pummelled him. I was astonished when the plaudits started calling it for Obama in 2 and 3.

    For tomorrow, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Labour and UKIP have formed a non aggression pact so they can both concentrate on the Tories. The left and right obviously have some history of these unholy alliances when there is some kind of mutual interest involved.
    Yes I can see Farage and Ed being the latter day Molotov and Ribbentropp.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415

    tyson said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Will the leader debate be on the Radio by the way, may well be driving down the M1 when it is on.

    I'm sure it'll be on Radio 5 live.
    I listen to alot of radio, I mean alot, and sometimes you think it's a parallel universe when it comes to politics. Romney pummelled Obama in all three debates, I mean pummelled him. I was astonished when the plaudits started calling it for Obama in 2 and 3.

    For tomorrow, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Labour and UKIP have formed a non aggression pact so they can both concentrate on the Tories. The left and right obviously have some history of these unholy alliances when there is some kind of mutual interest involved.
    Yes I can see Farage and Ed being the latter day Molotov and Ribbentropp.
    The press seem to hate both of them so they might as well try and stitch up old golden boy.
  • Pulpstar said:

    tyson said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Will the leader debate be on the Radio by the way, may well be driving down the M1 when it is on.

    I'm sure it'll be on Radio 5 live.
    I listen to alot of radio, I mean alot, and sometimes you think it's a parallel universe when it comes to politics. Romney pummelled Obama in all three debates, I mean pummelled him. I was astonished when the plaudits started calling it for Obama in 2 and 3.

    For tomorrow, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Labour and UKIP have formed a non aggression pact so they can both concentrate on the Tories. The left and right obviously have some history of these unholy alliances when there is some kind of mutual interest involved.
    Yes I can see Farage and Ed being the latter day Molotov and Ribbentropp.
    The press seem to hate both of them so they might as well try and stitch up old golden boy.
    But Dave and Nick are latter day Churchill and FDR.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415

    Pulpstar said:

    tyson said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Will the leader debate be on the Radio by the way, may well be driving down the M1 when it is on.

    I'm sure it'll be on Radio 5 live.
    I listen to alot of radio, I mean alot, and sometimes you think it's a parallel universe when it comes to politics. Romney pummelled Obama in all three debates, I mean pummelled him. I was astonished when the plaudits started calling it for Obama in 2 and 3.

    For tomorrow, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Labour and UKIP have formed a non aggression pact so they can both concentrate on the Tories. The left and right obviously have some history of these unholy alliances when there is some kind of mutual interest involved.
    Yes I can see Farage and Ed being the latter day Molotov and Ribbentropp.
    The press seem to hate both of them so they might as well try and stitch up old golden boy.
    But Dave and Nick are latter day Churchill and FDR.
    I'm severely contrary when it comes to politics I reckon. If the press started laying into Dave a bit more I'd be happier about considering voting for him !
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,981
    Nigel

    "No wonder I am thick."

    You're an exception Nigel. A bit grumpy on occasions but not thick!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    I take it most people who read a paper tend to believe the crap in it tho :P
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117
    edited April 2015

    Roger said:

    BJO

    "Kippers do have the lowest IQ though don't they?"

    By a distance I would think. When I see Farage I sometimes wonder whether we have the equipment to measure it

    I'm a humble working class lad from a council flat, my parents could not afford a £30,000 pa education.

    No wonder I am thick.
    My dad, a psychologist, did an IQ test on me when I was four or so. I think the result was in the high 40's which obviously non plussed him. I still managed though straight A's at O and A level, (very nearly) a first, and three masters degrees- all of which required minimum effort from me (I started and completed an MBA thesis in 3 days) but I am completely useless (and I mean useless) at lots of everyday things which drives my wife nuts.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Roger said:

    Nigel

    "No wonder I am thick."

    You're an exception Nigel. A bit grumpy on occasions but not thick!

    I thought it was no wunder I is fik!
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    edited April 2015
    I see the BBC News website has an adventure website where you are an illegal immigrant from Syria and you win by paying human traffickers to smuggle yourself successfully into Europe:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32057601

    Seems impartial.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,542

    MikeL said:

    Dair said:

    MikeL said:

    rogerh said:

    MikeL said:

    BBC1 6pm News - repeat of yesterday - 10 minute report 100% on Con + Lab - followed by Landale doing a sum-up - 100% on Con + Lab.

    Then presenter says round-up of other election news - 10 seconds on Clegg (without him speaking), 10 seconds on UKIP (without any UKIPer speaking), 10 seconds on Samantha Cameron(!)

    This pattern appears to be getting firmly established. If it carries on I can see Con + Lab getting 73% combined - ie 39/34, 38/35 or 37/36 - in whichever order you prefer.

    LD, UKIP and Green are not going to have a chance - LD 9, UKIP 8, Green 4 would be my best guess.

    Agree the BBC has clearly decided on a two horse race approach.
    Yes - I said on here a few days ago this was going to happen.

    When there were 3 major parties they could include the LDs in reports. But with four that's just too many to fit in - so they just concentrate on the big 2.

    Result - making UKIP a major party has had a catastrophic effect on the LDs - and isn't helping UKIP that much.

    Tomorrow's debate is now vital as it is the ONLY chance of anyone other than Con/Lab getting any momentum.
    What is it with Kippers. Is there really that level of stupidity?

    UKIP do not have the same status with OFCOM as the Tories, Liberals and Labour. The Liberals do not have the same status as the Tories and Labour.

    UKIPs status is as a third tier major party, the same as the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the NI parties.

    The OFCOM rules require broadcasters to balance the coverage the Tories and Labour get ONLY. They can show other major parties up to this level but are not required to with the exception of geographicly limited broadcasts. So in Scotland they must give the SNP the same coverage as Labour and the Tories.

    But in UK wide or GB wide broadcasting there is absolutely ZERO requirement for them to give UKIP the same coverage as the Tories and Labour.
    How would I know if Kippers were stupid - I'm not one.

    Of course the BBC is acting entirely within the rules - that is blindingly obvious.

    All I am observing is what is happening.
    Kippers do have the lowest IQ though don't they?
    Kippers tend to be older and more working class than the electorate as a whole, which in some peoples' eyes means " low IQ".

  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    Danny565 said:

    welshowl said:

    welshowl said:

    Danny565 said:

    Cyclefree said:



    If they - or some of them - think that Labour may not be good for business it's worth listening to why they're saying that and dealing with the argument.

    But again, the question is whether these people honestly think Labour are bad for business as a whole, or if they think it will just be bad for those businessmen as individuals and how much money they can undeservedly cream off other people. I don't think voters will have the kind of panglossian view of fat-cats' intentions/honesty that the PBTories do.
    I suspect many in business ( as I am and do ) will think overall that the more Govt of any stripe buggers off and leaves us alone to get on with the business the better.

    If they buggered off entirely and withdrew the massive employer subsidy that is employee tax credits a lot of businesses would be far from happy IMO
    Personally I wouldn't give a monkeys but there again we pay way more than a "living wage" especially for where we are.
    Then I don't understand why you're scared of a Labour government? All they're saying is that you should pay your employees decently and not put them on exploitative zero-hour contracts; if you already do that then I don't understand how you would lose out.
    I do pay them decently and we've never ever had a ZHC. Ever.

    But since you ask. From a business viewpoint, I fear employers NI will go up ( they ruled out NI but what about specific employers' NI) I fear more taxes on workplace pensions like dear Gordon did which has been crucifying us ever since, I fear regulatory muppetry such as " works councils" and other such compulsory distraction talking shop rubbish. I fear corporation tax will go up. I fear the regulations surrounding employment will increase - which will stop us hiring - see France for details. I fear Milliband's reflexive desire to interfere in markets usually with the inevitable law of unintended consequences that follow. I fear more bonkers laws like the one just adjudicated on whereby employers will have to pay for two years arrears of "notional" holiday overtime which may well result in us making people redundant.

    All of those things will end up affecting our workers for the worse eventually.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,027

    welshowl said:

    Danny565 said:

    Cyclefree said:



    If they - or some of them - think that Labour may not be good for business it's worth listening to why they're saying that and dealing with the argument.

    But again, the question is whether these people honestly think Labour are bad for business as a whole, or if they think it will just be bad for those businessmen as individuals and how much money they can undeservedly cream off other people. I don't think voters will have the kind of panglossian view of fat-cats' intentions/honesty that the PBTories do.
    I suspect many in business ( as I am and do ) will think overall that the more Govt of any stripe buggers off and leaves us alone to get on with the business the better.

    If they buggered off entirely and withdrew the massive employer subsidy that is employee tax credits a lot of businesses would be far from happy IMO
    Couldn't agree more.

    Taking tax money with one hand and then giving some of it back via an inefficient bureaucracy is one of the worst behaviours of any government.

    Let's abolish tax credits and reduce income tax and NI to counter it - although I don't quite think that was your argument though!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,947
    The working assumption seems to be that Farage will play a blinder tomorrow. But what if he has a mare? What if the other leaders just mock him at every turn, trash all he says with solid rebuttals - and he comes out of it looking like an ill-informed knob-head. How much do UKIP hopes hang on Farage alone?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Re zhc

    It may sound great to ban exclusivity, but what if the individual has contracts with, for instance, Waitrose, aldi, tesco and Sainsburys?

    Would it be wrong for any of them to say they wouldn't employ her if she worked for a competitor as well?
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034

    welshowl said:

    Danny565 said:

    Cyclefree said:



    If they - or some of them - think that Labour may not be good for business it's worth listening to why they're saying that and dealing with the argument.

    But again, the question is whether these people honestly think Labour are bad for business as a whole, or if they think it will just be bad for those businessmen as individuals and how much money they can undeservedly cream off other people. I don't think voters will have the kind of panglossian view of fat-cats' intentions/honesty that the PBTories do.
    I suspect many in business ( as I am and do ) will think overall that the more Govt of any stripe buggers off and leaves us alone to get on with the business the better.

    If they buggered off entirely and withdrew the massive employer subsidy that is employee tax credits a lot of businesses would be far from happy IMO

    Funny world this. I thought a subsidy is where someone gives you money, and a tax credit is where they take less of your money.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    The working assumption seems to be that Farage will play a blinder tomorrow. But what if he has a mare? What if the other leaders just mock him at every turn, trash all he says with solid rebuttals - and he comes out of it looking like an ill-informed knob-head. How much do UKIP hopes hang on Farage alone?

    I've long thought/worried that Farage may not impress, which made Daves absolute no ifs, no buts resolution to avoid debating him all the more puzzling. A good day for Cam/a bad day for Nige could get him a majority
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117
    Roger said:

    Nigel

    "No wonder I am thick."

    You're an exception Nigel. A bit grumpy on occasions but not thick!

    Roger- you fell into that passive aggressive trap comrade.

    You know Roger, it always amuses me just how much the fact that you are a lefty yet private school educated, successful and wealthy really gets under the skin of the pbCOM community. It is almost like you should be hung as a class traitor.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    edited April 2015

    The working assumption seems to be that Farage will play a blinder tomorrow. But what if he has a mare? What if the other leaders just mock him at every turn, trash all he says with solid rebuttals - and he comes out of it looking like an ill-informed knob-head. How much do UKIP hopes hang on Farage alone?

    He could do both...a blinder and a mare...Lets imagine he says something terribly un-PC, the I wouldn't want Romanians living next door to me type thing. The media will scream and shout and call him a racist and xenophobe and that he has had a mare....but that isn't the market he is aiming at. The people he is trying to get through to don't buy / don't care about the cries of racism and xenophobia after everything he utters.

    So by saying something like that, he will both lose and win at the same time. He will be the loser with the media, but the outcry will get him noticed and in the headlines.

    This is exactly how the Euros went.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Sandpit said:

    welshowl said:

    Danny565 said:

    Cyclefree said:



    If they - or some of them - think that Labour may not be good for business it's worth listening to why they're saying that and dealing with the argument.

    But again, the question is whether these people honestly think Labour are bad for business as a whole, or if they think it will just be bad for those businessmen as individuals and how much money they can undeservedly cream off other people. I don't think voters will have the kind of panglossian view of fat-cats' intentions/honesty that the PBTories do.
    I suspect many in business ( as I am and do ) will think overall that the more Govt of any stripe buggers off and leaves us alone to get on with the business the better.

    If they buggered off entirely and withdrew the massive employer subsidy that is employee tax credits a lot of businesses would be far from happy IMO
    Couldn't agree more.

    Taking tax money with one hand and then giving some of it back via an inefficient bureaucracy is one of the worst behaviours of any government.

    Let's abolish tax credits and reduce income tax and NI to counter it - although I don't quite think that was your argument though!
    More that Employers should pay sufficient wages to enable their staff to live without Taxpayers having to subsidize them.

    Presume you don't agree as businesses couldn't possibly afford it.

    Funny how they can afford an 180:1 Chief Exec to Average employee ratio.

    http://www.cityam.com/1405370937/chief-executives-earn-almost-180-times-uk-s-average-salary
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    BBC says 700,000 people have a zero hours contract for main job.

    Electorate = 40 million.

    It really is a core vote strategy - and even then how sensible is it given how few people are actually affected?

    It just seems like a way of stirring up "them and us", jealousy and resentment.

    It also won't maximise vote/seat efficiency.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    edited April 2015
    MikeL said:

    BBC says 700,000 people have a zero hours contract for main job.

    Electorate = 40 million.

    It really is a core vote strategy - and even then how sensible is it given how few people are actually affected?

    It just seems like a way of stirring up "them and us", jealousy and resentment.

    It also won't maximise vote/seat efficiency.

    I wonder how many of those 700,000 can or will vote? I would hypothesis many are immigrant workers doing agency work.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    isam said:

    Re zhc

    It may sound great to ban exclusivity, but what if the individual has contracts with, for instance, Waitrose, aldi, tesco and Sainsburys?

    Would it be wrong for any of them to say they wouldn't employ her if she worked for a competitor as well?

    I suspect banning ZHC's is just going to increase unemployment a small amount and make people get creative by creating things like " one hour per week" contracts to get round it. It's all rubbish really except that Milliband is making mood music trying to appear on the side of the "little guy" standing up to " big business/vested interest", and sort of makes sense for his target market even though the economic reality won't be some ZHC free nirvana of high wage high productivity all of a sudden.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300

    Labour candidates distance themselves from Ed.....is Nick Clegg distancing himself from the Lib Dems?:

    http://www.itv.com/news/2015-04-01/clegg-accused-of-distancing-himself-from-lib-dems-with-new-election-leaflet/

    Most of the Lib Dem leaflets here in Sheffield Hallam look like they are from the Lib Dems or the Tories

    This is my favourite one, replete with bar chart

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_wSHP1WcAAmEaF.jpg:large
    Its possibly an effective leaflet. If I lived in Sheffield Hallam I'd be sorely tempted to tactically vote for Clegg. Far rather Clegg than a Labour MP.

    EDIT: I do find it a bit dishonest though to print a leaflet in another parties colours.
    Reminds me of those yellow and purple Conservative leaflets in Rochester.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    Not that much pre-match discussion in the media re tomorrow's debate - much less than in 2010.

    Suggests viewing figures may be a bit lower - maybe about 6m?
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341

    More that Employers should pay sufficient wages to enable their staff to live without Taxpayers having to subsidize them.

    How do you justify any party impoverishing the low paid by taxing them?

    It's daft to say that someone needs a minimum £6.50 an hour wage, only for the government to turn it into £5.20 through the tax bill.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464

    Sandpit said:

    welshowl said:

    Danny565 said:

    Cyclefree said:



    If they - or some of them - think that Labour may not be good for business it's worth listening to why they're saying that and dealing with the argument.

    But again, the question is whether these people honestly think Labour are bad for business as a whole, or if they think it will just be bad for those businessmen as individuals and how much money they can undeservedly cream off other people. I don't think voters will have the kind of panglossian view of fat-cats' intentions/honesty that the PBTories do.
    I suspect many in business ( as I am and do ) will think overall that the more Govt of any stripe buggers off and leaves us alone to get on with the business the better.

    If they buggered off entirely and withdrew the massive employer subsidy that is employee tax credits a lot of businesses would be far from happy IMO
    Couldn't agree more.

    Taking tax money with one hand and then giving some of it back via an inefficient bureaucracy is one of the worst behaviours of any government.

    Let's abolish tax credits and reduce income tax and NI to counter it - although I don't quite think that was your argument though!
    More that Employers should pay sufficient wages to enable their staff to live without Taxpayers having to subsidize them.

    Presume you don't agree as businesses couldn't possibly afford it.

    Funny how they can afford an 180:1 Chief Exec to Average employee ratio.

    http://www.cityam.com/1405370937/chief-executives-earn-almost-180-times-uk-s-average-salary
    Well as that ratio would put me on four and a half million quid a year in our SME - I am sadly going badly wrong somewhere! I'm far too bloody Calvanist and sensible for my own good.....
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362

    Greg Hands ✔ @GregHands

    The Sun names Labour's Andrew Slaughter as one of 68 MPs who have employed people on zero hours contracts. http://www.sunnation.co.uk/if-zero-hours-contracts-are-so-bad-how-come-these-68-labour-mps-used-them/?CMP=spklr-Editorial-TWITTER-SunNation-20150401-SunNation-163416812

    It must have been the low IQ that did it.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    edited April 2015
    If you look at the history behind tax credits, it has very little to do with evidence based / sensible policy making and all about the politics.

    I have yet to hear anybody explain why it isn't just way more efficient not to tax people in the first place and top up with benefits those who really are at the lowest of the low end. The reason it isn't done like this, is Brown did not want to be seen to be adding to the benefits bill and was about who got the power to control this.

    It then turned into a way to bung people their own money...people on £50k a year getting tax credits tells you all your need to know.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Goodness, I'm so nervous for the polls tonight. I have a horrible feeling the Tories are going to start pulling away over the next few days as the media frenzy will have really got everyone to notice an election is coming, but hope I'm wrong.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,958
    edited April 2015
    Ted Cruz surges into 3rd place in new PPP GOP nomination poll following his presidential candidacy announcement
    Scott Walker 20%
    Jeb Bush 17%
    Ted Cruz 16%
    Rand Paul 10%
    Ben Carson 10%
    Marco Rubio 6%
    Mike Huckabee 6%
    Chris Christie 4%
    Rick Perry 3%
    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_National_40115.pdf
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Funny how they can afford an 180:1 Chief Exec to Average employee ratio.

    I don't know why but it annoys me far more that a chief executive of a council earns 200 grand than it does some CEO get 11 million.

    Possibly because the former is my tax payer money.

    The latter is the money of dumb shareholders. And I stand to make money in the event the CEO pays some tax.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    dr_spyn said:

    Labour candidates distance themselves from Ed.....is Nick Clegg distancing himself from the Lib Dems?:

    http://www.itv.com/news/2015-04-01/clegg-accused-of-distancing-himself-from-lib-dems-with-new-election-leaflet/

    Most of the Lib Dem leaflets here in Sheffield Hallam look like they are from the Lib Dems or the Tories

    This is my favourite one, replete with bar chart

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_wSHP1WcAAmEaF.jpg:large
    Its possibly an effective leaflet. If I lived in Sheffield Hallam I'd be sorely tempted to tactically vote for Clegg. Far rather Clegg than a Labour MP.

    EDIT: I do find it a bit dishonest though to print a leaflet in another parties colours.
    Reminds me of those yellow and purple Conservative leaflets in Rochester.
    Clegg is doing another mistake with him trying to distance himself from the party he leads, as you can see he is a drag on them, in Sheffield Hallam the LD have the second biggest decline outside of scotland in a LD seat.
    Doesn't he understand that he is so unpopular he can lose one of the most safest seats in the country?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,027
    edited April 2015
    Cyclefree said:

    Jobbing actors are unlikely to be "employees" as such, so, like painters and decorators, management consultants, car valeters, freelance writers and window cleaners, it wouldn't seem strange that actors might create a company and handle their fees through that.

    I assume his company is paying its fair share of corporation tax and VAT, that he's not putting personal expenses through the books, and that he's paying tax on any dividends that take him into the 40%/45% brackets. What more should this actor/company director do?

    This faux outrage is so ...err... faux?

    There are plenty of occupations where people are not employees but don't create companies through whom they channel their earnings.

    No reason why actors can't do the same as barristers, for instance. The main reason for creating a company is that it is a tax efficient way of managing one's financial affairs and any competent accountant will suggest it.

    But they have a choice. Just because they can doesn't mean they have to.

    And if you start lecturing others about your values, expect others to judge you by your expressed values. That's all.

    As the Scottish equivalent of a barrister I agree with this. What I have found distressing today is that my accountant, who is setting up a pay roll so I can pay my wife something for all the work she does for me explained that my marginal rate of taxation is 62%. I am not someone who comes close to paying 45% tax but apparently I lose my PA after a certain point increasing the marginal rate well beyond the 40%. So by paying my wife for the work she does I pay 20% on a small part of my income instead of 62%.

    My thoughts on this is that I am paying a lot more tax than I was 5 years ago and also have to reimburse the CB for my kids. I am several thousand pounds worse off and find the suggestion that this government has done anything other than squeeze those on good incomes frankly risible. But that is what the country needed given the deficit and I have no problem with it (except in January when I might cry a bit). Like you I get very angry with those who think paying their share is something optional.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341

    I wonder how many of those 700,000 can or will vote? I would hypothesis many are immigrant workers doing agency work.

    Hospitality work is the number one sector, so hotels, bar staff, waiters etc. If London is anything to go by many will be ineligible voters with EU citizenship.

    Lots of public sector roles after that.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Iain Dale (@IainDale)
    31/03/2015 22:54
    Just read @AttitudeMag 's party leader interviews. Have to say @Nigel_Farage was the one who came across best. Didn't indulge in bullshit
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    chestnut said:

    More that Employers should pay sufficient wages to enable their staff to live without Taxpayers having to subsidize them.

    How do you justify any party impoverishing the low paid by taxing them?

    It's daft to say that someone needs a minimum £6.50 an hour wage, only for the government to turn it into £5.20 through the tax bill.
    People shouldn't be paid £6.50 an hour it is not enough. I don't think employers who dont pay wages people can live on should be subsidized by taxpayers money.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    isam said:

    Iain Dale (@IainDale)
    31/03/2015 22:54
    Just read @AttitudeMag 's party leader interviews. Have to say @Nigel_Farage was the one who came across best. Didn't indulge in bullshit

    That's why he will win tomorrow.
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    Danny565 said:

    Goodness, I'm so nervous for the polls tonight. I have a horrible feeling the Tories are going to start pulling away over the next few days as the media frenzy will have really got everyone to notice an election is coming, but hope I'm wrong.

    This business letter has backfired in my opinion.I would be surprised if it boosted the Tories.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    HYUFD said:

    Ted Cruz surges into 3rd place in new PPP GOP nomination poll following his presidential candidacy announcement
    Scott Walker 20%
    Jeb Bush 17%
    Ted Cruz 16%
    Rand Paul 10%
    Ben Carson 10%
    Marco Rubio 6%
    Mike Huckabee 6%
    Chris Christie 4%
    Rick Perry 3%
    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_National_40115.pdf

    To put that into context here are the changes since the last PPP poll:

    Scott Walker -5%
    Jeb Bush 0%
    Ted Cruz +11%
    Rand Paul +6%
    Ben Carson -8%
    Marco Rubio +3%
    Mike Huckabee -4%
    Chris Christie -1%
    Rick Perry 0%
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    But where I disagree is Labour going further than the recommendations of their own review into ZHR.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Roger said:

    Cyclefree

    "Not a character assassination at all unless you think that arranging your affairs legally to minimise the tax you pay is somehow a bad thing."

    Then what has the tax affairs of his girlfriend got to do with anything. Are we so old fashioned that we think a woman cant deal with her own affairs without a man taking responsibility?

    What I don't need or care for is a lot of Labour luvvies pretending that they are morally superior to me because they support Labour and I don't.
    Well put. It's just bloody irritating.

    And to forestall argument, yes that would apply to Tories pretending they are morally superior to me because they support the Tories and I don't, which does happen, although my feeling is that for the lazy type of attachs while Labour fall back on the condescending implication that they are inherently more decent and moral than the Tories, the Tories fall back more often on the implication only fools vote for someone other than them.

    This only applies to the very laziest of attacks mind you, the basest of tactics.
    Agreed. There are decent people across the political spectrum and this lazy assumption that your political opponent must be a fool or a knave is odious.

    Since it's nearly Easter, it might be worth pointing out that Jesus described such people very well when he pointed to the Pharisees, ostentatiously displaying their religiosity to all and sundry. He had something to say about rich men as well.

    I did always feel a little sorry for that bloke. Jesus asked a lot of him... (as He does of us all)
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited April 2015
    SMukesh said:

    Danny565 said:

    Goodness, I'm so nervous for the polls tonight. I have a horrible feeling the Tories are going to start pulling away over the next few days as the media frenzy will have really got everyone to notice an election is coming, but hope I'm wrong.

    This business letter has backfired in my opinion.I would be surprised if it boosted the Tories.
    I agree, business letter won't be having any effect (not a positive one anyway). But the thing i'm worrying about is simply Joe Public realising there's an election coming might mean they start thinking specifically about who they want as PM and who they trust most to "stand up to Putin", in a way that many weren't previously doing.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Jobbing actors are unlikely to be "employees" as such, so, like painters and decorators, management consultants, car valeters, freelance writers and window cleaners, it wouldn't seem strange that actors might create a company and handle their fees through that.

    I assume his company is paying its fair share of corporation tax and VAT, that he's not putting personal expenses through the books, and that he's paying tax on any dividends that take him into the 40%/45% brackets. What more should this actor/company director do?

    This faux outrage is so ...err... faux?

    There are plenty of occupations where people are not employees but don't create companies through whom they channel their earnings.

    No reason why actors can't do the same as barristers, for instance. The main reason for creating a company is that it is a tax efficient way of managing one's financial affairs and any competent accountant will suggest it.

    But they have a choice. Just because they can doesn't mean they have to.

    And if you start lecturing others about your values, expect others to judge you by your expressed values. That's all.

    As the Scottish equivalent of a barrister I agree with this. What I have found distressing today is that my accountant, who is setting up a pay roll so I can pay my wife something for all the work she does for me.

    What I found depressing is that my accountant explained that my marginal rate of taxation is 62%. I am not someone who comes close to paying 45% tax but apparently I lose my PA after a certain point increasing the marginal rate well beyond the 40%. So by paying my wife for the work she does I pay 20% on a small part of my income instead of 62%.

    My thoughts on this is that I am paying a lot more tax than I was 5 years ago and also have to reimburse the CB for my kids. I am several thousand pounds worse off and find the suggestion that this government has done anything other than squeeze those on good incomes frankly risible. But that is what the country needed given the deficit and I have no problem with it (except in January when I might cry a bit). Like you I get very angry with those who think paying their share is something optional.
    Dead right. There are plenty of us out here doing normal things ( not bankers etc ), and yes earning a good living, and yes we are prepared ( happy even ) to pay our share as long as we feel we're not being targeted as a mere ATM for HMRC and others, and having life made just bloody awkward by Govt ( G Brown was the master at this).
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    SMukesh said:

    Danny565 said:

    Goodness, I'm so nervous for the polls tonight. I have a horrible feeling the Tories are going to start pulling away over the next few days as the media frenzy will have really got everyone to notice an election is coming, but hope I'm wrong.

    This business letter has backfired in my opinion.I would be surprised if it boosted the Tories.
    The business letter won't make any difference.

    All the posts on here saying it will help Party X / hurt Party Y are just the usual cheerleading posts - on both sides - everyone thinks it will help their side / hurt the other side.
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    Danny565 said:

    SMukesh said:

    Danny565 said:

    Goodness, I'm so nervous for the polls tonight. I have a horrible feeling the Tories are going to start pulling away over the next few days as the media frenzy will have really got everyone to notice an election is coming, but hope I'm wrong.

    This business letter has backfired in my opinion.I would be surprised if it boosted the Tories.
    I agree, business letter won't be having any effect (not a positive one anyway). But the thing i'm worrying about is simply Joe Public realising there's an election coming might mean they start thinking specifically about who they want as PM and who they trust most to "stand up to Putin", in a way that many weren't previously doing.
    Labour are still neck and neck and we have Tory commentators now coming to terms with the fact that the Tories are not pulling away like expected.

    Daniel Finkenstein now claims that the Tories will have a very late 3% swing?

    How late,Mr Finkenstein?On the 8th of May?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Dair said:

    MP_SE said:

    MikeL said:

    BBC1 6pm News - repeat of yesterday - 10 minute report 100% on Con + Lab - followed by Landale doing a sum-up - 100% on Con + Lab.

    Then presenter says round-up of other election news - 10 seconds on Clegg (without him speaking), 10 seconds on UKIP (without any UKIPer speaking), 10 seconds on Samantha Cameron(!)

    This pattern appears to be getting firmly established. If it carries on I can see Con + Lab getting 73% combined - ie 39/34, 38/35 or 37/36 - in whichever order you prefer.

    LD, UKIP and Green are not going to have a chance - LD 9, UKIP 8, Green 4 would be my best guess.

    What can OFCOM do if UKIP and the Lib Dems are not treated fairly as major parties?

    It may not be the end of the world as a lot of people are sick of the GE and it is still over a month away.
    UKIP are not a Major Party in the way the Liberals, Labour and Tories are.

    I suggest you read both the OFCOM ruling and the OFCOM rules as you seem to be wrong about both.
    I thought OFCOM declared UKIP a major party for these elections back in January?

    Only in E&W, I believe, hence @Dair's smart-arsery
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Roger said:

    Cyclefree

    "Not a character assassination at all unless you think that arranging your affairs legally to minimise the tax you pay is somehow a bad thing."

    Then what has the tax affairs of his girlfriend got to do with anything. Are we so old fashioned that we think a woman cant deal with her own affairs without a man taking responsibility?

    What I don't need or care for is a lot of Labour luvvies pretending that they are morally superior to me because they support Labour and I don't.
    Well put. It's just bloody irritating.

    And to forestall argument, yes that would apply to Tories pretending they are morally superior to me because they support the Tories and I don't, which does happen, although my feeling is that for the lazy type of attachs while Labour fall back on the condescending implication that they are inherently more decent and moral than the Tories, the Tories fall back more often on the implication only fools vote for someone other than them.

    This only applies to the very laziest of attacks mind you, the basest of tactics.
    Agreed. There are decent people across the political spectrum and this lazy assumption that your political opponent must be a fool or a knave is odious.

    Since it's nearly Easter, it might be worth pointing out that Jesus described such people very well when he pointed to the Pharisees, ostentatiously displaying their religiosity to all and sundry. He had something to say about rich men as well.

    I did always feel a little sorry for that bloke. Jesus asked a lot of him... (as He does of us all)
    Gove could almost be writing this at cameron after the PMs wishy washy 'avoid the J word' Easter message

    Telegraph Politics (@TelePolitics)
    01/04/2015 20:40
    Christianity now written off as fixation with 'sky pixie' - Michael Gove tgr.ph/1FikUym
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,958
    Speedy Yes, looks like the brief flirtation with Walker and Carson has now ended and it is Cruz and Paul who are on the rise
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    edited April 2015

    chestnut said:

    More that Employers should pay sufficient wages to enable their staff to live without Taxpayers having to subsidize them.

    How do you justify any party impoverishing the low paid by taxing them?

    It's daft to say that someone needs a minimum £6.50 an hour wage, only for the government to turn it into £5.20 through the tax bill.
    People shouldn't be paid £6.50 an hour it is not enough. I don't think employers who dont pay wages people can live on should be subsidized by taxpayers money.
    Agreed but there must be a better system tha tax credits.

    Hope your mum's on the mend by the way.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited April 2015
    @HYUFD
    Now that there will be talk of "Ted Cruz frontrunner" flavor of the month, here's some classic Ted Cruz moments:
    Ted Cruz compares himself to Gallileo
    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-24/on-global-warming-ted-cruz-says-he-s-galileo-not-a-flat-earther

    He has a giant surrealist painting of himself being painted inside the painting by a dozen painters ect ect.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/11490420/Ted-Cruz-what-you-need-to-know-about-Americas-first-2016-candidate-and-worst-Winston-Churchill-impersonator.html


    He's the Arthur Scargill of the Republican Party.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    People shouldn't be paid £6.50 an hour it is not enough.

    I think it was Stuart Broad who tweeted recently that a person on the British minimum wage is in the top 20% of earners, worldwide.
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    SMukesh said:

    Danny565 said:

    SMukesh said:

    Danny565 said:

    Goodness, I'm so nervous for the polls tonight. I have a horrible feeling the Tories are going to start pulling away over the next few days as the media frenzy will have really got everyone to notice an election is coming, but hope I'm wrong.

    This business letter has backfired in my opinion.I would be surprised if it boosted the Tories.
    I agree, business letter won't be having any effect (not a positive one anyway). But the thing i'm worrying about is simply Joe Public realising there's an election coming might mean they start thinking specifically about who they want as PM and who they trust most to "stand up to Putin", in a way that many weren't previously doing.
    Labour are still neck and neck and we have Tory commentators now coming to terms with the fact that the Tories are not pulling away like expected.

    Daniel Finkenstein now claims that the Tories will have a very late 3% swing?

    How late,Mr Finkenstein?On the 8th of May?

    They are maintaining a decent lead in phone polls which have been more accurate in the past. Not enough to continue the coalition in its current form, but enough to govern with help from Lib Dems and DUP
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,043
    taffys said:

    People shouldn't be paid £6.50 an hour it is not enough.

    I think it was Stuart Broad who tweeted recently that a person on the British minimum wage is in the top 20% of earners, worldwide.

    A totally useless metric which doesn't take into account cost of living.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326

    Sandpit said:

    welshowl said:

    Danny565 said:

    Cyclefree said:



    If they - or some of them - think that Labour may not be good for business it's worth listening to why they're saying that and dealing with the argument.

    But again, the question is whether these people honestly think Labour are bad for business as a whole, or if they think it will just be bad for those businessmen as individuals and how much money they can undeservedly cream off other people. I don't think voters will have the kind of panglossian view of fat-cats' intentions/honesty that the PBTories do.
    I suspect many in business ( as I am and do ) will think overall that the more Govt of any stripe buggers off and leaves us alone to get on with the business the better.

    If they buggered off entirely and withdrew the massive employer subsidy that is employee tax credits a lot of businesses would be far from happy IMO
    Couldn't agree more.

    Taking tax money with one hand and then giving some of it back via an inefficient bureaucracy is one of the worst behaviours of any government.

    Let's abolish tax credits and reduce income tax and NI to counter it - although I don't quite think that was your argument though!
    More that Employers should pay sufficient wages to enable their staff to live without Taxpayers having to subsidize them.

    Presume you don't agree as businesses couldn't possibly afford it.

    Funny how they can afford an 180:1 Chief Exec to Average employee ratio.

    http://www.cityam.com/1405370937/chief-executives-earn-almost-180-times-uk-s-average-salary
    I'm a great fan of the John Lewis approach to these things.

  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Evening all, I find the suggestion that people who vote a particular way have a higher or lower IQ deeply offensive.

    Arguably the single biggest failure of the political class over the past 25 years has been its obsession with university education at the expense of further education. We are now producing roughly 300,000 graduates a year, around one-third of whom are not graduate material, acquire nonsense degrees and wonder why they find themselves unemployable.

    The success of this country was all the young men and women who learned craft skills at school and then went on to study apprenticeships and become tradesmen and women who were the envy of the world. I doubt a great many had overly above average IQs but boy could they build houses, bridges, ships, roads etc etc.

    As a teenager I was put out on to the construction sites to work to knock the snobbery out of me. For 6 summers I worked with our principal Irish naavy squad. They could barely read and write but boy could they work and I learned a huge amount from them about life. They could turn their hands to just about anything and each earned so much money that back in their native Southern Ireland they built magnificent large detached houses.

    Personally I would much prefer to spend a day in the company of decent, hardworking folks than representatives of the metropolitan so-called elite.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    welshowl said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Jobbing actors are unlikely to be "employees" as such, so, like painters and decorators, management consultants, car valeters, freelance writers and window cleaners, it wouldn't seem strange that actors might create a company and handle their fees through that.

    I assume his company is paying its fair share of corporation tax and VAT, that he's not putting personal expenses through the books, and that he's paying tax on any dividends that take him into the 40%/45% brackets. What more should this actor/company director do?

    There are plenty of occupations where people are not employees but don't create companies through whom they channel their earnings.

    No reason why actors can't do the same as barristers, for instance. The main reason for creating a company is that it is a tax efficient way of managing one's financial affairs and any competent accountant will suggest it.

    But they have a choice. Just because they can doesn't mean they have to.

    And if you start lecturing others about your values, expect others to judge you by your expressed values. That's all.

    As the Scottish equivalent of a barrister I agree with this. What I have found distressing today is that my accountant, who is setting up a pay roll so I can pay my wife something for all the work she does for me.

    What I found depressing is that my accountant explained that my marginal rate of taxation is 62%. I am not someone who comes close to paying 45% tax but apparently I lose my PA after a certain point increasing the marginal rate well beyond the 40%. So by paying my wife for the work she does I pay 20% on a small part of my income instead of 62%.

    My thoughts on this is that I am paying a lot more tax than I was 5 years ago and also have to reimburse the CB for my kids. I am several thousand pounds worse off and find the suggestion that this government has done anything other than squeeze those on good incomes frankly risible. But that is what the country needed given the deficit and I have no problem with it (except in January when I might cry a bit). Like you I get very angry with those who think paying their share is something optional.
    Dead right. There are plenty of us out here doing normal things ( not bankers etc ), and yes earning a good living, and yes we are prepared ( happy even ) to pay our share as long as we feel we're not being targeted as a mere ATM for HMRC and others, and having life made just bloody awkward by Govt ( G Brown was the master at this).
    Indeed. Labour ought to be on our side. But they're not. They just view people like us as a wallet to be picked.

    If they get in it won't be the Martin Sorrells of this world who will pay more. It will be thee and me.

  • RobD said:

    taffys said:

    People shouldn't be paid £6.50 an hour it is not enough.

    I think it was Stuart Broad who tweeted recently that a person on the British minimum wage is in the top 20% of earners, worldwide.

    A totally useless metric which doesn't take into account cost of living.
    Rob, just sent you a vanilla message.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited April 2015

    Evening all, I find the suggestion that people who vote a particular way have a higher or lower IQ deeply offensive.

    Arguably the single biggest failure of the political class over the past 25 years has been its obsession with university education at the expense of further education. We are now producing roughly 300,000 graduates a year, around one-third of whom are not graduate material, acquire nonsense degrees and wonder why they find themselves unemployable.

    The success of this country was all the young men and women who learned craft skills at school and then went on to study apprenticeships and become tradesmen and women who were the envy of the world. I doubt a great many had overly above average IQs but boy could they build houses, bridges, ships, roads etc etc.

    As a teenager I was put out on to the construction sites to work to knock the snobbery out of me. For 6 summers I worked with our principal Irish naavy squad. They could barely read and write but boy could they work and I learned a huge amount from them about life. They could turn their hands to just about anything and each earned so much money that back in their native Southern Ireland they built magnificent large detached houses.

    Personally I would much prefer to spend a day in the company of decent, hardworking folks than representatives of the metropolitan so-called elite.

    Well exactly

    Also the people using this metric to mock people who see politics differently to them would recoil in faux outrage if other unfair comparisons about groups of people were drawn from IQ tests
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,981
    Tyson

    "You know Roger, it always amuses me just how much the fact that you are a lefty yet private school educated, successful and wealthy really gets under the skin of the pbCOM community. It is almost like you should be hung as a class traitor."

    Being a PB Tory isn't to do with how you vote it's to do with being 'one of us'. You have to be a follower of Guido a supporter of Israel and find anything that looks like a social conscience phoney. If you're a lefty with money you're a hypocrite if you have none you're a scrounger.

    Did you see how the piranhas set on poor old Martin Freeman. The poor guy made some money as a hobbit and then did a PPB for the Labour. They even attacked him because his girlfriend went bankrupt! You couldn't make them up!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,043

    RobD said:

    taffys said:

    People shouldn't be paid £6.50 an hour it is not enough.

    I think it was Stuart Broad who tweeted recently that a person on the British minimum wage is in the top 20% of earners, worldwide.

    A totally useless metric which doesn't take into account cost of living.
    Rob, just sent you a vanilla message.
    Noted and replied.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    edited April 2015
    Re Labour leaflet in Bristol West - no potted biography, though the candidate's website is more illuminating and quite interesting, likewise outline background on the link below.

    http://www.labour.org.uk/people/detail/thangam-debbonaire

    No direct or indirect references to the incumbent LD Steven Williams, yet oblique comments about Tory/Lib Dem government or coalition. Given the ambiguity of the use of 'a straight choice between Labour Government fighting for you, your family & the NHS or five more years of Conservatives', it is hard to see the Tories as challengers to Labour. (2010 result - 48% LDs, Labour 27.5%, Conservative 18.4%).

    Will be interested to see if Labour actually attack Williams and LDs record more directly.
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    Freggles said:

    SMukesh said:

    Danny565 said:

    SMukesh said:

    Danny565 said:

    Goodness, I'm so nervous for the polls tonight. I have a horrible feeling the Tories are going to start pulling away over the next few days as the media frenzy will have really got everyone to notice an election is coming, but hope I'm wrong.

    This business letter has backfired in my opinion.I would be surprised if it boosted the Tories.
    I agree, business letter won't be having any effect (not a positive one anyway). But the thing i'm worrying about is simply Joe Public realising there's an election coming might mean they start thinking specifically about who they want as PM and who they trust most to "stand up to Putin", in a way that many weren't previously doing.
    Labour are still neck and neck and we have Tory commentators now coming to terms with the fact that the Tories are not pulling away like expected.

    Daniel Finkenstein now claims that the Tories will have a very late 3% swing?

    How late,Mr Finkenstein?On the 8th of May?

    They are maintaining a decent lead in phone polls which have been more accurate in the past. Not enough to continue the coalition in its current form, but enough to govern with help from Lib Dems and DUP
    Both ICM and Ashcroft readjust figures reallocating don`t knows and give more weightage for certainty to vote.We don`t know how these are skewing up the figures.Besides they need to be 3 points up to maintain parity with Labour on seats.And Labour are starting to recover in Scotland.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited April 2015
    HYUFD said:

    Speedy Yes, looks like the brief flirtation with Walker and Carson has now ended and it is Cruz and Paul who are on the rise

    There will be many bumps until Iowa.
    There is enough room for 2.5 candidates in the race, basically a moderate one, a conservative one, and a NOTA one.
    Whoever wins the debates and withstands the attacks from the media and the other candidates, until Iowa for the conservatives or N.Hampshire for the moderates, essentially wins the race for the landslide defeat from Hillary.

    This is a race for second place.
    And who ever comes second might win the white house in 2020.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    SMukesh said:

    Freggles said:

    SMukesh said:

    Danny565 said:

    SMukesh said:

    Danny565 said:

    Goodness, I'm so nervous for the polls tonight. I have a horrible feeling the Tories are going to start pulling away over the next few days as the media frenzy will have really got everyone to notice an election is coming, but hope I'm wrong.

    This business letter has backfired in my opinion.I would be surprised if it boosted the Tories.
    I agree, business letter won't be having any effect (not a positive one anyway). But the thing i'm worrying about is simply Joe Public realising there's an election coming might mean they start thinking specifically about who they want as PM and who they trust most to "stand up to Putin", in a way that many weren't previously doing.
    Labour are still neck and neck and we have Tory commentators now coming to terms with the fact that the Tories are not pulling away like expected.

    Daniel Finkenstein now claims that the Tories will have a very late 3% swing?

    How late,Mr Finkenstein?On the 8th of May?

    They are maintaining a decent lead in phone polls which have been more accurate in the past. Not enough to continue the coalition in its current form, but enough to govern with help from Lib Dems and DUP
    Both ICM and Ashcroft readjust figures reallocating don`t knows and give more weightage for certainty to vote.We don`t know how these are skewing up the figures.Besides they need to be 3 points up to maintain parity with Labour on seats.And Labour are starting to recover in Scotland.
    I thought the inefficiency of vote concentration was now working against, instead of for, Labour. Or have I got it wrong?
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,067
    edited April 2015
    Danny565 said:

    Goodness, I'm so nervous for the polls tonight. I have a horrible feeling the Tories are going to start pulling away over the next few days as the media frenzy will have really got everyone to notice an election is coming, but hope I'm wrong.

    Chillax mate. Nothing of note has happened so far in this campaign. Tomorrow is key - let's see what happens after that.

    The PB Tories/Burleys will obviously big up any poll lead but caution is required at this early stage...

    Are we expecting more than the usual YouGov tonight?
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    Charles said:

    Dair said:

    MP_SE said:

    MikeL said:

    BBC1 6pm News - repeat of yesterday - 10 minute report 100% on Con + Lab - followed by Landale doing a sum-up - 100% on Con + Lab.

    Then presenter says round-up of other election news - 10 seconds on Clegg (without him speaking), 10 seconds on UKIP (without any UKIPer speaking), 10 seconds on Samantha Cameron(!)

    This pattern appears to be getting firmly established. If it carries on I can see Con + Lab getting 73% combined - ie 39/34, 38/35 or 37/36 - in whichever order you prefer.

    LD, UKIP and Green are not going to have a chance - LD 9, UKIP 8, Green 4 would be my best guess.

    What can OFCOM do if UKIP and the Lib Dems are not treated fairly as major parties?

    It may not be the end of the world as a lot of people are sick of the GE and it is still over a month away.
    UKIP are not a Major Party in the way the Liberals, Labour and Tories are.

    I suggest you read both the OFCOM ruling and the OFCOM rules as you seem to be wrong about both.
    I thought OFCOM declared UKIP a major party for these elections back in January?

    Only in E&W, I believe, hence @Dair's smart-arsery
    I don't actually think the E&W point is that relevant.

    If anyone wanted to be clever the main BBC1 news programmes are UK wide - and nobody is a Major Party throughout the UK.

    So far the LDs have had no more coverage on main BBC1 news programmes than UKIP - yet the LDs are a Major Party GB wide.

    The relevant point is that the broadcasters are under no obligation to give all Major Parties equal coverage - so they are framing it as primarily a two horse race.

    UKIP's elevation to Major Party (albeit only E&W) has had an effect - in reducing the amount of LD coverage - because the BBC has decided not to give the LDs much more coverage than UKIP - implying the BBC is not actually taking any significant notice of the E&W point.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    A totally useless metric which doesn't take into account cost of living.

    Or the fact that first class medical care and education are completely free...
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Lux Lisbon ‏@LuxLisbon2015 14m14 minutes ago
    One in five of the businessmen who signed pro-Tory letter were given honours by David Cameron http://ind.pn/1NJgjJu
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    MTimT said:

    SMukesh said:

    Freggles said:

    SMukesh said:

    Danny565 said:

    SMukesh said:

    Danny565 said:

    Goodness, I'm so nervous for the polls tonight. I have a horrible feeling the Tories are going to start pulling away over the next few days as the media frenzy will have really got everyone to notice an election is coming, but hope I'm wrong.

    This business letter has backfired in my opinion.I would be surprised if it boosted the Tories.
    I agree, business letter won't be having any effect (not a positive one anyway). But the thing i'm worrying about is simply Joe Public realising there's an election coming might mean they start thinking specifically about who they want as PM and who they trust most to "stand up to Putin", in a way that many weren't previously doing.
    Labour are still neck and neck and we have Tory commentators now coming to terms with the fact that the Tories are not pulling away like expected.

    Daniel Finkenstein now claims that the Tories will have a very late 3% swing?

    How late,Mr Finkenstein?On the 8th of May?

    They are maintaining a decent lead in phone polls which have been more accurate in the past. Not enough to continue the coalition in its current form, but enough to govern with help from Lib Dems and DUP
    Both ICM and Ashcroft readjust figures reallocating don`t knows and give more weightage for certainty to vote.We don`t know how these are skewing up the figures.Besides they need to be 3 points up to maintain parity with Labour on seats.And Labour are starting to recover in Scotland.
    I thought the inefficiency of vote concentration was now working against, instead of for, Labour. Or have I got it wrong?
    .

    No idea.
  • kle4 said:



    You must live in a marginal I presume? Last time if memory serves I received 4 leaflets total, 2 from the distant second place LDs, 1 each from the Tories and Labour.

    In the recent Euros I received 2 from UKIP though, and I've even seen someone canvassing for them out and about, so I anticipate a bit more leaflet traffic this time around.

    Yes, I live in Lincoln. Conservative majority of 1,058 over Labour. Both parties are pushing hard in terms of leaflets. So far I've had 5, I think, from Labour and 3 from the Conservatives. I don't remember receiving so many by this point in 2010.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Easterross posted -

    Evening all, I find the suggestion that people who vote a particular way have a higher or lower IQ deeply offensive

    So do I,my response was to the posters on here who were sneering at ordinary folk,that's how far labour have left they roots.
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    Charles said:

    Dair said:

    MP_SE said:

    MikeL said:

    BBC1 6pm News - repeat of yesterday - 10 minute report 100% on Con + Lab - followed by Landale doing a sum-up - 100% on Con + Lab.

    Then presenter says round-up of other election news - 10 seconds on Clegg (without him speaking), 10 seconds on UKIP (without any UKIPer speaking), 10 seconds on Samantha Cameron(!)

    This pattern appears to be getting firmly established. If it carries on I can see Con + Lab getting 73% combined - ie 39/34, 38/35 or 37/36 - in whichever order you prefer.

    LD, UKIP and Green are not going to have a chance - LD 9, UKIP 8, Green 4 would be my best guess.

    What can OFCOM do if UKIP and the Lib Dems are not treated fairly as major parties?

    It may not be the end of the world as a lot of people are sick of the GE and it is still over a month away.
    UKIP are not a Major Party in the way the Liberals, Labour and Tories are.

    I suggest you read both the OFCOM ruling and the OFCOM rules as you seem to be wrong about both.
    I thought OFCOM declared UKIP a major party for these elections back in January?

    Only in E&W, I believe, hence @Dair's smart-arsery
    Going by Dair's helpful response, even though UKIP are a major party in England they are entitled to no coverage in England.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    Lux Lisbon ‏@LuxLisbon2015 14m14 minutes ago
    One in five of the businessmen who signed pro-Tory letter were given honours by David Cameron http://ind.pn/1NJgjJu

    I'm surprised that the ratio is so low, perhaps the other 80% have been promised a knighthood if they sign.
  • New Thread
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Roger said:

    Cyclefree

    "Not a character assassination at all unless you think that arranging your affairs legally to minimise the tax you pay is somehow a bad thing."

    Then what has the tax affairs of his girlfriend got to do with anything. Are we so old fashioned that we think a woman cant deal with her own affairs without a man taking responsibility?

    What I don't need or care for is a lot of Labour luvvies pretending that they are morally superior to me because they support Labour and I don't.
    Well put. It's just bloody irritating.

    And to forestall argument, yes that would apply to Tories pretending they are morally superior to me because they support the Tories and I don't, which does happen, although my feeling is that for the lazy type of attachs while Labour fall back on the condescending implication that they are inherently more decent and moral than the Tories, the Tories fall back more often on the implication only fools vote for someone other than them.

    This only applies to the very laziest of attacks mind you, the basest of tactics.
    Agreed. There are decent people across the political spectrum and this lazy assumption that your political opponent must be a fool or a knave is odious.

    Since it's nearly Easter, it might be worth pointing out that Jesus described such people very well when he pointed to the Pharisees, ostentatiously displaying their religiosity to all and sundry. He had something to say about rich men as well.

    I did always feel a little sorry for that bloke. Jesus asked a lot of him... (as He does of us all)
    Yes. Christianity is, if you're a believer, tough. You have to be tough on yourself, above all. It's a pity so many so-called Christians spend more time judging others rather than themselves. It's certainly not the fluffy bunny drivel Cameron was on about earlier.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,043
    taffys said:

    A totally useless metric which doesn't take into account cost of living.

    Or the fact that first class medical care and education are completely free...

    Shame that doesn't include rent or food, huh.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    taffys said:

    Funny how they can afford an 180:1 Chief Exec to Average employee ratio.

    I don't know why but it annoys me far more that a chief executive of a council earns 200 grand than it does some CEO get 11 million.

    Possibly because the former is my tax payer money.

    The latter is the money of dumb shareholders. And I stand to make money in the event the CEO pays some tax.

    Use the quote button occasionally, find your arguments tricky to follow !
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,688
    Roger said:

    Tyson

    "You know Roger, it always amuses me just how much the fact that you are a lefty yet private school educated, successful and wealthy really gets under the skin of the pbCOM community. It is almost like you should be hung as a class traitor."

    Being a PB Tory isn't to do with how you vote it's to do with being 'one of us'. You have to be a follower of Guido a supporter of Israel and find anything that looks like a social conscience phoney. If you're a lefty with money you're a hypocrite if you have none you're a scrounger.

    Did you see how the piranhas set on poor old Martin Freeman. The poor guy made some money as a hobbit and then did a PPB for the Labour. They even attacked him because his girlfriend went bankrupt! You couldn't make them up!

    I love the way you keep claiming she is just his 'girlfriend' in an attempt to distance him from her. She is his partner who has lived with him for 10 years and they have 2 children together. Except for the fact they don't actually have a piece of paper I would suggest that makes her rather more than just his 'girlfriend'.

    And the bankruptcy is because she decided for some reason that she didn't have to pay a£120,000 tax bill.

    Of course you couldn't make it up. Because it is all true.

    And yes Roger you are a hypocrite and no I don't support Israel at all.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    MikeL said:

    SMukesh said:

    Danny565 said:

    Goodness, I'm so nervous for the polls tonight. I have a horrible feeling the Tories are going to start pulling away over the next few days as the media frenzy will have really got everyone to notice an election is coming, but hope I'm wrong.

    This business letter has backfired in my opinion.I would be surprised if it boosted the Tories.
    The business letter won't make any difference.

    All the posts on here saying it will help Party X / hurt Party Y are just the usual cheerleading posts - on both sides - everyone thinks it will help their side / hurt the other side.
    Cheerleader central some evenings.

    Cheerleading is inversely correlated with betting I reckon. Tim was the exception that proved the rule ;)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,644
    Grexit update

    I've heard from a source that Tsiparis has been telling investors that if the left wing of Syriza does not "get into line" regarding a deal with the IMF/EU/ECB, then he will quit the party and form a new grouping.

    If this is true - and I have no reason to believe that it is not - then he is engaged in a high wire act, between posturing to the IMF about default on the one hand, and telling his own party to get in line or he (and presumably half of Syriza) leaves.

    I don't know what would happen in Syriza splintered: fresh general elections? An ND/Tsipiras coalition?
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117
    @Roger

    I cannot even begin to imagine how life is to worship people like Clarkson, admire Osborne, to hate lefties because they are either scroungers or hypocrites and to be constantly on the side of the rich getting richer. I don't think compassionate conservatism exists anymore- I can't see it. Instead we have this vile, ideological, egotistical group of wealthy individuals who play to the lowest common denominator.

    As to the business, support letter- 103, narcissistic, self serving, self interested, self important group. We've made money, we're better than you.

    What about a letter from the thousands of people affected by the bedroom tax. A letter by the tens of thousands hit by food banks. A letter by tens of thousands of the mentally ill victimised by the welfare reforms. The thousands of additional homeless.

    They talk today about zero hour contracts. It's only 700,000 and only about 500,000 are properly exploited. Well that 500,000 is a damn site bigger than the 103 narcissists today.
  • MontyMonty Posts: 346
    tyson said:

    @Roger

    I cannot even begin to imagine how life is to worship people like Clarkson, admire Osborne, to hate lefties because they are either scroungers or hypocrites and to be constantly on the side of the rich getting richer. I don't think compassionate conservatism exists anymore- I can't see it. Instead we have this vile, ideological, egotistical group of wealthy individuals who play to the lowest common denominator.

    As to the business, support letter- 103, narcissistic, self serving, self interested, self important group. We've made money, we're better than you.

    What about a letter from the thousands of people affected by the bedroom tax. A letter by the tens of thousands hit by food banks. A letter by tens of thousands of the mentally ill victimised by the welfare reforms. The thousands of additional homeless.

    They talk today about zero hour contracts. It's only 700,000 and only about 500,000 are properly exploited. Well that 500,000 is a damn site bigger than the 103 narcissists today.

    **** LIKE ***
This discussion has been closed.