Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Easter Monday afternoon polling round-up

SystemSystem Posts: 12,217
edited April 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Easter Monday afternoon polling round-up

Latest YouGov Scotland poll. Independence Q: Yes 46% No 48% DK/WNV 6%

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    first?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    It's a fix!
  • You forget the Welsh, also pre debate.

    @TSEofPB: Sun/YouGov Welsh poll

    Lab 40% (nc) Con 27% (+2) UKIP 13% (-1) PC 9% (-2) LD 6% (+1)
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    FPT

    The Tories have indeed hit people earning between about £40k [ where HRT starts ] to £120k very hard.

    Many in this bracket also lost CB. The "squeezed middle" as Edward Miliband said so succinctly.

    Once your earnings go above £150k, the Tories are indeed your friend. 50% tax becomes 45%. So if you earn £1m, you have been given £50k back by Osborne !
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,027
    If there is going to be a meaningful break in favour of one party or the other it surely has to come in the next fortnight. My expectation is that, as usual, the campaign will make little difference and what we see now is what we get. If so Labour will be the largest party.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,500
    FPT
    malcolmg said:

    » show previous quotes
    So it is £100K before it kicks in.

    Slightly over actually because it applies to your adjusted net income which is inevitably complicated like all of our tax code. Those earning over £120K pay tax on all of their earnings.

    Thanks david
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    @Kle(FPT)

    Quite brave to predict no change in seat situation in Wales.

    If today`s Youguv(Wales) is correct,changes from GE2010 are:

    Labour(+4)Con(+1),Lib(-15),PC(-2),UKIP(+10).
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    SMukesh said:

    @Kle(FPT)

    Quite brave to predict no change in seat situation in Wales.

    If today`s Youguv(Wales) is correct,changes from GE2010 are:

    Labour(+4)Con(+1),Lib(-15),PC(-2),UKIP(+10).

    Yes, LD [-15% ] and No change ?????????????
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    malcolmg said:

    FPT
    malcolmg said:

    » show previous quotes
    So it is £100K before it kicks in.

    Slightly over actually because it applies to your adjusted net income which is inevitably complicated like all of our tax code. Those earning over £120K pay tax on all of their earnings.

    Thanks david

    It is exactly that situation where I do not understand Tory priorities. There are many earning between £45k and £120k whose marginal rate [ CB withdrawl is after all a deduction ]can be helped.

    No. They will choose to help people who earn more than £150k.
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    Cardiff Central and Cardiff North are almost certain to fall to Labour and Aberconwy is in Labour sights too.
  • PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,275
    edited April 2015
    DavidL said:

    If there is going to be a meaningful break in favour of one party or the other it surely has to come in the next fortnight. My expectation is that, as usual, the campaign will make little difference and what we see now is what we get. If so Labour will be the largest party.

    This is just a straw in the wind, David, but chart followers will note a triple bottom at 148.50 on the STG/USD weekly chart. On the daily timeframe there seems to be distinct signs of an upside reversal. FX markets don't 'know' anything more than anyone else, but patterns do have a strange habit of anticipating events. FWIW I havn't touched the SPIN markets but I am long the pound.

  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    surbiton said:

    malcolmg said:

    FPT
    malcolmg said:

    » show previous quotes
    So it is £100K before it kicks in.

    Slightly over actually because it applies to your adjusted net income which is inevitably complicated like all of our tax code. Those earning over £120K pay tax on all of their earnings.

    Thanks david

    It is exactly that situation where I do not understand Tory priorities. There are many earning between £45k and £120k whose marginal rate [ CB withdrawl is after all a deduction ]can be helped.

    No. They will choose to help people who earn more than £150k.

    People who earn more than £150k pay a lot more tax than those who earn (say) £60k.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,500

    surbiton said:

    malcolmg said:

    FPT
    malcolmg said:

    » show previous quotes
    So it is £100K before it kicks in.

    Slightly over actually because it applies to your adjusted net income which is inevitably complicated like all of our tax code. Those earning over £120K pay tax on all of their earnings.

    Thanks david

    It is exactly that situation where I do not understand Tory priorities. There are many earning between £45k and £120k whose marginal rate [ CB withdrawl is after all a deduction ]can be helped.

    No. They will choose to help people who earn more than £150k.

    People who earn more than £150k pay a lot more tax than those who earn (say) £60k.

    Though there are many more between £60K and £120K so many more to upset.
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    DavidL said:

    If there is going to be a meaningful break in favour of one party or the other it surely has to come in the next fortnight. My expectation is that, as usual, the campaign will make little difference and what we see now is what we get. If so Labour will be the largest party.

    Hasn`t Crosby predicted crossover at Easter?
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,313
    surbiton said:

    FPT

    The Tories have indeed hit people earning between about £40k [ where HRT starts ] to £120k very hard.

    Many in this bracket also lost CB. The "squeezed middle" as Edward Miliband said so succinctly.

    Once your earnings go above £150k, the Tories are indeed your friend. 50% tax becomes 45%. So if you earn £1m, you have been given £50k back by Osborne !

    I think marginal tax rates are too high and the government needs to tinker with rates and allowances to get a constant level across the board at no more than 40%.

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    surbiton said:

    malcolmg said:

    FPT
    malcolmg said:

    » show previous quotes
    So it is £100K before it kicks in.

    Slightly over actually because it applies to your adjusted net income which is inevitably complicated like all of our tax code. Those earning over £120K pay tax on all of their earnings.

    Thanks david

    It is exactly that situation where I do not understand Tory priorities. There are many earning between £45k and £120k whose marginal rate [ CB withdrawl is after all a deduction ]can be helped.

    No. They will choose to help people who earn more than £150k.

    People who earn more than £150k pay a lot more tax than those who earn (say) £60k.

    Doesn't say much about your political antenna !
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    malcolmg said:

    FPT
    malcolmg said:

    » show previous quotes
    So it is £100K before it kicks in.

    Slightly over actually because it applies to your adjusted net income which is inevitably complicated like all of our tax code. Those earning over £120K pay tax on all of their earnings.

    Thanks david

    It is exactly that situation where I do not understand Tory priorities. There are many earning between £45k and £120k whose marginal rate [ CB withdrawl is after all a deduction ]can be helped.

    No. They will choose to help people who earn more than £150k.

    People who earn more than £150k pay a lot more tax than those who earn (say) £60k.

    Doesn't say much about your political antenna !

    Huh. Look what I've found. It's Ed's sheet of paper.

    _ _ _____ _ _ _
    | | | | | __ \ | (_) (_)
    | | __ _| |__ ___ _ _ _ __ | |__) |__ | |_ ___ _ ___ ___
    | | / _` | '_ \ / _ \| | | | '__| | ___/ _ \| | |/ __| |/ _ \/ __|
    | |___| (_| | |_) | (_) | |_| | | | | | (_) | | | (__| | __/\__ \
    |______\__,_|_.__/ \___/ \__,_|_| |_| \___/|_|_|\___|_|\___||___/



    1. Blame the Tories.
    2. Make up some BS.
    3. Er. That's about it.

  • DavidL said:

    If there is going to be a meaningful break in favour of one party or the other it surely has to come in the next fortnight. My expectation is that, as usual, the campaign will make little difference and what we see now is what we get. If so Labour will be the largest party.

    That's how it appears to me, David.

    It's a WYSIWYG election. I doubt any Party will score more than a couple of percentage points above or below their current poll ratings.

    I'm not sure if that will necessarily make Labour the largest Party. That's highly dependent on the SNP performance.

    But however the SNP do, the next Parliament looks like being well and truly hung.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    :heart:

    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    malcolmg said:

    FPT
    malcolmg said:

    » show previous quotes
    So it is £100K before it kicks in.

    Slightly over actually because it applies to your adjusted net income which is inevitably complicated like all of our tax code. Those earning over £120K pay tax on all of their earnings.

    Thanks david

    It is exactly that situation where I do not understand Tory priorities. There are many earning between £45k and £120k whose marginal rate [ CB withdrawl is after all a deduction ]can be helped.

    No. They will choose to help people who earn more than £150k.

    People who earn more than £150k pay a lot more tax than those who earn (say) £60k.

    Doesn't say much about your political antenna !

    Huh. Look what I've found. It's Ed's sheet of paper.

    _ _ _____ _ _ _
    | | | | | __ \ | (_) (_)
    | | __ _| |__ ___ _ _ _ __ | |__) |__ | |_ ___ _ ___ ___
    | | / _` | '_ \ / _ \| | | | '__| | ___/ _ \| | |/ __| |/ _ \/ __|
    | |___| (_| | |_) | (_) | |_| | | | | | (_) | | | (__| | __/\__ \
    |______\__,_|_.__/ \___/ \__,_|_| |_| \___/|_|_|\___|_|\___||___/



    1. Blame the Tories.
    2. Make up some BS.
    3. Er. That's about it.

  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    @MarkHopkins


    Look what I found.

    Cameron`s sheet

    _ _ _____ _ _ _
    | | | | | __ \ | (_) (_)
    | | __ _| |__ ___ _ _ _ __ | |__) |__ | |_ ___ _ ___ ___
    | | / _` | '_ \ / _ \| | | | '__| | ___/ _ \| | |/ __| |/ _ \/ __|
    | |___| (_| | |_) | (_) | |_| | | | | | (_) | | | (__| | __/\__ \
    |______\__,_|_.__/ \___/ \__,_|_| |_| \___/|_|_|\___|_|\___||___/


    Watch debate on TV.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    surbiton said:

    FPT

    The Tories have indeed hit people earning between about £40k [ where HRT starts ] to £120k very hard.

    Many in this bracket also lost CB. The "squeezed middle" as Edward Miliband said so succinctly.

    Once your earnings go above £150k, the Tories are indeed your friend. 50% tax becomes 45%. So if you earn £1m, you have been given £50k back by Osborne !

    No, you haven't.

    He explicitly linked the increase in top end stamp duty (by 200bps?) to the reduction in income tax.

    So if you earn £1m and living in a £4m house he charged you £80,000 and gave you back £50,000.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,378
    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    FPT

    The Tories have indeed hit people earning between about £40k [ where HRT starts ] to £120k very hard.

    Many in this bracket also lost CB. The "squeezed middle" as Edward Miliband said so succinctly.

    Once your earnings go above £150k, the Tories are indeed your friend. 50% tax becomes 45%. So if you earn £1m, you have been given £50k back by Osborne !

    No, you haven't.

    He explicitly linked the increase in top end stamp duty (by 200bps?) to the reduction in income tax.

    So if you earn £1m and living in a £4m house he charged you £80,000 and gave you back £50,000.
    But not all of us move house every year surely?

  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,929
    surbiton said:

    FPT

    The Tories have indeed hit people earning between about £40k [ where HRT starts ] to £120k very hard.

    Many in this bracket also lost CB. The "squeezed middle" as Edward Miliband said so succinctly.

    No. These people are not the Squeezed Middle. They are the Squeezed Upper Quartile.

    When he wasn't being as vague as usual, Ed Millicent defined the "squeezed middle" as people either side of the average income, which would be about £20k to about £35k.

    50k to 120k is roughly the 70th to 99th percentiles. Squeezed middle - NOT. That's wellish off people who were clobbered by Mr Broon and have been clobbered, and not unclobbered (eg loss of personal tax allowance from £100k) by Mr Cameron.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11848303
    http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_368612.pdf

  • oldpoliticsoldpolitics Posts: 455
    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    FPT

    The Tories have indeed hit people earning between about £40k [ where HRT starts ] to £120k very hard.

    Many in this bracket also lost CB. The "squeezed middle" as Edward Miliband said so succinctly.

    Once your earnings go above £150k, the Tories are indeed your friend. 50% tax becomes 45%. So if you earn £1m, you have been given £50k back by Osborne !

    No, you haven't.

    He explicitly linked the increase in top end stamp duty (by 200bps?) to the reduction in income tax.

    So if you earn £1m and living in a £4m house he charged you £80,000 and gave you back £50,000.
    Does that not assume you move house annually?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    DavidL said:

    If there is going to be a meaningful break in favour of one party or the other it surely has to come in the next fortnight. My expectation is that, as usual, the campaign will make little difference and what we see now is what we get. If so Labour will be the largest party.

    Favouring Conservatives is that workers will see their net pay rise just days before the election. Against that, they may lose a few families owing to the annual shortage of school places. There is also the impression that all parties are nervous of an imminent child abuse scandal, although whether that is because they know anything or because they don't, is unclear. And Dan Hodges tells us to expect a Conservative blockbuster soon. But yes, it feels like a phoney war so far.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    SMukesh said:

    @MarkHopkins


    Look what I found.

    Cameron`s sheet

    _ _ _____ _ _ _
    | | | | | __ \ | (_) (_)
    | | __ _| |__ ___ _ _ _ __ | |__) |__ | |_ ___ _ ___ ___
    | | / _` | '_ \ / _ \| | | | '__| | ___/ _ \| | |/ __| |/ _ \/ __|
    | |___| (_| | |_) | (_) | |_| | | | | | (_) | | | (__| | __/\__ \
    |______\__,_|_.__/ \___/ \__,_|_| |_| \___/|_|_|\___|_|\___||___/


    Watch debate on TV.

    I guess he figured as he's going to be in government after the next election he wasn't really invited to the OPPOSITION debate
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    edited April 2015
    Charles said:

    I guess he figured as he's going to be in government after the next election he wasn't really invited to the OPPOSITION debate

    Given some of their comments today it is a little surprising the Lib Dems are not included...
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    Charles said:

    SMukesh said:

    @MarkHopkins


    Look what I found.

    Cameron`s sheet

    _ _ _____ _ _ _
    | | | | | __ \ | (_) (_)
    | | __ _| |__ ___ _ _ _ __ | |__) |__ | |_ ___ _ ___ ___
    | | / _` | '_ \ / _ \| | | | '__| | ___/ _ \| | |/ __| |/ _ \/ __|
    | |___| (_| | |_) | (_) | |_| | | | | | (_) | | | (__| | __/\__ \
    |______\__,_|_.__/ \___/ \__,_|_| |_| \___/|_|_|\___|_|\___||___/


    Watch debate on TV.

    I guess he figured as he's going to be in government after the next election he wasn't really invited to the OPPOSITION debate
    Aah,perhaps it is easy to forget the format was changed to suit his cowardice.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    FPT

    The Tories have indeed hit people earning between about £40k [ where HRT starts ] to £120k very hard.

    Many in this bracket also lost CB. The "squeezed middle" as Edward Miliband said so succinctly.

    Once your earnings go above £150k, the Tories are indeed your friend. 50% tax becomes 45%. So if you earn £1m, you have been given £50k back by Osborne !

    No, you haven't.

    He explicitly linked the increase in top end stamp duty (by 200bps?) to the reduction in income tax.

    So if you earn £1m and living in a £4m house he charged you £80,000 and gave you back £50,000.
    But not all of us move house every year surely?

    Sure - believe about every 7 years on average (from memory). Although, realistically, someone on £1m pa probably lives in a £8m house (so extra cost of £160K, and by the time that they come to sell it will have gone up further £4m (7 years x 2 x 3.5) - assumes 2% increase in wages and houses increasing to trend towards historical 3.5x multiple).

    So cost on sale is £240,000 vs £350,000 in saved income tax ASSUMING (and few achieve this) sustained earnings of >£1m pa for 7 years.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    FPT

    The Tories have indeed hit people earning between about £40k [ where HRT starts ] to £120k very hard.

    Many in this bracket also lost CB. The "squeezed middle" as Edward Miliband said so succinctly.

    Once your earnings go above £150k, the Tories are indeed your friend. 50% tax becomes 45%. So if you earn £1m, you have been given £50k back by Osborne !

    No, you haven't.

    He explicitly linked the increase in top end stamp duty (by 200bps?) to the reduction in income tax.

    So if you earn £1m and living in a £4m house he charged you £80,000 and gave you back £50,000.
    But not all of us move house every year surely?

    Indeed.

    So, according to Charles people earning £1m who have not moved house are £50,000 a year better off. But apparently they'll all work harder. Or something. And let's not forget the reductions in the taxes on dividends that many top earners will also enjoy. The fact is that the last few years have been astonishingly good for the very richest people in the UK (and elsewhere):

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/08/qe-the-ultimate-subsidy-for-the-rich/



  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    The graph shows the gap between Labour and Tory has actually widened.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    FPT

    The Tories have indeed hit people earning between about £40k [ where HRT starts ] to £120k very hard.

    Many in this bracket also lost CB. The "squeezed middle" as Edward Miliband said so succinctly.

    Once your earnings go above £150k, the Tories are indeed your friend. 50% tax becomes 45%. So if you earn £1m, you have been given £50k back by Osborne !

    No, you haven't.

    He explicitly linked the increase in top end stamp duty (by 200bps?) to the reduction in income tax.

    So if you earn £1m and living in a £4m house he charged you £80,000 and gave you back £50,000.
    Only bankers move house every year ! Then add the Estate agents fee too !
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    SMukesh said:

    Charles said:

    SMukesh said:

    @MarkHopkins


    Look what I found.

    Cameron`s sheet

    _ _ _____ _ _ _
    | | | | | __ \ | (_) (_)
    | | __ _| |__ ___ _ _ _ __ | |__) |__ | |_ ___ _ ___ ___
    | | / _` | '_ \ / _ \| | | | '__| | ___/ _ \| | |/ __| |/ _ \/ __|
    | |___| (_| | |_) | (_) | |_| | | | | | (_) | | | (__| | __/\__ \
    |______\__,_|_.__/ \___/ \__,_|_| |_| \___/|_|_|\___|_|\___||___/


    Watch debate on TV.

    I guess he figured as he's going to be in government after the next election he wasn't really invited to the OPPOSITION debate
    Aah,perhaps it is easy to forget the format was changed to suit his cowardice.
    Tactical manouvering, not cowardice.

    The Romans regularly beat barbarians because they decided when and where to fight.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    surbiton said:

    The graph shows the gap between Labour and Tory has actually widened.
    I realise you like looking at the pictures, but try reading the text.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    FPT

    The Tories have indeed hit people earning between about £40k [ where HRT starts ] to £120k very hard.

    Many in this bracket also lost CB. The "squeezed middle" as Edward Miliband said so succinctly.

    Once your earnings go above £150k, the Tories are indeed your friend. 50% tax becomes 45%. So if you earn £1m, you have been given £50k back by Osborne !

    No, you haven't.

    He explicitly linked the increase in top end stamp duty (by 200bps?) to the reduction in income tax.

    So if you earn £1m and living in a £4m house he charged you £80,000 and gave you back £50,000.
    But not all of us move house every year surely?

    Indeed.

    So, according to Charles people earning £1m who have not moved house are £50,000 a year better off. But apparently they'll all work harder. Or something. And let's not forget the reductions in the taxes on dividends that many top earners will also enjoy. The fact is that the last few years have been astonishingly good for the very richest people in the UK (and elsewhere):

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/08/qe-the-ultimate-subsidy-for-the-rich/



    The policy was aimed at encouraging foreign business people - particularly French - to move to the UK. The locals (and there are very few) were fortunate beneficiaries of that - with a chunk of the benefit clawed back via property tax
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,313
    Charles said:

    SMukesh said:

    Charles said:

    SMukesh said:

    @MarkHopkins


    Look what I found.

    Cameron`s sheet

    _ _ _____ _ _ _
    | | | | | __ \ | (_) (_)
    | | __ _| |__ ___ _ _ _ __ | |__) |__ | |_ ___ _ ___ ___
    | | / _` | '_ \ / _ \| | | | '__| | ___/ _ \| | |/ __| |/ _ \/ __|
    | |___| (_| | |_) | (_) | |_| | | | | | (_) | | | (__| | __/\__ \
    |______\__,_|_.__/ \___/ \__,_|_| |_| \___/|_|_|\___|_|\___||___/


    Watch debate on TV.

    I guess he figured as he's going to be in government after the next election he wasn't really invited to the OPPOSITION debate
    Aah,perhaps it is easy to forget the format was changed to suit his cowardice.
    Tactical manouvering, not cowardice.

    The Romans regularly beat barbarians because they decided when and where to fight.
    Which is also why Wellington defeated the French, he spent most of the Peninsular war avoiding giving battle.

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited April 2015
    Under the Tories:

    If one person in a household earns between £50k - £60k

    one child -marginal rate of tax > 50%

    three children = 65%

    Between £100k and £120k - MRT = 60%

    Above £150k : MRT = 45%

    Tory fair play !
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    surbiton said:

    FPT

    The Tories have indeed hit people earning between about £40k [ where HRT starts ] to £120k very hard.

    Many in this bracket also lost CB. The "squeezed middle" as Edward Miliband said so succinctly.

    Once your earnings go above £150k, the Tories are indeed your friend. 50% tax becomes 45%. So if you earn £1m, you have been given £50k back by Osborne !

    How about some intellectual honesty? If your earnings were above £150k then Labour only charged 40% tax for every whole year they were in power. There wasn't a single whole tax year where Labour ever thought anything over 40% was appropriate.

    Osborne has set the tax to 5% more than Labour ever thought appropriate to set it. Even if it gets cut to 40% next time (no guarantee of that) then that would only be cutting it back to Gordon Brown's preferred tax rate.
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    Charles said:

    SMukesh said:

    Charles said:

    SMukesh said:

    @MarkHopkins


    Look what I found.

    Cameron`s sheet

    _ _ _____ _ _ _
    | | | | | __ \ | (_) (_)
    | | __ _| |__ ___ _ _ _ __ | |__) |__ | |_ ___ _ ___ ___
    | | / _` | '_ \ / _ \| | | | '__| | ___/ _ \| | |/ __| |/ _ \/ __|
    | |___| (_| | |_) | (_) | |_| | | | | | (_) | | | (__| | __/\__ \
    |______\__,_|_.__/ \___/ \__,_|_| |_| \___/|_|_|\___|_|\___||___/


    Watch debate on TV.

    I guess he figured as he's going to be in government after the next election he wasn't really invited to the OPPOSITION debate
    Aah,perhaps it is easy to forget the format was changed to suit his cowardice.
    Tactical manouvering, not cowardice.

    The Romans regularly beat barbarians because they decided when and where to fight.
    Missing 2-3 days of extensive broadcasting coverage could be quite tactical if you wish to believe it

    Deciding to empty-chair himself sounds like a pretty astute move towards the post-politics speech circuit.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,587
    SMukesh said:

    @Kle(FPT)

    Quite brave to predict no change in seat situation in Wales.

    If today`s Youguv(Wales) is correct,changes from GE2010 are:

    Labour(+4)Con(+1),Lib(-15),PC(-2),UKIP(+10).

    Wasn't my prediction. Probably not as massive changes as there should be, but better than usual perhaps.
    Charles said:

    SMukesh said:

    Charles said:

    SMukesh said:

    @MarkHopkins


    Look what I found.

    Cameron`s sheet

    _ _ _____ _ _ _
    | | | | | __ \ | (_) (_)
    | | __ _| |__ ___ _ _ _ __ | |__) |__ | |_ ___ _ ___ ___
    | | / _` | '_ \ / _ \| | | | '__| | ___/ _ \| | |/ __| |/ _ \/ __|
    | |___| (_| | |_) | (_) | |_| | | | | | (_) | | | (__| | __/\__ \
    |______\__,_|_.__/ \___/ \__,_|_| |_| \___/|_|_|\___|_|\___||___/


    Watch debate on TV.

    I guess he figured as he's going to be in government after the next election he wasn't really invited to the OPPOSITION debate
    Aah,perhaps it is easy to forget the format was changed to suit his cowardice.
    Tactical manouvering, not cowardice.

    The Romans regularly beat barbarians because they decided when and where to fight.
    The key being still being worthwhile when you do have to fight. Cameron? Not sure.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,313

    DavidL said:

    If there is going to be a meaningful break in favour of one party or the other it surely has to come in the next fortnight. My expectation is that, as usual, the campaign will make little difference and what we see now is what we get. If so Labour will be the largest party.

    Favouring Conservatives is that workers will see their net pay rise just days before the election. Against that, they may lose a few families owing to the annual shortage of school places. There is also the impression that all parties are nervous of an imminent child abuse scandal, although whether that is because they know anything or because they don't, is unclear. And Dan Hodges tells us to expect a Conservative blockbuster soon. But yes, it feels like a phoney war so far.
    It would be disappointing to do something potentially game-changing and then watch people forget about it over the bank holiday weekend.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,540
    surbiton said:

    The graph shows the gap between Labour and Tory has actually widened.

    The swing from Con to Lab since 2010 is only 1.5%.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    surbiton said:

    Under the Tories:

    Above £150k : MRT = 45%

    Tory fair play !

    Under Labour:

    Above £150k : MRT = 40%

    Labour fair play !
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    SMukesh said:

    Missing 2-3 days of extensive broadcasting coverage

    Those not attending the debate get alternative coverage to compensate
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    surbiton said:

    FPT

    The Tories have indeed hit people earning between about £40k [ where HRT starts ] to £120k very hard.

    Many in this bracket also lost CB. The "squeezed middle" as Edward Miliband said so succinctly.

    Once your earnings go above £150k, the Tories are indeed your friend. 50% tax becomes 45%. So if you earn £1m, you have been given £50k back by Osborne !

    How about some intellectual honesty? If your earnings were above £150k then Labour only charged 40% tax for every whole year they were in power. There wasn't a single whole tax year where Labour ever thought anything over 40% was appropriate.

    Osborne has set the tax to 5% more than Labour ever thought appropriate to set it. Even if it gets cut to 40% next time (no guarantee of that) then that would only be cutting it back to Gordon Brown's preferred tax rate.
    Osborne inherited 50% for greater than 150k at a time when, we are told, deficit reduction was the aim.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    And don't waste all the prep time either.
    Scott_P said:

    SMukesh said:

    Missing 2-3 days of extensive broadcasting coverage

    Those not attending the debate get alternative coverage to compensate
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    Do wonder if in Wales Labour could both Gain Arfon and lose Yns Mon...
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    Scott_P said:

    SMukesh said:

    Missing 2-3 days of extensive broadcasting coverage

    Those not attending the debate get alternative coverage to compensate
    Of them watching TV?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    FPT

    The Tories have indeed hit people earning between about £40k [ where HRT starts ] to £120k very hard.

    Many in this bracket also lost CB. The "squeezed middle" as Edward Miliband said so succinctly.

    Once your earnings go above £150k, the Tories are indeed your friend. 50% tax becomes 45%. So if you earn £1m, you have been given £50k back by Osborne !

    No, you haven't.

    He explicitly linked the increase in top end stamp duty (by 200bps?) to the reduction in income tax.

    So if you earn £1m and living in a £4m house he charged you £80,000 and gave you back £50,000.
    But not all of us move house every year surely?

    Indeed.

    So, according to Charles people earning £1m who have not moved house are £50,000 a year better off. But apparently they'll all work harder. Or something. And let's not forget the reductions in the taxes on dividends that many top earners will also enjoy. The fact is that the last few years have been astonishingly good for the very richest people in the UK (and elsewhere):

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/08/qe-the-ultimate-subsidy-for-the-rich/



    The policy was aimed at encouraging foreign business people - particularly French - to move to the UK. The locals (and there are very few) were fortunate beneficiaries of that - with a chunk of the benefit clawed back via property tax

    That's a new one on me, I have to admit. I had not realised that Osborne had anticipated the outcome of the French presidential election and the resulting opportunity for the UK. Fancy that. He should have said something when he announced the cut a month before the French presidential election took place and six months before the 75% tax rate was introduced. Given his prescience on this you'd have thought that he would have done a bit better in seeing a Eurozone crisis on the horizon when he announced his first budget and killed off the UK's recovery.


  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,313
    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    FPT

    The Tories have indeed hit people earning between about £40k [ where HRT starts ] to £120k very hard.

    Many in this bracket also lost CB. The "squeezed middle" as Edward Miliband said so succinctly.

    Once your earnings go above £150k, the Tories are indeed your friend. 50% tax becomes 45%. So if you earn £1m, you have been given £50k back by Osborne !

    How about some intellectual honesty? If your earnings were above £150k then Labour only charged 40% tax for every whole year they were in power. There wasn't a single whole tax year where Labour ever thought anything over 40% was appropriate.

    Osborne has set the tax to 5% more than Labour ever thought appropriate to set it. Even if it gets cut to 40% next time (no guarantee of that) then that would only be cutting it back to Gordon Brown's preferred tax rate.
    Osborne inherited 50% for greater than 150k at a time when, we are told, deficit reduction was the aim.
    If you cut the tax rate, you can increase tax take. Not something lefties like to comment on. Win-win.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    FPT

    The Tories have indeed hit people earning between about £40k [ where HRT starts ] to £120k very hard.

    Many in this bracket also lost CB. The "squeezed middle" as Edward Miliband said so succinctly.

    Once your earnings go above £150k, the Tories are indeed your friend. 50% tax becomes 45%. So if you earn £1m, you have been given £50k back by Osborne !

    How about some intellectual honesty? If your earnings were above £150k then Labour only charged 40% tax for every whole year they were in power. There wasn't a single whole tax year where Labour ever thought anything over 40% was appropriate.

    Osborne has set the tax to 5% more than Labour ever thought appropriate to set it. Even if it gets cut to 40% next time (no guarantee of that) then that would only be cutting it back to Gordon Brown's preferred tax rate.
    Osborne inherited 50% for greater than 150k at a time when, we are told, deficit reduction was the aim.
    That's simply not true. Osborne inherited a gambled change to 50% days before he took over. Osborne inherited 40% as the real rate charged every single whole year beforehand.

    Why didn't Labour ever charge more than 40%? The Laffer Curve has been known about for decades that's why, Osborne cut the deficit by implementing a competitive tax rate that was both higher than Labour's real rate the entire period they were in government and lower than the French would charge that got taxes into the UK thus cutting the deficit.
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Smukesh

    Crosby predicted regular crossover (no more Labour leads) In January.

    His model had the Tories 6 points up all the time now.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,378

    DavidL said:

    If there is going to be a meaningful break in favour of one party or the other it surely has to come in the next fortnight. My expectation is that, as usual, the campaign will make little difference and what we see now is what we get. If so Labour will be the largest party.

    Favouring Conservatives is that workers will see their net pay rise just days before the election. Against that, they may lose a few families owing to the annual shortage of school places. There is also the impression that all parties are nervous of an imminent child abuse scandal, although whether that is because they know anything or because they don't, is unclear. And Dan Hodges tells us to expect a Conservative blockbuster soon. But yes, it feels like a phoney war so far.
    It would be disappointing to do something potentially game-changing and then watch people forget about it over the bank holiday weekend.

    Your last point does rather suggest that it was indeed amateurs who tried to smear Ms Sturgeon. But it did give us the remarkable sight of Labour Party activists flagging up actual copies of the Daily Mail in support of their cause. (I've seen one photo of a street stall with the DM posted up, and read of at least one other example.)
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    FPT

    The Tories have indeed hit people earning between about £40k [ where HRT starts ] to £120k very hard.

    Many in this bracket also lost CB. The "squeezed middle" as Edward Miliband said so succinctly.

    Once your earnings go above £150k, the Tories are indeed your friend. 50% tax becomes 45%. So if you earn £1m, you have been given £50k back by Osborne !

    No, you haven't.

    He explicitly linked the increase in top end stamp duty (by 200bps?) to the reduction in income tax.

    So if you earn £1m and living in a £4m house he charged you £80,000 and gave you back £50,000.
    But not all of us move house every year surely?

    Indeed.

    So, according to Charles people earning £1m who have not moved house are £50,000 a year better off. But apparently they'll all work harder. Or something. And let's not forget the reductions in the taxes on dividends that many top earners will also enjoy. The fact is that the last few years have been astonishingly good for the very richest people in the UK (and elsewhere):

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/08/qe-the-ultimate-subsidy-for-the-rich/



    The policy was aimed at encouraging foreign business people - particularly French - to move to the UK. The locals (and there are very few) were fortunate beneficiaries of that - with a chunk of the benefit clawed back via property tax
    Charles, stop digging !
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,378
    http://wingsoverscotland.com/call-off-the-dogs/

    This was really rather funny, in an unfortunate sort of way ...
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    IOS said:

    Smukesh

    Crosby predicted regular crossover (no more Labour leads) In January.

    His model had the Tories 6 points up all the time now.

    :-)

    I meant Lynton Crosby not Rod Crosby.

    His model`s such a joke,I prefer not to comment on it.
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    Plato said:

    And don't waste all the prep time either.

    Scott_P said:

    SMukesh said:

    Missing 2-3 days of extensive broadcasting coverage

    Those not attending the debate get alternative coverage to compensate
    prep-time...
    Am I the only one who thinks of Batman?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    FPT

    The Tories have indeed hit people earning between about £40k [ where HRT starts ] to £120k very hard.

    Many in this bracket also lost CB. The "squeezed middle" as Edward Miliband said so succinctly.

    Once your earnings go above £150k, the Tories are indeed your friend. 50% tax becomes 45%. So if you earn £1m, you have been given £50k back by Osborne !

    No, you haven't.

    He explicitly linked the increase in top end stamp duty (by 200bps?) to the reduction in income tax.

    So if you earn £1m and living in a £4m house he charged you £80,000 and gave you back £50,000.
    But not all of us move house every year surely?

    Indeed.

    So, according to Charles people earning £1m who have not moved house are £50,000 a year better off. But apparently they'll all work harder. Or something. And let's not forget the reductions in the taxes on dividends that many top earners will also enjoy. The fact is that the last few years have been astonishingly good for the very richest people in the UK (and elsewhere):

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/08/qe-the-ultimate-subsidy-for-the-rich/



    The policy was aimed at encouraging foreign business people - particularly French - to move to the UK. The locals (and there are very few) were fortunate beneficiaries of that - with a chunk of the benefit clawed back via property tax
    For most locals , substitute *ankers !
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    The Laffer Curve has been known about for decades that's why,

    The Laffer curve is notional only.

    There is no evidence that the tax revenue curve has a single turning point. Also I'm amazed that every single proponent of the Laffer curve always an ever believes that we are on the right hand side of the curve.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    DavidL said:

    If there is going to be a meaningful break in favour of one party or the other it surely has to come in the next fortnight. My expectation is that, as usual, the campaign will make little difference and what we see now is what we get. If so Labour will be the largest party.

    I think any big shift that's going to happen will have already occurred. The events of the campaign as you say never really change things, but people simply being put on an "election footing" and people being made aware an election is coming with the huge outbreak of media coverage last week could potentially have caused a shift.

    Beginning of last week, I was terrified that the Tories might be about to break away, but with this weekend's polls (showing the Tories only slightly nudging forwards at best) I'm starting to feel a bit relieved. Though as others have pointed out, it could be that Easter weekend polls aren't that reliable, so we'll have to wait a few more days probably to be sure that shift hasn't happened.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Alistair said:

    The Laffer Curve has been known about for decades that's why,

    The Laffer curve is notional only.

    There is no evidence that the tax revenue curve has a single turning point. Also I'm amazed that every single proponent of the Laffer curve always an ever believes that we are on the right hand side of the curve.
    Well we can compare and contrast the relative success and failure in both growing the economy and cutting the budget deficit in France (increasing top rate tax dramatically to 75%) and the UK (cutting back to a bit above Labour's preferred tax rate). Which nations have grown better since the 2012 budget and which deficits have come down faster?

    It is total dishonesty to claim that Labour ever charged more than 40%. In their 13 whole years in power they only ever charged a top rate of 40% - for a reason.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    "Do wonder if in Wales Labour could both Gain Arfon and lose Ynys Mon..."

    Neither Arfon (Caernarfon) nor Ynys Mon have dumped a sitting MP since ... Lady Megan Lloyd George lost Anglesey in 1951, nearly three quarters of a century ago !!!

    When the seat has changed hands, it has done so when the previous incumbent stood down (or in the case of Keith Best was hauled off to prison).

    Overwhelmingly, odds are that Albert Owen and Hywel Francis will both be back after May 2015.

    Always remember in the West Wales seats, the candidates matter much more than the party. Guto Bebb is safe for the Tories in Aberconwy, for much the same reason.

    Neither Labour nor Plaid Cymru are doing well enough to make many gains in Wales.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,313
    Carnyx said:

    http://wingsoverscotland.com/call-off-the-dogs/

    This was really rather funny, in an unfortunate sort of way ...

    they really are paranoid, aren't they?

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Danny565 said:

    DavidL said:

    If there is going to be a meaningful break in favour of one party or the other it surely has to come in the next fortnight. My expectation is that, as usual, the campaign will make little difference and what we see now is what we get. If so Labour will be the largest party.

    I think any big shift that's going to happen will have already occurred. The events of the campaign as you say never really change things, but people simply being put on an "election footing" and people being made aware an election is coming with the huge outbreak of media coverage last week could potentially have caused a shift.

    Beginning of last week, I was terrified that the Tories might be about to break away, but with this weekend's polls (showing the Tories only slightly nudging forwards at best) I'm starting to feel a bit relieved. Though as others have pointed out, it could be that Easter weekend polls aren't that reliable, so we'll have to wait a few more days probably to be sure that shift hasn't happened.
    That was my fear too ! A little of it is still there. However, I am now content that the Tories will not get a 5% lead unless the polls are as wrong as 1992.

    On the other hand, I am quite pleasantly surprised by Miliband's approval ratings particularly amongst Labour supporters.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited April 2015

    Alistair said:

    The Laffer Curve has been known about for decades that's why,

    The Laffer curve is notional only.

    There is no evidence that the tax revenue curve has a single turning point. Also I'm amazed that every single proponent of the Laffer curve always an ever believes that we are on the right hand side of the curve.
    Well we can compare and contrast the relative success and failure in both growing the economy and cutting the budget deficit in France (increasing top rate tax dramatically to 75%) and the UK (cutting back to a bit above Labour's preferred tax rate). Which nations have grown better since the 2012 budget and which deficits have come down faster?

    It is total dishonesty to claim that Labour ever charged more than 40%. In their 13 whole years in power they only ever charged a top rate of 40% - for a reason.
    "In their 13 whole years in power they only ever charged a top rate of 40%" - You are wrong !
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    FPT

    Speaking of the Kardashians
    PAW-ful viewing habits! British pets watch 21 hours of television a week ... and like Paul O'Grady best (but Keeping Up With The Kardashians is least favourite)

    Owners watch hours of TV with pets and leave it on to keep them company
    Survey of 1,000 pet owners see For the Love of Dogs as favourite show
    Keeping Up with the Kardashians is only liked by 2% of pets


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3027425/British-pets-watch-21-hours-television-week-like-Paul-O-Grady-best-Keeping-Kardashians-liked-least.html#ixzz3WXYnbknq

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited April 2015
    surbiton said:

    Alistair said:

    The Laffer Curve has been known about for decades that's why,

    The Laffer curve is notional only.

    There is no evidence that the tax revenue curve has a single turning point. Also I'm amazed that every single proponent of the Laffer curve always an ever believes that we are on the right hand side of the curve.
    Well we can compare and contrast the relative success and failure in both growing the economy and cutting the budget deficit in France (increasing top rate tax dramatically to 75%) and the UK (cutting back to a bit above Labour's preferred tax rate). Which nations have grown better since the 2012 budget and which deficits have come down faster?

    It is total dishonesty to claim that Labour ever charged more than 40%. In their 13 whole years in power they only ever charged a top rate of 40% - for a reason.
    "In their 13 whole years in power they only ever charged a top rate of 40%" - You are wrong !
    In which whole tax year that Labour was in power did they ever charge anything other than 40%?

    Or are you pedantically squirming that Labour was only in power for 12 whole tax years (and all but a few weeks of a 13th) in which they only ever charged 40%?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited April 2015
    And more wishful policy free cobblers from Labour. They're claiming more conspiracy theories than Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura put together.

    dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3027440/Labour-claims-Cameron-secret-plan-cut-taxes-millionaires-parties-trade-blows-spending-plans.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,981
    Biggles over Bath

    "Okay, it was a serious breach of the rules, but the culprit’s been punished enough."

    I think we can all now relax and take it as a certainty that Nicola has been economical with the truth. Carmichael has admitted it's someone in his department and even Biggles doesn't think it was fake. Sorry Nicola but time to come clean.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    surbiton said:

    Alistair said:

    The Laffer Curve has been known about for decades that's why,

    The Laffer curve is notional only.

    There is no evidence that the tax revenue curve has a single turning point. Also I'm amazed that every single proponent of the Laffer curve always an ever believes that we are on the right hand side of the curve.
    Well we can compare and contrast the relative success and failure in both growing the economy and cutting the budget deficit in France (increasing top rate tax dramatically to 75%) and the UK (cutting back to a bit above Labour's preferred tax rate). Which nations have grown better since the 2012 budget and which deficits have come down faster?

    It is total dishonesty to claim that Labour ever charged more than 40%. In their 13 whole years in power they only ever charged a top rate of 40% - for a reason.
    "In their 13 whole years in power they only ever charged a top rate of 40%" - You are wrong !
    In which whole tax year that Labour was in power did they ever charge anything other than 40%?

    Or are you pedantically squirming that Labour was only in power for 12 whole tax years (and all but a few weeks of a 13th) in which they only ever charged 40%?
    You used the word "whole" - I didn't.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    Plato said:

    And more wishful policy free cobblers from Labour. They're claiming more conspiracy theories than Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura put together.

    dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3027440/Labour-claims-Cameron-secret-plan-cut-taxes-millionaires-parties-trade-blows-spending-plans.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

    the poor lambs, it's all they have.

    Labour is a hollow drum, no policies, no principles, no point; just the noise of bygone days.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672

    Alistair said:

    The Laffer Curve has been known about for decades that's why,

    The Laffer curve is notional only.

    There is no evidence that the tax revenue curve has a single turning point. Also I'm amazed that every single proponent of the Laffer curve always an ever believes that we are on the right hand side of the curve.
    Well we can compare and contrast the relative success and failure in both growing the economy and cutting the budget deficit in France (increasing top rate tax dramatically to 75%) and the UK (cutting back to a bit above Labour's preferred tax rate). Which nations have grown better since the 2012 budget and which deficits have come down faster?

    It is total dishonesty to claim that Labour ever charged more than 40%. In their 13 whole years in power they only ever charged a top rate of 40% - for a reason.

    The reason was that they did not need to. It only became an issue after the crash. The change was announced in the 2009 budget, the first opportunity to do so after the crash happened. As we all know, Osborne announced the reduction in 2012, a year before it happened, just as he has announced all other income tax related changes a year before they actually took place.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    Alistair said:

    The Laffer Curve has been known about for decades that's why,

    The Laffer curve is notional only.

    There is no evidence that the tax revenue curve has a single turning point. Also I'm amazed that every single proponent of the Laffer curve always an ever believes that we are on the right hand side of the curve.
    Well we can compare and contrast the relative success and failure in both growing the economy and cutting the budget deficit in France (increasing top rate tax dramatically to 75%) and the UK (cutting back to a bit above Labour's preferred tax rate). Which nations have grown better since the 2012 budget and which deficits have come down faster?

    It is total dishonesty to claim that Labour ever charged more than 40%. In their 13 whole years in power they only ever charged a top rate of 40% - for a reason.
    "In their 13 whole years in power they only ever charged a top rate of 40%" - You are wrong !
    In which whole tax year that Labour was in power did they ever charge anything other than 40%?

    Or are you pedantically squirming that Labour was only in power for 12 whole tax years (and all but a few weeks of a 13th) in which they only ever charged 40%?
    You used the word "whole" - I didn't.
    That's fine, name a single whole year out of the 12 whole years Labour was in power that they charged more than 40%?

    Or did Osborne inherit a situation where Labour the previous government had only ever charged 40% in any of their whole years in power?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,378
    Roger said:

    Biggles over Bath

    "Okay, it was a serious breach of the rules, but the culprit’s been punished enough."

    I think we can all now relax and take it as a certainty that Nicola has been economical with the truth. Carmichael has admitted it's someone in his department and even Biggles doesn't think it was fake. Sorry Nicola but time to come clean.

    She's hardly responsible for a third hand summary written, and leaked, in the SO. It may not be a fake in that sense but that doesn't mean it was an accurate historical record, or even written without malice.

    The way in which the story is being backpedalled is most interesting.



  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    Roger said:

    Biggles over Bath

    "Okay, it was a serious breach of the rules, but the culprit’s been punished enough."

    I think we can all now relax and take it as a certainty that Nicola has been economical with the truth. Carmichael has admitted it's someone in his department and even Biggles doesn't think it was fake. Sorry Nicola but time to come clean.

    She won't come clean, but anyone with half a brain knows that the SNP's favoured GE outcome is a Tory government. If Nicola really wanted a deal with a Labour government she would not be advising English voters to vote Green.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Alistair said:

    The Laffer Curve has been known about for decades that's why,

    The Laffer curve is notional only.

    There is no evidence that the tax revenue curve has a single turning point. Also I'm amazed that every single proponent of the Laffer curve always an ever believes that we are on the right hand side of the curve.
    Well we can compare and contrast the relative success and failure in both growing the economy and cutting the budget deficit in France (increasing top rate tax dramatically to 75%) and the UK (cutting back to a bit above Labour's preferred tax rate). Which nations have grown better since the 2012 budget and which deficits have come down faster?

    It is total dishonesty to claim that Labour ever charged more than 40%. In their 13 whole years in power they only ever charged a top rate of 40% - for a reason.

    The reason was that they did not need to. It only became an issue after the crash. The change was announced in the 2009 budget, the first opportunity to do so after the crash happened. As we all know, Osborne announced the reduction in 2012, a year before it happened, just as he has announced all other income tax related changes a year before they actually took place.

    Typical Labour ignorance to think there was no deficit issue prior to the crash. The previous government ran a deficit of 2.5% or more every year from 2002 onwards, not 2009. Of course if you're running a 3.5% deficit like in 2004/5 during a boom then its going to be more in a bust, that's Economics 101. Yet even then Labour never once increased the top rate of tax.
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759

    "Do wonder if in Wales Labour could both Gain Arfon and lose Ynys Mon..."

    Neither Arfon (Caernarfon) nor Ynys Mon have dumped a sitting MP since ... Lady Megan Lloyd George lost Anglesey in 1951, nearly three quarters of a century ago !!!

    When the seat has changed hands, it has done so when the previous incumbent stood down (or in the case of Keith Best was hauled off to prison).

    Overwhelmingly, odds are that Albert Owen and Hywel Francis will both be back after May 2015.

    Always remember in the West Wales seats, the candidates matter much more than the party. Guto Bebb is safe for the Tories in Aberconwy, for much the same reason.

    Neither Labour nor Plaid Cymru are doing well enough to make many gains in Wales.

    You clearly know more about Welsh politics but difficult to believe Labour won`t gain Cardiff North where the Tories won in 2010 by 150 votes and Lib Dems polled 9000 votes.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    Roger said:

    Biggles over Bath

    "Okay, it was a serious breach of the rules, but the culprit’s been punished enough."

    I think we can all now relax and take it as a certainty that Nicola has been economical with the truth. Carmichael has admitted it's someone in his department and even Biggles doesn't think it was fake. Sorry Nicola but time to come clean.

    Come off it Roger. There's is absolutely no way that Sturgeon, both a professional lawyer and politician, would lie. Get real.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,981
    As for the tax discussion....why would 103 multi millionaires say it was imperative that we kept a Conservative government if it wasn't that they thought it would involve them paying less tax? The one certainty about those 103 letter writers that we know for certain is they are motivated by money. That's what the Laffer Curve is supposed to prove.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Roger said:

    As for the tax discussion....why would 103 multi millionaires say it was imperative that we kept a Conservative government if it wasn't that they thought it would involve them paying less tax? The one certainty about those 103 letter writers that we know for certain is they are motivated by money. That's what the Laffer Curve is supposed to prove.

    Maybe because businessmen make more money based upon how well their businesses do and not just direct tax rates?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,981
    Moniker

    "Come off it Roger. There's is absolutely no way that Sturgeon, both a professional lawyer and politician, would lie. Get real."

    It's the way you tell 'em!!
  • pinball13pinball13 Posts: 83

    Favouring Conservatives is that workers will see their net pay rise just days before the election.

    Is there any evidence of meaningful pay rises? If not could push opinion the other way.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,981
    Alanbrooke

    "Labour is a hollow drum, no policies, no principles, no point; just the noise of bygone days."

    Very Churchillian!

    Shouldn't you be on the sponsored bogle stroll for Ludlow's fifth Conservative Club?

    I'll go a couple of bricks a mile.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672

    Alistair said:

    The Laffer Curve has been known about for decades that's why,

    The Laffer curve is notional only.

    There is no evidence that the tax revenue curve has a single turning point. Also I'm amazed that every single proponent of the Laffer curve always an ever believes that we are on the right hand side of the curve.
    Well we can compare and contrast the relative success and failure in both growing the economy and cutting the budget deficit in France (increasing top rate tax dramatically to 75%) and the UK (cutting back to a bit above Labour's preferred tax rate). Which nations have grown better since the 2012 budget and which deficits have come down faster?

    It is total dishonesty to claim that Labour ever charged more than 40%. In their 13 whole years in power they only ever charged a top rate of 40% - for a reason.

    The reason was that they did not need to. It only became an issue after the crash. The change was announced in the 2009 budget, the first opportunity to do so after the crash happened. As we all know, Osborne announced the reduction in 2012, a year before it happened, just as he has announced all other income tax related changes a year before they actually took place.

    Typical Labour ignorance to think there was no deficit issue prior to the crash. The previous government ran a deficit of 2.5% or more every year from 2002 onwards, not 2009. Of course if you're running a 3.5% deficit like in 2004/5 during a boom then its going to be more in a bust, that's Economics 101. Yet even then Labour never once increased the top rate of tax.

    Who, except for those on the left, was calling for top rate tax rises prior to 2008/09? Nobody. If you are now saying that the top rate of tax should have been raised earlier then I agree with you.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,484
    Roger said:

    As for the tax discussion....why would 103 multi millionaires say it was imperative that we kept a Conservative government if it wasn't that they thought it would involve them paying less tax? The one certainty about those 103 letter writers that we know for certain is they are motivated by money. That's what the Laffer Curve is supposed to prove.

    They are businessmen, most (all?) of whom would want their businesses to thrive. The ones who signed the letter seem to believe that would be harder under a Labour government.

    Some may be looking at the money they have in the bank; your assumption that they are all doing that, rather than acting in the best interests of their businesses, says more about you than them.

    Labour's attack on them shows exactly the anti-business agenda they have. Which will be rather dangerous for the country.

    (It has also been seen before with Labour's attack on JCB)
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Alistair said:

    The Laffer Curve has been known about for decades that's why,

    The Laffer curve is notional only.

    There is no evidence that the tax revenue curve has a single turning point. Also I'm amazed that every single proponent of the Laffer curve always an ever believes that we are on the right hand side of the curve.
    Well we can compare and contrast the relative success and failure in both growing the economy and cutting the budget deficit in France (increasing top rate tax dramatically to 75%) and the UK (cutting back to a bit above Labour's preferred tax rate). Which nations have grown better since the 2012 budget and which deficits have come down faster?

    It is total dishonesty to claim that Labour ever charged more than 40%. In their 13 whole years in power they only ever charged a top rate of 40% - for a reason.

    The reason was that they did not need to. It only became an issue after the crash. The change was announced in the 2009 budget, the first opportunity to do so after the crash happened. As we all know, Osborne announced the reduction in 2012, a year before it happened, just as he has announced all other income tax related changes a year before they actually took place.

    Typical Labour ignorance to think there was no deficit issue prior to the crash. The previous government ran a deficit of 2.5% or more every year from 2002 onwards, not 2009. Of course if you're running a 3.5% deficit like in 2004/5 during a boom then its going to be more in a bust, that's Economics 101. Yet even then Labour never once increased the top rate of tax.

    Who, except for those on the left, was calling for top rate tax rises prior to 2008/09? Nobody. If you are now saying that the top rate of tax should have been raised earlier then I agree with you.
    Completely the opposite. I'm saying just as it was wrong then, it was wrong now. Labour committing arson on the way out the door is no reason not to reach for the fire extinguisher.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    "You clearly know more about Welsh politics but difficult to believe Labour won`t gain Cardiff North where the Tories won in 2010 by 150 votes and Lib Dems polled 9000 votes."

    I believe the most likely seats to change are Cardiff North, Cardiff Central and Brecon & Radnor, in that order.

    Whilst the Cardiff seats look very vulnerable, remember Labour is in power both in the Assembly and in the Council offices in Cardiff, and they are having to take some unpopular decisions locally. It is not a slam dunk.

    In Wales, neither the Labour Party, nor the Tories, nor Plaid Cymru are doing well enough to make any big gains.

    They can however simply feast on the carcass of the LibDems.

    UKIP did very, very well in the Euros, but their big chance will be in the next Welsh Assembly elections.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2015-32194270

    Oh, no ! Guess what Tories are saying ? He was sacked last week.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    Roger said:

    Alanbrooke

    "Labour is a hollow drum, no policies, no principles, no point; just the noise of bygone days."

    Very Churchillian!

    Shouldn't you be on the sponsored bogle stroll for Ludlow's fifth Conservative Club?

    I'll go a couple of bricks a mile.

    Already been on my walk Roger, next door village and back for lunch.

    Beautiful day for it too.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672

    Alistair said:

    The Laffer Curve has been known about for decades that's why,

    The Laffer curve is notional only.

    There is no evidence that the tax revenue curve has a single turning point. Also I'm amazed that every single proponent of the Laffer curve always an ever believes that we are on the right hand side of the curve.
    Well we can compare and contrast the relative success and failure in both growing the economy and cutting the budget deficit in France (increasing top rate tax dramatically to 75%) and the UK (cutting back to a bit above Labour's preferred tax rate). Which nations have grown better since the 2012 budget and which deficits have come down faster?

    It is total dishonesty to claim that Labour ever charged more than 40%. In their 13 whole years in power they only ever charged a top rate of 40% - for a reason.

    The reason was that they did not need to. It only became an issue after the crash. The change was announced in the 2009 budget, the first opportunity to do so after the crash happened. As we all know, Osborne announced the reduction in 2012, a year before it happened, just as he has announced all other income tax related changes a year before they actually took place.

    Typical Labour ignorance to think there was no deficit issue prior to the crash. The previous government ran a deficit of 2.5% or more every year from 2002 onwards, not 2009. Of course if you're running a 3.5% deficit like in 2004/5 during a boom then its going to be more in a bust, that's Economics 101. Yet even then Labour never once increased the top rate of tax.

    Who, except for those on the left, was calling for top rate tax rises prior to 2008/09? Nobody. If you are now saying that the top rate of tax should have been raised earlier then I agree with you.
    Completely the opposite. I'm saying just as it was wrong then, it was wrong now. Labour committing arson on the way out the door is no reason not to reach for the fire extinguisher.

    So Osborne should have immediately stopped it with his emergency budget in June 2010 and made a huge mistake in only reducing it to 45 pence in 2012?

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,378
    Carnyx said:

    Roger said:

    Biggles over Bath

    "Okay, it was a serious breach of the rules, but the culprit’s been punished enough."

    I think we can all now relax and take it as a certainty that Nicola has been economical with the truth. Carmichael has admitted it's someone in his department and even Biggles doesn't think it was fake. Sorry Nicola but time to come clean.

    She's hardly responsible for a third hand summary written, and leaked, in the SO. It may not be a fake in that sense but that doesn't mean it was an accurate historical record, or even written without malice.

    The way in which the story is being backpedalled is most interesting.

    On second thoughts, that comment on intent is prima facie unfair, so should be ignored, though one does wonder who leaked it and with whose authorisation.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Roger said:

    Moniker

    "Come off it Roger. There's is absolutely no way that Sturgeon, both a professional lawyer and politician, would lie. Get real."

    It's the way you tell 'em!!

    I think your irony meter may need calibration......
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Alistair said:

    The Laffer Curve has been known about for decades that's why,

    The Laffer curve is notional only.

    There is no evidence that the tax revenue curve has a single turning point. Also I'm amazed that every single proponent of the Laffer curve always an ever believes that we are on the right hand side of the curve.
    Well we can compare and contrast the relative success and failure in both growing the economy and cutting the budget deficit in France (increasing top rate tax dramatically to 75%) and the UK (cutting back to a bit above Labour's preferred tax rate). Which nations have grown better since the 2012 budget and which deficits have come down faster?

    It is total dishonesty to claim that Labour ever charged more than 40%. In their 13 whole years in power they only ever charged a top rate of 40% - for a reason.

    The reason was that they did not need to. It only became an issue after the crash. The change was announced in the 2009 budget, the first opportunity to do so after the crash happened. As we all know, Osborne announced the reduction in 2012, a year before it happened, just as he has announced all other income tax related changes a year before they actually took place.

    Typical Labour ignorance to think there was no deficit issue prior to the crash. The previous government ran a deficit of 2.5% or more every year from 2002 onwards, not 2009. Of course if you're running a 3.5% deficit like in 2004/5 during a boom then its going to be more in a bust, that's Economics 101. Yet even then Labour never once increased the top rate of tax.

    Who, except for those on the left, was calling for top rate tax rises prior to 2008/09? Nobody. If you are now saying that the top rate of tax should have been raised earlier then I agree with you.
    Completely the opposite. I'm saying just as it was wrong then, it was wrong now. Labour committing arson on the way out the door is no reason not to reach for the fire extinguisher.

    So Osborne should have immediately stopped it with his emergency budget in June 2010 and made a huge mistake in only reducing it to 45 pence in 2012?

    Osborne gave it a couple of years and HMRC revenues revealed it wasn't raising money so it was changed. Sensible management.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    FPT

    The Tories have indeed hit people earning between about £40k [ where HRT starts ] to £120k very hard.

    Many in this bracket also lost CB. The "squeezed middle" as Edward Miliband said so succinctly.

    Once your earnings go above £150k, the Tories are indeed your friend. 50% tax becomes 45%. So if you earn £1m, you have been given £50k back by Osborne !

    No, you haven't.

    He explicitly linked the increase in top end stamp duty (by 200bps?) to the reduction in income tax.

    So if you earn £1m and living in a £4m house he charged you £80,000 and gave you back £50,000.
    But not all of us move house every year surely?

    Indeed.

    So, according to Charles people earning £1m who have not moved house are £50,000 a year better off. But apparently they'll all work harder. Or something. And let's not forget the reductions in the taxes on dividends that many top earners will also enjoy. The fact is that the last few years have been astonishingly good for the very richest people in the UK (and elsewhere):

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/08/qe-the-ultimate-subsidy-for-the-rich/



    The policy was aimed at encouraging foreign business people - particularly French - to move to the UK. The locals (and there are very few) were fortunate beneficiaries of that - with a chunk of the benefit clawed back via property tax

    That's a new one on me, I have to admit. I had not realised that Osborne had anticipated the outcome of the French presidential election and the resulting opportunity for the UK. Fancy that. He should have said something when he announced the cut a month before the French presidential election took place and six months before the 75% tax rate was introduced. Given his prescience on this you'd have thought that he would have done a bit better in seeing a Eurozone crisis on the horizon when he announced his first budget and killed off the UK's recovery.


    Hollande was well ahead in the polls and the 75% tax rate was a key plank of his manifesto.

    Osborne was placing an "open" sign in the UK's window just at the point when high earners in France were most worried.

    The growth in the French population in London has a testimony to the success of the policy (although it hasn't helped house prices and rents)
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,981
    edited April 2015
    Carlotta

    No I didn't confuse Moniker with a Sturgeon fancier. In fact I was going to reply with a lawyer joke but these Nats are so messianic about her that I thought they may be so incensed they'd do a Charlie Hebdo so I rowed back
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    @Philip Thompson - "Osborne gave it a couple of years and HMRC revenues revealed it wasn't raising money so it was changed. Sensible management."

    Not really. Year one income was low because Brown gave everyone a year to reduce their exposure; year two the income went up; year three it went down again because Osborne gave everyone a year to prepare ways in which they could delay their exposure until the rate was reduced. There was absolutely no evidence with which to make a decision. It was a leap of faith.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    edited April 2015
    @Charles - Hollande was well ahead in the polls and the 75% tax rate was a key plank of his manifesto.
    Osborne was placing an "open" sign in the UK's window just at the point when high earners in France were most worried.
    The growth in the French population in London has a testimony to the success of the policy (although it hasn't helped house prices and rents)


    Actually, the polls were very tight:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2012#19_March_2012_to_22_April_2012http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2012#19_March_2012_to_22_April_2012

    So clearly Osborne saw something that others could not see. It's amazing that none of this has come out. And what you are saying is that the French would have swallowed the 75 pence rate and stayed in France if UK income tax had remained at 50 pence. Wow, just wow.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,947
    Big Conservative canvassing team around Torbay today. We found quite a few formerly undecided blues reaching for the nose-peg and coming back onboard. Especially those tempted by the Kippers - waking up to the idea that going UKIP doesn't actually get them an EU referendum.

    Still plenty genuinely undecided or declining to say. But, considering they hold the seat, surprisingly few admitting to voting LibDem this time. A significant number of former LibDems saying they probably won't vote. Them holding anything like 30 seats is going to need a lot of shy LibDems....

    Also hearing that the Tories are doing much better in Plymouth than they have any right to expect.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    @Philip Thompson - "Osborne gave it a couple of years and HMRC revenues revealed it wasn't raising money so it was changed. Sensible management."

    Not really. Year one income was low because Brown gave everyone a year to reduce their exposure; year two the income went up; year three it went down again because Osborne gave everyone a year to prepare ways in which they could delay their exposure until the rate was reduced. There was absolutely no evidence with which to make a decision. It was a leap of faith.

    Year one figure was low because that's what happens when you increase taxes. Year two figures weren't anything major either. A sensible decision was then made - and the results have shown it to be right.

    Now Labour want to take a leap of faith backwards. What evidence is there to support it?
This discussion has been closed.