OT Just been watching a TV prog where the RNLI decided to rescue a Dutch yacht in difficulty rather than let it sink. By boarding it with the stranded crews permission, and towing it back, does that mean the vessel is salvage and their property now?
If it's salvage which it may well be that doesn't make it their property, it gives them the right to a proportion of its value to be determined by the Admiralty Court (or by an arbitrator if they've agreed Lloyd's Open Form). RNLI probably have a specific policy as to whether they claim salvage.
Thanx for that - the RNLI towed the boat back for 5hrs and did two manual jumps to get their crew onboard in a F10 storm.
It seemed like their determination to salvage rather than abandon the Dutch vessel [on hire] looked like a good financial bet for them. Otherwise why bother with such a dangerous/lengthy rescue. I presume the costs were covered by the hirer's insurance which is good news for the RNLI.
OT Just been watching a TV prog where the RNLI decided to rescue a Dutch yacht in difficulty rather than let it sink. By boarding it with the stranded crews permission, and towing it back, does that mean the vessel is salvage and their property now?
I was reading about this recently - normally the RNLI and HM Coastguard, where involved, waive the claim. On checking, though, this is interesting: [google RNLI Salvage Claim and pick the 'Modern Admiralty Law' book by A. Mandaraka-Sheppard]
The last big case about this was a container ship that went down near us and the beaches were covered in all sorts of cargo. BMW motorbikes being much sought after!
OT Just been watching a TV prog where the RNLI decided to rescue a Dutch yacht in difficulty rather than let it sink. By boarding it with the stranded crews permission, and towing it back, does that mean the vessel is salvage and their property now?
If it's salvage which it may well be that doesn't make it their property, it gives them the right to a proportion of its value to be determined by the Admiralty Court (or by an arbitrator if they've agreed Lloyd's Open Form). RNLI probably have a specific policy as to whether they claim salvage.
Worcester – 6/4 on the Conservatives with William Hill. The Ashcroft poll last month showed a clear 6% Conservative lead here. This price seems a bit out of kilter here.
I had a look as that indeed did seem wrong, but the 6-4 is with Labour.
Thanx for that - the RNLI towed the boat back for 5hrs and did two manual jumps to get their crew onboard in a F10 storm.
It seemed like their determination to salvage rather than abandon the Dutch vessel [on hire] looked like a good financial bet for them. Otherwise why bother with such a dangerous/lengthy rescue. I presume the costs were covered by the hirer's insurance which is good news for the RNLI.
OT Just been watching a TV prog where the RNLI decided to rescue a Dutch yacht in difficulty rather than let it sink. By boarding it with the stranded crews permission, and towing it back, does that mean the vessel is salvage and their property now?
I was reading about this recently - normally the RNLI and HM Coastguard, where involved, waive the claim. On checking, though, this is interesting: [google RNLI Salvage Claim and pick the 'Modern Admiralty Law' book by A. Mandaraka-Sheppard]
Thanx for that - the RNLI towed the boat back for 5hrs and did two manual jumps to get their crew onboard in a F10 storm.
It seemed like their determination to salvage rather than abandon the Dutch vessel [on hire] looked like a good financial bet for them. Otherwise why bother with such a dangerous/lengthy rescue. I presume the costs were covered by the hirer's insurance which is good news for the RNLI.
OT Just been watching a TV prog where the RNLI decided to rescue a Dutch yacht in difficulty rather than let it sink. By boarding it with the stranded crews permission, and towing it back, does that mean the vessel is salvage and their property now?
I was reading about this recently - normally the RNLI and HM Coastguard, where involved, waive the claim. On checking, though, this is interesting: [google RNLI Salvage Claim and pick the 'Modern Admiralty Law' book by A. Mandaraka-Sheppard]
No idea if it applies in this case, but I would have thought it is sometimes safer to tow a yacht than to take off the yacht crew - for instance if the transfer is dangerous or a yachtie is incapacitated by injury or seasickness/exhaustion. It also avoids leaving a derelict/collision risk.
There may also be more numinous psychological issues such as yachties being more willing t ocooperate if the RNLI doesn't have a summary policy if abandoning the yacht, plus the natural sympathy of the RNLI crew for a fellow seafarer.
The last big case about this was a container ship that went down near us and the beaches were covered in all sorts of cargo. BMW motorbikes being much sought after!
OT Just been watching a TV prog where the RNLI decided to rescue a Dutch yacht in difficulty rather than let it sink. By boarding it with the stranded crews permission, and towing it back, does that mean the vessel is salvage and their property now?
If it's salvage which it may well be that doesn't make it their property, it gives them the right to a proportion of its value to be determined by the Admiralty Court (or by an arbitrator if they've agreed Lloyd's Open Form). RNLI probably have a specific policy as to whether they claim salvage.
So thats why you got rid of your car - you are the Chapter leader of the Angels of Eastbourne, but with a pair of modified BMWs (can outrun the cops) instead of a Harley. How many tattoos do you have?
Thanx for that - the RNLI towed the boat back for 5hrs and did two manual jumps to get their crew onboard in a F10 storm.
It seemed like their determination to salvage rather than abandon the Dutch vessel [on hire] looked like a good financial bet for them. Otherwise why bother with such a dangerous/lengthy rescue. I presume the costs were covered by the hirer's insurance which is good news for the RNLI.
OT Just been watching a TV prog where the RNLI decided to rescue a Dutch yacht in difficulty rather than let it sink. By boarding it with the stranded crews permission, and towing it back, does that mean the vessel is salvage and their property now?
I was reading about this recently - normally the RNLI and HM Coastguard, where involved, waive the claim. On checking, though, this is interesting: [google RNLI Salvage Claim and pick the 'Modern Admiralty Law' book by A. Mandaraka-Sheppard]
No idea if it applies in this case, but I would have thought it is sometimes safer to tow a yacht than to take off the yacht crew - for instance if the transfer is dangerous or a yachtie is incapacitated by injury or seasickness/exhaustion. It also avoids leaving a derelict/collision risk.
There may also be more numinous psychological issues such as yachties being more willing t ocooperate if the RNLI doesn't have a summary policy if abandoning the yacht, plus the natural sympathy of the RNLI crew for a fellow seafarer.
The last big case about this was a container ship that went down near us and the beaches were covered in all sorts of cargo. BMW motorbikes being much sought after!
OT Just been watching a TV prog where the RNLI decided to rescue a Dutch yacht in difficulty rather than let it sink. By boarding it with the stranded crews permission, and towing it back, does that mean the vessel is salvage and their property now?
If it's salvage which it may well be that doesn't make it their property, it gives them the right to a proportion of its value to be determined by the Admiralty Court (or by an arbitrator if they've agreed Lloyd's Open Form). RNLI probably have a specific policy as to whether they claim salvage.
When something is rescued from maritime dangers and the rescuer isn't doing it under a pre-existing duty like a towage contract. I was being excessively cautious in this case - no reason to think it isn't salvage.
The last big case about this was a container ship that went down near us and the beaches were covered in all sorts of cargo. BMW motorbikes being much sought after!
OT Just been watching a TV prog where the RNLI decided to rescue a Dutch yacht in difficulty rather than let it sink. By boarding it with the stranded crews permission, and towing it back, does that mean the vessel is salvage and their property now?
If it's salvage which it may well be that doesn't make it their property, it gives them the right to a proportion of its value to be determined by the Admiralty Court (or by an arbitrator if they've agreed Lloyd's Open Form). RNLI probably have a specific policy as to whether they claim salvage.
So thats why you got rid of your car - you are the Chapter leader of the Angels of Eastbourne, but with a pair of modified BMWs (can outrun the cops) instead of a Harley. How many tattoos do you have?
The short answer to your question wrt RNLI ‘salvage’ is Yes.
However, RNLI Lifeboat crew are not supposed to render services to save property if other vessels are on the spot. If no other vessel is standing by, then the crew may accept salvage engagement whereupon they become hirers of the lifeboat and if they succeed, they must pay to the RNLI expenses incurred in respect of the boat in accordance with the RNLI’s regulations.
RNLI crew members are rewarded for saving lives on a scale basis provided they make no claim for salvage.
Thanx for that - the RNLI towed the boat back for 5hrs and did two manual jumps to get their crew onboard in a F10 storm.
It seemed like their determination to salvage rather than abandon the Dutch vessel [on hire] looked like a good financial bet for them. Otherwise why bother with such a dangerous/lengthy rescue. I presume the costs were covered by the hirer's insurance which is good news for the RNLI.
OT Just been watching a TV prog where the RNLI decided to rescue a Dutch yacht in difficulty rather than let it sink. By boarding it with the stranded crews permission, and towing it back, does that mean the vessel is salvage and their property now?
I was reading about this recently - normally the RNLI and HM Coastguard, where involved, waive the claim. On checking, though, this is interesting: [google RNLI Salvage Claim and pick the 'Modern Admiralty Law' book by A. Mandaraka-Sheppard]
No idea if it applies in this case, but I would have thought it is sometimes safer to tow a yacht than to take off the yacht crew - for instance if the transfer is dangerous or a yachtie is incapacitated by injury or seasickness/exhaustion. It also avoids leaving a derelict/collision risk.
There may also be more numinous psychological issues such as yachties being more willing t ocooperate if the RNLI doesn't have a summary policy if abandoning the yacht, plus the natural sympathy of the RNLI crew for a fellow seafarer.
A new revolutionary concept that because non doms are rich and pay more tax than the poor they should be given additional tax breaks..........
For those who spend their days rehashing other peoples tweets it might be worth reading a bit of background so that they can at least give the impression of being informed.
It is the final LAB total in Scotland that presents a difficulty. It could be as low as 5 but do not really see it. Any with genuine firmer views?
The betting market has Labour as favourites in 13 seats. My modelling is giving them 7 (and that's on an outturn of SNP 43% Lab 31%). I have something for regional discrepancies in SNP vote; what I don't have is tactical voting.
A new revolutionary concept that because non doms are rich and pay more tax than the poor they should be given additional tax breaks..........
For those who spend their days rehashing other peoples tweets it might be worth reading a bit of background so that they can at least give the impression of being informed.
Question for the great PB cognoscenti - under what conditions would we get a Con/Lab coalition?
When hell freezes over.
If Labour have fewer seats than the Tories, Ed won't settle for deputy PM if he can get into number 10 with a SNP/ Lib Dem/ UKIP coalition/ C&S.
If he can't get into power that way then it is odds on that the Conservatives + LibDems + UKIP/ DUP (if needed) will have a working majority.
For simplicity we assume that the LDs have 30 seats, the SNP 45, the DUP 8 and UKIP 5
Ed (258 at the moment) can become PM on 245 (+80 - LDs SNP, UKIP) Cameron (304 at the moment) can remain PM on 280 + 30 + 8 + 5
Because the LDs can be kingmaker there is no need for a grand coalition - UNLESS BOTH sides lose 10 or 15 seats to UKIP - and I cannot see that happening - AND neither side enters a deal with UKIP (both have ruled this out by their actions and words).
If neither side can get a Queen's speech through then there will be another election. Cameron will campaign on the basis of how difficult the Government is when no one party has power and Ed will be willing on the basis that he has 'the big mo', having gained seats in May.
(If there is another election then presumably Labour will be the (temporary) Government since Mr Cameron will have told the Queen he can't form one and recommend she ask Mr Miliband to do so.)
Worcester – 6/4 on the Conservatives with William Hill. The Ashcroft poll last month showed a clear 6% Conservative lead here. This price seems a bit out of kilter here.
I had a look as that indeed did seem wrong, but the 6-4 is with Labour.
Can we have 115k more NDs and then take 10m more workers out of tax all together ?
Like! Imagine how much we could cut the basic rate of income tax if we could only attract a few thousand more rich entrepreneurs!
It wouldn't be 10 million - the 10 million quoted are the lowest paying 10 million - the next 10 million will be paying much more. So it would probably be 'only' 2 million or so.
Or cut the 20p rate to 16p or 15p - people would notice that!
We have to have the heavy tax payers so the poorer don't have to pay as much. You don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Not sure how much 1p on income tax earns/ loses, but the country isn't really in a position yet to experiment.
“There are a number of people who have said [the non-dom ban] could raise hundreds of millions,” Labour’s Shadow Exchequer Secretary Shabana Mahmood told the Daily Politics. Asked to name just one, she could not. Funnily enough, Guido had the same problem with the Labour press office as well:
Two hours later and no reply. The only ‘expert’ making such a claim is a Labour member and even he has admitted he got it wrong
-------------
Call for Bill Somebody...Bill Somebody....Bill Somebody please call Labour HQ immediately.
Can we have 115k more NDs and then take 10m more workers out of tax all together ?
Like! Imagine how much we could cut the basic rate of income tax if we could only attract a few thousand more rich entrepreneurs!
It wouldn't be 10 million - the 10 million quoted are the lowest paying 10 million - the next 10 million will be paying much more. So it would probably be 'only' 2 million or so.
Or cut the 20p rate to 16p or 15p - people would notice that!
We have to have the heavy tax payers so the poorer don't have to pay as much. You don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Not sure how much 1p on income tax earns/ loses, but the country isn't really in a position yet to experiment.
@LordAshcroft: Coming up shortly - ten polls in marginal seats on the Con-Lab battleground. See @ConHome at 4pm.
I fear he's going to blow all my analysis straight out the water inside an hour.
Have you checked your Hills bet on Worcester - Labour were 6-4 there, not the Cons.
Yes, luckily I hadn't placed my bet on that one yet. I (hope) I'd have noticed if I had! I manually copied across all the odds from oddschecker last night at 11pm, and finished them off at 6.30am this morning. I must have been tired.
@LordAshcroft: Coming up shortly - ten polls in marginal seats on the Con-Lab battleground. See @ConHome at 4pm.
I fear he's going to blow all my analysis straight out the water inside an hour.
Have you checked your Hills bet on Worcester - Labour were 6-4 there, not the Cons.
Yes, luckily I hadn't placed my bet on that one yet. I (hope) I'd have noticed if I had! I manually copied across all the odds from oddschecker last night at 11pm, and finished them off at 6.30am this morning. I must have been tired.
Thanks for pointing it out.
8-11 may still be value by the way, it's an underround with 6-4 at any rate.
Question for the great PB cognoscenti - under what conditions would we get a Con/Lab coalition?
When hell freezes over.
If Labour have fewer seats than the Tories, Ed won't settle for deputy PM if he can get into number 10 with a SNP/ Lib Dem/ UKIP coalition/ C&S.
If he can't get into power that way then it is odds on that the Conservatives + LibDems + UKIP/ DUP (if needed) will have a working majority.
For simplicity we assume that the LDs have 30 seats, the SNP 45, the DUP 8 and UKIP 5
Ed (258 at the moment) can become PM on 245 (+80 - LDs SNP, UKIP) Cameron (304 at the moment) can remain PM on 280 + 30 + 8 + 5
Because the LDs can be kingmaker there is no need for a grand coalition - UNLESS BOTH sides lose 10 or 15 seats to UKIP - and I cannot see that happening - AND neither side enters a deal with UKIP (both have ruled this out by their actions and words).
If neither side can get a Queen's speech through then there will be another election. Cameron will campaign on the basis of how difficult the Government is when no one party has power and Ed will be willing on the basis that he has 'the big mo', having gained seats in May.
(If there is another election then presumably Labour will be the (temporary) Government since Mr Cameron will have told the Queen he can't form one and recommend she ask Mr Miliband to do so.)
If a second election were inconclusive with largely similar seat positions, perhaps with UKIP making a bigger breakthrough because of the credibility factor of winning some seats, and a further LD retrenchment, would not Ed in No10 and Gorgeous George in No 11 not look quite an attractive prospect? Sort of having your cake and eating it.
@LordAshcroft: Coming up shortly - ten polls in marginal seats on the Con-Lab battleground. See @ConHome at 4pm.
I fear he's going to blow all my analysis straight out the water inside an hour.
Did you know that this was coming out? Think you should waited for this first...
What's the point of waiting ?
Ashcroft polls aren't perfect and his analysis looks pretty good - though I'd have lD-UKIP switchers lower and Con-UKIP switchers a bit higher than Royale.
Ashcroft was very scornful of Dave's recent 'come back to us' appeal to bitter kippers.
Dunno if that's a clue.
It was poorly judged. Dave can win from the centre. A poll recently had them on 37%, there are enough votes for them in the centre to get them the most seats. Appealing to UKIP will turn these people away from the Tories. The way to win back wavering UKIP voters is to hammer the vote purple get Red Ed message, not make direct any direct appeal to UKIP voters.
Ashcroft was very scornful of Dave's recent 'come back to us' appeal to bitter kippers.
Dunno if that's a clue.
It was poorly judged. Dave can win from the centre. A poll recently had them on 37%, there are enough votes for them in the centre to get them the most seats. Appealing to UKIP will turn these people away from the Tories. The way to win back wavering UKIP voters is to hammer the vote purple get Red Ed message, not make direct any direct appeal to UKIP voters.
Depends. He hasn't really said or done anything to put off the centre. Yet.
Ashcroft was very scornful of Dave's recent 'come back to us' appeal to bitter kippers.
Dunno if that's a clue.
It was poorly judged. Dave can win from the centre. A poll recently had them on 37%, there are enough votes for them in the centre to get them the most seats. Appealing to UKIP will turn these people away from the Tories. The way to win back wavering UKIP voters is to hammer the vote purple get Red Ed message, not make direct any direct appeal to UKIP voters.
But Dave moving to the centre would involve a significant move leftwards on economics. All the voters of the non-Tory parties are heavily against more cuts (including UKIP, actually UKIP moreso than the Lib Dems funnily enough).
In absence of a move to anti-austerity, Dave's best chance is to play up an anti-immigration, anti-EU, and pro-"toughness" on foreign policy where he actually would have majority backing.
I've just thought of silver lining for Nicola if she gets the Tory government of her dreams..... A non dom tax break for Sir Sean Connery and perhaps he can be persuaded to buy himself a nice new home in Pollokshields
The Tories doing better in seats they where ahead in October, but Labour also doing better in seats they lead in October plus they are now ahead in Harrow East.
Ashcroft was very scornful of Dave's recent 'come back to us' appeal to bitter kippers.
Dunno if that's a clue.
It was poorly judged. Dave can win from the centre. A poll recently had them on 37%, there are enough votes for them in the centre to get them the most seats. Appealing to UKIP will turn these people away from the Tories. The way to win back wavering UKIP voters is to hammer the vote purple get Red Ed message, not make direct any direct appeal to UKIP voters.
But Dave moving to the centre would involve a significant move leftwards on economics. All the voters of the non-Tory parties are heavily against more cuts (including UKIP, actually UKIP moreso than the Lib Dems funnily enough).
Yes, that is because Dave has successfully captured most of the pro-austerity vote it has left other parties even more anti-austerity than before.
Also, the wording of austerity has changed as well, notice that the Tories don't talk about billions or even millions. The line I have heard is that they want to save just one out of hundred pounds the government spends for three years. Put that way it doesn't really sound like massive cuts so to moderate voters people opposing it sound stupid. Again, appealing to UKIP voters and getting off message will not help.
Question for the great PB cognoscenti - under what conditions would we get a Con/Lab coalition?
When hell freezes over.
If Labour have fewer seats than the Tories, Ed won't settle for deputy PM if he can get into number 10 with a SNP/ Lib Dem/ UKIP coalition/ C&S.
If he can't get into power that way then it is odds on that the Conservatives + LibDems + UKIP/ DUP (if needed) will have a working majority.
For simplicity we assume that the LDs have 30 seats, the SNP 45, the DUP 8 and UKIP 5
Ed (258 at the moment) can become PM on 245 (+80 - LDs SNP, UKIP) Cameron (304 at the moment) can remain PM on 280 + 30 + 8 + 5
Because the LDs can be kingmaker there is no need for a grand coalition - UNLESS BOTH sides lose 10 or 15 seats to UKIP - and I cannot see that happening - AND neither side enters a deal with UKIP (both have ruled this out by their actions and words).
If neither side can get a Queen's speech through then there will be another election. Cameron will campaign on the basis of how difficult the Government is when no one party has power and Ed will be willing on the basis that he has 'the big mo', having gained seats in May.
(If there is another election then presumably Labour will be the (temporary) Government since Mr Cameron will have told the Queen he can't form one and recommend she ask Mr Miliband to do so.)
If a second election were inconclusive with largely similar seat positions, perhaps with UKIP making a bigger breakthrough because of the credibility factor of winning some seats, and a further LD retrenchment, would not Ed in No10 and Gorgeous George in No 11 not look quite an attractive prospect? Sort of having your cake and eating it.
PB posters seem to just add in the smaller parties in order to get their sums to add up. In order to actually entice the smaller parties the larger ones would have to offer them something substantial, which in turn may turn off their supporters. For example Labour would have to offer the SNP (who have just beaten them to a pulp) maybe Trident. The Lib Dems would need to be in a similar situation to 2010 in order to enter a coalition, there would be nothing in it for them to be part of a rag-tag coalition containing a dozen Ulstermen and 5 UKIP. Under those circumstances a Grand Coalition might look possible.
The UKIP deflation has benefited the Tories in seats that they lead a few months ago and has benefited Labour in seats they where ahead too, but Labour gain an extra seat since the last time he polled them.
So it's bad for the Tories because the UKIP deflation has not aided them in regaining the lead in seats they where behind plus it gives Labour an extra seat from last time.
Question for the great PB cognoscenti - under what conditions would we get a Con/Lab coalition?
When hell freezes over.
If Labour have fewer seats than the Tories, Ed won't settle for deputy PM if he can get into number 10 with a SNP/ Lib Dem/ UKIP coalition/ C&S.
If he can't get into power that way then it is odds on that the Conservatives + LibDems + UKIP/ DUP (if needed) will have a working majority.
For simplicity we assume that the LDs have 30 seats, the SNP 45, the DUP 8 and UKIP 5
Ed (258 at the moment) can become PM on 245 (+80 - LDs SNP, UKIP) Cameron (304 at the moment) can remain PM on 280 + 30 + 8 + 5
Because the LDs can be kingmaker there is no need for a grand coalition - UNLESS BOTH sides lose 10 or 15 seats to UKIP - and I cannot see that happening - AND neither side enters a deal with UKIP (both have ruled this out by their actions and words).
If neither side can get a Queen's speech through then there will be another election. Cameron will campaign on the basis of how difficult the Government is when no one party has power and Ed will be willing on the basis that he has 'the big mo', having gained seats in May.
(If there is another election then presumably Labour will be the (temporary) Government since Mr Cameron will have told the Queen he can't form one and recommend she ask Mr Miliband to do so.)
If a second election were inconclusive with largely similar seat positions, perhaps with UKIP making a bigger breakthrough because of the credibility factor of winning some seats, and a further LD retrenchment, would not Ed in No10 and Gorgeous George in No 11 not look quite an attractive prospect? Sort of having your cake and eating it.
PB posters seem to just add in the smaller parties in order to get their sums to add up. In order to actually entice the smaller parties the larger ones would have to offer them something substantial, which in turn may turn off their supporters. For example Labour would have to offer the SNP (who have just beaten them to a pulp) maybe Trident. The Lib Dems would need to be in a similar situation to 2010 in order to enter a coalition, there would be nothing in it for them to be part of a rag-tag coalition containing a dozen Ulstermen and 5 UKIP. Under those circumstances a Grand Coalition might look possible.
I just can't see it. We'd be more likely to have a Belgian Situation.
these new Ashcroft marginal polls aren't good news for Labour are they? On the assumption the SNP are going to take most of their Scottish seats, they need all these and more to end up with most seats.
The Tories doing better in seats they where ahead in October, but Labour also doing better in seats they lead in October plus they are now ahead in Harrow East.
Bad poll for the Tories.
Rather good for the Tories, I'd say. That's an average swing from Conservative to Labour of 2.45% in these marginal seats, compared to 2010. That would be equivalent to a lead of 5% in England and Wales.
these new Ashcroft marginal polls aren't good news for Labour are they? On the assumption the SNP are going to take most of their Scottish seats, they need all these and more to end up with most seats.
Especially if the tories can gain Lib Dem seats in the south.
If UKIP support is falling dramatically in seats they are not campaigning in, but they remain at 14% nationally can we infer their challenge must be strong in a number of targeted seats? Would be interesting to see a Thurrock or Boston poll.
these new Ashcroft marginal polls aren't good news for Labour are they? On the assumption the SNP are going to take most of their Scottish seats, they need all these and more to end up with most seats.
The UKIP deflation has benefited the Tories in seats that they lead a few months ago and has benefited Labour in seats they where ahead too, but Labour gain an extra seat since the last time he polled them.
So it's bad for the Tories because the UKIP deflation has not aided them in regaining the lead in seats they where behind plus it gives Labour an extra seat from last time.
Mr. Bets, the freezing of commodity prices was known to be foolishness which could lead to shortages or even famine in the 4th century AD (Ammianus Marcellinus lambasted Julian the Apostate, of whom he was generally in favour, for just such a policy).
Energy Price freeze, non dom tax crackdown, 50p rate of income tax
No wonder the Tories are thrashing about, Dave's same old line of keep it steady Ed's a bit of a drip is looking painfully exposed.
Labour are causing some serious ruptions which will appeal to everyday people in those grass root wards Labour need to win and the Tories know it.
S Thanet, Thurrock, Ilford N, Ipswich, Dudley's, Norwich
Cut away the Tory jeers and these are real policies for real people.
They are all utter bollocks, all three of them.
The Energy Price freeze is the quickest way to higher prices, the non dom thing has proved to be a fiasco within 24 hours and combined with the 50p tax hike will reduce the tax take, thus making less available for Labour to waste on the NHS.
If you want to punish people for getting on in life then vote for Ed, if you don't want to reduce the tax take then vote for anyone else.
@LordAshcroft: Coming up shortly - ten polls in marginal seats on the Con-Lab battleground. See @ConHome at 4pm.
I fear he's going to blow all my analysis straight out the water inside an hour.
Have you checked your Hills bet on Worcester - Labour were 6-4 there, not the Cons.
Yes, luckily I hadn't placed my bet on that one yet. I (hope) I'd have noticed if I had! I manually copied across all the odds from oddschecker last night at 11pm, and finished them off at 6.30am this morning. I must have been tired.
Thanks for pointing it out.
8-11 may still be value by the way, it's an underround with 6-4 at any rate.
The UKIP deflation has benefited the Tories in seats that they lead a few months ago and has benefited Labour in seats they where ahead too, but Labour gain an extra seat since the last time he polled them.
So it's bad for the Tories because the UKIP deflation has not aided them in regaining the lead in seats they where behind plus it gives Labour an extra seat from last time.
The Blackpool, Pendle and Pudsey polls are awful for Labour. Along with London, they were really depending on an excellent performance in the northern marginals to see them home, but it doesn't look like it's happening.
Energy Price freeze, non dom tax crackdown, 50p rate of income tax
.
The first one is an illiterate policy which may well harm "ordinary voters" the other two won't affect them directly in any way at all. Depending on if labour can come up with a coherent non-Dom policy that may also not affect them at all, it could just as easily lead to a large drop in tax revenue.
50p rate unlikely to make much difference at all.
So the only way that Labour can benefit from these policies is if the MOOD of them attracts voters. It may well do, but that is a sad state of affairs
Hove looks odd with the double-digit (+10) jump in Labour vote. A bit fishy and out of kilter with the rest.
Either way, the Tories are getting out ground-gamed by Labour at the moment. They should be flooding their 30 most vulnerable marginals seats with 10-20 additional activists every day from now until the election, IMHO. Bus them in, if necessary.
This might sound a bit like aftertiming but I'm not surprised to see Morecambe and Lunesdale go back Labour - the NW is a strong area for them, think I'm on Blackpool and Stockton here but idk...
Energy Price freeze, non dom tax crackdown, 50p rate of income tax
No wonder the Tories are thrashing about, Dave's same old line of keep it steady Ed's a bit of a drip is looking painfully exposed.
Labour are causing some serious ruptions which will appeal to everyday people in those grass root wards Labour need to win and the Tories know it.
S Thanet, Thurrock, Ilford N, Ipswich, Dudley's, Norwich
Cut away the Tory jeers and these are real policies for real people.
No, they are really easy slogans masquerading as policy which will have negative unintended consequences that are greater than the benefit.
Energy Price freeze, non dom tax crackdown, 50p rate of income tax
All three are plain stupid in the real world, excellent and sound in the political arena of capturing popular acclaim. Governing is about what is right, what works and benefits society, not about what is popular.
Do you really think Brown would have eschewed all of these if they were ways to easily raise revenue and reduce inequality? I didn't think I would ever say this, but maybe Brown wasn't too bad after all.
Energy Price freeze, non dom tax crackdown, 50p rate of income tax
No wonder the Tories are thrashing about, Dave's same old line of keep it steady Ed's a bit of a drip is looking painfully exposed.
Labour are causing some serious ruptions which will appeal to everyday people in those grass root wards Labour need to win and the Tories know it.
S Thanet, Thurrock, Ilford N, Ipswich, Dudley's, Norwich
Cut away the Tory jeers and these are real policies for real people.
They are all utter bollocks, all three of them.
The Energy Price freeze is the quickest way to higher prices, the non dom thing has proved to be a fiasco within 24 hours and combined with the 50p tax hike will reduce the tax take, thus making less available for Labour to waste on the NHS.
If you want to punish people for getting on in life then vote for Ed, if you don't want to reduce the tax take then vote for anyone else.
Nothing will lock in higher energy prices than lashing ourselves to fossil fuels, the policy of UKIP.
Outside the tiny Guido clique the non dom policy is a universal hit.
And the 50p rate will certainly raise revenues, when it is given a chance to do so rather than having its abolition conveniently pre-announced.
The Tories doing better in seats they where ahead in October, but Labour also doing better in seats they lead in October plus they are now ahead in Harrow East.
Bad poll for the Tories.
Rather good for the Tories, I'd say. That's an average swing from Conservative to Labour of 2.45% in these marginal seats, compared to 2010. That would be equivalent to a lead of 5% in England and Wales.
I would be careful about drawing such inferences from these seats, because of the way they were selected. His Lordship says: "I have returned to ten Conservative-held seats where Labour are the main challengers, and in which I found very close races when I polled them last year"
He hasn't chosen these seats randomly from the set of Tory/Labour marginals, but has selected those which were close in previous rounds of polling. Thus they may not be representative of the wider set of Tory/Labour marginals.
One of the interesting results I pick to highlight is this. In all of the seats where the Tories have a lead, UKIP are on 10+%. In all of the seats where UKIP are <10% Labour have a lead or are level. The rise of UKIP is not obviously hurting the Tories in these marginals.
The UKIP deflation has benefited the Tories in seats that they lead a few months ago and has benefited Labour in seats they where ahead too, but Labour gain an extra seat since the last time he polled them.
So it's bad for the Tories because the UKIP deflation has not aided them in regaining the lead in seats they where behind plus it gives Labour an extra seat from last time.
Comments
https://royaleleseaux.wordpress.com/2015/04/08/the-primary-battleground-labour-v-conservative/
Off out again now. Catch you later.
It seemed like their determination to salvage rather than abandon the Dutch vessel [on hire] looked like a good financial bet for them. Otherwise why bother with such a dangerous/lengthy rescue. I presume the costs were covered by the hirer's insurance which is good news for the RNLI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monastery_of_the_Holy_Trinity,_Meteora
Welcome to pb.com, Mr. Romford.
Wales:
2010-> 2015:
Cons: 8->7
LAB: 26-> 29
LD: 3-> 1
PC: 3->3
Scotland:
Cons: 1->1
LD: 11-> 1
LAB: 41-> 11
SNP: 6-> 46
It is the final LAB total in Scotland that presents a difficulty. It could be as low as 5 but do not really see it. Any with genuine firmer views?
The last big case about this was a container ship that went down near us and the beaches were covered in all sorts of cargo. BMW motorbikes being much sought after!
IIRC it was the Receiver of Wrecks who arbitrated there. bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/archaeology/marine_receive_01.shtml
I had a look as that indeed did seem wrong, but the 6-4 is with Labour.
There may also be more numinous psychological issues such as yachties being more willing t ocooperate if the RNLI doesn't have a summary policy if abandoning the yacht, plus the natural sympathy of the RNLI crew for a fellow seafarer.
'Putin: Russia will not lift ban on Greek food imports'
The yacht was taking on loads of water and riding very low in heavy seas. TBH, it looked like it'd sink without more hands on deck and a pump.
So it looks like a combination of several factors just to get them back and any financial upside was a bonus.
@JolyonMaugham: Feeling a bit like today's Gillian Duffy.
Already been on BBC news explaining that the policy is a bad idea
That got a well deserved belly laugh from me
However, RNLI Lifeboat crew are not supposed to render services to save property if other vessels are on the spot. If no other vessel is standing by, then the crew may accept salvage engagement whereupon they become hirers of the lifeboat and if they succeed, they must pay to the RNLI expenses incurred in respect of the boat in accordance with the RNLI’s regulations.
RNLI crew members are rewarded for saving lives on a scale basis provided they make no claim for salvage.
For those who spend their days rehashing other peoples tweets it might be worth reading a bit of background so that they can at least give the impression of being informed.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/07/ed-miliband-non-dom-tax-status-labour
If Labour have fewer seats than the Tories, Ed won't settle for deputy PM if he can get into number 10 with a SNP/ Lib Dem/ UKIP coalition/ C&S.
If he can't get into power that way then it is odds on that the Conservatives + LibDems + UKIP/ DUP (if needed) will have a working majority.
For simplicity we assume that the LDs have 30 seats, the SNP 45, the DUP 8 and UKIP 5
Ed (258 at the moment) can become PM on 245 (+80 - LDs SNP, UKIP)
Cameron (304 at the moment) can remain PM on 280 + 30 + 8 + 5
Because the LDs can be kingmaker there is no need for a grand coalition - UNLESS BOTH sides lose 10 or 15 seats to UKIP - and I cannot see that happening - AND neither side enters a deal with UKIP (both have ruled this out by their actions and words).
If neither side can get a Queen's speech through then there will be another election. Cameron will campaign on the basis of how difficult the Government is when no one party has power and Ed will be willing on the basis that he has 'the big mo', having gained seats in May.
(If there is another election then presumably Labour will be the (temporary) Government since Mr Cameron will have told the Queen he can't form one and recommend she ask Mr Miliband to do so.)
"Right, having popped offline for a bit, I've had a go at this on the Tory v. Labour battleground - see my massive assumption filled forecast below:"
Well done. Very interesting. Optimistic but interesting
Potential big market mover, right there...
Edit: 8-11 may still be OK.
Two hours later and no reply. The only ‘expert’ making such a claim is a Labour member and even he has admitted he got it wrong
-------------
Call for Bill Somebody...Bill Somebody....Bill Somebody please call Labour HQ immediately.
1p on basic rate: £4.75bn
1p on higher rate: £0.78bn
And there's the rub. There isn't enough higher rate tax payers to pay the amounts of money really needed.
You said it
Ashcroft was very scornful of Dave's recent 'come back to us' appeal to bitter kippers.
Dunno if that's a clue.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/416578/RDR1.doc
Thanks for pointing it out.
They could BOTH be value in fact
Ashcroft polls aren't perfect and his analysis looks pretty good - though I'd have lD-UKIP switchers lower and Con-UKIP switchers a bit higher than Royale.
In absence of a move to anti-austerity, Dave's best chance is to play up an anti-immigration, anti-EU, and pro-"toughness" on foreign policy where he actually would have majority backing.
Bad poll for the Tories.
Also, the wording of austerity has changed as well, notice that the Tories don't talk about billions or even millions. The line I have heard is that they want to save just one out of hundred pounds the government spends for three years. Put that way it doesn't really sound like massive cuts so to moderate voters people opposing it sound stupid. Again, appealing to UKIP voters and getting off message will not help.
This is way too close to call.
https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/585818780204408832/photo/1
In order to actually entice the smaller parties the larger ones would have to offer them something substantial, which in turn may turn off their supporters. For example Labour would have to offer the SNP (who have just beaten them to a pulp) maybe Trident. The Lib Dems would need to be in a similar situation to 2010 in order to enter a coalition, there would be nothing in it for them to be part of a rag-tag coalition containing a dozen Ulstermen and 5 UKIP.
Under those circumstances a Grand Coalition might look possible.
So it's bad for the Tories because the UKIP deflation has not aided them in regaining the lead in seats they where behind plus it gives Labour an extra seat from last time.
No wonder the Tories are thrashing about, Dave's same old line of keep it steady Ed's a bit of a drip is looking painfully exposed.
Labour are causing some serious ruptions which will appeal to everyday people in those grass root wards Labour need to win and the Tories know it.
S Thanet, Thurrock, Ilford N, Ipswich, Dudley's, Norwich
Cut away the Tory jeers and these are real policies for real people.
Otherwise, a decent set of polls for the Tories.
Would be interesting to see a Thurrock or Boston poll.
Its student union politics of making noise based on buzzwords without trying to be serious whatsoever.
Ed is an economical vandal
Rump UKIP vote hurting Labour...
Target seats 39, 42, 44 and 52 showing growing Tory leads.
Better news in Stockton South, however.
The Energy Price freeze is the quickest way to higher prices, the non dom thing has proved to be a fiasco within 24 hours and combined with the 50p tax hike will reduce the tax take, thus making less available for Labour to waste on the NHS.
If you want to punish people for getting on in life then vote for Ed, if you don't want to reduce the tax take then vote for anyone else.
The UKIP vote in those seats is fascinating. Double digit in some cases. I wonder how many of those votes are solid UKIP - and how many 'in play'
50p rate unlikely to make much difference at all.
So the only way that Labour can benefit from these policies is if the MOOD of them attracts voters. It may well do, but that is a sad state of affairs
Either way, the Tories are getting out ground-gamed by Labour at the moment. They should be flooding their 30 most vulnerable marginals seats with 10-20 additional activists every day from now until the election, IMHO. Bus them in, if necessary.
Right, must leave. Late.
I'm avoiding Morecambe personally.
No, they are really easy slogans masquerading as policy which will have negative unintended consequences that are greater than the benefit.
Energy Price freeze,
non dom tax crackdown,
50p rate of income tax
All three are plain stupid in the real world, excellent and sound in the political arena of capturing popular acclaim. Governing is about what is right, what works and benefits society, not about what is popular.
Do you really think Brown would have eschewed all of these if they were ways to easily raise revenue and reduce inequality? I didn't think I would ever say this, but maybe Brown wasn't too bad after all.
Sunil means "blue"
Outside the tiny Guido clique the non dom policy is a universal hit.
And the 50p rate will certainly raise revenues, when it is given a chance to do so rather than having its abolition conveniently pre-announced.
So that's 0/3 there - good going.
That would net Labour c. 28 gains from the Conservatives.
He hasn't chosen these seats randomly from the set of Tory/Labour marginals, but has selected those which were close in previous rounds of polling. Thus they may not be representative of the wider set of Tory/Labour marginals.
One of the interesting results I pick to highlight is this. In all of the seats where the Tories have a lead, UKIP are on 10+%. In all of the seats where UKIP are <10% Labour have a lead or are level. The rise of UKIP is not obviously hurting the Tories in these marginals.
I'm thinking from these polling numbers 30-35 Lab gains from Con in England, 275-280 seats each in total?
Looks like it's all down to the last few weeks of the campaign!