Just popped to Waitrose as they have 3 for £3 almond milk! Bought 6 cartons!
The house opposite has a big UKIP board in the garden, the first of any party I have seen in the constituency, along with the UKIP billboard at Upminster Bridge being the only one I have seen from any party
Standing in the queue for the till I looked up and realised I can see the back of my house v clearly from there.. that's where my Kipper board is going! Prime viewing for a mass audience
And the FT reckons Nicola dropped a clanger last night
In fact, there is an argument that Labour is in an even stronger short-term position because of the SNP rise, because it has damaged not only Labour but also the Lib Dems. Whereas the Lib Dems have said they would join either party in government, that is not the case with the SNP. In effect Labour has secured a few more sure-fire votes to help form a post-2015 government.
It's seems to me that the points you raise in your first two sentences are contradicted by the points you make in your last two sentences. You are of course right that there is likely to be random sampling variation affecting each of these individual polls. However, you are also correct that this is likely to cancel itself out across a sample of 10 seats.
So we have 10 seats which were previously showing a below-average swing to Labour in aggregate, still showing a below-average swing to Labour. It seems unlikely to me that this has much to do with sample variation.
The last set of Ashcroft polls had a 5% swing and that was just a few weeks ago. It seems unlikely that there has been a dramatic change in the last few weeks given other polling.
What is much more likely, in my view, is that there is something systemic about these seats which is resulting in a below average swing. You say its hard to see why they would behave differently but there are lots of reasons other than geography which alters the level of swing between seats - demographic change, incumbent popularity and campaign activity to name just a few.
Maybe I didn't express my view clearly enough.
My point is that in my view there is unlikely to be anything systemic about these seats as a group - because they are a large enough group.
What I'm saying is that from all the other evidence we had at the time when these seats were polled previously I suspect they only got a below average swing due to sample variation.
This time they have got a low swing again. It might be luck again but it might not be. But this time we don't have a pool of other up to date equivalent evidence.
ie This time, at this point, these results are a bigger component of the evidence we have.
It's a bit like tossing 3 coins getting 3 heads but at the same time another 3 coins were tossed and got 3 tails.
This time we've just tossed 3 coins and got 3 heads. That's all the evidence we have this time - it could be random but might not be.
In order to conclude Ashcroft must go back to 10 seats where he got a higher than average swing last time - and he will have to get a higher than average swing again. Until he does that we don't know.
It's fascinating stuff how we all manifest ourselves. BTW - thanks for the recommendation re that chemistry show on BBC2 - have watched it now and jolly good it was too.
I've not looked at the non-doms #LabourEnvy fiasco since this morning, but the story now appears to be that their independent tax expert isn't independent, isn't a tax expert, hasn't considered double taxation treaties and is, generally, a hopelessly hairy ruin.
So that went well for Mr Intellectually Self Confident then! Just the grasp of detail we expect from an aspiring Prime Minister!
So we have 10 seats which were previously showing a below-average swing to Labour in aggregate, still showing a below-average swing to Labour. It seems unlikely to me that this has much to do with sample variation.
The last set of Ashcroft polls had a 5% swing and that was just a few weeks ago. It seems unlikely that there has been a dramatic change in the last few weeks given other polling.
What is much more likely, in my view, is that there is something systemic about these seats which is resulting in a below average swing. You say its hard to see why they would behave differently but there are lots of reasons other than geography which alters the level of swing between seats - demographic change, incumbent popularity and campaign activity to name just a few.
Maybe I didn't express my view clearly enough.
My point is that in my view there is unlikely to be anything systemic about these seats as a group - because they are a large enough group.
What I'm saying is that from all the other evidence we had at the time when these seats were polled previously I suspect they only got a below average swing due to sample variation.
This time they have got a low swing again. It might be luck again but it might not be. But this time we don't have a pool of other up to date equivalent evidence.
ie This time, at this point, these results are a bigger component of the evidence we have.
It's a bit like tossing 3 coins getting 3 heads but at the same time another 3 coins were tossed and got 3 tails.
This time we've just tossed 3 coins and got 3 heads. That's all the evidence we have this time - it could be random but might not be.
In order to conclude Ashcroft must go back to 10 seats where he got a higher than average swing last time - and he will have to get a higher than average swing again. Until he does that we don't know.
Your interpretation is possible, I just don't think it's likely to be true.
It is based on all of the seats having a low previous swing due to sample variation, rather than something systemic. While this might be true for 1 or 2 (Harrow East for instance) it seems unlikely to be true for all of them.
To use your analogy - if we were to toss 10 coins and got 10 heads and we tossed the same 10 coins a few weeks later and got another 10 heads I would think there was something different about the coins which were being used!
But the good thing about Ashcroft is that he looks like he will be doing more polling so we will soon see which interpretation is correct.
Interesting point made about another flaw in Labour's banning of non-doms.
Apparently a lot of the Arabs that own in London and come for 3-4 months a year pay the non-dom levy for the privilege. The 2-3 year temporary period of course is no use to them, as they come every summer as their summer home.
Now, some might say that is great. Cheaper property prices, no super-cars whizzing around the streets all summer. But obviously if they have to pay 50% on their worldwide incomes, they wont be coming, and Labour obviously have mansion tax + all the spending power of the Arabs.
Cracking bit of BBC Newsnight smeary stuff...just had Newsnight "fact checker" on R5 and he basically smeared a load of non-doms as people with dodgy backgrounds, who got their money by dodgy means and are only here to launder their money. Of course, Mr Fact Checker can't back that up with any hard facts.
The first Harrow East poll was always suspect. It was quite at variance with the swings being found in other London constituencies.
I remember the Euros - it was a bad start for Labour but I distinctly remember Chuka mentioning Redbridge and at the end of the night the results were a fair bit better than expected when the London chunk came in.
There has been some extreme re-weighting in the Harrow East constituency poll.
I've not looked at the non-doms #LabourEnvy fiasco since this morning, but the story now appears to be that their independent tax expert isn't independent, isn't a tax expert, hasn't considered double taxation treaties and is, generally, a hopelessly hairy ruin.
So that went well for Mr Intellectually Self Confident then! Just the grasp of detail we expect from an aspiring Prime Minister!
You may have missed Ed Balls rewriting of his comments last January – apparently he was referring to short term guests such as er.. students!
I wonder if Ed Balls can tell us how many overseas students studying in the UK, also applied for Nom-Dom status when applying for a student visa. #BS
Labour argument seems to be as well, well not many left after the levy came in, so why would many leave now. Huge difference between paying £30k a year, to 50% tax of worldwide income. Of course BBC interviewer too thick to be able to work that out.
The first Harrow East poll was always suspect. It was quite at variance with the swings being found in other London constituencies.
I remember the Euros - it was a bad start for Labour but I distinctly remember Chuka mentioning Redbridge and at the end of the night the results were a fair bit better than expected when the London chunk came in.
The Tories won (in aggregate) the wards comprising Ilford North in the Redbridge Council elections on the same day as the Euros.
Have you received the "Good News" from Wes yet ?
I have received leaflets from Wes twice now, and from Lee twice also (the latter sent two different leaflets on the same day!) - but this was a few weeks back.
I've not looked at the non-doms #LabourEnvy fiasco since this morning, but the story now appears to be that their independent tax expert isn't independent, isn't a tax expert, hasn't considered double taxation treaties and is, generally, a hopelessly hairy ruin.
So that went well for Mr Intellectually Self Confident then! Just the grasp of detail we expect from an aspiring Prime Minister!
Not the first time Labour try to claim "independent" people back their position e.g. loads of charities who just by chance are run by people who worked for the last Labour government agree with Ed.
Has Labour thought of having children under 5 chant "hate, hate, hate" at a picture of Fatcha every morning at school for 2 minutes?
Good core vote stuff, the BBC would run with it, plus they'll be able to find an independent expert from, say, Unite to stand up and bray that it's a good thing.
Your interpretation is possible, I just don't think it's likely to be true.
It is based on all of the seats having a low previous swing due to sample variation, rather than something systemic. While this might be true for 1 or 2 (Harrow East for instance) it seems unlikely to be true for all of them.
To use your analogy - if we were to toss 10 coins and got 10 heads and we tossed the same 10 coins a few weeks later and got another 10 heads I would think there was something different about the coins which were being used!
But the good thing about Ashcroft is that he looks like he will be doing more polling so we will soon see which interpretation is correct.
Let me put it this way.
20 seats - all really have a swing of 5%. Poll all 20. 10 you get a lower swing than 5%. 10 seats you get higher than 5%. But that's all random - they all really have a swing of 5%.
Now poll 10 again. The fact you choose the 10 which got lower than 5% first time is irrelevant if there is no systemic variation.
Ultimately comes down to whether you believe there is systemic variation or not.
The first Harrow East poll was always suspect. It was quite at variance with the swings being found in other London constituencies.
I remember the Euros - it was a bad start for Labour but I distinctly remember Chuka mentioning Redbridge and at the end of the night the results were a fair bit better than expected when the London chunk came in.
The Tories won (in aggregate) the wards comprising Ilford North in the Redbridge Council elections on the same day as the Euros.
What do you predict? It'll be very close for sure.
I dunno, I haven't even decided if I'm going to vote for the Blues or not!
Your interpretation is possible, I just don't think it's likely to be true.
It is based on all of the seats having a low previous swing due to sample variation, rather than something systemic. While this might be true for 1 or 2 (Harrow East for instance) it seems unlikely to be true for all of them.
To use your analogy - if we were to toss 10 coins and got 10 heads and we tossed the same 10 coins a few weeks later and got another 10 heads I would think there was something different about the coins which were being used!
But the good thing about Ashcroft is that he looks like he will be doing more polling so we will soon see which interpretation is correct.
Let me put it this way.
20 seats - all really have a swing of 5%. Poll all 20. 10 you get a lower swing than 5%. 10 seats you get higher than 5%. But that's all random - they all really have a swing of 5%.
Now poll 10 again. The fact you choose the 10 which got lower than 5% first time is irrelevant if there is no systemic variation.
Ultimately comes down to whether you believe there is systemic variation or not.
Your interpretation is possible, I just don't think it's likely to be true.
It is based on all of the seats having a low previous swing due to sample variation, rather than something systemic. While this might be true for 1 or 2 (Harrow East for instance) it seems unlikely to be true for all of them.
To use your analogy - if we were to toss 10 coins and got 10 heads and we tossed the same 10 coins a few weeks later and got another 10 heads I would think there was something different about the coins which were being used!
But the good thing about Ashcroft is that he looks like he will be doing more polling so we will soon see which interpretation is correct.
Let me put it this way.
20 seats - all really have a swing of 5%. Poll all 20. 10 you get a lower swing than 5%. 10 seats you get higher than 5%. But that's all random - they all really have a swing of 5%.
Now poll 10 again. The fact you choose the 10 which got lower than 5% first time is irrelevant if there is no systemic variation.
Ultimately comes down to whether you believe there is systemic variation or not.
Yes I agree. My point is that it is highly unlikely that all of the variation is random, because swing is never exactly the same across all the seats. The balance between systemic / random is of course open to interpretation, but arguing that it is all random is a bit of a push IMO.
Zac Goldsmith is a non dom. You really couldn't make it up!
I'm sure we're all terrified in case he moves abroad!
You might want to be careful there my old son...He isn't a non-dom, he was born into that status, but isn't now.
Now if Ed Miliband was talking about addressing this situation of people just inheriting this status, I think that would be very sensible. But of course, like ZHC, rather than talk about reform, he just as the QC on the radio said not so much baby out with the bath water, more all the toys out of the pram.
I've not looked at the non-doms #LabourEnvy fiasco since this morning, but the story now appears to be that their independent tax expert isn't independent, isn't a tax expert, hasn't considered double taxation treaties and is, generally, a hopelessly hairy ruin.
So that went well for Mr Intellectually Self Confident then! Just the grasp of detail we expect from an aspiring Prime Minister!
You do realise people pay £90000 because alternatively they would have to pay more !
Apparently record number of cars sold since split of numbers plates being twice yearly, but also record amount being bought on credit.
Quite a lot of my colleagues (none of them earning great money) are swanning around in new cars. All have got them on one of the variety of lease deals. I run around in a 13 year old Fiesta which suits me perfectly for the 5k miles I do a year.
I've not looked at the non-doms #LabourEnvy fiasco since this morning, but the story now appears to be that their independent tax expert isn't independent, isn't a tax expert, hasn't considered double taxation treaties and is, generally, a hopelessly hairy ruin.
So that went well for Mr Intellectually Self Confident then! Just the grasp of detail we expect from an aspiring Prime Minister!
You do realise people pay £90000 because alternatively they would have to pay more !
Cameron looks as slippery as an eel. People aren't interested whether it raises extra money. If there was a poll asking whether we should risk Zac Goldsmith and other non doms leaving the country if they lose their non dom status the result would be overwhelming.
Labour should bang away at this one. Even Tom Bradbury sounded disgusted. It's Labour's first guaranteed vote winner
Apparently record number of cars sold since split of numbers plates being twice yearly, but also record amount being bought on credit.
Quite a lot of my colleagues (none of them earning great money) are swanning around in new cars. All have got them on one of the variety of lease deals. I run around in a 13 year old Fiesta which suits me perfectly for the 5k miles I do a year.
New cars always struck me as the most stupid "investment". Why buy something that is worth a fraction of its value as soon as you put the keys in the ignition, when instead you can buy a perfectly good one that is only a year or two old. With modern cars, a 2 year old car that hasn't been flogged to death has only really just been broken in.
Apparently it is the loan with option to buy / upgrade that have been driving a lot of new interest.
Your interpretation is possible, I just don't think it's likely to be true.
It is based on all of the seats having a low previous swing due to sample variation, rather than something systemic. While this might be true for 1 or 2 (Harrow East for instance) it seems unlikely to be true for all of them.
To use your analogy - if we were to toss 10 coins and got 10 heads and we tossed the same 10 coins a few weeks later and got another 10 heads I would think there was something different about the coins which were being used!
But the good thing about Ashcroft is that he looks like he will be doing more polling so we will soon see which interpretation is correct.
Let me put it this way.
20 seats - all really have a swing of 5%. Poll all 20. 10 you get a lower swing than 5%. 10 seats you get higher than 5%. But that's all random - they all really have a swing of 5%.
Now poll 10 again. The fact you choose the 10 which got lower than 5% first time is irrelevant if there is no systemic variation.
Ultimately comes down to whether you believe there is systemic variation or not.
Yes I agree. My point is that it is highly unlikely that all of the variation is random, because swing is never exactly the same across all the seats. The balance between systemic / random is of course open to interpretation, but arguing that it is all random is a bit of a push IMO.
If there was a UNS that was underreported in the first survey, due to sample error, then there may well be a larger than usual swing in the second sample as the sampling variation would be centered on the population mean rather than the sample mean.
In other words I would expect some regression to the mean.
Zac Goldsmith is a non dom. You really couldn't make it up!
I'm sure we're all terrified in case he moves abroad!
He will pay £90000. What a bargain ! Presumably Abrahamovic is also a non-dom. Can't prove it but I wouldn't be surprised. Most recent Russians are.
I wonder how much tax Abramovich has paid since he moved to this country, not the non dom stuff but things like stamp duty, VAT on luxury goods, all the building work he has had done etc
Cameron looks as slippery as an eel. People aren't interested whether it raises extra money. If there was a poll asking whether we should risk Zac Goldsmith and other non doms leaving the country if they lose their non dom status the result would be overwhelming.
Labour should bang away at this one. Even Tom Bradbury sounded disgusted. It's Labour's first guaranteed vote winner
You just keep repeating the misinformation about Zac Goldsmith. I mean he never likes to sue anybody.
Cameron looks as slippery as an eel. People aren't interested whether it raises extra money. If there was a poll asking whether we should risk Zac Goldsmith and other non doms leaving the country if they lose their non dom status the result would be overwhelming.
Labour should bang away at this one. Even Tom Bradbury sounded disgusted. It's Labour's first guaranteed vote winner
They might well be interested in what Labour has to cut or tax to make up the money that Balls says will be lost if the non-doms leave.
London Harrow East 5.5 S East Hove 5.0 N West Morecambe 4.0 N East Stockton Sth 3.0 Y+H Pudsey 2.0 N West Blackpool N 0.5 S West Gloucester 0.5 E Mids Loughborough -0.5 W Mids Kingswood -2.0
I've not looked at the non-doms #LabourEnvy fiasco since this morning, but the story now appears to be that their independent tax expert isn't independent, isn't a tax expert, hasn't considered double taxation treaties and is, generally, a hopelessly hairy ruin.
So that went well for Mr Intellectually Self Confident then! Just the grasp of detail we expect from an aspiring Prime Minister!
You do realise people pay £90000 because alternatively they would have to pay more !
Alternatively they can leave.
Where to ? There they have to pay the tax too ! Please understand just because suddenly they have to pay 50% additionally. As per double taxation treaties, the tax paid locally can be deducted. So it the difference only that will be payable.
Presumably, for these 6000 or so, that "difference" will be greatly more than £90000.
Cameron looks as slippery as an eel. People aren't interested whether it raises extra money. If there was a poll asking whether we should risk Zac Goldsmith and other non doms leaving the country if they lose their non dom status the result would be overwhelming.
Labour should bang away at this one. Even Tom Bradbury sounded disgusted. It's Labour's first guaranteed vote winner
People will be interested when there is insufficient to run the NHS
Zac Goldsmith is a non dom. You really couldn't make it up!
I'm sure we're all terrified in case he moves abroad!
He will pay £90000. What a bargain ! Presumably Abrahamovic is also a non-dom. Can't prove it but I wouldn't be surprised. Most recent Russians are.
I wonder how much tax Abramovich has paid since he moved to this country, not the non dom stuff but things like stamp duty, VAT on luxury goods, all the building work he has had done etc
Lawyers fees properly top the lot :-)
He always seems constantly in one legal battle or another, be it personal, business or football related, and all through the British courts.
Quite. The notion of *inheriting* non-domism is ludicrous. Why wasn't this resolved decades ago? I don't recall it ever being mentioned until now which shows how few use this route.
If that's all he'd suggested, fine by me - it's the kitchen sink absolutism of *abolishing* that made it a firestorm. And the language was crap if he didn't actually mean it either.
Zac Goldsmith is a non dom. You really couldn't make it up!
I'm sure we're all terrified in case he moves abroad!
You might want to be careful there my old son...He isn't a non-dom, he was born into that status, but isn't now.
Now if Ed Miliband was talking about addressing this situation of people just inheriting this status, I think that would be very sensible. But of course, like ZHC, rather than talk about reform, he just as the QC on the radio said not so much baby out with the bath water, more all the toys out of the pram.
Cameron looks as slippery as an eel. People aren't interested whether it raises extra money. If there was a poll asking whether we should risk Zac Goldsmith and other non doms leaving the country if they lose their non dom status the result would be overwhelming.
Labour should bang away at this one. Even Tom Bradbury sounded disgusted. It's Labour's first guaranteed vote winner
You just keep repeating the misinformation about Zac Goldsmith. I mean he never likes to sue anybody.
Roger's minted. He can afford to lose a house, paying legal bills.
I've not looked at the non-doms #LabourEnvy fiasco since this morning, but the story now appears to be that their independent tax expert isn't independent, isn't a tax expert, hasn't considered double taxation treaties and is, generally, a hopelessly hairy ruin.
So that went well for Mr Intellectually Self Confident then! Just the grasp of detail we expect from an aspiring Prime Minister!
You do realise people pay £90000 because alternatively they would have to pay more !
Alternatively they can leave.
Where to ? There they have to pay the tax too ! Please understand just because suddenly they have to pay 50% additionally. As per double taxation treaties, the tax paid locally can be deducted. So it the difference only that will be payable.
Presumably, for these 6000 or so, that "difference" will be greatly more than £90000.
They'll move somewhere with a lower tax rate, obviously.
Scott_P Posts: 7,869 5:57PM And the FT reckons Nicola dropped a clanger last night
Yes masterly from Labour in Scotland. They lose almost all of their seats to the NATS but still get into power with SNP support. Thus the Labs in Scotland become redundant and the SNP are in power at local, Scots and Westminster level.
Magnificent strategy from Milliband using the obnxious Murphy as his foil. Putting in someone so disliked that he can't move Labour in the polls at all after 4 months and has 4 weeks to go.
This is truly a masterstroke discovered by the FT who are sull of such clever people with such great knowledge of Scotland - just like the BBC. .
I've not looked at the non-doms #LabourEnvy fiasco since this morning, but the story now appears to be that their independent tax expert isn't independent, isn't a tax expert, hasn't considered double taxation treaties and is, generally, a hopelessly hairy ruin.
So that went well for Mr Intellectually Self Confident then! Just the grasp of detail we expect from an aspiring Prime Minister!
You do realise people pay £90000 because alternatively they would have to pay more !
Alternatively they can leave.
Where to ? There they have to pay the tax too ! Please understand just because suddenly they have to pay 50% additionally. As per double taxation treaties, the tax paid locally can be deducted. So it the difference only that will be payable.
Presumably, for these 6000 or so, that "difference" will be greatly more than £90000.
Ireland ? No tax on external earnings there. Switzerland, none there either and the skiing is good. Singapore, nope, none there either, and a top rate of tax of 20%. Even here, no tax on external earnings and top rate of 10%.
Zac Goldsmith is a non dom. You really couldn't make it up!
I'm sure we're all terrified in case he moves abroad!
He will pay £90000. What a bargain ! Presumably Abrahamovic is also a non-dom. Can't prove it but I wouldn't be surprised. Most recent Russians are.
I wonder how much tax Abramovich has paid since he moved to this country, not the non dom stuff but things like stamp duty, VAT on luxury goods, all the building work he has had done etc
Lawyers fees properly top the lot :-)
He always seems constantly in one legal battle or another, be it personal, business or football related, and all through the British courts.
I've not looked at the non-doms #LabourEnvy fiasco since this morning, but the story now appears to be that their independent tax expert isn't independent, isn't a tax expert, hasn't considered double taxation treaties and is, generally, a hopelessly hairy ruin.
So that went well for Mr Intellectually Self Confident then! Just the grasp of detail we expect from an aspiring Prime Minister!
You do realise people pay £90000 because alternatively they would have to pay more !
Alternatively they can leave.
Where to ? There they have to pay the tax too ! Please understand just because suddenly they have to pay 50% additionally. As per double taxation treaties, the tax paid locally can be deducted. So it the difference only that will be payable.
Presumably, for these 6000 or so, that "difference" will be greatly more than £90000.
Ireland ? No tax on external earnings there. Switzerland, none there either and the skiing is good. Singapore, nope, none there either, and a top rate of tax of 20%
You can always buy yourself a new citizenship as well. Bulgaria will sell you one. Can save a fortune on sending the kids to uni then.
Zac Goldsmith is a non dom. You really couldn't make it up!
I'm sure we're all terrified in case he moves abroad!
You might want to be careful there my old son...He isn't a non-dom, he was born into that status, but isn't now.
Now if Ed Miliband was talking about addressing this situation of people just inheriting this status, I think that would be very sensible. But of course, like ZHC, rather than talk about reform, he just as the QC on the radio said not so much baby out with the bath water, more all the toys out of the pram.
So he did make it up...?
The BBC news was peddling a recent interview with Ed Balls where is confidently said that removing non dom status would cost the economy money. This was presumably in the context of 'would labour scrap it'? Did Ed speak to Ed before this announcement? When questioned today Ed M dodged the issue and said they had 'found a way'. Ha.
I saw a headline in The Guardian which said labour were going to 'take on' the non doms. 'Take on'? Whats all that about? Running the country is not a boxing match. You cannot round up and herd don doms like taking sheep to the abattoir. The non doms will be taking themselves and their businesses and their local tax and their spending power on the first flight out. The overseas earnings will stay where they are. Some people will remember Dennis Healey promising to make the pips squeak for the rich. We all know how that ended.
Meantime even as I type we see a shocking Labour PPB weaponising the NHS. Anyone would think the Lying Labour Party created the NHS.
I've not looked at the non-doms #LabourEnvy fiasco since this morning, but the story now appears to be that their independent tax expert isn't independent, isn't a tax expert, hasn't considered double taxation treaties and is, generally, a hopelessly hairy ruin.
So that went well for Mr Intellectually Self Confident then! Just the grasp of detail we expect from an aspiring Prime Minister!
You do realise people pay £90000 because alternatively they would have to pay more !
Alternatively they can leave.
Where to ? There they have to pay the tax too ! Please understand just because suddenly they have to pay 50% additionally. As per double taxation treaties, the tax paid locally can be deducted. So it the difference only that will be payable.
Presumably, for these 6000 or so, that "difference" will be greatly more than £90000.
Ireland ? No tax on external earnings there. Switzerland, none there either and the skiing is good. Singapore, nope, none there either, and a top rate of tax of 20%
You can always buy yourself a new citizenship as well. Bulgaria will sell you one. Can save a fortune on sending the kids to uni then.
Apparently record number of cars sold since split of numbers plates being twice yearly, but also record amount being bought on credit.
Quite a lot of my colleagues (none of them earning great money) are swanning around in new cars. All have got them on one of the variety of lease deals. I run around in a 13 year old Fiesta which suits me perfectly for the 5k miles I do a year.
New cars always struck me as the most stupid "investment". Why buy something that is worth a fraction of its value as soon as you put the keys in the ignition, when instead you can buy a perfectly good one that is only a year or two old. With modern cars, a 2 year old car that hasn't been flogged to death has only really just been broken in.
Apparently it is the loan with option to buy / upgrade that have been driving a lot of new interest.
Yep, and after 3 years they hand the car back and sign up to another one. They seem just to be renting the car at £199 a month or whatever.
I've not looked at the non-doms #LabourEnvy fiasco since this morning, but the story now appears to be that their independent tax expert isn't independent, isn't a tax expert, hasn't considered double taxation treaties and is, generally, a hopelessly hairy ruin.
So that went well for Mr Intellectually Self Confident then! Just the grasp of detail we expect from an aspiring Prime Minister!
Not the first time Labour try to claim "independent" people back their position e.g. loads of charities who just by chance are run by people who worked for the last Labour government agree with Ed.
TBH it was the slickness and high production values that made me wonder who made it. If I didn't know better - I'd never ever guess the Greenies. Their hair-shirtness doesn't fit with glossy.
It's like getting a council newspaper on Country Life paper stock and full colour. It doesn't feel right with the brand.
Maybe its me but I cant help finding targeting the fact that the four main leaders are white men and drawing the conclusion from they are therefore all the same, is the same thought process as thinking all black men from south London are wronguns who deserve to be stopped and searched
I am sympathetic to a lot of green mindset; I worry about the environment, I rarely eat meat, I don't drive when I could get the train etc, but how would I know what they thought from their PEB?
All I get from it is they think if you share skin colour and gender you are categorised as "all the same"
It was a slick broadcast but the message was all wrong, doing nothing to address the Greens' central problem - credibility. Even if you think it's a good idea you know that the Greens can't 'end' austerity - because their ceiling, even being wildly optimistic is about 5 MPs. Anyone can walk around saying they'd end austerity when they haven't got a cat in hell's chance of forming a government. It's frankly ridiculous to have a pop at coalitions when your best hope is to be in one.
They could garner far better coverage by putting forward a list of 5 affordable and popular policies any party can put in place to gain their vote for a Queen's Speech, and challenge the other parties to explain why they're not a good idea.
Actually that goes for UKIP too, if they came out and said 'Here are our 5 demands for backing a QS', hacks would then wander around asking every Labour and Tory spokesperson to rule out agreeing to them. If they don't you gain credibility, if they do they're opposing a popular policy. Even if they nick your policy you can claim it as an achievement and say 'vote us to ensure they stick to it'.
You know this thing you are using called the interweb, there is a site called google, its amazing, it lets you fact check things yourself.
It was a big story 6 years ago, when Labour were again going on [selectively] bash the non-doms at the time like Goldsmith and Ashcroft, just don't mention the Labour ones.
Are you sure they didn't say "USED TO" and you got all over excited?
Apparently record number of cars sold since split of numbers plates being twice yearly, but also record amount being bought on credit.
Quite a lot of my colleagues (none of them earning great money) are swanning around in new cars. All have got them on one of the variety of lease deals. I run around in a 13 year old Fiesta which suits me perfectly for the 5k miles I do a year.
New cars always struck me as the most stupid "investment". Why buy something that is worth a fraction of its value as soon as you put the keys in the ignition, when instead you can buy a perfectly good one that is only a year or two old. With modern cars, a 2 year old car that hasn't been flogged to death has only really just been broken in.
Apparently it is the loan with option to buy / upgrade that have been driving a lot of new interest.
Yep, and after 3 years they hand the car back and sign up to another one. They seem just to be renting the car at £199 a month or whatever.
If people did not buy new cars then how would the rest of us buy second hand ones? All cars however do depreciate and eventually need maintenance. A car that depreciates relatively slowly can be a good buy, and there are leasing plans that make sense. Lets not rubbish new car buying. We make a lot of good new cars.
And the FT reckons Nicola dropped a clanger last night
In fact, there is an argument that Labour is in an even stronger short-term position because of the SNP rise, because it has damaged not only Labour but also the Lib Dems. Whereas the Lib Dems have said they would join either party in government, that is not the case with the SNP. In effect Labour has secured a few more sure-fire votes to help form a post-2015 government.
I couldn't agree more - when a pressure group decides to become a political party - the lack of depth shows really quickly - and then they end up a cul-de-sac.
Of course any group of people can form a party - I notice that the Christian People's Alliance and the Christian Party [very Life of Brian] are fighting on two different platforms but are planning to merge AFTER the GE. I'm lost re the logic here.
They've got about 200 followers on Twitter put together, but fielding about 20 candidates.
TBH it was the slickness and high production values that made me wonder who made it. If I didn't know better - I'd never ever guess the Greenies. Their hair-shirtness doesn't fit with glossy.
It's like getting a council newspaper on Country Life paper stock and full colour. It doesn't feel right with the brand.
Maybe its me but I cant help finding targeting the fact that the four main leaders are white men and drawing the conclusion from they are therefore all the same, is the same thought process as thinking all black men from south London are wronguns who deserve to be stopped and searched
I am sympathetic to a lot of green mindset; I worry about the environment, I rarely eat meat, I don't drive when I could get the train etc, but how would I know what they thought from their PEB?
All I get from it is they think if you share skin colour and gender you are categorised as "all the same"
It was a slick broadcast but the message was all wrong, doing nothing to address the Greens' central problem - credibility. Even if you think it's a good idea you know that the Greens can't 'end' austerity - because their ceiling, even being wildly optimistic is about 5 MPs. Anyone can walk around saying they'd end austerity when they haven't got a cat in hell's chance of forming a government. It's frankly ridiculous to have a pop at coalitions when your best hope is to be in one.
They could garner far better coverage by putting forward a list of 5 affordable and popular policies any party can put in place to gain their vote for a Queen's Speech, and challenge the other parties to explain why they're not a good idea.
Actually that goes for UKIP too, if they came out and said 'Here are our 5 demands for backing a QS', hacks would then wander around asking every Labour and Tory spokesperson to rule out agreeing to them. If they don't you gain credibility, if they do they're opposing a popular policy. Even if they nick your policy you can claim it as an achievement and say 'vote us to ensure they stick to it'.
Just seen the new Ashcroft polls. On the surface looks dreadful for Labour. Average swing can't be more than 2% I'd have thought. Not sure why OGH has not put a favourable slant on it for the blues. It's so out of line though with the national polls showing a 5% swing in England and Wales I'd be cautious though.
Anyone else have a comedy green on Labour Majority at the moment by the way ?
As I observed yesterday, I would rather bet on Labour majority than on Labour in Fylde, whose last non-Tory MP was the 8th Duke of Devonshire in 1865, yet these are available at the same odds!
Ed1 opens his mouth and the collective right wing noise machine stamps its feet and goes waaaaaaaahhhhhhhh.
Ed2 is a complete knob and has to be sent elsewhere if EMWNBPM becomes PM.
Reform of this 200 year old law makes great sense to wage slaves like me. Good call. If the Americans can manage without so can we; London will still be the city where wealthy people want to live.
Your interpretation is possible, I just don't think it's likely to be true.
It is based on all of the seats having a low previous swing due to sample variation, rather than something systemic. While this might be true for 1 or 2 (Harrow East for instance) it seems unlikely to be true for all of them.
To use your analogy - if we were to toss 10 coins and got 10 heads and we tossed the same 10 coins a few weeks later and got another 10 heads I would think there was something different about the coins which were being used!
But the good thing about Ashcroft is that he looks like he will be doing more polling so we will soon see which interpretation is correct.
Let me put it this way.
20 seats - all really have a swing of 5%. Poll all 20. 10 you get a lower swing than 5%. 10 seats you get higher than 5%. But that's all random - they all really have a swing of 5%.
Now poll 10 again. The fact you choose the 10 which got lower than 5% first time is irrelevant if there is no systemic variation.
Ultimately comes down to whether you believe there is systemic variation or not.
Yes I agree. My point is that it is highly unlikely that all of the variation is random, because swing is never exactly the same across all the seats. The balance between systemic / random is of course open to interpretation, but arguing that it is all random is a bit of a push IMO.
Well I'll conclude by agreeing with you.
I agree it won't all be random. But I personally don't think it'll be entirely systemic either.
Just seen the new Ashcroft polls. On the surface looks dreadful for Labour. Average swing can't be more than 2% I'd have thought. Not sure why OGH has not put a favourable slant on it for the blues. It's so out of line though with the national polls showing a 5% swing in England and Wales I'd be cautious though.
These were chosen because they are the closest marginals, and so they are not intended to be representative of the election as a whole, or even marginals as a subsection of the whole. For instance, Erewash is nominally a more distant Labour target than Blackpool North and Cleveleys, yet because of its healthy swing to Labour, it hasn't been included.
London Harrow East 5.5 S East Hove 5.0 N West Morecambe 4.0 N East Stockton Sth 3.0 Y+H Pudsey 2.0 N West Blackpool N 0.5 S West Gloucester 0.5 E Mids Loughborough -0.5 W Mids Kingswood -2.0
Just seen the new Ashcroft polls. On the surface looks dreadful for Labour. Average swing can't be more than 2% I'd have thought. Not sure why OGH has not put a favourable slant on it for the blues. It's so out of line though with the national polls showing a 5% swing in England and Wales I'd be cautious though.
It's a mixed bag isn't it.. Looking good for Ed in London and increasingly boho places like Hove; probably OK in the East Mids but not so good in Worcester Woman type places. Still plenty to play for.
Dair But with only 47% going to vote Yes that would kill of independence for good
The only thing that will "kill off independence" is a fall in support. While support remains around 50% there will always be a demand for a vote to get it.
Dair If the SNP call a vote now and lose it, even if they get 49%, it will be dead as an issue, as in Quebec, which is why Gordon Wilson, former SNP leader, today said another referendum must not be held until Yes was certain of victory
Apparently record number of cars sold since split of numbers plates being twice yearly, but also record amount being bought on credit.
What could go wrong? I have never understood the now now now culture which appears to have seized most of society. Instead of saving for a car they take out loans on a depreciating asset.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 14m14 minutes ago Lord Noon is on the BBC, part of a piece on non-doms. Is that the same Lord Noon who gave nearly £116k to Lab under EdMiliband?
You know this thing you are using called the interweb, there is a site called google, its amazing, it lets you fact check things yourself.
It was a big story 6 years ago, when Labour were again going on [selectively] bash the non-doms at the time like Goldsmith and Ashcroft, just don't mention the Labour ones.
Are you sure they didn't say "USED TO" and you got all over excited?
Guido flags up a TV interview where Labours shadow Exchequer Secretary Shabana Mahmood could not name a single expert who had said that abolishing non doms would raise hundreds of millions. This despite claiming there were a 'number' of them. Labour press office likewise. Ed said there were 'experts'. Where are they? Only one, a Labour supporter in fact who has been forced to admit “I accept DTCs could have some impact. There’s plainly some uncertainty about the numbers.”
Bit of an omnishambles from labour. Or as the BBC have said 'its all gone pear shaped' !! I recommend looking up Ed M's response to the question about Balls' comment at the press conference. It gives a clear indication of what he looks like when he stands upright and tells barefaced lies. Useful to know.
Think of a 'number' and double it seems to be Labour's main campaign promise.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 14m14 minutes ago Lord Noon is on the BBC, part of a piece on non-doms. Is that the same Lord Noon who gave nearly £116k to Lab under EdMiliband?
Are they still goin on about how he is an "independent" peer....we don't like to go into why that is the case...
Apparently record number of cars sold since split of numbers plates being twice yearly, but also record amount being bought on credit.
What could go wrong? I have never understood the now now now culture which appears to have seized most of society. Instead of saving for a car they take out loans on a depreciating asset.
Just wait until interest rates go up....the now now now generation will be the bastard government screwed up.....
Just seen the new Ashcroft polls. On the surface looks dreadful for Labour. Average swing can't be more than 2% I'd have thought. Not sure why OGH has not put a favourable slant on it for the blues. It's so out of line though with the national polls showing a 5% swing in England and Wales I'd be cautious though.
These were chosen because they are the closest marginals, and so they are not intended to be representative of the election as a whole, or even marginals as a subsection of the whole. For instance, Erewash is nominally a more distant Labour target than Blackpool North and Cleveleys, yet because of its healthy swing to Labour, it hasn't been included.
Erewash will be close again, a stone cold certainty. I would slightly favour Labour but it could go either way. Conservatives look competitive in every single East Midlands marginal, Sherwood and Lincoln look the hardest to hold but they have a decent chance even in those.
I couldn't agree more - when a pressure group decides to become a political party - the lack of depth shows really quickly - and then they end up a cul-de-sac.
Of course any group of people can form a party - I notice that the Christian People's Alliance and the Christian Party [very Life of Brian] are fighting on two different platforms but are planning to merge AFTER the GE. I'm lost re the logic here.
They've got about 200 followers on Twitter put together, but fielding about 20 candidates.
When the CP and the CPA did a joint Party Election Broadcast (for the London election, I think (or possibly the European election)), their leaders described the CP as a "conservative" party and the CPA as a "christian democrat" party, which sort-of implies that they have differences but fit under a broad umbrella - a bit like the FPTP idea of having a broad-based party which aggregates a range of views within one party, rather than the continental-PR idea of having a coalition of several small parties.
Dair If the SNP call a vote now and lose it, even if they get 49%, it will be dead as an issue, as in Quebec, which is why Gordon Wilson, former SNP leader, today said another referendum must not be held until Yes was certain of victory
It doesn't matter how badly you want something to be true, there is nothing you can do to stop Refendum after Referendum after Referendum.
The only way to stop any further Referendum is to vote Yes.
Apparently record number of cars sold since split of numbers plates being twice yearly, but also record amount being bought on credit.
What could go wrong? I have never understood the now now now culture which appears to have seized most of society. Instead of saving for a car they take out loans on a depreciating asset.
Just wait until interest rates go up....the now now now generation will be the bastard government screwed up.....
I cannot wait. There is going to be a lot of bargains.
You know this thing you are using called the interweb, there is a site called google, its amazing, it lets you fact check things yourself.
It was a big story 6 years ago, when Labour were again going on [selectively] bash the non-doms at the time like Goldsmith and Ashcroft, just don't mention the Labour ones.
Are you sure they didn't say "USED TO" and you got all over excited?
Guido flags up a TV interview where Labours shadow Exchequer Secretary Shabana Mahmood could not name a single expert who had said that abolishing non doms would raise hundreds of millions. This despite claiming there were a 'number' of them. Labour press office likewise. Ed said there were 'experts'. Where are they? Only one, a Labour supporter in fact who has been forced to admit “I accept DTCs could have some impact. There’s plainly some uncertainty about the numbers.”
Bit of an omnishambles from labour. Or as the BBC have said 'its all gone pear shaped' !! I recommend looking up Ed M's response to the question about Balls' comment at the press conference. It gives a clear indication of what he looks like when he stands upright and tells barefaced lies. Useful to know.
Think of a 'number' and double it seems to be Labour's main campaign promise.
I'm shocked. How many votes will this shift and in which direction?
Dair If the SNP call a vote now and lose it, even if they get 49%, it will be dead as an issue, as in Quebec, which is why Gordon Wilson, former SNP leader, today said another referendum must not be held until Yes was certain of victory
It doesn't matter how badly you want something to be true, there is nothing you can do to stop Refendum after Referendum after Referendum.
The only way to stop any further Referendum is to vote Yes.
Interesting insight into mind set - basically fascist.
Quite. The notion of *inheriting* non-domism is ludicrous. Why wasn't this resolved decades ago? I don't recall it ever being mentioned until now which shows how few use this route.
It's not ludicrous, unless you consider the whole concept of domicile ludicrous. It is part of English Common Law that everyone must have a domicile of origin. That is their domicile at the point of birth.
i) If legitimate (and born in the father's lifetime) that will be the domicile of the father ii) If illegitimate (or born after the father's death) that will be the domicile of the mother iii) If a foundling, the place determines the domicile
Dair If the SNP call a vote now and lose it, even if they get 49%, it will be dead as an issue, as in Quebec, which is why Gordon Wilson, former SNP leader, today said another referendum must not be held until Yes was certain of victory
It doesn't matter how badly you want something to be true, there is nothing you can do to stop Refendum after Referendum after Referendum.
The only way to stop any further Referendum is to vote Yes.
Dair If the SNP call a vote now and lose it, even if they get 49%, it will be dead as an issue, as in Quebec, which is why Gordon Wilson, former SNP leader, today said another referendum must not be held until Yes was certain of victory
It doesn't matter how badly you want something to be true, there is nothing you can do to stop Refendum after Referendum after Referendum.
The only way to stop any further Referendum is to vote Yes.
Interesting insight into mind set - basically fascist.
So wanting elections is fascist now. Guess that's why Hitler abolished elections after he got into power - same motivation and behaviour from the British Nationalists now.
I couldn't agree more - when a pressure group decides to become a political party - the lack of depth shows really quickly - and then they end up a cul-de-sac.
Of course any group of people can form a party - I notice that the Christian People's Alliance and the Christian Party [very Life of Brian] are fighting on two different platforms but are planning to merge AFTER the GE. I'm lost re the logic here.
They've got about 200 followers on Twitter put together, but fielding about 20 candidates.
TBH it was the slickness and high production values that made me wonder who made it. If I didn't know better - I'd never ever guess the Greenies. Their hair-shirtness doesn't fit with glossy.
It's like getting a council newspaper on Country Life paper stock and full colour. It doesn't feel right with the brand.
Maybe its me but I cant help finding targeting the fact that the four main leaders are white men and drawing the conclusion from they are therefore all the same, is the same thought process as thinking all black men from south London are wronguns who deserve to be stopped and searched
I am sympathetic to a lot of green mindset; I worry about the environment, I rarely eat meat, I don't drive when I could get the train etc, but how would I know what they thought from their PEB?
All I get from it is they think if you share skin colour and gender you are categorised as "all the same"
Jesus, poor people. I'd imagine there's a very good book in following our countries collection of eccentric parties. I can kind of understand that mindset though, if you've got a pet issue you feel everyone is ignoring it can give you a bit of coverage and the excuse to raise it with people.
What I struggle to understand is the motivation of the Greens in that they've been seduced by the ultra-left protest vote who'd vote for anyone who slags off Labour from the left for actually trying to govern a real country rather than an abstraction from an A-Level politics lesson. It's totally distracted from what should be their core message about the environment, which if you believe the scientists should be a fairly popular one. While it may put on a percentage point or two on election day or gain you a few members, in the long-term it will destroy the party as those who sign up demand it stays on the hard-left even if that means it's impossible to have an ounce of credibility about the vaguely sensible important things you'd like to achieve. If every Green interview started with a question on a plausible policy rather than 'you've got hundreds of billions of pounds unaccounted for', they might not always resemble an M6 pile-up.
Comments
The house opposite has a big UKIP board in the garden, the first of any party I have seen in the constituency, along with the UKIP billboard at Upminster Bridge being the only one I have seen from any party
Standing in the queue for the till I looked up and realised I can see the back of my house v clearly from there.. that's where my Kipper board is going! Prime viewing for a mass audience
My point is that in my view there is unlikely to be anything systemic about these seats as a group - because they are a large enough group.
What I'm saying is that from all the other evidence we had at the time when these seats were polled previously I suspect they only got a below average swing due to sample variation.
This time they have got a low swing again. It might be luck again but it might not be. But this time we don't have a pool of other up to date equivalent evidence.
ie This time, at this point, these results are a bigger component of the evidence we have.
It's a bit like tossing 3 coins getting 3 heads but at the same time another 3 coins were tossed and got 3 tails.
This time we've just tossed 3 coins and got 3 heads. That's all the evidence we have this time - it could be random but might not be.
In order to conclude Ashcroft must go back to 10 seats where he got a higher than average swing last time - and he will have to get a higher than average swing again. Until he does that we don't know.
So that went well for Mr Intellectually Self Confident then! Just the grasp of detail we expect from an aspiring Prime Minister!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nsegJXDswDw&feature=youtu.be
It is based on all of the seats having a low previous swing due to sample variation, rather than something systemic. While this might be true for 1 or 2 (Harrow East for instance) it seems unlikely to be true for all of them.
To use your analogy - if we were to toss 10 coins and got 10 heads and we tossed the same 10 coins a few weeks later and got another 10 heads I would think there was something different about the coins which were being used!
But the good thing about Ashcroft is that he looks like he will be doing more polling so we will soon see which interpretation is correct.
Apparently a lot of the Arabs that own in London and come for 3-4 months a year pay the non-dom levy for the privilege. The 2-3 year temporary period of course is no use to them, as they come every summer as their summer home.
Now, some might say that is great. Cheaper property prices, no super-cars whizzing around the streets all summer. But obviously if they have to pay 50% on their worldwide incomes, they wont be coming, and Labour obviously have mansion tax + all the spending power of the Arabs.
Cracking bit of BBC Newsnight smeary stuff...just had Newsnight "fact checker" on R5 and he basically smeared a load of non-doms as people with dodgy backgrounds, who got their money by dodgy means and are only here to launder their money. Of course, Mr Fact Checker can't back that up with any hard facts.
Page 6 - look at the unweighted 2010 and 2015 numbers.
It looks like they had a real struggle finding 2010 Labour voters
I wonder if Ed Balls can tell us how many overseas students studying in the UK, also applied for Nom-Dom status when applying for a student visa. #BS
Can your house not be seen from the till queue in Budgens at all?
Unless there is some reason it has swung Labour in the past few months.
Good core vote stuff, the BBC would run with it, plus they'll be able to find an independent expert from, say, Unite to stand up and bray that it's a good thing.
Winner all round!
20 seats - all really have a swing of 5%. Poll all 20. 10 you get a lower swing than 5%. 10 seats you get higher than 5%. But that's all random - they all really have a swing of 5%.
Now poll 10 again. The fact you choose the 10 which got lower than 5% first time is irrelevant if there is no systemic variation.
Ultimately comes down to whether you believe there is systemic variation or not.
I'm sure we're all terrified in case he moves abroad!
Now if Ed Miliband was talking about addressing this situation of people just inheriting this status, I think that would be very sensible. But of course, like ZHC, rather than talk about reform, he just as the QC on the radio said not so much baby out with the bath water, more all the toys out of the pram.
I run around in a 13 year old Fiesta which suits me perfectly for the 5k miles I do a year.
Labour should bang away at this one. Even Tom Bradbury sounded disgusted. It's Labour's first guaranteed vote winner
Apparently it is the loan with option to buy / upgrade that have been driving a lot of new interest.
In other words I would expect some regression to the mean.
London Harrow East 5.5
S East Hove 5.0
N West Morecambe 4.0
N East Stockton Sth 3.0
Y+H Pudsey 2.0
N West Blackpool N 0.5
S West Gloucester 0.5
E Mids Loughborough -0.5
W Mids Kingswood -2.0
Presumably, for these 6000 or so, that "difference" will be greatly more than £90000.
He always seems constantly in one legal battle or another, be it personal, business or football related, and all through the British courts.
If that's all he'd suggested, fine by me - it's the kitchen sink absolutism of *abolishing* that made it a firestorm. And the language was crap if he didn't actually mean it either.
5:57PM
And the FT reckons Nicola dropped a clanger last night
Yes masterly from Labour in Scotland. They lose almost all of their seats to the NATS but still get into power with SNP support. Thus the Labs in Scotland become redundant and the SNP are in power at local, Scots and Westminster level.
Magnificent strategy from Milliband using the obnxious Murphy as his foil. Putting in someone so disliked that he can't move Labour in the polls at all after 4 months and has 4 weeks to go.
This is truly a masterstroke discovered by the FT who are sull of such clever people with such great knowledge of Scotland - just like the BBC. .
I won't over think it.
"People will be interested when there is insufficient to run the NHS "
Perhaps we could prevail on the Queen to genuflect infront of Goldsmith and Abramovich to see if she can persuade them to remain resident here
The BBC news was peddling a recent interview with Ed Balls where is confidently said that removing non dom status would cost the economy money. This was presumably in the context of 'would labour scrap it'?
Did Ed speak to Ed before this announcement?
When questioned today Ed M dodged the issue and said they had 'found a way'. Ha.
I saw a headline in The Guardian which said labour were going to 'take on' the non doms.
'Take on'? Whats all that about? Running the country is not a boxing match. You cannot round up and herd don doms like taking sheep to the abattoir. The non doms will be taking themselves and their businesses and their local tax and their spending power on the first flight out. The overseas earnings will stay where they are.
Some people will remember Dennis Healey promising to make the pips squeak for the rich. We all know how that ended.
Meantime even as I type we see a shocking Labour PPB weaponising the NHS. Anyone would think the Lying Labour Party created the NHS.
"You just keep repeating the misinformation about Zac Goldsmith. I mean he never likes to sue anybody."
Francis. It has been on ITV News in the last ten minutes. It's their job to fact check not mine. Where do you get your information?
They could garner far better coverage by putting forward a list of 5 affordable and popular policies any party can put in place to gain their vote for a Queen's Speech, and challenge the other parties to explain why they're not a good idea.
Actually that goes for UKIP too, if they came out and said 'Here are our 5 demands for backing a QS', hacks would then wander around asking every Labour and Tory spokesperson to rule out agreeing to them. If they don't you gain credibility, if they do they're opposing a popular policy. Even if they nick your policy you can claim it as an achievement and say 'vote us to ensure they stick to it'.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/nondoms-who-they-are-and-why-labour-wants-to-scrap-their-tax-privileges-10161739.html
want any more?
You know this thing you are using called the interweb, there is a site called google, its amazing, it lets you fact check things yourself.
It was a big story 6 years ago, when Labour were again going on [selectively] bash the non-doms at the time like Goldsmith and Ashcroft, just don't mention the Labour ones.
Are you sure they didn't say "USED TO" and you got all over excited?
Lets not rubbish new car buying. We make a lot of good new cars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r9Laslf4hc
http://tinyurl.com/kckkedj
The Lib Dems are an irrelvance in Scotland, soon to be consigned to the dustbin of history.
Meanwhile 48% of Scots want another referendum within five years.
Of course any group of people can form a party - I notice that the Christian People's Alliance and the Christian Party [very Life of Brian] are fighting on two different platforms but are planning to merge AFTER the GE. I'm lost re the logic here.
They've got about 200 followers on Twitter put together, but fielding about 20 candidates.
Ed1 opens his mouth and the collective right wing noise machine stamps its feet and goes waaaaaaaahhhhhhhh.
Ed2 is a complete knob and has to be sent elsewhere if EMWNBPM becomes PM.
Reform of this 200 year old law makes great sense to wage slaves like me. Good call. If the Americans can manage without so can we; London will still be the city where wealthy people want to live.
I agree it won't all be random. But I personally don't think it'll be entirely systemic either.
How much of each? Who knows!
Doesn't matter how many votes it takes.
Lord Noon is on the BBC, part of a piece on non-doms. Is that the same Lord Noon who gave nearly £116k to Lab under EdMiliband?
Labour press office likewise.
Ed said there were 'experts'. Where are they? Only one, a Labour supporter in fact who has been forced to admit “I accept DTCs could have some impact. There’s plainly some uncertainty about the numbers.”
Bit of an omnishambles from labour. Or as the BBC have said 'its all gone pear shaped' !! I recommend looking up Ed M's response to the question about Balls' comment at the press conference. It gives a clear indication of what he looks like when he stands upright and tells barefaced lies. Useful to know.
Think of a 'number' and double it seems to be Labour's main campaign promise.
The only way to stop any further Referendum is to vote Yes.
i) If legitimate (and born in the father's lifetime) that will be the domicile of the father
ii) If illegitimate (or born after the father's death) that will be the domicile of the mother
iii) If a foundling, the place determines the domicile
They give the impression that these policies were scribbled onto a blank sheet of paper and not discussed fully before announcements were made.
ZHC and Non Doms are the most obvious.
Then the party spokesmen can't support them with facts that are believable.
What I struggle to understand is the motivation of the Greens in that they've been seduced by the ultra-left protest vote who'd vote for anyone who slags off Labour from the left for actually trying to govern a real country rather than an abstraction from an A-Level politics lesson. It's totally distracted from what should be their core message about the environment, which if you believe the scientists should be a fairly popular one. While it may put on a percentage point or two on election day or gain you a few members, in the long-term it will destroy the party as those who sign up demand it stays on the hard-left even if that means it's impossible to have an ounce of credibility about the vaguely sensible important things you'd like to achieve. If every Green interview started with a question on a plausible policy rather than 'you've got hundreds of billions of pounds unaccounted for', they might not always resemble an M6 pile-up.