If Labour are going to fine people for the perfectly legal act of tax avoidance, would they please list all the other perfectly legal activities they intend to fine us for?
To be fair, they've already announced the You Must Debate With Ed Act 2016.
That, as we know, will contain a clause of imprisonment for any interviewer who asks Ed afterwards on an open mic if he's just shat himself on stage.
Part 1 of the equation, requiring the Tories to take 2% off UKIP may be taking place, but Part 2 , involving the LibDems taking 2% off Labour also has to happen before Dave & Co. have any chance of winning the GE. Meanwhile, Chris Hanretty & Others' latest 2015 UK Parliamentary Election Forecast shows Labour on 277 seats, just 4 seats behind the Tories on 281. Interestingly, this projection also shows UKIP winning just one very lonely seat, in sharp contrast to some of the smartest bettors on PB.com who rate the Purples a buy on 5 seats.
The notion that UKIP might only get 1 seat has got me worried. Back in March 2013 I got, via beards, £200 on at 8/1 with Hills that UKIP would get more than one seat. This has been my big banker - guaranteed winnings it seemed. Alas that might not be the case.
I have a feeling that a shock defeat of Nigel Farage could be the story of election night.
I also got a text today from a close friend who (although a life-long sympathesiser) has only just joined the Conservatives in the past 12 months. He lives in Tonbridge and is getting a lot of encouragement (pressure?) from his local association to get actively involved and help in Rochester and Strood.
The Tories really are throwing absolutely everything at Reckless. He is hated.
"Shock" defeat ? How can something that is expected be termed "shocking" ?
Expectations for UKIP are much higher than GE2010. They've already won two tough by-elections in Tory held seats.
If their leader, who has a strong national profile and bags of charisma, fails to win Thanet South that is exactly how the media will portray and report it.
Its a fair policy. One which I only wish I could benefit from. One day soon no doubt all the parties will produce a manifesto instead of trickling out policies on a 'I dare you to trump this' basis.
'Yesterday night I went to some friends for dinner and as I left I asked who they thought would win the election? They answered that Labour had a huge problem.
"What" I asked?
"Their leader is rubbish".
Make your mind up ,yesterday you were telling us of Eds' love-in.
'I've just heard from some people who met Ed in Edinburgh this evening and they said 'he's quite delightful'. That's enough for me. I think things might turn in Scotland'
On a more scientific basis what is the feedback from your barber & most recent taxi driver?
I'm going to ask my Aunt Doris. She'll know for sure
No need - I have settled this in a rigorous scientific experiment.
My German Shepherd Heidi, the Canine Prognosticator, went out this morning for her usual dump in my back yard.
An hour later, about a foot away from her morning movement I put a photo of Ed Miliband with a dog biscuit on it. I then let her out. She sniffed the dog biscuit and then went to sniff her dump, and would have eaten it if I hadn't stopped her in the nick of time.
Conclusion - HSEIC - Heidi says Ed Is Crap.
QED
You can't argue with science .....
Science talks again. I kid you not, but Dawkins- he that puts science and rationality above all else- was quoted as saying Romney would not win the election because his pooch (Tycho) allegedly ran out of the lounge when Romney was delivering his primary victory speech on TV.
If justin was born before 1978 he is, de jure born in the Kingdom of England. His status if born after 1978 is more open to interpretation of the Interpretation Act 1978 which defined England as being a certain geography and Wales as being a certain distinct geography.
However the Interpretation Act did not dis-establish the concept of England and Wales which still exists and can be taken to be the Kingdom of England to this day.
I bow to your superior knowledge. I thought you were getting confused with Monmouthshire.
Anyway isn't Berwick still at war with Russia or something because it was left off some treaty in the eighteenth century when it wasn't officially Scottish or English. Or am I just making that up?
'Yesterday night I went to some friends for dinner and as I left I asked who they thought would win the election? They answered that Labour had a huge problem.
"What" I asked?
"Their leader is rubbish".
Make your mind up ,yesterday you were telling us of Eds' love-in.
'I've just heard from some people who met Ed in Edinburgh this evening and they said 'he's quite delightful'. That's enough for me. I think things might turn in Scotland'
On a more scientific basis what is the feedback from your barber & most recent taxi driver?
I'm going to ask my Aunt Doris. She'll know for sure
No need - I have settled this in a rigorous scientific experiment.
My German Shepherd Heidi, the Canine Prognosticator, went out this morning for her usual dump in my back yard.
An hour later, about a foot away from her morning movement I put a photo of Ed Miliband with a dog biscuit on it. I then let her out. She sniffed the dog biscuit and then went to sniff her dump, and would have eaten it if I hadn't stopped her in the nick of time.
Conclusion - HSEIC - Heidi says Ed Is Crap.
QED
You can't argue with science .....
Science talks again. I kid you not, but Dawkins- he that puts science and rationality above all else- was quoted as saying Romney would not win the election because his pooch (Tycho) allegedly ran out of the lounge when Romney was delivering his primary victory speech on TV.
@David_Cameron: The home that you've worked and saved for belongs to you and your family. We'll help you pass it on to your children. http://t.co/UKw0CVTBwZ
Next Labour Policy.
As the Tories have defined a family home as one worth less than £1m, we are now intending to implement the Mansion Tax on all property valued over £1m. Thanks to the Conservative definition we know this will only effect the super rich and family won't be burdened by more tax.
If justin was born before 1978 he is, de jure born in the Kingdom of England. His status if born after 1978 is more open to interpretation of the Interpretation Act 1978 which defined England as being a certain geography and Wales as being a certain distinct geography.
However the Interpretation Act did not dis-establish the concept of England and Wales which still exists and can be taken to be the Kingdom of England to this day.
I bow to your superior knowledge. I thought you were getting confused with Monmouthshire.
Anyway isn't Berwick still at war with Russia or something because it was left off some treaty in the eighteenth century when it wasn't officially Scottish or English. Or am I just making that up?
Berwick was incorporated into England and Wales by the Berwick and Wales Act 1746 and into England under the Interpretation Act 1978. The status of these acts in terms of the Treaty and Acts of Union is open to its own interpretation, although that is not likely to be of any issue until the Union is dissolved.
Would not be in the least bit contentious in the unlikely event of a dissolution of the Union (in 40 years time, after a successful Yes vote in a referendum - something very unlikely given the further decline of oil revenues).
Berwick is part of England, people of Berwick would not be voting in aforementioned referendum. No plebiscite a la Gdansk, no transfer without it. What is part of England at the time of referendum would remain, what is part of the provincial government would become independent.
If Labour are going to fine people for the perfectly legal act of tax avoidance, would they please list all the other perfectly legal activities they intend to fine us for?
Cameron's angle. Looks like the allowance will be tapered back down to 325k a piece for any family homes worth over 2.35m as well:
Cameron: “This is a tax that is meant to be paid by the rich and not by hard-working families who have saved to buy a home and improve it.”snip
snip
snip
Its a fair policy. One which I only wish I could benefit from. One day soon no doubt all the parties will produce a manifesto instead of trickling out policies on a 'I dare you to trump this' basis.
I think it might have legs. It's been very well politically tested and balanced to be attractive, robust, fair and defensible.
I know I keep saying this but it's very, very George Osborne. That man is pure politics.
Let's see what happens to the polls over the next week.
Any reports on UKIP activity in general. In my seat they seem to have gone missing since the campaign kicked off.
In rural West Devon, no sign of activity (canvassers/leaflets/posters) from any party. At all.
Same here
They've all been helping us over in Torbay!
Had William Hague with us today. He was very urbane.... Maybe he's just demob happy?
Actually I doubt he is demob happy as that's pretty much my experience of him too. I met him at an informal function a few years ago and he was very relaxed, friendly and charming. A pleasure to talk to.
'Yesterday night I went to some friends for dinner and as I left I asked who they thought would win the election? They answered that Labour had a huge problem.
"What" I asked?
"Their leader is rubbish".
Make your mind up ,yesterday you were telling us of Eds' love-in.
'I've just heard from some people who met Ed in Edinburgh this evening and they said 'he's quite delightful'. That's enough for me. I think things might turn in Scotland'
On a more scientific basis what is the feedback from your barber & most recent taxi driver?
I'm going to ask my Aunt Doris. She'll know for sure
No need - I have settled this in a rigorous scientific experiment.
My German Shepherd Heidi, the Canine Prognosticator, went out this morning for her usual dump in my back yard.
An hour later, about a foot away from her morning movement I put a photo of Ed Miliband with a dog biscuit on it. I then let her out. She sniffed the dog biscuit and then went to sniff her dump, and would have eaten it if I hadn't stopped her in the nick of time.
Conclusion - HSEIC - Heidi says Ed Is Crap.
QED
You can't argue with science .....
Science talks again. I kid you not, but Dawkins- he that puts science and rationality above all else- was quoted as saying Romney would not win the election because his pooch (Tycho) allegedly ran out of the lounge when Romney was delivering his primary victory speech on TV.
And you cannot get more scientific than Dawkins.
Here is a link to Dawkin's Tycho- the great political sage of our age. I wonder what Tycho would make of Miliband or Farage.
'I see Andy Murray has got married in Dunblane Cathedral.Apparently in Scotland it is being treated as the wedding of the year. Find it strange that a couple that have been ‘living in sin’ for over six years end up having a white church wedding. It seems rather hypocritical and it surprises me that the clergy agree to carry out such services the effect of which is to bring the church into disrepute.'
Pulupstar 'Christ that's out the fifties playbook ! '
It's actually nothing of the kind. Churches would not have behaved like this in the 70s and 80s.
CoS first ordinated a female minister in 1969. It has always been far more progessive than the psuedo-Roman church down south.
Or the Roman Church in Scotland ;-)
Though was it the RCs or the Presbyterians who kept homosexuality illegal in Scotland until 1980?
It is worth noting that many English Protestant sects had women ministers in the 17th Century.
The delayed gay rights were entirely due to the Labour Party which were (and to an extent still are) the political wing of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland.
My Scots ancestors were Free Presbyterians, and I still have strong leanings that way. The great seperation of 1834 was in essence a class war. Who decides the minister and doctrine? The Laird or the congregation?
Historically the SNP was much stronger in the areas of Presbyterian Scotland, but recently that seems to have lessened.
1843 surely, unless you mean something other than the Disruption?
That looks like a late model T34/85. Typical of bloody Cameron. Why cannot he take his tiger for a ride on a British tank? It is clear that he favours the EUSSR!.
Cameron's angle. Looks like the allowance will be tapered back down to 325k a piece for any family homes worth over 2.35m as well:
Cameron: “This is a tax that is meant to be paid by the rich and not by hard-working families who have saved to buy a home and improve it.”snip
snip
snip
Its a fair policy. One which I only wish I could benefit from. One day soon no doubt all the parties will produce a manifesto instead of trickling out policies on a 'I dare you to trump this' basis.
I think it might have legs. It's been very well politically tested and balanced to be attractive, robust, fair and defensible.
I know I keep saying this but it's very, very George Osborne. That man is pure politics.
Let's see what happens to the polls over the next week.
The Tories really do want to win this one. Of that there is surely now no doubt,
If Labour are going to fine people for the perfectly legal act of tax avoidance, would they please list all the other perfectly legal activities they intend to fine us for?
So since The Guardian had premature ejaculation the Tories have in fact been ahead in 3 polls, Labour in 1 and 2 have been tied? Or, to put it another way, since 'the day the polls turned' Labour have led in 1 out of 6 polls.
'I see Andy Murray has got married in Dunblane Cathedral.Apparently in Scotland it is being treated as the wedding of the year. Find it strange that a couple that have been ‘living in sin’ for over six years end up having a white church wedding. It seems rather hypocritical and it surprises me that the clergy agree to carry out such services the effect of which is to bring the church into disrepute.'
Pulupstar 'Christ that's out the fifties playbook ! '
It's actually nothing of the kind. Churches would not have behaved like this in the 70s and 80s.
CoS first ordinated a female minister in 1969. It has always been far more progessive than the psuedo-Roman church down south.
Or the Roman Church in Scotland ;-)
Though was it the RCs or the Presbyterians who kept homosexuality illegal in Scotland until 1980?
It is worth noting that many English Protestant sects had women ministers in the 17th Century.
The delayed gay rights were entirely due to the Labour Party which were (and to an extent still are) the political wing of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland.
My Scots ancestors were Free Presbyterians, and I still have strong leanings that way. The great seperation of 1834 was in essence a class war. Who decides the minister and doctrine? The Laird or the congregation?
Historically the SNP was much stronger in the areas of Presbyterian Scotland, but recently that seems to have lessened.
1843 surely, unless you mean something other than the Disruption?
My apologies. I transposed the date. I do mean the great disruption.
Con + LD + DUP would crawl over the line [317] as a minority government
Lab + LD + SNP [305 + 41 conditional support] would be a nightmare: not sure why the LD would want to put themselves in the middle of that...
Straws and clutching comes to mind with your logic here. Tories plus LD's plus DUP needs to be comfortably over 325 to stand a chance of any kind of stability.
Actually I think no one would *want* to be in government in those circumstances.
I was slightly ignoring the SNP in the calculations as I don't think they would be predictable
" @David_Cameron: The home that you've worked and saved for belongs to you and your family. We'll help you pass it on to your children. http://t.co/UKw0CVTBwZ"
Another idiot policy on the back of an envelope from Cameron. Anyone approaching their dotage will be advised to put their money into the biggest fuck off house they can afford to avoid IHT....as if there isn't enough of a housing bubble .................
So since The Observer had premature ejaculation the Tories have in fact been ahead in 3 polls, Labour in 1 and 2 have been tied? Or, to put it another way, since 'the day the polls turned' Labour have led in 1 out of 6 polls.
Mr. B, on the other hand, the Australian start was midnight for you, a far nicer start time than 5am for me.
I rely on my dvr to avoid sleepless nights. This however presents its own set of problems -
1) I can't scan PB after because it's full of spoilers - mainly from you! :-)
2) I have a satellite radio on my bedside table on which I listen to the BBC World Service news every morning. Several times I have inadvertently turned it automatically on while sliding reluctantly into wakefulness, and heard the F1 result on the news.....
I think the races are timed like this because Bernie hates me.....
During the years I've been posting on PB.com, I've learned that the most import aspect about betting of any kind is to concentrate primarily on obtaining VALUE. Yes statistical analysis, logic, intuition, hunches, pure luck, etc all play a part, but the overriding factor is VALUE. Thank you Mike Smithson, PtP and others for teaching me this most absolutely essential lesson. With this in mind, I turn belatedly to my Bet of the Week which I don't necessarily believe will prove a winner, but I am convinced that it at least offers value. If, like me, you are reasonably confident that both the LibDems and UKIP will win between 10% - 12.0% share of the UK vote in the General Election, then you might expect the respective odds as regards which party will attract the greater number to be quite close. However in the market offered by Ladbrokes this is not the case, UKIP are the 2/7 favourites, whilst the LibDems are on offer at 5/2 which is the suggested bet here. Adjusting for the bookies' 6% overround (profit margin), this suggests that UKIP has a 73% chance of emerging as top dog and the LibDems only a 27% chance. I believe is skewed too far towards the Purples, especially if, as some recent polling suggests, they are coming off the boil. Although they remain firm favourites to defeat the Yellow team in terms of the popular vote, if they are both scrapping within only a 2% range then in my view their respective odds should be somewhat closer, perhaps around 60%:40% in favour of UKIP. If I'm right, then there's a hell of a difference between Ladbrokes' 27% chance which they ascribe to the LibDems and my suggested figure of 40%. I suppose the difference all boils down to whether you believe that both parties will ultimately capture between 10% - 12% of the vote. Personally, I'm encouraged by the fact that although in 2010 the LibDems lost a significant number of seats, their share of the vote actually stood up surprisingly well. This is certainly not something you'd want to bet the farm on, more like a fun bet for that odd fiver/tenner. As ever, DYOR.
It made a lot of sense to keep this for the Manifesto. If it were in the Budget then it would already be in place. Now people have to elect a Con majority to make it happen. GOsborneGenius?!
Cameron's angle. Looks like the allowance will be tapered back down to 325k a piece for any family homes worth over 2.35m as well:
Cameron: “This is a tax that is meant to be paid by the rich and not by hard-working families who have saved to buy a home and improve it.”snip
snip
snip
Its a fair policy. One which I only wish I could benefit from. One day soon no doubt all the parties will produce a manifesto instead of trickling out policies on a 'I dare you to trump this' basis.
I think it might have legs. It's been very well politically tested and balanced to be attractive, robust, fair and defensible.
I know I keep saying this but it's very, very George Osborne. That man is pure politics.
Let's see what happens to the polls over the next week.
The Tories really do want to win this one. Of that there is surely now no doubt,
JohnO- my old comrade from back in the day. I can't think of an election that the Tories would want to win more. A liked leader, improving economy, a strong message backed up to the hilt by big money and the press against the 2 Ed's, and a Labour party still identified with the crash. I cannot imagine how the Tories could cope with losing this one- the trauma would be unimaginable, worse than 1997 or 2001 I would imagine. With Labour it is easy- put it down to experience and choose a better leader. Honestly, I cannot see how the Tories would survive a loss intact.
'I see Andy Murray has got married in Dunblane Cathedral.Apparently in Scotland it is being treated as the wedding of the year. Find it strange that a couple that have been ‘living in sin’ for over six years end up having a white church wedding. It seems rather hypocritical and it surprises me that the clergy agree to carry out such services the effect of which is to bring the church into disrepute.'
Pulupstar 'Christ that's out the fifties playbook ! '
It's actually nothing of the kind. Churches would not have behaved like this in the 70s and 80s.
CoS first ordinated a female minister in 1969. It has always been far more progessive than the psuedo-Roman church down south.
Or the Roman Church in Scotland ;-)
Though was it the RCs or the Presbyterians who kept homosexuality illegal in Scotland until 1980?
It is worth noting that many English Protestant sects had women ministers in the 17th Century.
The delayed gay rights were entirely due to the Labour Party which were (and to an extent still are) the political wing of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland.
My Scots ancestors were Free Presbyterians, and I still have strong leanings that way. The great seperation of 1834 was in essence a class war. Who decides the minister and doctrine? The Laird or the congregation?
Historically the SNP was much stronger in the areas of Presbyterian Scotland, but recently that seems to have lessened.
1843 surely, unless you mean something other than the Disruption?
My apologies. I transposed the date. I do mean the great disruption.
Indeed a most interesting heritage. And a fascinating period of history. I've just fished out y copy of 'Johnny Gibb of Gushetneuk' with a mind to rereading it, if you have ever come across that novel (warning, which may not be needed by you: it contains Doric).
As the Tories have defined a family home as one worth less than £1m, we are now intending to implement the Mansion Tax on all property valued over £1m. Thanks to the Conservative definition we know this will only effect the super rich and family won't be burdened by more tax.
When people produce predictions of the SNP taking less than 45 seats I feel they should have to name the seats the SNP aren't taking as a reality check.
As the Tories have defined a family home as one worth less than £1m, we are now intending to implement the Mansion Tax on all property valued over £1m. Thanks to the Conservative definition we know this will only effect the super rich and family won't be burdened by more tax.
You don't live in London, do you?
You don't understand Londoners either.
You're not getting my point.
The Tories have undermined their own argument against the Mansion Tax. Labour are sweeping London anyway, there's plenty of renters and those in flats worth a whole lot less than £2m who will gladly see those they envy hammered by Labour.
" @David_Cameron: The home that you've worked and saved for belongs to you and your family. We'll help you pass it on to your children. http://t.co/UKw0CVTBwZ"
Another idiot policy on the back of an envelope from Cameron. Anyone approaching their dotage will be advised to put their money into the biggest fuck off house they can afford to avoid IHT....as if there isn't enough of a housing bubble .................
... at the same time as poor folk in rUK are no longer allowed a spare bedroom when on the dole, whether in private ir public sector housing. Irrespective of the merits of this last policy, or otherwise (it seems daft where most houses are 2-or 3-bedroom ones), the contrast is going to be flagged up, surely.
Not sure if this has been raised but there was a noble tacit agreement last time that the party which won most seats & votes should get first dibs at trying to form a govt. At least thats how Clegg and LDs portrayed their role.
Providing we get one party winning both seats & votes it would be nice to see the same thing happen again whoever that is. Better for democracy.
Talking of honour please can we be spared the gush about Carswell? He still defected. He still did it at a key time to cause damage and he still forced a by election. Honour might have been quietly resigning the tory whip and standing for ukip in the general election. Fat chance.
Still a million times better than Reckless who deserves every four letter word and more.
That looks like a late model T34/85. Typical of bloody Cameron. Why cannot he take his tiger for a ride on a British tank? It is clear that he favours the EUSSR!.
I'm slightly concerned about what the elephant on the right is doing to the tiger...
'I see Andy Murray has got married in Dunblane Cathedral.Apparently in Scotland it is being treated as the wedding of the year. Find it strange that a couple that have been ‘living in sin’ for over six years end up having a white church wedding. It seems rather hypocritical and it surprises me that the clergy agree to carry out such services the effect of which is to bring the church into disrepute.'
Pulupstar 'Christ that's out the fifties playbook ! '
It's actually nothing of the kind. Churches would not have behaved like this in the 70s and 80s.
CoS first ordinated a female minister in 1969. It has always been far more progessive than the psuedo-Roman church down south.
Or the Roman Church in Scotland ;-)
Though was it the RCs or the Presbyterians who kept homosexuality illegal in Scotland until 1980?
It is worth noting that many English Protestant sects had women ministers in the 17th Century.
The delayed gay rights were entirely due to the Labour Party which were (and to an extent still are) the political wing of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland.
My Scots ancestors were Free Presbyterians, and I still have strong leanings that way. The great seperation of 1834 was in essence a class war. Who decides the minister and doctrine? The Laird or the congregation?
Historically the SNP was much stronger in the areas of Presbyterian Scotland, but recently that seems to have lessened.
1843 surely, unless you mean something other than the Disruption?
My apologies. I transposed the date. I do mean the great disruption.
Indeed a most interesting heritage. And a fascinating period of history. I've just fished out y copy of 'Johnny Gibb of Gushetneuk' with a mind to rereading it, if you have ever come across that novel (warning, which may not be needed by you: it contains Doric).
My Great Great Great Grandfather returned to Scotland from the Colonies to take part in the debates about the disruption. He had been a minister and teacher in Jamaica to the newly liberated slaves.
But while the Free Presbyterians were about half the Congregation, the assets remained with the Orthodox Presbyterians, so he became an itinerent preacher and left Scotland for Australia instead.
If Labour are going to fine people for the perfectly legal act of tax avoidance, would they please list all the other perfectly legal activities they intend to fine us for?
GAAR
Indigestion?
General Anti Abuse Rule
All Labour are doing is suggesting bumping the fines that are levied by the GAAR introduced by this government.
It's not personal. All Cowboy fans deserve the same
Jordan Spieth (currently leading The Masters by 5) is a HUGE Cowboys fan, as I've heard is Ben Crenshaw, who is one year to the day younger than me. I'm better looking than Ben, but you could argue he plays better golf, although my only 2 rounds at Augusta National were completed in less than +32, so maybe that isn't even true :-)
Cameron's angle. Looks like the allowance will be tapered back down to 325k a piece for any family homes worth over 2.35m as well:
Cameron: “This is a tax that is meant to be paid by the rich and not by hard-working families who have saved to buy a home and improve it.”snip
snip
snip
Its a fair policy. One which I only wish I could benefit from. One day soon no doubt all the parties will produce a manifesto instead of trickling out policies on a 'I dare you to trump this' basis.
I think it might have legs. It's been very well politically tested and balanced to be attractive, robust, fair and defensible.
I know I keep saying this but it's very, very George Osborne. That man is pure politics.
Let's see what happens to the polls over the next week.
The Tories really do want to win this one. Of that there is surely now no doubt,
JohnO- my old comrade from back in the day. I can't think of an election that the Tories would want to win more. A liked leader, improving economy, a strong message backed up to the hilt by big money and the press against the 2 Ed's, and a Labour party still identified with the crash. I cannot imagine how the Tories could cope with losing this one- the trauma would be unimaginable, worse than 1997 or 2001 I would imagine. With Labour it is easy- put it down to experience and choose a better leader. Honestly, I cannot see how the Tories would survive a loss intact.
Er, a little less of the "comrade" if you don't mind; we are nasty, brutish and very short! You have Trotsky the Hound, I have Hobbes the vicious hamster.
We'll survive, we always do but I do fear a sharp rightwards lurch and electoral exile until the next David Cameron appears on the scene in about 2023.
The Tories have undermined their own argument against the Mansion Tax. Labour are sweeping London anyway, there's plenty of renters and those in flats worth a whole lot less than £2m who will gladly see those they envy hammered by Labour.
I'm getting your point. It illustrates how little you know about London.
It's also full of well off, right on, public sector types in trendy areas whose fairly mediocre houses are now £1 million. And then there are even more mediocre properties just below that price that will feel threatened,
£1 million in London is £200,000-250,000 up North.
Mansions?
It would be electoral suicide for Labour to hint at reducing the tax level.
Not sure if I have read this increased IT allowance correctly but it appears that any home in excess of £2.35 million will have the allowance removed increasing the IH tax by £260,000. I so very clever politics
No - that's the embago time for the release of YouGov weekday polls for The Sun. Tomorrow's is for The Sunday Times and judging by past experience could surface at any time between now and 6.00am tomorrow.
That looks like a late model T34/85. Typical of bloody Cameron. Why cannot he take his tiger for a ride on a British tank? It is clear that he favours the EUSSR!.
You might be unfair.
It is indeed a T-34-85, probably postwar production or at least reworked. Might be a film shot - there's a chap in a tent with a white logo on his helmet, perhaps a Polish eagle and if so one of the Polish tankies who served with the Red Army. The odd thing is the bedstead on the tank's side. Looks as if the filmmakers were trying to replicate, rather halfheartedly, the improvised spaced armour made of bedsteads and mesh welded onto metal bars which the Red Amry tankers sometimes used in the final battle for Berlin, so there you are ...
"... at the same time as poor folk in rUK are no longer allowed a spare bedroom when on the dole, whether in private ir public sector housing. Irrespective of the merits of this last policy, or otherwise (it seems daft where most houses are 2-or 3-bedroom ones), the contrast is going to be flagged up, surely. "
He really is the last of an out of touch generation of patrician Tories. I really hope we never have to suffer his like again. What sort of 60-70 year old needs to inherit a £2,000,000 'family home' off their parents?
'I see Andy Murray has got married in Dunblane Cathedral.Apparently in Scotland it is being treated as the wedding of the year. Find it strange that a couple that have been ‘living in sin’ for over six years end up having a white church wedding. It seems rather hypocritical and it surprises me that the clergy agree to carry out such services the effect of which is to bring the church into disrepute.'
Pulupstar 'Christ that's out the fifties playbook ! '
It's actually nothing of the kind. Churches would not have behaved like this in the 70s and 80s.
CoS first ordinated a female minister in 1969. It has always been far more progessive than the psuedo-Roman church down south.
Or the Roman Church in Scotland ;-)
Though was it the RCs or the Presbyterians who kept homosexuality illegal in Scotland until 1980?
It is worth noting that many English Protestant sects had women ministers in the 17th Century.
The delayed gay rights were entirely due to the Labour Party which were (and to an extent still are) the political wing of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland.
My Scots ancestors were Free Presbyterians, and I still have strong leanings that way. The great seperation of 1834 was in essence a class war. Who decides the minister and doctrine? The Laird or the congregation?
Historically the SNP was much stronger in the areas of Presbyterian Scotland, but recently that seems to have lessened.
1843 surely, unless you mean something other than the Disruption?
My apologies. I transposed the date. I do mean the great disruption.
Indeed a most interesting heritage. And a fascinating period of history. I've just fished out y copy of 'Johnny Gibb of Gushetneuk' with a mind to rereading it, if you have ever come across that novel (warning, which may not be needed by you: it contains Doric).
My Great Great Great Grandfather returned to Scotland from the Colonies to take part in the debates about the disruption. He had been a minister and teacher in Jamaica to the newly liberated slaves.
But while the Free Presbyterians were about half the Congregation, the assets remained with the Orthodox Presbyterians, so he became an itinerent preacher and left Scotland for Australia instead.
I mustn't go even more off topic (or off track) but is he in the big Hill painting of the Disruption by any chance? Very impressive piece of work when seen in actual life, close up.
Not sure if this has been raised but there was a noble tacit agreement last time that the party which won most seats & votes should get first dibs at trying to form a govt. At least thats how Clegg and LDs portrayed their role.
Providing we get one party winning both seats & votes it would be nice to see the same thing happen again whoever that is. Better for democracy.
I cannot really see that being a problem for anyone, as allowing someone 'first dibs' is pretty easy, in fact requiring no actual action at all. Looking at the Tories, who are more likely to face this issue, they could have most seats and the others could say after being asked, 'We do not want to work with you, try it on your own' and then they would be defeated in short order, but they still had the first attempt at trying to form a government, and then Lab-SNP will do whatever deal they have to.
During the years I've been posting on PB.com, I've learned that the most import aspect about betting of any kind is to concentrate primarily on obtaining VALUE. Yes statistical analysis, logic, intuition, hunches, pure luck, etc all play a part, but the overriding factor is VALUE. Thank you Mike Smithson, PtP and others for teaching me this most absolutely essential lesson. [snip] As ever, DYOR.
An excellent post, Mr Putney. Greatly appreciated by me and, I am sure, other gamblers on the site.
All the tax breaks that Cameron is lavishing on the rich has got to help Ed in Scotland. There will surely come a point that they become so angry with the different treatments of the rich and poor that the imperative to do what's necessary to get rid of him becomes overwhelming
All the tax breaks that Cameron is lavishing on the rich has got to help Ed in Scotland. There will surely come a point that they become so angry with the different treatments of the rich and poor that the imperative to do what's necessary to get rid of him becomes overwhelming
@JohnO- my brutish, dwarfish thug of a Tory- you are right. The Tories always survive. They are the party of survival. I think the loss to Osborne will be personally devastating for him since his vessels pulsate with politics- and the prospect of a May leadership would be a million times harder for him than living with Ed as PM. It could be potentially a double whammy of awfulness, little wonder he will do everything, and I mean everything to avoid this.
'I see Andy Murray has got married in Dunblane Cathedral.Apparently in Scotland it is being treated as the wedding of the year. Find it strange that a couple that have been ‘living in sin’ for over six years end up having a white church wedding. It seems rather hypocritical and it surprises me that the clergy agree to carry out such services the effect of which is to bring the church into disrepute.'
Pulupstar 'Christ that's out the fifties playbook ! '
It's actually nothing of the kind. Churches would not have behaved like this in the 70s and 80s.
The Church of Scotland elsewhere in Scotland, I understand, refuses to marry people who have been living together for the past 30 days. However it will marry them if, although they been living together or a year or more, they separate for the 30 days prior to the wedding!
A minister has the right to choose who they do and do not marry, however this should follow the guidelines set out by the general assembly, which as far as I know have absolutely no bar on cohabiting couples marrying.
Moreover, if the minister does refuse or accept they can be removed from their position by the leity of the parish. It may be that there are some communities where they tell their minister not to marry cohabiting couples but I would expect that to be very, very rare and in such hard c conservative communities most will already be Wee Free or similar offshoot.
I can assure you that there are some Ministers - I am talking about England & Wales here - who would not knowingly marry couples who had aleady had full sexual relations with each other. At the end of the day 'chastity before marriage' is what the Christian Churches are supposed to believe in! Of course many find it impossible to live by that principle but surely such people should not expect the Church to facilitate the hypocrisy of a white wedding. By turning a blind eye the Churches imply that their principles count for nothing and that moral laisser-faire rules ok! As for Ministers refusing to marry cohabiting couples being very, very rare I would respectfully suggest that until - say - the 1980s it was very rare for cohabiting couples to marry in church at all!
Our local priest refused to marry my sister and her husband for that very reason. Dug his heels in. It ended up with him being sick on the day, and the local Bishop standing in (all prearranged, naturally!)
In the 1980s I errr got married in an Irish Catholic Cathedral after um...... (whistles) over 9 years...
I mustn't go even more off topic (or off track) but is he in the big Hill painting of the Disruption by any chance? Very impressive piece of work when seen in actual life, close up.
Personally I'm really enjoying this little diversion. It's something I know little about and I'm hitting the search engines and wiki to read around the topic whilst you are talking.
Headline analysis: CON message getting over well as LAB campaign descends into incoherence LAB doing well in London but no enthusiasm for LAB elsewhere in England Opposition to SNP arrogance grows in Scotland - SNP set to significantly underperform current polls LD doing well in their own seats
Latest projection (change from Tues 07 April): CON 311 +1 LAB 264 +2 LD 34 +2 SNP 18 -5 PC 3 GRN 1 UKIP 1 NI 18
Mike won't like that (311-264-12 = 35 - potential loss £700)
Headline analysis: CON message getting over well as LAB campaign descends into incoherence LAB doing well in London but no enthusiasm for LAB elsewhere in England Opposition to SNP arrogance grows in Scotland - SNP set to significantly underperform current polls LD doing well in their own seats
Latest projection (change from Tues 07 April): CON 311 +1 LAB 264 +2 LD 34 +2 SNP 18 -5 PC 3 GRN 1 UKIP 1 NI 18
Mike won't like that (311-264-12 = 35 - potential loss £700)
I think Mike knows my view of the GE outcome and his are somewhat divergent! Clearly not £700 though as we know Mike is not on for £20 a point!
Headline analysis: CON message getting over well as LAB campaign descends into incoherence LAB doing well in London but no enthusiasm for LAB elsewhere in England Opposition to SNP arrogance grows in Scotland - SNP set to significantly underperform current polls LD doing well in their own seats
Latest projection (change from Tues 07 April): CON 311 +1 LAB 264 +2 LD 34 +2 SNP 18 -5 PC 3 GRN 1 UKIP 1 NI 18
Mike won't like that (311-264-12 = 35 - potential loss £700)
All the tax breaks that Cameron is lavishing on the rich has got to help Ed in Scotland. There will surely come a point that they become so angry with the different treatments of the rich and poor that the imperative to do what's necessary to get rid of him becomes overwhelming
Voting SNP in Scotland gets rid of Cameron every bit as much as voting Labour does.
It has the added benefit of ensuring Miliband can't just implement Tory policies as Labour tend to do.
@ToryTreasury: Labour tax avoidance package mainly things we have already done: GAAR penalties, ending disguised self employment, OTs and CDs etc
The issue with tax avoidance is that those who engage in such activity will have good enough accountants to make sure they don't end up paying stuff. With a tax code that is as complicated as ours, there are always going to be loopholes and mechanisms that those who can will seek to exploit.
Flatter, simpler taxes are the only real way to reduce it. But Balls won't do anything as sensible as that. Indeed he will continue with Ed's campaign based on the politics of envy and 'do as I say not do as I do'
Headline analysis: CON message getting over well as LAB campaign descends into incoherence LAB doing well in London but no enthusiasm for LAB elsewhere in England Opposition to SNP arrogance grows in Scotland - SNP set to significantly underperform current polls LD doing well in their own seats
Latest projection (change from Tues 07 April): CON 311 +1 LAB 264 +2 LD 34 +2 SNP 18 -5 PC 3 GRN 1 UKIP 1 NI 18
Mike won't like that (311-264-12 = 35 - potential loss £700)
Sorry this is garbage, SNP is running strong. seems like wishful thinking on your part to me
Earlier I posted the story of Swastika graffiti on party offices as an example of the bile and hatred shown by SNP supporters.
And the local Cybernats lined up to post bile and hatred in return...
QED
...but perhaps they were hard done by
@NaeBorder: Craig Murray claims MI5 painted swastikas to discredit #SNP. Really? Is that the best they can do? Simply incredible. http://t.co/TJLnDwHQ7e
'I see Andy Murray has got married in Dunblane Cathedral.Apparently in Scotland it is being treated as the wedding of the year. Find it strange that a couple that have been 'Christ that's out the fifties playbook ! '
It's actually nothing of the kind. Churches would not have behaved like this in the 70s and 80s.
CoS first ordinated a female minister in 1969. It has always been far more progessive than the psuedo-Roman church down south.
Or the Roman Church in Scotland ;-)
Though was it the RCs or the Presbyterians who kept homosexuality illegal in Scotland until 1980?
It is worth noting that many English Protestant sects had women ministers in the 17th Century.
The delayed gay rights were entirely due to the Labour Party which were (and to an extent still are) the political wing of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland.
My Scots ancestors were Free Presbyterians, and I still have strong leanings that way. The great seperation of 1834 was in essence a class war. Who decides the minister and doctrine? The Laird or the congregation?
Historically the SNP was much stronger in the areas of Presbyterian Scotland, but recently that seems to have lessened.
1843 surely, unless you mean something other than the Disruption?
My apologies. I transposed the date. I do mean the great disruption.
Indeed a most interesting heritage. And a fascinating period of history. I've just fished out y copy of 'Johnny Gibb of Gushetneuk' with a mind to rereading it, if you have ever come across that novel (warning, which may not be needed by you: it contains Doric).
My Great Great Great Grandfather returned to Scotland from the Colonies to take part in the debates about the disruption. He had been a minister and teacher in Jamaica to the newly liberated slaves.
But while the Free Presbyterians were about half the Congregation, the assets remained with the Orthodox Presbyterians, so he became an itinerent preacher and left Scotland for Australia instead.
I mustn't go even more off topic (or off track) but is he in the big Hill painting of the Disruption by any chance? Very impressive piece of work when seen in actual life, close up.
Is there a key to the painting? I would be interested to have a look for my ancestor. The disruption was a large part of the reason my ancesyltors became part of the Scottish Diaspora.
@faisalislam: As I recall, tax relief for people earning over £150k is worth about £6 billion a year, a fifth of total. This proposal phases it down...
Earlier I posted the story of Swastika graffiti on party offices as an example of the bile and hatred shown by SNP supporters.
And the local Cybernats lined up to post bile and hatred in return...
QED
...but perhaps they were hard done by
@NaeBorder: Craig Murray claims MI5 painted swastikas to discredit #SNP. Really? Is that the best they can do? Simply incredible. http://t.co/TJLnDwHQ7e
You havent seen the pictures of SNP offices being daubed with stuff either I suppose. There are idiots out there on all sides of any argument.
'I see Andy Murray has got married in Dunblane Cathedral.Apparently in Scotland it is being treated as the wedding of the year. Find it strange that a couple that have been ‘living in sin’ for over six years end up having a white church wedding. It seems rather hypocritical and it surprises me that the clergy agree to carry out such services the effect of which is to bring the church into disrepute.'
Pulupstar 'Christ that's out the fifties playbook ! '
It's actually nothing of the kind. Churches would not have behaved like this in the 70s and 80s.
The Church of Scotland elsewhere in Scotland, I understand, refuses to marry people who have been living together for the past 30 days. However it will marry them if, although they been living together or a year or more, they separate for the 30 days prior to the wedding!
A minister has the right to choose who they do and do not marry, however this should follow the guidelines set out by the general assembly, which as far as I know have absolutely no bar on cohabiting couples marrying.
Moreover, if the minister does refuse or accept they can be removed from their position by the leity of the parish. It may be that there are some communities where they tell their minister not to marry cohabiting couples but I would expect that to be very, very rare and in such hard c conservative communities most will already be Wee Free or similar offshoot.
I can assure you that there are some Ministers - I am talking about England & Wales here - who would not knowingly marry couples who had aleady had full sexual relations with each other. At the end of the day 'chastity before marriage' is what the Christian Churches are supposed to believe in! Of course many find it impossible to live by that principle but surely such people should not expect the Church to facilitate the hypocrisy of a white wedding. By turning a blind eye the Churches imply that their principles count for nothing and that moral laisser-faire rules ok! As for Ministers refusing to marry cohabiting couples being very, very rare I would respectfully suggest that until - say - the 1980s it was very rare for cohabiting couples to marry in church at all!
Our local priest refused to marry my sister and her husband for that very reason. Dug his heels in. It ended up with him being sick on the day, and the local Bishop standing in (all prearranged, naturally!)
In the 1980s I errr got married in an Irish Catholic Cathedral after um...... (whistles) over 9 years...
Well the example has been set from the top. How many years were Kate and Wills together before the big do in the Abbey?
"Voting SNP in Scotland gets rid of Cameron every bit as much as voting Labour does."
I don't think it does. I'd guess that whichever of Labour or the Tories gets the most seats will form the government.
Quite simply the Lib Dems will throw in their 30 odd seats behind whichever of those two parties it is.
The SNP will vote against any Conservative Queens Speech.
There is no way that having an SNP MP makes it more likely that there will be a Tory government. I know socialists don't like basic concepts like Arithmetic but on this one, there is no argument you can make. Whatever the Lib Dems do is IRRELEVANT for any SNP/Labour seat. However, the SNP CAN and WILL reduce the Lib Dem numbers and there is no way the Libs will support the Tories again after supporting them cost them 40 odd seats.
The only way Dave can stay in power is if the Labour Party acquiesce to him being PM. I.e. the death of the Labour Party forever.
Comments
That, as we know, will contain a clause of imprisonment for any interviewer who asks Ed afterwards on an open mic if he's just shat himself on stage.
Full disclosure, I like Survation and their Chief Exec a lot.
They've been very helpful to both PB and me.
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/586987623702470656
Its a fair policy. One which I only wish I could benefit from.
One day soon no doubt all the parties will produce a manifesto instead of trickling out policies on a 'I dare you to trump this' basis.
But also according to CCHQ the Mansion Tax on property over £2m is unfair because it will "hit family homes".
I think I see a little problem...
I kid you not, but Dawkins- he that puts science and rationality above all else- was quoted as saying Romney would not win the election because his pooch (Tycho) allegedly ran out of the lounge when Romney was delivering his primary victory speech on TV.
And you cannot get more scientific than Dawkins.
Surbiton:
UKIP will win exactly 1 seat - Clacton.
Surbiton and I agree - first time ever!
As the Tories have defined a family home as one worth less than £1m, we are now intending to implement the Mansion Tax on all property valued over £1m. Thanks to the Conservative definition we know this will only effect the super rich and family won't be burdened by more tax.
Berwick is part of England, people of Berwick would not be voting in aforementioned referendum. No plebiscite a la Gdansk, no transfer without it. What is part of England at the time of referendum would remain, what is part of the provincial government would become independent.
Surbiton and I agree - first time ever!
Watford could go up !
One day soon no doubt all the parties will produce a manifesto instead of trickling out policies on a 'I dare you to trump this' basis.
I think it might have legs. It's been very well politically tested and balanced to be attractive, robust, fair and defensible.
I know I keep saying this but it's very, very George Osborne. That man is pure politics.
Let's see what happens to the polls over the next week.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DynRL9t_2OM
BTW- I have an interest here- Tycho, is our Trotsky's uncle- we did discuss breeding them, but didn't want to end up with six legged puppies.
That looks like a late model T34/85. Typical of bloody Cameron. Why cannot he take his tiger for a ride on a British tank? It is clear that he favours the EUSSR!.
I think it might have legs. It's been very well politically tested and balanced to be attractive, robust, fair and defensible.
I know I keep saying this but it's very, very George Osborne. That man is pure politics.
Let's see what happens to the polls over the next week.
The Tories really do want to win this one. Of that there is surely now no doubt,
To be serious, IHT cuts are not the priority at the moment
Sheffield '92 "We're allllrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight"?
I was slightly ignoring the SNP in the calculations as I don't think they would be predictable
Another idiot policy on the back of an envelope from Cameron. Anyone approaching their dotage will be advised to put their money into the biggest fuck off house they can afford to avoid IHT....as if there isn't enough of a housing bubble .................
1) I can't scan PB after because it's full of spoilers - mainly from you! :-)
2) I have a satellite radio on my bedside table on which I listen to the BBC World Service news every morning. Several times I have inadvertently turned it automatically on while sliding reluctantly into wakefulness, and heard the F1 result on the news.....
I think the races are timed like this because Bernie hates me.....
During the years I've been posting on PB.com, I've learned that the most import aspect about betting of any kind is to concentrate primarily on obtaining VALUE. Yes statistical analysis, logic, intuition, hunches, pure luck, etc all play a part, but the overriding factor is VALUE. Thank you Mike Smithson, PtP and others for teaching me this most absolutely essential lesson.
With this in mind, I turn belatedly to my Bet of the Week which I don't necessarily believe will prove a winner, but I am convinced that it at least offers value.
If, like me, you are reasonably confident that both the LibDems and UKIP will win between 10% - 12.0% share of the UK vote in the General Election, then you might expect the respective odds as regards which party will attract the greater number to be quite close.
However in the market offered by Ladbrokes this is not the case, UKIP are the 2/7 favourites, whilst the LibDems are on offer at 5/2 which is the suggested bet here. Adjusting for the bookies' 6% overround (profit margin), this suggests that UKIP has a 73% chance of emerging as top dog and the LibDems only a 27% chance.
I believe is skewed too far towards the Purples, especially if, as some recent polling suggests, they are coming off the boil.
Although they remain firm favourites to defeat the Yellow team in terms of the popular vote, if they are both scrapping within only a 2% range then in my view their respective odds should be somewhat closer, perhaps around 60%:40% in favour of UKIP.
If I'm right, then there's a hell of a difference between Ladbrokes' 27% chance which they ascribe to the LibDems and my suggested figure of 40%.
I suppose the difference all boils down to whether you believe that both parties will ultimately capture between 10% - 12% of the vote. Personally, I'm encouraged by the fact that although in 2010 the LibDems lost a significant number of seats, their share of the vote actually stood up surprisingly well.
This is certainly not something you'd want to bet the farm on, more like a fun bet for that odd fiver/tenner.
As ever, DYOR.
It made a lot of sense to keep this for the Manifesto. If it were in the Budget then it would already be in place. Now people have to elect a Con majority to make it happen. GOsborneGenius?!
I know I keep saying this but it's very, very George Osborne. That man is pure politics.
Let's see what happens to the polls over the next week.
The Tories really do want to win this one. Of that there is surely now no doubt,
JohnO- my old comrade from back in the day. I can't think of an election that the Tories would want to win more. A liked leader, improving economy, a strong message backed up to the hilt by big money and the press against the 2 Ed's, and a Labour party still identified with the crash. I cannot imagine how the Tories could cope with losing this one- the trauma would be unimaginable, worse than 1997 or 2001 I would imagine.
With Labour it is easy- put it down to experience and choose a better leader.
Honestly, I cannot see how the Tories would survive a loss intact.
You don't understand Londoners either.
The Tories have undermined their own argument against the Mansion Tax. Labour are sweeping London anyway, there's plenty of renters and those in flats worth a whole lot less than £2m who will gladly see those they envy hammered by Labour.
... at the same time as poor folk in rUK are no longer allowed a spare bedroom when on the dole, whether in private ir public sector housing. Irrespective of the merits of this last policy, or otherwise (it seems daft where most houses are 2-or 3-bedroom ones), the contrast is going to be flagged up, surely.
Providing we get one party winning both seats & votes it would be nice to see the same thing happen again whoever that is. Better for democracy.
Talking of honour please can we be spared the gush about Carswell? He still defected. He still did it at a key time to cause damage and he still forced a by election. Honour might have been quietly resigning the tory whip and standing for ukip in the general election. Fat chance.
Still a million times better than Reckless who deserves every four letter word and more.
I'm slightly concerned about what the elephant on the right is doing to the tiger...
But while the Free Presbyterians were about half the Congregation, the assets remained with the Orthodox Presbyterians, so he became an itinerent preacher and left Scotland for Australia instead.
All Labour are doing is suggesting bumping the fines that are levied by the GAAR introduced by this government.
JohnO- my old comrade from back in the day. I can't think of an election that the Tories would want to win more. A liked leader, improving economy, a strong message backed up to the hilt by big money and the press against the 2 Ed's, and a Labour party still identified with the crash. I cannot imagine how the Tories could cope with losing this one- the trauma would be unimaginable, worse than 1997 or 2001 I would imagine.
With Labour it is easy- put it down to experience and choose a better leader.
Honestly, I cannot see how the Tories would survive a loss intact.
Er, a little less of the "comrade" if you don't mind; we are nasty, brutish and very short! You have Trotsky the Hound, I have Hobbes the vicious hamster.
We'll survive, we always do but I do fear a sharp rightwards lurch and electoral exile until the next David Cameron appears on the scene in about 2023.
It's also full of well off, right on, public sector types in trendy areas whose fairly mediocre houses are now £1 million. And then there are even more mediocre properties just below that price that will feel threatened,
£1 million in London is £200,000-250,000 up North.
Mansions?
It would be electoral suicide for Labour to hint at reducing the tax level.
Vetoed by the Lib Dems from the budget, allowing Osborne to present it in the Tory manifesto.
Genius...
You might be unfair.
It is indeed a T-34-85, probably postwar production or at least reworked. Might be a film shot - there's a chap in a tent with a white logo on his helmet, perhaps a Polish eagle and if so one of the Polish tankies who served with the Red Army. The odd thing is the bedstead on the tank's side. Looks as if the filmmakers were trying to replicate, rather halfheartedly, the improvised spaced armour made of bedsteads and mesh welded onto metal bars which the Red Amry tankers sometimes used in the final battle for Berlin, so there you are ...
"... at the same time as poor folk in rUK are no longer allowed a spare bedroom when on the dole, whether in private ir public sector housing. Irrespective of the merits of this last policy, or otherwise (it seems daft where most houses are 2-or 3-bedroom ones), the contrast is going to be flagged up, surely. "
He really is the last of an out of touch generation of patrician Tories. I really hope we never have to suffer his like again. What sort of 60-70 year old needs to inherit a £2,000,000 'family home' off their parents?
They really, really are not fond of Ed.
(Is there anything in it about scrapping benefits to sponger itinerant low achieving idle types - hope so!)
@ToryTreasury: Labour tax avoidance package mainly things we have already done: GAAR penalties, ending disguised self employment, OTs and CDs etc
I announce 1 point plan to save £100bn: stop all benefits except OAPs!
Greatly appreciated by me and, I am sure, other gamblers on the site.
It has the added benefit of ensuring Miliband can't just implement Tory policies as Labour tend to do.
Flatter, simpler taxes are the only real way to reduce it. But Balls won't do anything as sensible as that. Indeed he will continue with Ed's campaign based on the politics of envy and 'do as I say not do as I do'
Not a good message for anyone to be peddling.
I don't agree with Nick. Does anyone? (even Nick?!)
"Voting SNP in Scotland gets rid of Cameron every bit as much as voting Labour does."
I don't think it does. I'd guess that whichever of Labour or the Tories gets the most seats will form the government.
Quite simply the Lib Dems will throw in their 30 odd seats behind whichever of those two parties it is.
@faisalislam: Aha. It is a fairly massive cut in pension tax relief... It will raise more than the £1.05billion cost of IHT cut.... More giveaways.
What other goodies does George have concealed up his sleeves?
And the local Cybernats lined up to post bile and hatred in return...
QED
...but perhaps they were hard done by
@NaeBorder: Craig Murray claims MI5 painted swastikas to discredit #SNP.
Really? Is that the best they can do? Simply incredible.
http://t.co/TJLnDwHQ7e
Remember, Osborne is on Marr tomorrow morning
Dave really need to win a majority, or very close to it in order to stay PM.
There is no way that having an SNP MP makes it more likely that there will be a Tory government. I know socialists don't like basic concepts like Arithmetic but on this one, there is no argument you can make. Whatever the Lib Dems do is IRRELEVANT for any SNP/Labour seat. However, the SNP CAN and WILL reduce the Lib Dem numbers and there is no way the Libs will support the Tories again after supporting them cost them 40 odd seats.
The only way Dave can stay in power is if the Labour Party acquiesce to him being PM. I.e. the death of the Labour Party forever.