Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Policies not leadership will win this election
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Policies not leadership will win this election
Last night saw the the emergence of a major policy announcement by both the Tories and Labour, these can be seen as the appetising hors-d’oeuvre before the main course that is the manifesto launches in the early part of this coming week.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The last two opinion polls for the election this year show dramatically different pictures.
Metroscopia has: Whle NC-Report has: Someone is going to end up with egg on their face in November...
We always need to be careful when taking at face value what people say in polls. If asked whether they are more interested in policies than leaders people will say policies. That doesn't mean they are. At least subliminally. Come election day like it or not people vote not just for a local MP but for who they most trust to run the country.
Anyhow will be interesting to see what happens next week with post easter shakedown. Someone made a point yday that if policies like IHT had been in the budget it would now be law whereas in the manifesto it means people need to vote for it to happen. I'm still unconvinced the budget was good for the tories but I'm getting the feeling things are moving their way.
With the election now less than four weeks away and receipt of postal voting papers due to hit the doormats imminently, wouldn't now be an ideal opportunity to test the political temperature again to determine whether PB.com's effective Wisdom Index has moved to any significant extent over the intervening period?
This might not only be of interest but also prove to be a valuable betting tool for those of us so inclined.
I'm not sure your interpretation of Andulacia is correct. Andulacia in the far south of Spain is one of the poorest and most negatively affected by the Eurozone crisis. It has been a PSOE stronghold for a very, very long time, with them regularly polling more than 50% of the vote.
The 2012 local elections there saw the PP creep above the PSOE for the first time. Their drop in support in 2015 was - to a large extent - just a return to normality. Also, I didn't see any polls for the Andulacia local elections, so I'm not sure where your contention that the PP did much worse than forecast came from.
Really, the big surprise in Andulacia was that Podemos, which should have done really well in a region with unemployment of 42%, got just 15% of the vote.
Cameron -3 (-4)
Miliband -25 (+3)
Clegg -37 (-4)
Farage +6 (-12)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/oqslggwc4a/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-110415.pdf
Ending higher rate relief for everybody is quite a large tax rise. It would make pensions a poor savings scheme for all above the 40% rate. Punishment of the thrifty again.
Which also brings the thought. Fewer investors in private pensions combined with the pensions freedoms of last week means far fewer purchasers of government gilts. Are governments about to kill off their own source of borrowing?
I am increasingly confident that UKIP will flop on May 7th. The UKIP manifesto launch may well be the decider. It is likely to be a mess.
Cameron -3 (-4)
Miliband -25 (+1)
Clegg -37 (-4)
Farage +6 (-12)
IHT was blocked by lib dems which allowed them to differentiate over election, but I think Labour are in the lead on crazy envy policies.
"Ending higher rate relief for everybody is quite a large tax rise. It would make pensions a poor savings scheme for all above the 40% rate. Punishment of the thrifty again."
It's always been unfair to give more relief to higher earners than to lower ones but more importantly now that pension limitations don't exist I wonder whether any tax relief is appropriate?
As it stands people can save money tax free at their marginal rate with the only proviso that they cant draw it till they're 50.
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/oqslggwc4a/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-110415.pdf
So either of the "3 vs 4" subs, or "sub launched cruise missiles" would fit that bill. Land based systems are vulnerable to first strike.
"On policies, YG has huge majorities for all Labour's controversial tax proposals (64-24 for raising top rate tax, 64-23 for the mansion tax [56-29 in London], 50-25 on non-doms) and "
The only surprising one is non doms because that is clearly the least equitable of all of them. Perhaps it wasn't explained well enough? Anyway plenty of time to explain and re explain and then find a few outrageous csses of abuse of the status
At the margin it is also all part of the calculation of rich people deciding of the UK is worth the hassle, if our economy turns down at the end of the year that could be a decisive no, and the tax take will crater.
"Voters agree other people should pay more tax, so they can get more handouts... shocker!"
Like a lot of Tories I think you underestimate peoples desire for fairness
Surely the most inappropriately named newspaper must be "The Independent"? There is nothing independent about it. It is an unashamed socialist republican rag. However for most people now it seems the nearest they get to reading newspapers (me included) is the likes of the paper review on SKY. I buy my local paper on a Friday. It is overpriced garbage but the only way I can find out who has died across the county.
I would take the point that the sale of my home after my death might enable my grandchildren to have a better chance of getting on the property ladder, but it’s not as if either IHT is at a confiscatory level or anuyonde like me is likely to have so many grandchildren that what they got after my death will be negligible.
Assuming my wife & I don’t spend 20 years in a Care Home, of course!
Anyway "fair" means everyone is treated the same, you clearly don't mean that, you mean "progressive" which is one of those moveable feasts that can mean all things to all people.
ISAs are looking better, money is post tax on the way in, but tax free on the way out.
Replace with something as powerful: 38 (+7)
Replace with something cheaper: 28 (-1)
Scrap altogether: 19 (--5)
Support for getting rid of nuclear weapons is highest in Scotland (35), but a majority of Scots would keep the bomb either in a like for like replacement (28) or as a cheaper version (27).
Do you want an independence referendum before 2020
Yes 39% No 54%
If there was a referendum tomorrow, 51% would vote No; 42% said yes; 6% were undecided; and 1% would not vote.
64% believe Scotland will become an independent nation by the middle of the century, 25% said Scotland wouldn't be independent by then.
Fieldwork 30th of March to the 2nd of April
"I completely disagree with the idea that the public are much swayed by policy announcements."
I think the evidence that even budgets don't shift voting intention suggests you're right. This though has become a joke. I believe Prince Rainier sent Grace 100 roses a day. Compared to George thats sheer parsimony.....
I'm holding out for a Bentley and the way it's going I shouldn't have to wait long
One or two spare rooms for visiting family is reasonable, but four? Such under-occupation is a major feature of the current housing pressure in London.
The government desperately needs to make other investments more attractive compared to housing, to rebalance the economy, instead we are continuing to drift in the wrong direction.
Pretty consistently now, polls that have UKIP doing well have the Conservatives doing poorly, and vice versa.
The charge on my ISA is nil, other than dealing costs of £12 odd per trade. As I buy one boring holding per year and stick with it, that's £12 per year.
By the same token things you have bought with taxed income should not be taxed when you die, and IHT is therefore also highly morally questionable.
However we as a society think that some sort of "redistribution" should occur, so we do have IHT. Osborne's plan to effectively exempt a family home as an exception to this is one many people would support surely, although perhaps not metropolitan champagne socialists...
There should be some trade descriptions' rule which prevents papers recycling old polls in the middle of general election campaigns.
I think the good lord has it right with this bit:
As my focus groups with undecided voters have shown, little of substance is getting through to most people but what they do hear reinforces what they already think about the parties – good and bad
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/04/its-now-too-late-for-tories-or-labour-to-change-what-people-think-about-them/
That is, perceptions of what the parties are like are going to colour how a policy from them will be interpreted, limiting the opportunity for a new policy to change someone's actual view of that party.
F1: found the race most entertaining, but am a bit disappointed with the way the bet turned out.
The problem is this...:
Tomahawk is in draw-down (hence Ozzies recent buys): There are no freebies available to replace the D5 system. There are future systems - vapourware at the moment - to replace short-range conventional systems - Perseus - but that system will a) cost and b) not fulfill the role of a deterrant.
So the options are simple: Extend D5 (or E6?) until 2040, or b) Fund unproven - and expensive - new systems. Any humanoid with a pair of brain-cells would no which answer makes most sense.
The elephant-in-the-room is this: You cannot expect your target to mis-interpret your intentions. Any conventional system must be seen as non-apocalyptic. Your deterrant should present an unambiguously, ckear and present danger to your foe....
ISAs certainly have their uses. I have one myself.
"However we as a society think that some sort of "redistribution" should occur, so we do have IHT. Osborne's plan to effectively exempt a family home as an exception to this is one many people would support surely, although perhaps not metropolitan champagne socialists... "
This hasn't been thought through. Do we really want people to hang on to their over large houses as their families get smaller?
Those even richer may decide to buy as they approach their dotage as a smart way to avoid tax.Houses should not be used as a vote buyer. There are just too many homeless for that.
Mr. Dave, what's the contradiction?
Writing the post-race piece. Mixed feelings. Entertaining race (enjoyed Ericsson and Ricciardo's never-ending duel and the misadventures of Maldonado), but a stroke of bad luck turning a bet red is irksome.
Edited extra bit: Sauber are fourth in the Constructors'. I bet you would've gotten monumental odds on that for three races into the season.
However I wonder whether more widely this plays into the Labour mantra of Conservatives giving "tax breaks for the wealthy" off the backs of the poor and the LibDem claim that spare cash should be directed at the working poor and middle earners?
2. In government they did not cut this tax. Their first act in government was to increase VAT.
However they needed them about 2 years ago to build up a better jump off point for this GE. Instead they subscribed to kippers come home theory and did bugger all to build support. Looking at this juncture of the election that's a seriously bad call.
How anyone can think that these policies would have no effect on the rest of the economy (which seems to be the assumption)?
This isn't a proposal for the rich. They never pay tax anyway.
This is for the middle classes.
But congrats on profitably misreading my article (you probably mistook top 3 in qualifying for top 3 in the race). I ended up with a red race, after backing No Safety Car.
Mr. Dave, VAT's a different tax, and they didn't win a majority.
I dont think the semantics of if it meets the definition of "handout" bothers the votes much who see the contrast with £12bn welfare cuts.
Or actually they don;t see till after GE by the look of it.
Shameful.
Charles said:
» show previous quotes
I pay plenty in taxes, and I'm fine with that.
I just want it to be spent more productively than giving an individual a spare room unless they need it. There is too much need to waste resources like that.
care to comment on Overseas Aid ?
Important announcement by the Greens. The bottom line in return for their support is banning the Grand National
If life has taught me anything it's that politics and punting share a common meme in being about swings and roundabouts. On Friday at Fontwell, money was made and I was already considering Mrs Stodge's steak dinner when THE DRUID'S NEPHEW crashed out of the National so the champers was off the menu.
The usual cheap anti-Miliband jibe from someone down thread this morning - looks a perfectly normal picture to me. There's some good ones of Cameron looking old and tired - whatever happened to "young Dave" ? Nick Clegg still looks on good form as well.
Policy, well, yes. One will freeze your energy prices, the other will freeze your fares. Frankly, I don't believe either of them but as a London commuter, any sense of wage "recovery" has been more than wiped out by fare rises and I don't quite see how, in a deregulated market working on market forces (in which I thought Conservatives believed) we now have the "State" artificially freezing fares. Next thing, they'll be re-nationalising the whole network.
There seemed a twinge of populist desperation about that - now we have this new nonsense about "family allowance". I thought the country was running a large deficit and trying to pay off an enormous debt. Now it seems Osborne is giving it away right, right and centre. The cynic in me wonders why we've heard nothing yet about the detail of public spending cuts - perhaps they will be outlined in the Conservative Manifesto which will doubtless be hailed by some on here as the greatest piece of visionary political thinking and writing since, well, the last Conservative manifesto.
Has this ever been done in the UK? If not would it be legal? I guess you could use a selfie of yourself outside the polling station to do without a receipt.
If the rooms are not in fact spare, then sure someone should be exempted or the policy clarified to make sure such people are not swept up in it, but the principle seems fair. Many things are ideal but not fair to provide - and yes, the rich absolutely should pay more to make things much fairer.
Overseas aid? I'm fine with it in principle, it can do a lot of good, although ti should be much tighter controlled.
"Will your tax avoidance measures cover what Ed Miliband did?"
It would be great PR for Wetherspoons or whoever.