politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It is looking like being 1992 all over again

SystemSystem Posts: 12,216
edited April 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It is looking like being 1992 all over again

Hillary Clinton is today expected to confirm she is running for the Democratic nomination to be the president of the US, effectively firing the starting gun on the 2016 election campaign.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    edited April 2015
    I confidently predict the number of comments about the US election on this thread will struggle to break double figures

    and first
  • Ave_itAve_it Posts: 2,411
    Go 1992!

    We're allriiiiiiiiiiiight!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,964
    Mildly amused that political dynasties are more powerful in the US, whereas the UK (with its monarchy) has less [although they do exist].

    Incidentally, one might argue such a long term trend was important in the decline of the Roman Republic.

    Does the Tea Party and demographic shifts still tilt things against the reds?
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    Interesting piece. I think it will be 1992 in another sense, in that I expect a (strong) 3rd party candidate, but unlike Ross Perot, I suspect it will be a split in the Republican ranks with a Tea Party mark II candidate standing. Boehner really is a Democrat in all but name from everything I read. And also the November 2016 will be 13 months into the global sovereign debt crisis, which makes this all the more likely. I could see Hilary winning with around 43% of the vote, just like Clinton did in 1992.
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    2 GG's standing in Bradford West, was that deliberate on the part of the local Tory party there?!:

    https://yournextmp.com/constituency/66036/bradford-west

    The well known GG appears first though, which is good news as far as Respect are concerned.
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    UKIP top of the ballot paper in Boston and Skegness - a marginal help?

    https://yournextmp.com/constituency/65969/boston-and-skegness
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    just reposting re the IHT discussion last thread and a couple of themes going on - one was about the reported stat that 90% of estates aren't liable to IHT and the other was the lefties IHT concern for non-married parents...


    Always wonder about the stat that says it's 90% that it doesn't apply to - surely that's massively skewed by the first death of a married couple when the estate is just left to the widow?

    the problem comes on the second death.

    as for lefties moaning about IHT issues for non-married parents on this thread, perhaps they'd like to take that up with Darling and Brown who brought in the transferable IHT allowance for marries couples?
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    alex. said:

    I confidently predict the number of comments about the US election on this thread will struggle to break double figures

    and first

    no ones ever won any money betting on US presidential candidates....

    ...

    ...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,955
    hunchman Indeed, Trump will likely run third party if he fails to get the GOP nomination. It is likely to be Clinton v Bush, but Christie has a chance if Bush does not run (perhaps backing Rubio). Rubio is likely GOP VP nominee
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    hunchman said:

    Interesting piece. I think it will be 1992 in another sense, in that I expect a (strong) 3rd party candidate, but unlike Ross Perot, I suspect it will be a split in the Republican ranks with a Tea Party mark II candidate standing. Boehner really is a Democrat in all but name from everything I read. And also the November 2016 will be 13 months into the global sovereign debt crisis, which makes this all the more likely. I could see Hilary winning with around 43% of the vote, just like Clinton did in 1992.

    I don't think Boehner is democrat in all but name. He's stuck with a caucus that is utterly riven with the tea party willing to die on the most ludicrous hills who then blame Boehner for their failure
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,300
    Ave_it said:

    Go 1992!

    We're allriiiiiiiiiiiight!

    Hell yeah!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,137
    edited April 2015
    Hopefully some Pbers took my tip of Jeb Bush for rep nominee at 6 earlier in the year.
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    hunchman said:

    2 GG's standing in Bradford West, was that deliberate on the part of the local Tory party there?!:

    https://yournextmp.com/constituency/66036/bradford-west

    The well known GG appears first though, which is good news as far as Respect are concerned.

    Lucky for UKIP the spoiler party are halfway down the list.

    Is there any evidence that many people make their mind up at the polling station? Would be interesting to know.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    just reposting re the IHT discussion last thread and a couple of themes going on - one was about the reported stat that 90% of estates aren't liable to IHT and the other was the lefties IHT concern for non-married parents...


    Always wonder about the stat that says it's 90% that it doesn't apply to - surely that's massively skewed by the first death of a married couple when the estate is just left to the widow?

    the problem comes on the second death.

    as for lefties moaning about IHT issues for non-married parents on this thread, perhaps they'd like to take that up with Darling and Brown who brought in the transferable IHT allowance for marries couples?

    It affects 10%?

    A stunningly good hit rate among the population compared to zero hours, non dom, bankers bonus, bedroom tax.

    Unmarried? Well get married. It isn't hard. You really don't need to wait to become LOTO to get bullied into it.

    The train fares and IHT policies will be good for the Tories in and around London, shoring up marginals where many have come to accept that Ed wants to tax them to death.

    For every old person worrying about their estate, they will have a number of kids who know it's their future security.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    just reposting re the IHT discussion last thread and a couple of themes going on - one was about the reported stat that 90% of estates aren't liable to IHT and the other was the lefties IHT concern for non-married parents...


    Always wonder about the stat that says it's 90% that it doesn't apply to - surely that's massively skewed by the first death of a married couple when the estate is just left to the widow?

    the problem comes on the second death.

    as for lefties moaning about IHT issues for non-married parents on this thread, perhaps they'd like to take that up with Darling and Brown who brought in the transferable IHT allowance for marries couples?

    IHT take is surely due to rocket both in absolute amounts and in percentage of estates it affects as this is the mother of all fiscal drags. Essentially the allowance had trodden water whilst asset prices have risen and as you rightly point out not that many people die each year (as a percentage of us fortunately ). Basically any house inside the M25 and just about any two bed flat inside the North Circular as well as many three bed houses in many parts of average cities (eg Cardiff where I am) are beyond or nudging that limit. Add in some life assurance and many folk who "have done ok" but are utterly not the "rich" are going to get involved with IHT.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,587
    I really hope Clinton at the least is made to work hard for the nomination, should she get it. Sure, we're going to get another interesting Republican field it looks like, but we've sampled that buffet quite a bit in recent elections, we need the different flavour that should come with a tight Democratic race I think.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    OMG Mrs BJ has just booked a holiday from 6th May to 9th May in Devon. Apparently I am going too.

    FFS the DPM is saved. Apparently I agreed to her booking it for us when on PB earlier.

    Clearly too wrapped up in the IHT thread to listen to the wife.

    At least the farm we are staying on has WIFI but cant imagine the farmer will appreciate my celebrations should EICIPM occur.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,964
    Mr. Owls, you should write a letter to Cameron thanking him for your holiday hand-out.
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    bigjohnowls said:

    OMG Mrs BJ has just booked a holiday from 6th May to 9th May in Devon. Apparently I am going too.

    FFS the DPM is saved. Apparently I agreed to her booking it for us when on PB earlier.

    Clearly too wrapped up in the IHT thread to listen to the wife.

    At least the farm we are staying on has WIFI but cant imagine the farmer will appreciate my celebrations should EICIPM occur.

    My parents were going to be in Cyprus before I told them what was happening on May 7th, in the nick of time. Honestly, some people!!
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Hastily arranging postal votes.

    Must pay attention Bugger Bugger Bugger
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Did Carswell know that he would be the leader of a party with one MP ? Even Caroline Lucas can't say that.
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    kle4 said:

    I really hope Clinton at the least is made to work hard for the nomination, should she get it. Sure, we're going to get another interesting Republican field it looks like, but we've sampled that buffet quite a bit in recent elections, we need the different flavour that should come with a tight Democratic race I think.

    After Iowa in 2008 and Hilary finishing 3rd, I don't think the nomination is as sure a thing for her as many people on here think.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,964
    Interesting little article on South Africa, anger there, and the ANC:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-32248605
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Owls, you should write a letter to Cameron thanking him for your holiday hand-out.

    I mainly blame you Mr Dancer

    Bloody pork chops!!!
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    MP_SE said:

    hunchman said:

    2 GG's standing in Bradford West, was that deliberate on the part of the local Tory party there?!:

    https://yournextmp.com/constituency/66036/bradford-west

    The well known GG appears first though, which is good news as far as Respect are concerned.

    Lucky for UKIP the spoiler party are halfway down the list.

    Is there any evidence that many people make their mind up at the polling station? Would be interesting to know.
    Being top or bottom of the ballot paper is known to have a very slight favourable effect.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,964
    Mr. Hunchman, not my area of interest, but I agree. She's got a lot of baggage, and many of those remarking on the inevitability of her nomination probably said much the same two terms ago.

    Not saying it's impossible, or even unlikely, merely not a guaranteed occurrence.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,137
    surbiton said:

    Did Carswell know that he would be the leader of a party with one MP ? Even Caroline Lucas can't say that.

    I can't see how grassroots UKIP will take to Carswell as leader.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    Recent photographs of Hillary Clinton show a rather barmy looking elderly woman heavily into Botox and plastic surgery. I'm not optimistic of her chances.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,955
    edited April 2015
    Green Party would raise top rate of income tax to 60%, the party could also ban horse and greyhound racing
    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/green-party-plans-raise-top-rate-income-tax-60-1496022
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    If Clegg survives on 3rd recount I will be forced to torch the farm
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,027
    Oh, I assumed this was about our election.

    Anyway, as a long time Hilary fan I think she is now too old and compromised. If she is the Democrat candidate the Republicans will win. If they have any sense they will find sensible woman too but who knows what they will come up with.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    edited April 2015
    welshowl said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    just reposting re the IHT discussion last thread and a couple of themes going on - one was about the reported stat that 90% of estates aren't liable to IHT and the other was the lefties IHT concern for non-married parents...


    Always wonder about the stat that says it's 90% that it doesn't apply to - surely that's massively skewed by the first death of a married couple when the estate is just left to the widow?

    the problem comes on the second death.

    as for lefties moaning about IHT issues for non-married parents on this thread, perhaps they'd like to take that up with Darling and Brown who brought in the transferable IHT allowance for marries couples?

    IHT take is surely due to rocket both in absolute amounts and in percentage of estates it affects as this is the mother of all fiscal drags. Essentially the allowance had trodden water whilst asset prices have risen and as you rightly point out not that many people die each year (as a percentage of us fortunately ). Basically any house inside the M25 and just about any two bed flat inside the North Circular as well as many three bed houses in many parts of average cities (eg Cardiff where I am) are beyond or nudging that limit. Add in some life assurance and many folk who "have done ok" but are utterly not the "rich" are going to get involved with IHT.
    FREE ADVICE

    If you have life assurance, you should put it in a flexible trust - at the very least it avoids potential probate delays on death and it could be IHT efficient too depending on the circumstances. All main insurers provide trust templates, it can be done at the time of taking out the cover or even years down the line and is normally a no-brainer.

    There are times it's not appropriate but generally it's worth doing and is free.

    If you have life or earlier critical illness cover then you want a split trust (so you can benefit if you have a CIC) but you / your estate doesn't if you die!

    Death in service by employers is a different kettle of fishand there you'd probably want a spousal bypass trust set up for any payment.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,027
    edited April 2015
    I have also watched the Scottish stair heid rammy that was on the BBC this morning. Yet another compelling argument against independence. If this is the best our political class can do then we need help from elsewhere.

  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    I fancy Palin if she runs; and thats the question: Will she?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,587
    hunchman said:

    kle4 said:

    I really hope Clinton at the least is made to work hard for the nomination, should she get it. Sure, we're going to get another interesting Republican field it looks like, but we've sampled that buffet quite a bit in recent elections, we need the different flavour that should come with a tight Democratic race I think.

    After Iowa in 2008 and Hilary finishing 3rd, I don't think the nomination is as sure a thing for her as many people on here think.
    It does seem improbable it will be as much of a sure thing as general public perception would have it. She's been in public life for a long time, as Morris says she has a lot of baggage as a result, and although none of the other possibilities are standing out at the moment, the prospect of a newer candidate grasping the public imagination - if obviously not as much as Obama did - seems a genuine risk for her.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,969
    bigjohnowls said:

    If Clegg survives on 3rd recount I will be forced to torch the farm

    If you're in Devon, shoot a dog, it is what the Liberals would want.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    welshowl said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    just reposting re the IHT discussion last thread and a couple of themes going on - one was about the reported stat that 90% of estates aren't liable to IHT and the other was the lefties IHT concern for non-married parents...


    Always wonder about the stat that says it's 90% that it doesn't apply to - surely that's massively skewed by the first death of a married couple when the estate is just left to the widow?

    the problem comes on the second death.

    as for lefties moaning about IHT issues for non-married parents on this thread, perhaps they'd like to take that up with Darling and Brown who brought in the transferable IHT allowance for marries couples?

    IHT take is surely due to rocket both in absolute amounts and in percentage of estates it affects as this is the mother of all fiscal drags. Essentially the allowance had trodden water whilst asset prices have risen and as you rightly point out not that many people die each year (as a percentage of us fortunately ). Basically any house inside the M25 and just about any two bed flat inside the North Circular as well as many three bed houses in many parts of average cities (eg Cardiff where I am) are beyond or nudging that limit. Add in some life assurance and many folk who "have done ok" but are utterly not the "rich" are going to get involved with IHT.
    I live in a 5 bedroom house in Surbiton and also own a 3 bed semi in Chiswick. The Tories have probably helped me.

    However, since Edward Samuel Miliband is going to be PM [ and I shall be voting Labour ], the Tory bribe is just academic.

    By the way, the £1m threshold only applies to the family home or PPR. This could have a profound effect on housing.

    If a couple was living in a £1m house and were prepared to downsize and move to a 2 bed flat and rent out the house, they need to think again.

    From my example, it would make sense for me to live in the more expensive one even if I didn't want to.

    Luckily, the bribe will not be law !
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    bigjohnowls said:

    Hastily arranging postal votes.

    Must pay attention Bugger Bugger Bugger

    Do you want to swap votes with me?

    I've got Bercow, Bercow, Bercow & Kipper.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    MikeK said:

    I fancy Palin

    Really!
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    Hastily arranging postal votes.

    Must pay attention Bugger Bugger Bugger

    Do you want to swap votes with me?

    I've got Bercow, Bercow, Bercow & Kipper.
    Oh dear sounds like a local solicitors firm and UKIP
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,969
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    Hastily arranging postal votes.

    Must pay attention Bugger Bugger Bugger

    Do you want to swap votes with me?

    I've got Bercow, Bercow, Bercow & Kipper.
    Spoil your ballot paper by drawing a phallus and an arrow pointing to it from John Bercow's name.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,955
    kle4 2008 was the tightest Democratic nomination race in history, Sanders is likely to challenge Hillary though
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,955
    DavidL Hillary is the only Democratic who beats the GOP top tier in the polls, she is the only chance of preventing a GOP win, which historically would be the norm after 2 terms of a Democratic president
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,587
    HYUFD said:

    Sanders is likely to challenge Hillary though

    Is he the Rand Paul of the left? I think I read that somewhere once.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    MikeK said:

    I fancy Palin: Will she?

    Well she is a mother of five. But why should that be a hindrance.

    The hindrance is she might be missing a vital organ. It is called a brain !
  • Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,476
    bigjohnowls said:

    MikeK said:

    I fancy Palin

    Really!
    She is quite fit

  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    HYUFD said:

    Green Party would raise top rate of income tax to 60%, the party could also ban horse and greyhound racing
    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/green-party-plans-raise-top-rate-income-tax-60-1496022

    I wonder if they realise that their completely crackpot policies have the potential to undermine the things they genuinely have a chance of influencing and sometimes even have the core arguments on their side (eg. fracking/climate change) if people associate the two under the broad brush of "green issues".
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    I expect that Clinton will win, unless the Republicans have an attack of sanity and select JEB Bush. Then there might be a contest. The thickos of the tea party however would rather loose (again) and stay pure rather than pragmatic.
    The fact than Republicans keep loosing because the tea party would rather lose than be attractive to a majority should send a warning to the usual crowd of thicko tory backbenchers.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    edited April 2015
    surbiton said:

    MikeK said:

    I fancy Palin: Will she?

    Well she is a mother of five. But why should that be a hindrance.

    The hindrance is she might be missing a vital organ. It is called a brain !
    I think personality is important in a woman.

    Don;t tell Mrs BJ i said that or maybe do it might get me out of Devon break.

    Anyone know where i find the Loch BTW
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    welshowl said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    just reposting re the IHT discussion last thread and a couple of themes going on - one was about the reported stat that 90% of estates aren't liable to IHT and the other was the lefties IHT concern for non-married parents...


    Always wonder about the stat that says it's 90% that it doesn't apply to - surely that's massively skewed by the first death of a married couple when the estate is just left to the widow?

    the problem comes on the second death.

    as for lefties moaning about IHT issues for non-married parents on this thread, perhaps they'd like to take that up with Darling and Brown who brought in the transferable IHT allowance for marries couples?

    IHT take is surely due to rocket both in absolute amounts and in percentage of estates it affects as this is the mother of all fiscal drags. Essentially the allowance had trodden water whilst asset prices have risen and as you rightly point out not that many people die each year (as a percentage of us fortunately ). Basically any house inside the M25 and just about any two bed flat inside the North Circular as well as many three bed houses in many parts of average cities (eg Cardiff where I am) are beyond or nudging that limit. Add in some life assurance and many folk who "have done ok" but are utterly not the "rich" are going to get involved with IHT.
    FREE ADVICE

    If you have life assurance, you should put it in a flexible trust - at the very least it avoids potential probate delays on death and it could be IHT efficient too depending on the circumstances. All main insurers provide trust templates, it can be done at the time of taking out the cover or even years down the line and is normally a no-brainer.

    There are times it's not appropriate but generally it's worth doing and is free.

    If you have life or earlier critical illness cover then you want a split trust (so you can benefit if you have a CIC) but you / your estate doesn't if you die!

    Death in service by employers is a different kettle of fishand there you'd probably want a spousal bypass trust set up for any payment.
    A Relevant Life policy can be written in trust though.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    hunchman said:

    UKIP top of the ballot paper in Boston and Skegness - a marginal help?

    https://yournextmp.com/constituency/65969/boston-and-skegness

    Thats a great site. Worth bookmarking.

    I just checked out Fox jr's Constituency (Nowich South) and see the Green candidate is a local councillor and a Jewish Quaker. Interesting!
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL Hillary is the only Democratic who beats the GOP top tier in the polls, she is the only chance of preventing a GOP win, which historically would be the norm after 2 terms of a Democratic president

    Isn't her current status largely down to name recognition compared to other potential Democratic candidates? Hasn't everyone been saying for ages that the Presidential election demographics are strongly favouring the Democrats - if somebody can beat her in the Primaries then they've got to have a big chance in the National poll.

    She'd be a disaster.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,955
    edited April 2015
    kle4 More like the Ted Cruz of the left, anti war, anti Wall Street etc, he was a Socialist before becoming a Democrat
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    surbiton said:

    welshowl said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    just reposting re the IHT discussion last thread and a couple of themes going on - one was about the reported stat that 90% of estates aren't liable to IHT and the other was the lefties IHT concern for non-married parents...


    Always wonder about the stat that says it's 90% that it doesn't apply to - surely that's massively skewed by the first death of a married couple when the estate is just left to the widow?

    the problem comes on the second death.

    as for lefties moaning about IHT issues for non-married parents on this thread, perhaps they'd like to take that up with Darling and Brown who brought in the transferable IHT allowance for marries couples?

    IHT take is surely due to rocket both in absolute amounts and in percentage of estates it affects as this is the mother of all fiscal drags. Essentially the allowance had trodden water whilst asset prices have risen and as you rightly point out not that many people die each year (as a percentage of us fortunately ). Basically any house inside the M25 and just about any two bed flat inside the North Circular as well as many three bed houses in many parts of average cities (eg Cardiff where I am) are beyond or nudging that limit. Add in some life assurance and many folk who "have done ok" but are utterly not the "rich" are going to get involved with IHT.
    I live in a 5 bedroom house in Surbiton and also own a 3 bed semi in Chiswick. The Tories have probably helped me.

    However, since Edward Samuel Miliband is going to be PM [ and I shall be voting Labour ], the Tory bribe is just academic.

    By the way, the £1m threshold only applies to the family home or PPR. This could have a profound effect on housing.

    If a couple was living in a £1m house and were prepared to downsize and move to a 2 bed flat and rent out the house, they need to think again.

    From my example, it would make sense for me to live in the more expensive one even if I didn't want to.

    Luckily, the bribe will not be law !
    The only people it will help are the people who will inherit your estate. You will be dead. If you want to help yourself I suggest downsizing and spending everything thats left in your retirement. Thus the only tax that you will pay is VAT.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,955
    Alex The Greens are now an unashamed left of Labour, anti rich party, they are a long way from the simple eco warriors and organics of old
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,688
    MikeK said:

    I fancy Palin if she runs; and thats the question: Will she?

    I quite fancy her too. But certainly not in the way you are meaning. There again I am getting well into middle age so that might account for my strange tastes.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,955
    Alex No, Biden is the Vice President and loses to Republicans Hillary beats. Demographics help the Democrats so far, the natural swing of the pendulum will favour Republicans in 2016
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Flightpath said:

    surbiton said:

    welshowl said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    just reposting re the IHT discussion last thread and a couple of themes going on - one was about the reported stat that 90% of estates aren't liable to IHT and the other was the lefties IHT concern for non-married parents...


    Always wonder about the stat that says it's 90% that it doesn't apply to - surely that's massively skewed by the first death of a married couple when the estate is just left to the widow?

    the problem comes on the second death.

    as for lefties moaning about IHT issues for non-married parents on this thread, perhaps they'd like to take that up with Darling and Brown who brought in the transferable IHT allowance for marries couples?

    IHT take is surely due to rocket both in absolute amounts and in percentage of estates it affects as this is the mother of all fiscal drags. Essentially the allowance had trodden water whilst asset prices have risen and as you rightly point out not that many people die each year (as a percentage of us fortunately ). Basically any house inside the M25 and just about any two bed flat inside the North Circular as well as many three bed houses in many parts of average cities (eg Cardiff where I am) are beyond or nudging that limit. Add in some life assurance and many folk who "have done ok" but are utterly not the "rich" are going to get involved with IHT.
    I live in a 5 bedroom house in Surbiton and also own a 3 bed semi in Chiswick. The Tories have probably helped me.

    However, since Edward Samuel Miliband is going to be PM [ and I shall be voting Labour ], the Tory bribe is just academic.

    By the way, the £1m threshold only applies to the family home or PPR. This could have a profound effect on housing.

    If a couple was living in a £1m house and were prepared to downsize and move to a 2 bed flat and rent out the house, they need to think again.

    From my example, it would make sense for me to live in the more expensive one even if I didn't want to.

    Luckily, the bribe will not be law !
    The only people it will help are the people who will inherit your estate. You will be dead. If you want to help yourself I suggest downsizing and spending everything thats left in your retirement. Thus the only tax that you will pay is VAT.
    Not quite so simple. My only son is severely autistic. I need to leave behind a life time of funds for his upkeep.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    MikeK said:

    I fancy Palin Will she run?

    Only if you tell her your Brian Williams and you would like to interview her.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,387
    Are we expecting any polls other than YouGov tonight?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,027
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL Hillary is the only Democratic who beats the GOP top tier in the polls, she is the only chance of preventing a GOP win, which historically would be the norm after 2 terms of a Democratic president

    Pure name recognition at this stage I think. The e-mail stories were very damaging.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,964
    Mr. Surbiton, sorry to hear that.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    A lot of people, particularly in England, were surprised by George W Bush and couldn't understand how he beat Al Gore. I tend to think that there is potential for the same to be true in this electoral cycle. Clinton simply isn't as good as Obama at fighting an election campaign, and the air of inevitability that some would claim for her election runs the risk of complacency and entitlement.

    I think it will be hard for her to capture the imagination of the public when she's been part of the scene for about two and a half decades. There's definitely potential for a Republican nominee to claim the mantle of the breath of fresh air that can attract Independents.

    I don't know who that might be, but then I wouldn't have credited George W Bush with much of a chance. Clinton is beatable. She doesn't inspire and I don't think she has wide appeal.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,644
    Personally, I want the last cheque I write to bounce. My interest in IHT is therefore zero.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,969
    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/587325707832930304
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,955
    DavidL No, otherwise Biden would also be leading Republicans like Hillary, he trails them. The e-mail stories hit her ratings a little, but she still leads the GOP field on the whole, it was more a beltway issue
  • NickPNickP Posts: 5
    3% lead for Lab on Yougov tonight.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    OblitusSumMe said:

    A lot of people, particularly in England, were surprised by George W Bush and couldn't understand how he beat Al Gore. I tend to think that there is potential for the same to be true in this electoral cycle. Clinton simply isn't as good as Obama at fighting an election campaign, and the air of inevitability that some would claim for her election runs the risk of complacency and entitlement.

    I think it will be hard for her to capture the imagination of the public when she's been part of the scene for about two and a half decades. There's definitely potential for a Republican nominee to claim the mantle of the breath of fresh air that can attract Independents.

    I don't know who that might be, but then I wouldn't have credited George W Bush with much of a chance. Clinton is beatable. She doesn't inspire and I don't think she has wide appeal.

    But if she is beatable in the National Election then she should definitely be beatable in Democratic Primaries. If she is relying on "only person who can beat the GOP" then it's rather a vulnerable position since it can only worsen through a protracted campaign.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,964
    Mr. P, welcome to the site.

    Rather early for YouGov, isn't it?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    rcs1000 said:

    Personally, I want the last cheque I write to bounce. My interest in IHT is therefore zero.

    It is really more of an interest to those of us with elderly family. One day lad, all this could be yours!

    As the saying goes :"Where there's a will, there's a relative"
  • NickPNickP Posts: 5
    You can get a sneak preview on Yougov site if you root around a bit.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Daily Mirror ‏@DailyMirror 2m2 minutes ago
    George Osborne refuses to answer NHS funding question 18 TIMES in TV interview http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-refuses-answer-nhs-5507896 …

    Small fry compared to the number of refusals to answer where the £12bn welfare cuts will fall
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    NickP said:

    You can get a sneak preview on Yougov site if you root around a bit.

    Really are you sure? Good news if Lab 3pt lead is true
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,964
    Mr. Owls, be fair. He would've only refused it twice if Marr had asked him the same number of times as he asked Harman about the Deed of Variation.
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    A William Cash standing for UKIP in North Warwickshire I see!

    https://yournextmp.com/constituency/66024/north-warwickshire

    At the last election when I told my parents they were in Stone (and voting for the well known William Cash) they didn't believe me, until their polling cards arrived - they're only about 200 yards into the constituency though!
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    foxinsoxuk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Personally, I want the last cheque I write to bounce. My interest in IHT is therefore zero.

    It is really more of an interest to those of us with elderly family. One day lad, all this could be yours!

    As the saying goes :"Where there's a will, there's a relative"
    One remaining elderly parent, living on their own in a big expensive house. They are getting too old to cope on their own. A scenario surely familiar to thousands of families up and down the country. The solution is obvious - sell up and move into a care home or back under the roof of one of their children.

    But... doing this under the "no IHT on the family home" will cost £ hundreds of thousands in subsequent tax on their estate. Tricky.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,955
    Obitus George W Bush had huge access to funds, name recognition and campaigned as a 'compassionate conservative' and was frontrunner from an early stage, and still lost the popular vote in 2000. The GOP field is divided and generally pretty average, it will be close, but Hillary can win, indeed the candidate she most resembles is Nixon in 1968
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,955
    edited April 2015
    Alex Unless and until another Democrat starts beating Republicans in the polls she will be nominee
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,710
    Labour out of touch. Voters say inheritance tax most unfair:

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/19/inheritance-tax-most-unfair/
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    I see UKIP got a candidate to stand in Durham NW in the end then. My recollections of Bruce Reid was an awkward left arm Australian seamer from the 1980's!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,710
    edited April 2015
    NickP said:

    You can get a sneak preview on Yougov site if you root around a bit.

    The latest poll on there is the Sunday Times poll from yesterday.

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/categories/voting-intention/

    Do you have a link to where you got your preview?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Owls, be fair. He would've only refused it twice if Marr had asked him the same number of times as he asked Harman about the Deed of Variation.

    I would have asked about IHT (Incredible Handout Tax) TBF
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,710
    bigjohnowls said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Owls, be fair. He would've only refused it twice if Marr had asked him the same number of times as he asked Harman about the Deed of Variation.

    I would have asked about IHT (Incredible Handout Tax) TBF
    Please, ask all you like. This is a trap the Conservatives will be all too happy for Labour to fall into and oppose.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,964
    Mr. Owls, hand-out tax? The government not claiming as much isn't a hand-out.

    You responded to my pork chop hand-out post, but didn't acknowledge the basic truth of it. Cutting a tax isn't a government hand-out, anymore than me refusing to steal your lunch is the same as me giving you lunch.
  • NickPNickP Posts: 5
    https://yougov.co.uk/#/centre

    In red top corner...the graphics get updated later.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    alex. said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    A lot of people, particularly in England, were surprised by George W Bush and couldn't understand how he beat Al Gore. I tend to think that there is potential for the same to be true in this electoral cycle. Clinton simply isn't as good as Obama at fighting an election campaign, and the air of inevitability that some would claim for her election runs the risk of complacency and entitlement.

    I think it will be hard for her to capture the imagination of the public when she's been part of the scene for about two and a half decades. There's definitely potential for a Republican nominee to claim the mantle of the breath of fresh air that can attract Independents.

    I don't know who that might be, but then I wouldn't have credited George W Bush with much of a chance. Clinton is beatable. She doesn't inspire and I don't think she has wide appeal.

    But if she is beatable in the National Election then she should definitely be beatable in Democratic Primaries. If she is relying on "only person who can beat the GOP" then it's rather a vulnerable position since it can only worsen through a protracted campaign.
    She's already lost one Democratic Primary campaign, so she is certainly beatable.

    Right now I get the feeling that her campaign are trying really hard to make her nomination seem inevitable to scare off any serious competition. They might succeed.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    alex. said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Personally, I want the last cheque I write to bounce. My interest in IHT is therefore zero.

    It is really more of an interest to those of us with elderly family. One day lad, all this could be yours!

    As the saying goes :"Where there's a will, there's a relative"
    One remaining elderly parent, living on their own in a big expensive house. They are getting too old to cope on their own. A scenario surely familiar to thousands of families up and down the country. The solution is obvious - sell up and move into a care home or back under the roof of one of their children.

    But... doing this under the "no IHT on the family home" will cost £ hundreds of thousands in subsequent tax on their estate. Tricky.
    I agree. It is not a tac cut that applies to me. My folks are fairly healthy (my 79 year old mother still beats me at tennis, but then she does have more experience of the game). Their Romsey house is probably well under the limit so not likely to be affected.

    I do not expect to inherit in the near future. None of my Grandparents died before their 86th birthday and one made it to 98, and I hope my own parents go at least as long.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    edited April 2015
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mildly amused that political dynasties are more powerful in the US, whereas the UK (with its monarchy) has less [although they do exist].

    Incidentally, one might argue such a long term trend was important in the decline of the Roman Republic.

    Does the Tea Party and demographic shifts still tilt things against the reds?

    Yes it is mildly amusing. Does a regularly cuckolded wife count as part of a dynasty?
    The US President was effectively designed as an elected monarch.

    The Americans are certainly polite - the younger brother patiently waits his turn.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    edited April 2015
    NickP said:

    https://yougov.co.uk/#/centre

    In red top corner...the graphics get updated later.

    Wow never knew that.

    Thanks tonights YG - EICIPM
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited April 2015
    What a perverse world we live in where people keeping their own hard earned is called a handout while being asked to pay their rent is called a tax.

  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    edited April 2015
    The only actuary that I know for sure is standing at this election is Paul Kennedy for the Lib Dems in Mole Valley. He had an interesting page article in our profession's magazine last month.

    Has Neil been on here of recent times? We might not agree about much, but his sense of humour is very funny
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    If Hilary runs she wins both the nomination and the presidency and probably for two terms.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,027
    OblitusSumMe said:

    alex. said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    A lot of people, particularly in England, were surprised by George W Bush and couldn't understand how he beat Al Gore. I tend to think that there is potential for the same to be true in this electoral cycle. Clinton simply isn't as good as Obama at fighting an election campaign, and the air of inevitability that some would claim for her election runs the risk of complacency and entitlement.

    I think it will be hard for her to capture the imagination of the public when she's been part of the scene for about two and a half decades. There's definitely potential for a Republican nominee to claim the mantle of the breath of fresh air that can attract Independents.

    I don't know who that might be, but then I wouldn't have credited George W Bush with much of a chance. Clinton is beatable. She doesn't inspire and I don't think she has wide appeal.

    But if she is beatable in the National Election then she should definitely be beatable in Democratic Primaries. If she is relying on "only person who can beat the GOP" then it's rather a vulnerable position since it can only worsen through a protracted campaign.
    She's already lost one Democratic Primary campaign, so she is certainly beatable.

    Right now I get the feeling that her campaign are trying really hard to make her nomination seem inevitable to scare off any serious competition. They might succeed.
    Tbf she was pretty unlucky the last time. Obama has been a very ordinary president but he was probably the greatest campaigner/candidate that the US has seen since the war. His victory against her was far more remarkable than anything he achieved thereafter.

    But it was 8 years ago. There is a time and a place and I fear it has passed.
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    JackW said:

    If Hilary runs she wins both the nomination and the presidency and probably for two terms.

    Can't agree on that Jack - she'll get routed in 2020 assuming she makes it through to then....as anyone winning the presidency in 2016 will.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,955
    Oblitus Bernie Sanders will challenge her regardless on an anti-war, anti-Wall Street ticket and get about 25-30% of the Democratic primary vote
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,568
    Several people locally tell me they are looking for vote-swapping partners on this site,

    http://voteswap.org/

    ingeniously designed to make it possible to maximise the Green vote while delivering non-Tory MPs.:
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/587325707832930304

    Tosser, toss thyself (to Boris not TSE).

    By the way, for avoidance of doubt, the poster NickP is not me. I'm sure he's fine, but wouldn't want any confusion.



  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,964
    Mr. Chestnut, indeed, calling decreased tax a hand-out is certainly an abuse of language.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    DavidL said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    alex. said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    A lot of people, particularly in England, were surprised by George W Bush and couldn't understand how he beat Al Gore. I tend to think that there is potential for the same to be true in this electoral cycle. Clinton simply isn't as good as Obama at fighting an election campaign, and the air of inevitability that some would claim for her election runs the risk of complacency and entitlement.

    I think it will be hard for her to capture the imagination of the public when she's been part of the scene for about two and a half decades. There's definitely potential for a Republican nominee to claim the mantle of the breath of fresh air that can attract Independents.

    I don't know who that might be, but then I wouldn't have credited George W Bush with much of a chance. Clinton is beatable. She doesn't inspire and I don't think she has wide appeal.

    But if she is beatable in the National Election then she should definitely be beatable in Democratic Primaries. If she is relying on "only person who can beat the GOP" then it's rather a vulnerable position since it can only worsen through a protracted campaign.
    She's already lost one Democratic Primary campaign, so she is certainly beatable.

    Right now I get the feeling that her campaign are trying really hard to make her nomination seem inevitable to scare off any serious competition. They might succeed.
    Tbf she was pretty unlucky the last time. Obama has been a very ordinary president but he was probably the greatest campaigner/candidate that the US has seen since the war. His victory against her was far more remarkable than anything he achieved thereafter.

    But it was 8 years ago. There is a time and a place and I fear it has passed.
    I think so too. Can OGH tip us a 50/1 outsider who can beat her?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,955
    Alex You can pay a lump sum and get an immediate need annuity to cover social care costs for the rest of your life
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    I would class a tax cut I received as a handout.

    Tis a free world if you don;t want to Mr Dancer
This discussion has been closed.