politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why polling is so hard – the latest PB/Polling Matters podc

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why polling is so hard – the latest PB/Polling Matters podcast.

In this week’s episode of Polling Matters, Keiran and Rob Ford discuss the perils of polling with Suzanne Ter Minassian of ICM. We look at the BPC inquiry and Lord Foulkes’ plans to regulate the industry alongside the Greek referendum and Labour leadership contests. Suzanne also explains how polling is done in France and the impact of statutory regulation there.

Read the full story here

Philip_Thompson

First - like Osborne

Plato

First runner up

Pulpstar

DavidL said:

Pretty even stevens at the test I would say. Given this number of wickets on day 1 I think a draw is unlikely unless there is some serious rain.

For sure - I think England may well have a marginal advantage actually.

Anyway I'm laying the draw and backing England right now, quite content with that.

RobD

Just catching up with the budget. The master strategist at work?

MikeL

Apologies for going off thread but can anyone answer me a question re the Budget.

My example may appear unrealistic but I'll to do so to keep it very simple.

Dividend income allowance = £5,000.

Suppose someone had no other income at all other than Dividend income of £16,000.

How much tax would they pay? Would it be:

a) Zero - as £5k dividend allowance and then remaining £11k is covered by Personal Allowance (2016/17)

b) 7.5% * 11,000 = £825 - if for some reason the Personal Allowance cannot be used on Dividend income having already claimed the Dividend allowance.

foxinsoxuk

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

Pretty even stevens at the test I would say. Given this number of wickets on day 1 I think a draw is unlikely unless there is some serious rain.

For sure - I think England may well have a marginal advantage actually.

Anyway I'm laying the draw and backing England right now, quite content with that.

Wait till we see how the Aussies bat...

GIN1138

I thought Lyndsey Hoyle did well with the Budget... I think he'll make a terrific Speaker once Speaker B quit's.

Flightpathl

foxinsoxuk said:

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

Pretty even stevens at the test I would say. Given this number of wickets on day 1 I think a draw is unlikely unless there is some serious rain.

For sure - I think England may well have a marginal advantage actually.

Anyway I'm laying the draw and backing England right now, quite content with that.

Wait till we see how the Aussies bat...

...how we bowl !

Scott_P

@georgeeaton: Hard to see Labour reversing any of the changes introduced today. Here to stay, like privatisation. #budget2015

The FT says Osborne has demolished the last pillars of New Labour

SouthamObserver

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

Pretty even stevens at the test I would say. Given this number of wickets on day 1 I think a draw is unlikely unless there is some serious rain.

For sure - I think England may well have a marginal advantage actually.

Anyway I'm laying the draw and backing England right now, quite content with that.

DavidL is excused cricket comment during the Ashes, at least during the hours of play.

It looks pretty even right now, but the pitch is not offering much. Given where England were aftr an hour it's a great recovery. Given where they were just after tea, it's a bit of a let down. But what is so good to see is players playing without fear. Root, Stoke, Buttler, Ali. They'll make mistakes, they'll get themselves out form time to time, but they will not give an inch. There must be room for another of similar ilk in there when Bell is dropped.

JosiasJessop

GIN1138 said:

I thought Lyndsey Hoyle did well with the Budget... I think he'll make a terrific Speaker once Speaker B quit's.

I think I agree with that. I wonder if Bercow likes him - Hoyle shows how it should be done.

GIN1138

JosiasJessop said:

GIN1138 said:

I thought Lyndsey Hoyle did well with the Budget... I think he'll make a terrific Speaker once Speaker B quit's.

I think I agree with that. I wonder if Bercow likes him - Hoyle shows how it should be done.

No doubt Bercow hate's his gut's!!!!!!!!!

Flightpathl

http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002106.html#more

'At the start of this year, things were looking up for the beleaguered Greek economy. Economists polled by Consensus Economics predicted growth of 2% this year, following last year’s modest 0.8% expansion. Unemployment, while still sky-high, had edged lower. There was a flickering light at the end of the tunnel.
That has now been blown out. The latest Consensus Economic assessment is that Greece will experience a small outright recession this year...
The gloom has a single explanation. The election of the Syriza government in late January, and the chaotic months of negotiation with Greece’s creditors that followed, plunged the economy into uncertainty and snuffed out the embryonic recovery.''

TheWhiteRabbit

MikeL said:

Apologies for going off thread but can anyone answer me a question re the Budget.

My example may appear unrealistic but I'll to do so to keep it very simple.

Dividend income allowance = £5,000.

Suppose someone had no other income at all other than Dividend income of £16,000.

How much tax would they pay? Would it be:

a) Zero - as £5k dividend allowance and then remaining £11k is covered by Personal Allowance (2016/17)

b) 7.5% * 11,000 = £825 - if for some reason the Personal Allowance cannot be used on Dividend income having already claimed the Dividend allowance.

I'm not 100% sure but the general rule is that the personal allowance is taken off before you divide your income into source. Therefore only £5000 would be considered "dividend income" the way I was taught to calculate.

nigel4england

foxinsoxuk said:

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

Pretty even stevens at the test I would say. Given this number of wickets on day 1 I think a draw is unlikely unless there is some serious rain.

For sure - I think England may well have a marginal advantage actually.

Anyway I'm laying the draw and backing England right now, quite content with that.

Wait till we see how the Aussies bat...

SouthamObserver said:

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

Pretty even stevens at the test I would say. Given this number of wickets on day 1 I think a draw is unlikely unless there is some serious rain.

For sure - I think England may well have a marginal advantage actually.

Anyway I'm laying the draw and backing England right now, quite content with that.

DavidL is excused cricket comment during the Ashes, at least during the hours of play.

It looks pretty even right now, but the pitch is not offering much. Given where England were aftr an hour it's a great recovery. Given where they were just after tea, it's a bit of a let down. But what is so good to see is players playing without fear. Root, Stoke, Buttler, Ali. They'll make mistakes, they'll get themselves out form time to time, but they will not give an inch. There must be room for another of similar ilk in there when Bell is dropped.

Jonny Bairstow would be my guess. I haven't really seen him keep much, if he is half decent behind the stumps I would give him the gloves, play Buttler at five as a batsman and move Root to four. Might look to get Hales in at some point too.

HYUFD

Scott_P said:

@georgeeaton: Hard to see Labour reversing any of the changes introduced today. Here to stay, like privatisation. #budget2015

The FT says Osborne has demolished the last pillars of New Labour

I wouldn't quite go that far, after all it was New Labour who first introduced the minimum wage, Osborne has just raised it to a living wage

MikeL

TheWhiteRabbit said:

MikeL said:

Apologies for going off thread but can anyone answer me a question re the Budget.

My example may appear unrealistic but I'll to do so to keep it very simple.

Dividend income allowance = £5,000.

Suppose someone had no other income at all other than Dividend income of £16,000.

How much tax would they pay? Would it be:

a) Zero - as £5k dividend allowance and then remaining £11k is covered by Personal Allowance (2016/17)

b) 7.5% * 11,000 = £825 - if for some reason the Personal Allowance cannot be used on Dividend income having already claimed the Dividend allowance.

I'm not 100% sure but the general rule is that the personal allowance is taken off before you divide your income into source. Therefore only £5000 would be considered "dividend income" the way I was taught to calculate.

Ah OK - thanks!

Rings a bell - I think something similar happens with the lower savings rate already as of today.

john_zims

@nigel4england

Morgan should be given another chance ?

SouthamObserver

Currently I am paid an annual dividend that fluctuates dependent on how our company performs (durr). Looks like I will now be paying more tax on that. Seems like a fair move to me.

nigel4england

john_zims said:

@nigel4england

Morgan should be given another chance ?

Not sure Cook would want him, bearing in mind the spirit he envoked in the one day team. Also I don't think he's a Test player.

SquareRoot

Eddie Mair on PM was talking about the budget to Tom Newton Dunn.. Terminology was akin to unpicking the last vestiges of the era of Gordon Brown..and TND said he was going to nick it for his paper...

Terminology is not spot on and I cannot remember it exactly as I was switching between PM and the test, but it was on the money.

SquareRoot

john_zims said:

@nigel4england

Morgan should be given another chance ?

He is too old.

SquareRoot

SouthamObserver said:

Currently I am paid an annual dividend that fluctuates dependent on how our company performs (durr). Looks like I will now be paying more tax on that. Seems like a fair move to me.

You wouldn't be avoiding ERSNI by any chance?

MikeL

Just had a go with the BBC calculator.

Single person with 2 children currently stops receiving ANY Tax Credits at all when they reach a gross income of £32,986.

That now becomes £28,823.

Single person with 2 children and gross income just about anywhere - ie between £12,000 and £30,000 - is going to lose NET anywhere between £1,000 and £1,500 - that's the Tax Credit loss mitigated by a small reduction in Income Tax.

Child Benefit is frozen so no change for anyone there.

NI thresholds also appear frozen so no change there either - though that looks a bit odd?

SouthamObserver

SquareRoot said:

SouthamObserver said:

Currently I am paid an annual dividend that fluctuates dependent on how our company performs (durr). Looks like I will now be paying more tax on that. Seems like a fair move to me.

You wouldn't be avoiding ERSNI by any chance?

No, I am a salaried employee. It's just that as a shareholder I get a dividend too.

DoubleCarpet

Lib Dem Leader game

Evening all, for anyone that would like to play, the game is now available:

http://www.electiongame.co.uk/lib-dem-leadership/

Entries close 7pm on Tuesday.

Many thanks,

DC

RobD

MikeL said:

Just had a go with the BBC calculator.

Single person with 2 children currently stops receiving any Tax credits at an income of £32,986.

That now becomes £28,823.

Single person with 2 children and gross income just about anywhere - ie between £12,000 and £30,000 - is going to lose NET anywhere between £1,000 and £1,500 - that's the Tax Credit loss mitigated by a small reduction in Income Tax.

Child Benefit is frozen so no change for anyone there.

NI thresholds also appear frozen so no change there either - though that looks a bit odd?

A gross income of £12,000 and losing at least £1,000 due to the changes in the budget? That can't be right, surely!

MikeL

Single person, no children:

Currently stops getting any tax credits at £13,176. That now becomes £9,620.

Income within that range - typical loss over £1,000. Income above £13,176 - just gain £80 from Income Tax saving (as wasn't getting any Tax Credits anyway).

SquareRoot

SouthamObserver said:

SquareRoot said:

SouthamObserver said:

Currently I am paid an annual dividend that fluctuates dependent on how our company performs (durr). Looks like I will now be paying more tax on that. Seems like a fair move to me.

You wouldn't be avoiding ERSNI by any chance?

No, I am a salaried employee. It's just that as a shareholder I get a dividend too.

Dividend.. paid as a bonus and taxed and NI'd or as a shareholder dividend>?

MikeL

RobD said:

MikeL said:

Just had a go with the BBC calculator.

Single person with 2 children currently stops receiving any Tax credits at an income of £32,986.

That now becomes £28,823.

Single person with 2 children and gross income just about anywhere - ie between £12,000 and £30,000 - is going to lose NET anywhere between £1,000 and £1,500 - that's the Tax Credit loss mitigated by a small reduction in Income Tax.

Child Benefit is frozen so no change for anyone there.

NI thresholds also appear frozen so no change there either - though that looks a bit odd?

A gross income of £12,000 and losing at least £1,000 due to the changes in the budget? That can't be right, surely!

Yes. Gross Income £12,000, single person, 2 kids:

Now - get Tax Credits of £8,597

Future - get Tax Credits of £6,973

Net in pocket - ie after IT and NI - including Child Benefit and Tax Credits:

Now - £21,633

Future - £20,088

You see Tax Credits are a very large sum of money!

Pulpstar

MikeL said:

Single person, no children:

Currently stops getting any tax credits at £13,176. That now becomes £9,620.

Income within that range - typical loss over £1,000. Income above £13,176 - just gain £80 from Income Tax saving (as wasn't getting any Tax Credits anyway).

Wait a minute - it's called "tax credits" but sounds to me like people got more tax back than they paid... that wasn't "tax" - what an invidious old name that benefit had.

SquareRoot

Meanwhile .. over on tim twitter..... tim is going into orbit.

https://twitter.com/GOsborneGenius/with_replies

Pulpstar

MikeL said:

RobD said:

MikeL said:

Just had a go with the BBC calculator.

Single person with 2 children currently stops receiving any Tax credits at an income of £32,986.

That now becomes £28,823.

Single person with 2 children and gross income just about anywhere - ie between £12,000 and £30,000 - is going to lose NET anywhere between £1,000 and £1,500 - that's the Tax Credit loss mitigated by a small reduction in Income Tax.

Child Benefit is frozen so no change for anyone there.

NI thresholds also appear frozen so no change there either - though that looks a bit odd?

A gross income of £12,000 and losing at least £1,000 due to the changes in the budget? That can't be right, surely!

Yes. Gross Income £12,000, single person, 2 kids:

Now - get Tax Credits of £8,597

Future - get Tax Credits of £6,973

Net in pocket - ie after IT and NI - including Child Benefit and Tax Credits:

Now - £21,633

Future - £20,088

You see Tax Credits are a very large sum of money!

F*ck me, when did all that lot come in ?

Morris_Dancer

Good evening, everyone.

I wonder if pollsters have looked at psychometric testing, sorting out eigenvalues and reversing questions (to help avoid confirmation bias).

MikeL

Pulpstar said:

MikeL said:

Single person, no children:

Currently stops getting any tax credits at £13,176. That now becomes £9,620.

Income within that range - typical loss over £1,000. Income above £13,176 - just gain £80 from Income Tax saving (as wasn't getting any Tax Credits anyway).

Wait a minute - it's called "tax credits" but sounds to me like people got more tax back than they paid... that wasn't "tax" - what an invidious old name that benefit had.

Of course, Tax Credits = Benefits paid to low earners

And 95% of it goes to people with kids.

Before today's Budget:

- No kids and earn £13,200, get zero
- 2 kids and earn £32,900, get tax credits

It's so gobsmacking that I'm sure 95% of people who don't get them haven't a clue how they work - which is why I'm posting some actual numbers so anyone on here can get an idea.

In a nutshell it's a means tested extra Child Benefit - worth approx TREBLE the normal Child Benefit for low earners.

RobD

MikeL said:

RobD said:

MikeL said:

Just had a go with the BBC calculator.

Single person with 2 children currently stops receiving any Tax credits at an income of £32,986.

That now becomes £28,823.

Single person with 2 children and gross income just about anywhere - ie between £12,000 and £30,000 - is going to lose NET anywhere between £1,000 and £1,500 - that's the Tax Credit loss mitigated by a small reduction in Income Tax.

Child Benefit is frozen so no change for anyone there.

NI thresholds also appear frozen so no change there either - though that looks a bit odd?

A gross income of £12,000 and losing at least £1,000 due to the changes in the budget? That can't be right, surely!

Yes. Gross Income £12,000, single person, 2 kids:

Now - get Tax Credits of £8,597

Future - get Tax Credits of £6,973

Net in pocket - ie after IT and NI - including Child Benefit and Tax Credits:

Now - £21,633

Future - £20,088

You see Tax Credits are a very large sum of money!

Wow! What changes are driving this? (I haven't watched it or read it yet, just skimming the news).

SandyRentool

Tax credits are a bugger's muddle - get rid.

Stop giving people handouts for dropping sprogs - good.

Mr O is heading in the right direction.

Apart from all the regressive right wing nonsense of course.

Pulpstar

Morris_Dancer said:

Good evening, everyone.

I wonder if pollsters have looked at psychometric testing, sorting out eigenvalues and reversing questions (to help avoid confirmation bias).

You want to combine VI and the psychomatrix results into a matrix and then calculate it's eigenvalue ?!

RobD

Pulpstar said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good evening, everyone.

I wonder if pollsters have looked at psychometric testing, sorting out eigenvalues and reversing questions (to help avoid confirmation bias).

You want to combine VI and the psychomatrix results into a matrix and then calculate it's eigenvalue ?!

I understood some of those words, yes.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Pulpstar, asking people if they care about X may not solicit the best response. Better to ask around subjects related to X to determine whether they actually care about it (so, ask about energy costs, security of supply and carbon emissions rather than if people care about climate change or the environment).

Reverse questions are good too because they help avoid people just agreeing to things and give a more accurate picture.

Of course, that might lead to too many damned questions.

MikeL

RobD said:

MikeL said:

RobD said:

MikeL said:

Just had a go with the BBC calculator.

Single person with 2 children currently stops receiving any Tax credits at an income of £32,986.

That now becomes £28,823.

Single person with 2 children and gross income just about anywhere - ie between £12,000 and £30,000 - is going to lose NET anywhere between £1,000 and £1,500 - that's the Tax Credit loss mitigated by a small reduction in Income Tax.

Child Benefit is frozen so no change for anyone there.

NI thresholds also appear frozen so no change there either - though that looks a bit odd?

A gross income of £12,000 and losing at least £1,000 due to the changes in the budget? That can't be right, surely!

Yes. Gross Income £12,000, single person, 2 kids:

Now - get Tax Credits of £8,597

Future - get Tax Credits of £6,973

Net in pocket - ie after IT and NI - including Child Benefit and Tax Credits:

Now - £21,633

Future - £20,088

You see Tax Credits are a very large sum of money!

Wow! What changes are driving this? (I haven't watched it or read it yet, just skimming the news).

He's cutting tax credits!

And as an extra measure he is abolishing ALL tax credits for 3rd and subsequent children born after April 2017.

Pulpstar

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pulpstar, asking people if they care about X may not solicit the best response. Better to ask around subjects related to X to determine whether they actually care about it (so, ask about energy costs, security of supply and carbon emissions rather than if people care about climate change or the environment).

Reverse questions are good too because they help avoid people just agreeing to things and give a more accurate picture.

Of course, that might lead to too many damned questions.

It was the incorporation of eigenvalues into your plan that intrigued me !

MikeL

Pulpstar said:

MikeL said:

RobD said:

MikeL said:

Just had a go with the BBC calculator.

Single person with 2 children currently stops receiving any Tax credits at an income of £32,986.

That now becomes £28,823.

Single person with 2 children and gross income just about anywhere - ie between £12,000 and £30,000 - is going to lose NET anywhere between £1,000 and £1,500 - that's the Tax Credit loss mitigated by a small reduction in Income Tax.

Child Benefit is frozen so no change for anyone there.

NI thresholds also appear frozen so no change there either - though that looks a bit odd?

A gross income of £12,000 and losing at least £1,000 due to the changes in the budget? That can't be right, surely!

Yes. Gross Income £12,000, single person, 2 kids:

Now - get Tax Credits of £8,597

Future - get Tax Credits of £6,973

Net in pocket - ie after IT and NI - including Child Benefit and Tax Credits:

Now - £21,633

Future - £20,088

You see Tax Credits are a very large sum of money!

F*ck me, when did all that lot come in ?

Gordon Brown. He brought them in - he increased them every year and as a bonus he increased them massively in the Budgets before the 2005 and 2010 GEs (by when he was obviously PM).

They also generally rose in the last Parliament as well - though not nearly so much - think they were frozen for one or two years - but Clegg insisted on extra rise for the poorest at one point.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Pulpstar, from memory (which may be ropey) an eigenvalue is just a fancy term for a single value you want to measure (in politics it might be environmental concerns, for example). There needs to be a decent level of correlation between questions on a single topic in order for it to be considered a true representation of that topic (otherwise it's a disparate or multiple other topics).

I think I do have my stats books still, but damned if I'm looking at them by choice

Pulpstar

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pulpstar, from memory (which may be ropey) an eigenvalue is just a fancy term for a single value you want to measure (in politics it might be environmental concerns, for example). There needs to be a decent level of correlation between questions on a single topic in order for it to be considered a true representation of that topic (otherwise it's a disparate or multiple other topics).

I think I do have my stats books still, but damned if I'm looking at them by choice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigenvalues_and_eigenvectors

TCPoliticalBetting

Latest bright idea from a member of LD policy team. The LD leftie Mr Epps.

"Demonstrating the Scottish Party’s independence from London as well as high-profile roles for senior figures – Charles Kennedy, perhaps – would be a confident and positive way to face the future."

https://libdemfuture.wordpress.com/2015/07/08/after-cleggism-2-policy-and-identity-by-gareth-epps/comment-page-1/#comment-6

Can someone advise him that Charles has departed?

TheWhiteRabbit

MikeL said:

Pulpstar said:

MikeL said:

Single person, no children:

Currently stops getting any tax credits at £13,176. That now becomes £9,620.

Income within that range - typical loss over £1,000. Income above £13,176 - just gain £80 from Income Tax saving (as wasn't getting any Tax Credits anyway).

Wait a minute - it's called "tax credits" but sounds to me like people got more tax back than they paid... that wasn't "tax" - what an invidious old name that benefit had.

Of course, Tax Credits = Benefits paid to low earners

And 95% of it goes to people with kids.

Before today's Budget:

- No kids and earn £13,200, get zero
- 2 kids and earn £32,900, get tax credits

It's so gobsmacking that I'm sure 95% of people who don't get them haven't a clue how they work - which is why I'm posting some actual numbers so anyone on here can get an idea.

In a nutshell it's a means tested extra Child Benefit - worth approx TREBLE the normal Child Benefit for low earners.

Judging by the calculator,more available to single parents than couples.

Going to be a big cut unless other measures help you, for example free childcare, NMW, etc.

Freggles

I understand the two child limit for child tax credit, and the freeze - but where is this thing coming from that tax credits are being cut?
I haven't seen any actual numbers or explanation of how much and for who,

MikeL

TheWhiteRabbit said:

MikeL said:

Pulpstar said:

MikeL said:

Single person, no children:

Currently stops getting any tax credits at £13,176. That now becomes £9,620.

Income within that range - typical loss over £1,000. Income above £13,176 - just gain £80 from Income Tax saving (as wasn't getting any Tax Credits anyway).

Wait a minute - it's called "tax credits" but sounds to me like people got more tax back than they paid... that wasn't "tax" - what an invidious old name that benefit had.

Of course, Tax Credits = Benefits paid to low earners

And 95% of it goes to people with kids.

Before today's Budget:

- No kids and earn £13,200, get zero
- 2 kids and earn £32,900, get tax credits

It's so gobsmacking that I'm sure 95% of people who don't get them haven't a clue how they work - which is why I'm posting some actual numbers so anyone on here can get an idea.

In a nutshell it's a means tested extra Child Benefit - worth approx TREBLE the normal Child Benefit for low earners.

Judging by the calculator,more available to single parents than couples.

Going to be a big cut unless other measures help you, for example free childcare, NMW, etc.

Yes, key thing to understand about tax credits is they are based on HOUSEHOLD INCOME.

So even before today's Budget, a couple each with gross salary of £16,500 had total gross of £33,000 which means zero tax credits (with 2 kids).

So the really big tax credits go to single people with kids (or couple where only one works).

Also note the huge incentive to split up or pretend to split up!!!

Freggles

Never mind - MSE comes through.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/protect/2015/07/summer-budget-2015-millions-to-face-benefit-cuts

ThomasNashe

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Latest bright idea from a member of LD policy team. The LD leftie Mr Epps.

"Demonstrating the Scottish Party’s independence from London as well as high-profile roles for senior figures – Charles Kennedy, perhaps – would be a confident and positive way to face the future."

https://libdemfuture.wordpress.com/2015/07/08/after-cleggism-2-policy-and-identity-by-gareth-epps/comment-page-1/#comment-6

Can someone advise him that Charles has departed?

Extraordinary! I note the heading too: that would be 'future' in the sense that Donald Dewar might provide hope for the future of SLAB?

Danny565

Well, I see the Omnishambles-esque unravelling is starting already.

SandyRentool

MikeL said:

RobD said:

MikeL said:

RobD said:

MikeL said:

Just had a go with the BBC calculator.

Single person with 2 children currently stops receiving any Tax credits at an income of £32,986.

That now becomes £28,823.

Single person with 2 children and gross income just about anywhere - ie between £12,000 and £30,000 - is going to lose NET anywhere between £1,000 and £1,500 - that's the Tax Credit loss mitigated by a small reduction in Income Tax.

Child Benefit is frozen so no change for anyone there.

NI thresholds also appear frozen so no change there either - though that looks a bit odd?

A gross income of £12,000 and losing at least £1,000 due to the changes in the budget? That can't be right, surely!

Yes. Gross Income £12,000, single person, 2 kids:

Now - get Tax Credits of £8,597

Future - get Tax Credits of £6,973

Net in pocket - ie after IT and NI - including Child Benefit and Tax Credits:

Now - £21,633

Future - £20,088

You see Tax Credits are a very large sum of money!

Wow! What changes are driving this? (I haven't watched it or read it yet, just skimming the news).

He's cutting tax credits!

And as an extra measure he is abolishing ALL tax credits for 3rd and subsequent children born after April 2017.

Good.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Nashe, if being dead weren't a barrier to leadership roles, I'd fully support Trajan's potential presidency in Italy, given Rome's fortunes and boundaries were a tiny bit better when he was in charge last time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan#War_against_Parthia

Freggles

So when David Cameron said tax credits will not fall, he was.......?

TGOHF

Danny565 said:

Well, I see the Omnishambles-esque unravelling is starting already.

GO will be gone by the morning....

NickPalmer

The primary reason for tasx credits beyond simply helping the lower-paid was that without them there was a risk of a marginal tax/beneift loss of over 100% if you moved from JSA into a minimum-wage job (which used to be called the "poverty trap"). Tax credits effectively subsidised the low-paid jobs, on the basis that otherwise we'd be paying people more, to do nothing.

By getting rid of much of them and increasing the minimum wage, Osborne is shifting the responsibility for solving the poverty trap to employers. If it works, clearly it saves the exchequer lots of money. But if employers decide they don't want the people at the higher rate, then the Government is stuck with paying them JSA and the unemployed are stuck with an inability to find £9/hour jobs. It's a gamble.

Pulpstar

Freggles said:

So when David Cameron said tax credits will not fall, he was.......?

He says that about everything he's going to change - immigration, fox hunting, plenty of other stuff. If it's had a cast iron guarantee it's fucked

foxinsoxuk

TGOHF said:

Danny565 said:

Well, I see the Omnishambles-esque unravelling is starting already.

GO will be gone by the morning....

Did he cry at a funeral?

Pulpstar

NickPalmer said:

The primary reason for tasx credits beyond simply helping the lower-paid was that without them there was a risk of a marginal tax/beneift loss of over 100% if you moved from JSA into a minimum-wage job (which used to be called the "poverty trap"). Tax credits effectively subsidised the low-paid jobs, on the basis that otherwise we'd be paying people more, to do nothing.

By getting rid of much of them and increasing the minimum wage, Osborne is shifting the responsibility for solving the poverty trap to employers. If it works, clearly it saves the exchequer lots of money. But if employers decide they don't want the people at the higher rate, then the Government is stuck with paying them JSA and the unemployed are stuck with an inability to find £9/hour jobs. It's a gamble.

As I said, the drop in unemployment has given Osborne this opportunity for manoeuvre. In addition youth unemployment is worse so the differential should well help for the 18-24 not being subject to the £9/hr.

It's a gamble but its the right thing to do i reckon.

TheWhiteRabbit

Freggles said:

So when David Cameron said tax credits will not fall, he was.......?

when did he say that? we knew tax credits were going to be targetted since the election pretty much

SandyRentool

I am failing to be impressed by Liz on Ch 4 news (on plus 1).

Sunday is your last chance to win me over.

JEO

NickPalmer said:

The primary reason for tasx credits beyond simply helping the lower-paid was that without them there was a risk of a marginal tax/beneift loss of over 100% if you moved from JSA into a minimum-wage job (which used to be called the "poverty trap"). Tax credits effectively subsidised the low-paid jobs, on the basis that otherwise we'd be paying people more, to do nothing.

By getting rid of much of them and increasing the minimum wage, Osborne is shifting the responsibility for solving the poverty trap to employers. If it works, clearly it saves the exchequer lots of money. But if employers decide they don't want the people at the higher rate, then the Government is stuck with paying them JSA and the unemployed are stuck with an inability to find £9/hour jobs. It's a gamble.

I don't think I've met a left winger who is sceptical of minimum wage raises before. But credit to you: at least you have a consistent position on this and immigration. I am always surprised at how many left wingers believe we need to have low wage immigrants to keep companies here, yet also support big hikes in the minimum wage.

TGOHF

SquareRoot said:

Meanwhile .. over on tim twitter..... tim is going into orbit.

https://twitter.com/GOsborneGenius/with_replies

Looks like Corbyn has one vote shored up

williamglenn

ThomasNashe said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Latest bright idea from a member of LD policy team. The LD leftie Mr Epps.

"Demonstrating the Scottish Party’s independence from London as well as high-profile roles for senior figures – Charles Kennedy, perhaps – would be a confident and positive way to face the future."

https://libdemfuture.wordpress.com/2015/07/08/after-cleggism-2-policy-and-identity-by-gareth-epps/comment-page-1/#comment-6

Can someone advise him that Charles has departed?

Extraordinary! I note the heading too: that would be 'future' in the sense that Donald Dewar might provide hope for the future of SLAB?

Lloyd George is the man to revive the Liberals.

Morris_Dancer

Just finished listening to the podcast. Glad to hear the Greek (polling) disaster mentioned.

foxinsoxuk

Pulpstar said:

NickPalmer said:

The primary reason for tasx credits beyond simply helping the lower-paid was that without them there was a risk of a marginal tax/beneift loss of over 100% if you moved from JSA into a minimum-wage job (which used to be called the "poverty trap"). Tax credits effectively subsidised the low-paid jobs, on the basis that otherwise we'd be paying people more, to do nothing.

By getting rid of much of them and increasing the minimum wage, Osborne is shifting the responsibility for solving the poverty trap to employers. If it works, clearly it saves the exchequer lots of money. But if employers decide they don't want the people at the higher rate, then the Government is stuck with paying them JSA and the unemployed are stuck with an inability to find £9/hour jobs. It's a gamble.

As I said, the drop in unemployment has given Osborne this opportunity for manoeuvre. In addition youth unemployment is worse so the differential should well help for the 18-24 not being subject to the £9/hr.

It's a gamble but its the right thing to do i reckon.

A lot of the minimum wage jobs are in the social care sector and privatised support services. Tax credits may have been a subsidy to Amazon and Asda, but it also was to the NHS and Councils.

Our CEO said this morning that the NHS acute sector is heading for a £2 billion overspend, with our own Trust contributing a paltry £40 million of that. I can see that the Social Care sector is at risk of seizing up and backing up the whole hospital system, and the NHS developing a worsening deficit. Unlike private employers we cannot benefit from the corporation tax cut. It is going to be a bit painful for organisations as well as individuals.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Glenn, not Gladstone?

ThomasNashe

SandyRentool said:

I am failing to be impressed by Liz on Ch 4 news (on plus 1).

Sunday is your last chance to win me over.

To be fair to her, it was an extremely facile line of questioning from Krishnan Guru Murphy, and the last question about her not having children was ridiculous.

SandyRentool

The welfare cap ought to be coupled with a rent cap. One without the other leaves people in a hole.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Nashe, didn't hear it, but I am wondering what the non-child question was. It sounds ridiculous.

SandyRentool

ThomasNashe said:

SandyRentool said:

I am failing to be impressed by Liz on Ch 4 news (on plus 1).

Sunday is your last chance to win me over.

To be fair to her, it was an extremely facile line of questioning from Krishnan Guru Murphy, and the last question about her not having children was ridiculous.

Brought on by the ridiculous comments from my MP.

SquareRoot

TGOHF said:

SquareRoot said:

Meanwhile .. over on tim twitter..... tim is going into orbit.

https://twitter.com/GOsborneGenius/with_replies

Looks like Corbyn has one vote shored up

I am sure someone who studies Roman history with be coming up with an analogy, but tim is sooooo last year and is fighting battles that cannot be won. The sort of crap he was doing yrs ago about Dave and George benefitting from IHT changes...
I think tim is stuck in a time ward where the Rubik's cube is still in vogue
hE has not even noticed that EICWNBPM has been and gone.

ThomasNashe

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Nashe, didn't hear it, but I am wondering what the non-child question was. It sounds ridiculous.

Essentially quoting another Labour MP (female) that she would be supporting Cooper because she's got children, and therefore knows what it's really like ... blah, blah, blah. I'm really in despair about the current state of the Labour party.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Nashe, that's a despicable view, the kind of identity politics I absolutely detest. Boo hiss, indeed.

Mr. T, he's not from around the Venetian environs, is he? That area and city was (perhaps still is) pushing for independence. I do hope they have a Doge again if they get it.

Mr. Root, shade sleepy but the best analogy that springs to mind is Julian the Apostate attempting to revive paganism. The world, alas for us all, had moved on.

Danny565

One of the ironies of New Labour's obsession with the minimum wage is that it's actually one of the main examples of the "statism" they claimed to be against.

The real way of getting effective higher wages is surely to have much stronger trade unions like in Germany which could negotiate on a case-by-case basis by industry, rather than a one-size-fits-all minimum wage which doesn't take into account the relative strength of a particular trade or industry or any cyclical downturns. (Admittedly that would involve union leaders acting in better faith than they did in the 1960s and 1970s.) Though in that case, there would still be a need for tax credits to top-up the pay of employees of smaller businesses which couldn't compete with the wages of their mega-rivals.

HYUFD

SeanT said:

FWIW and re eurogeddon, I had a convo with a notable Italian mountaineer a week ago, in the Alps of Friuli. This man is a famous ski jumper. And something of an intellectual. I'll stop there before he becomes identifiable.

He said "Italy needs a new Mussolini".

That is the mood amongst some people in the northern Italian elite.

I thought they had already had one, Berlusconi!

TCPoliticalBetting

SandyRentool said:

The welfare cap ought to be coupled with a rent cap. One without the other leaves people in a hole.

Corrected.
The welfare cap ought to be coupled with a cervical cap. One without the other leaves people in a hole.

NickPalmer

I was doing a non-partisan (animal welfare) reception in the Commons today (booked long before we knew there was going to be a Budget!) and chatted to various MPs about animal issues. A Tory said that he was certainly going to vote against the "hunting nonsense" and expected around 40 other Tories to do the same ("10 years ago it would have been a handful, but the party's changed"): he added that the fact that it was a fudge meant that there wasn't much enthusiasm for it even among the pro-hunters, and there was a sense all round that they were going through the motions. An SNP MP said he'd be astonished if they didn't vote against too.

JEO

SeanT said:

SquareRoot said:

Meanwhile .. over on tim twitter..... tim is going into orbit.

https://twitter.com/GOsborneGenius/with_replies

tim's Twitter feed is magnificently poignant.

I see he didn't originate a single tweet between May 7 and.... late June.

There were a few replies tho, in that time.

Like this:

@ChrisBryant4MP Eh? 8 years of decline since you and Tom thought you were protectingg the working class.Welll done

Oh dear.

Who is that person? He seems to be having a meltdown.

ThomasNashe

SeanT said:

ThomasNashe said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Nashe, didn't hear it, but I am wondering what the non-child question was. It sounds ridiculous.

Essentially quoting another Labour MP (female) that she would be supporting Cooper because she's got children, and therefore knows what it's really like ... blah, blah, blah. I'm really in despair about the current state of the Labour party.

You are right to despair. As of now it is difficult to see where a Labour resurrection will come from. The Nats aren't going away. Nor is UKIP.

Osborne has stolen all of Labour's sexiest lingerie from the political washing line. What are Labour gonna wear in 2020, to attract Tory, Nat and UKIP voters? Really?

I can't think of a single policy they could credibly adopt in five years' time which might get them anywhere near a majority.

Their best bet is EVENTS, DEAR BOY, EVENTS, but it is thin gruel.

It's not just down to Osborne. It's becoming increasingly obvious just how badly EdM f*cked the party over.

SquareRoot

Dan Hodges on the money .. again


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11726975/Their-Budget-response-was-beyond-parody-Labour-still-havent-got-a-clue.html

HYUFD

SeanT said:

ThomasNashe said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Nashe, didn't hear it, but I am wondering what the non-child question was. It sounds ridiculous.

Essentially quoting another Labour MP (female) that she would be supporting Cooper because she's got children, and therefore knows what it's really like ... blah, blah, blah. I'm really in despair about the current state of the Labour party.

You are right to despair. As of now it is difficult to see where a Labour resurrection will come from. The Nats aren't going away. Nor is UKIP.

Osborne has stolen all of Labour's sexiest lingerie from the political washing line. What are Labour gonna wear in 2020, to attract Tory, Nat and UKIP voters? Really?

I can't think of a single policy they could credibly adopt in five years' time which might get them anywhere near a majority.

Their best bet is EVENTS, DEAR BOY, EVENTS, but it is thin gruel.

After 10 years+ of 1 party in power the mood is normally for change, even Thatcher would have lost to Kinnock had there been an election in 1989. Even a booming economy does not always help, as the Tories discovered in 1997 and who knows what the implications of EUref are. Voters may also feel the Tories have completed their job of restoring the finances which they did not in 2015. Osborne has boosted his credentials since the election to succeed Cameron and probably will lead the Tories in 2020 but he is not as charismatic or likeable as Cameron is. Apart from Corbyn, the other 3 Labour contendors would also be an improvement on Ed.

To win a majority will be very difficult as you suggest, Labour will need to win back voters who backed Blair in 2005 then switched to Cameron in 2010 and 2015, plus hope the Tories lose a few to UKIP post EUref, plus win back 10-20 seats in Scotland. It will be a big challenge, but I would not rule it out

Danny565

SeanT said:

Danny565 said:

One of the ironies of New Labour's obsession with the minimum wage is that it's actually one of the main examples of the "statism" they claimed to be against.

The real way of getting effective higher wages is surely to have much stronger trade unions like in Germany which could negotiate on a case-by-case basis by industry, rather than a one-size-fits-all minimum wage which doesn't take into account the relative strength of a particular trade or industry or any cyclical downturns. (Admittedly that would involve union leaders acting in better faith than they did in the 1960s and 1970s.) Though in that case, there would still be a need for tax credits to top-up the pay of employees of smaller businesses which couldn't compete with the wages of their mega-rivals.

Why do people continually cite Germany as an economic exemplar? Just because they don't have a deficit? Is that it?

Does this mean you agree with me that the deficit isn't that important (implied by the "just")?

AndreaParma_82

Supporting nominations by CLPs tally so far....possibly mistakes in and there

Burnham 25
Cooper 19
Corbyn 12
Kendall 3

foxinsoxuk

SeanT said:

Danny565 said:

One of the ironies of New Labour's obsession with the minimum wage is that it's actually one of the main examples of the "statism" they claimed to be against.

The real way of getting effective higher wages is surely to have much stronger trade unions like in Germany which could negotiate on a case-by-case basis by industry, rather than a one-size-fits-all minimum wage which doesn't take into account the relative strength of a particular trade or industry or any cyclical downturns. (Admittedly that would involve union leaders acting in better faith than they did in the 1960s and 1970s.) Though in that case, there would still be a need for tax credits to top-up the pay of employees of smaller businesses which couldn't compete with the wages of their mega-rivals.

Why do people continually cite Germany as an economic exemplar? Just because they don't have a deficit? Is that it?

German growth is moribund (lower than ours). German demographics make depressing reading. Their exports are good, but that's largely because they've enjoyed an artificially low currency thanks to the weakness of the peripheral euro nations they are busy pauperizing. And, lest we forget, German wages have barely grown in 20 years.

This brilliant German model is also about to blow up in Berlin's sausage-fed face, leaving it on the hook for £50bn in Greek debts as its currency zone implodes.

No one should be copying "Germany".

China not looking too rosy tonight. 3 trillion dollars wiped off the stock market in the last 3 weeks, most of whom are small investors. The Chinese roaring twenties have ended with a stockmarket crash of epic proportions*. Germany and the Eurozone are going to look pretty good fairly shortly.

* channels his inner Hunchman...

HYUFD

SeanT said:

NickPalmer said:

I was doing a non-partisan (animal welfare) reception in the Commons today (booked long before we knew there was going to be a Budget!) and chatted to various MPs about animal issues. A Tory said that he was certainly going to vote against the "hunting nonsense" and expected around 40 other Tories to do the same ("10 years ago it would have been a handful, but the party's changed"): he added that the fact that it was a fudge meant that there wasn't much enthusiasm for it even among the pro-hunters, and there was a sense all round that they were going through the motions. An SNP MP said he'd be astonished if they didn't vote against too.

The hunting vote will, clearly, be lost (unless it is worded in some impossibly brilliant way). But Cameron has to do it. He's throwing Reynard to the Tory bloodhounds. Symbolically.

The only politically interesting question is whether Nat MPs will vote on this most English of issues, and expose themselves as utter hypocrites ("we don't vote on English only matters!"). I bet many will, partly to make mischief.

There are a few Labour MPs who are pro hunting, eg Kate Hoey, as are most unionists and Carswell, plus several LDs. Now the Tories have a majority the vote could yet be close

Danny565

ThomasNashe said:

SeanT said:

ThomasNashe said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Nashe, didn't hear it, but I am wondering what the non-child question was. It sounds ridiculous.

Essentially quoting another Labour MP (female) that she would be supporting Cooper because she's got children, and therefore knows what it's really like ... blah, blah, blah. I'm really in despair about the current state of the Labour party.

You are right to despair. As of now it is difficult to see where a Labour resurrection will come from. The Nats aren't going away. Nor is UKIP.

Osborne has stolen all of Labour's sexiest lingerie from the political washing line. What are Labour gonna wear in 2020, to attract Tory, Nat and UKIP voters? Really?

I can't think of a single policy they could credibly adopt in five years' time which might get them anywhere near a majority.

Their best bet is EVENTS, DEAR BOY, EVENTS, but it is thin gruel.

It's not just down to Osborne. It's becoming increasingly obvious just how badly EdM f*cked the party over.

It's that prat Chris Leslie with his interview earlier that's really depressed me. They look set to double down on the mistakes of the past 5 years.

Rather than Miliband being "too left-wing", the real problem is that Labour never properly challenged any of the Tories' arguments (that cutting the deficit is the big issue, that the poor need to be "incentivised", that it's Communist to say businesses have a responsibility to society as well as to maximise their profits). If the public are presented a right-wing worldview as indisputable fact, without any dissent from Labour (or anyone else), then of course they're going to conclude that worldview must be correct and will always trust the market leaders the Tories best on those issues.

Morris_Dancer

Cheers for that, Dr. Parma.

I wonder if this time we'll have Nick Robinson talking over the result to predict (wrongly) who the winner will be.

foxinsoxuk

SeanT said:

NickPalmer said:

I was doing a non-partisan (animal welfare) reception in the Commons today (booked long before we knew there was going to be a Budget!) and chatted to various MPs about animal issues. A Tory said that he was certainly going to vote against the "hunting nonsense" and expected around 40 other Tories to do the same ("10 years ago it would have been a handful, but the party's changed"): he added that the fact that it was a fudge meant that there wasn't much enthusiasm for it even among the pro-hunters, and there was a sense all round that they were going through the motions. An SNP MP said he'd be astonished if they didn't vote against too.

The hunting vote will, clearly, be lost (unless it is worded in some impossibly brilliant way). But Cameron has to do it. He's throwing Reynard to the Tory bloodhounds. Symbolically.

The only politically interesting question is whether Nat MPs will vote on this most English of issues, and expose themselves as utter hypocrites ("we don't vote on English only matters!"). I bet many will, partly to make mischief.

Crazier than that! The new Tory proposals take England into line with Scotland!

JEO

Danny565 said:

One of the ironies of New Labour's obsession with the minimum wage is that it's actually one of the main examples of the "statism" they claimed to be against.

The real way of getting effective higher wages is surely to have much stronger trade unions like in Germany which could negotiate on a case-by-case basis by industry, rather than a one-size-fits-all minimum wage which doesn't take into account the relative strength of a particular trade or industry or any cyclical downturns. (Admittedly that would involve union leaders acting in better faith than they did in the 1960s and 1970s.) Though in that case, there would still be a need for tax credits to top-up the pay of employees of smaller businesses which couldn't compete with the wages of their mega-rivals.

It's not just the unions not acting in good faith until the 1960s and 1970s. Just look at the Tube workers today. A 35 hour work week, pay of £50k plus for five years experience, 42 days holiday, and yet they protest even voluntary redundancies.

The_Apocalypse

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

ThomasNashe said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Nashe, didn't hear it, but I am wondering what the non-child question was. It sounds ridiculous.

Essentially quoting another Labour MP (female) that she would be supporting Cooper because she's got children, and therefore knows what it's really like ... blah, blah, blah. I'm really in despair about the current state of the Labour party.

You are right to despair. As of now it is difficult to see where a Labour resurrection will come from. The Nats aren't going away. Nor is UKIP.

Osborne has stolen all of Labour's sexiest lingerie from the political washing line. What are Labour gonna wear in 2020, to attract Tory, Nat and UKIP voters? Really?

I can't think of a single policy they could credibly adopt in five years' time which might get them anywhere near a majority.

Their best bet is EVENTS, DEAR BOY, EVENTS, but it is thin gruel.

After 10 years+ of 1 party in power the mood is normally for change, even Thatcher would have lost to Kinnock had there been an election in 1989. Even a booming economy does not always help, as the Tories discovered in 1997 and who knows what the implications of EUref are. Voters may also feel the Tories have completed their job of restoring the finances which they did not in 2015. Osborne has boosted his credentials since the election to succeed Cameron and probably will lead the Tories in 2020 but he is not as charismatic or likeable as Cameron is. Apart from Corbyn, the other 3 Labour contendors would also be an improvement on Ed.

To win a majority will be very difficult as you suggest, Labour will need to win back voters who backed Blair in 2005 then switched to Cameron in 2010 and 2015, plus hope the Tories lose a few to UKIP post EUref, plus win back 10-20 seats in Scotland. It will be a big challenge, but I would not rule it out

No HYUFD, you don't understand. If Tories say Labour are DOOOMED then their word is final.

In all seriousness, I completely agree with your post. Looking at the next five years, events looks a pretty good bet anyway, with the EU ref, the economy, and the impact of austerity on voters'.

calum

I bet there's a fair few red and orange (LDs as the SNP have stolen yellow) Tory voters who wish they could hire the Tardis and head back to 6th May and sleep on how they should be voting !! Osborne the snatcher of to many things to list out.

john_zims

@SquareRoot

'Meanwhile .. over on tim twitter..... tim is going into orbit'

Bless the poor little mite that manages to compete with Roger for all the wrong calls.

TGOHF

calum said:

I bet there's a fair few red and orange (LDs as the SNP have stolen yellow) Tory voters who wish they could hire the Tardis and head back to 6th May and sleep on how they should be voting !! Osborne the snatcher of to many things to list out.

Yes we are back to the cruel hard desolate times of 10 years ago.

JosiasJessop

john_zims said:

@SquareRoot

'Meanwhile .. over on tim twitter..... tim is going into orbit'

Bless the poor little mite that manages to compete with Roger for all the wrong calls.

It's a shame Roger isn't on much. I wanted to tell him we'd bought a stroller with a wide wheelbase. As we were buying it, we thought of him.

Scott_P

SeanT said:

Take a look at Labour on Facebook and Twitter (and that is where Labourites talk to each other, these days). Labour has become a London-centric Cult of Metropolitan Wankiness, wittering on about Transgender this and anti-Austerity that, utterly and horrifically alien to every sane Briton.

The modern Labour party look like a bunch of obnoxious over-privileged students.

The budget in four slogans that Labour can't counter

@Conservatives: RETWEET to let friends know how the #SummerBudget will help families across Britain: http://t.co/qvZrz3Wpnu http://t.co/KiMCPrwKRp

Scott_P

john_zims said:

@SquareRoot

'Meanwhile .. over on tim twitter..... tim is going into orbit'

Bless the poor little mite that manages to compete with Roger for all the wrong calls.

The day Osborne becomes PM he will explode

HYUFD

The_Apocalypse said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

ThomasNashe said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Nashe, didn't hear it, but I am wondering what the non-child question was. It sounds ridiculous.

Essentially quoting another Labour MP (female) that she would be supporting Cooper because she's got children, and therefore knows what it's really like ... blah, blah, blah. I'm really in despair about the current state of the Labour party.

You are right to despair. As of now it is difficult to see where a Labour resurrection will come from. The Nats aren't going away. Nor is UKIP.

Osborne has stolen all of Labour's sexiest lingerie from the political washing line. What are Labour gonna wear in 2020, to attract Tory, Nat and UKIP voters? Really?

I can't think of a single policy they could credibly adopt in five years' time which might get them anywhere near a majority.

Their best bet is EVENTS, DEAR BOY, EVENTS, but it is thin gruel.

After 10 years+ of 1 party in power the mood is normally for change, even Thatcher would have lost to Kinnock had there been an election in 1989. Even a booming economy does not always help, as the Tories discovered in 1997 and who knows what the implications of EUref are. Voters may also feel the Tories have completed their job of restoring the finances which they did not in 2015. Osborne has boosted his credentials since the election to succeed Cameron and probably will lead the Tories in 2020 but he is not as charismatic or likeable as Cameron is. Apart from Corbyn, the other 3 Labour contendors would also be an improvement on Ed.

To win a majority will be very difficult as you suggest, Labour will need to win back voters who backed Blair in 2005 then switched to Cameron in 2010 and 2015, plus hope the Tories lose a few to UKIP post EUref, plus win back 10-20 seats in Scotland. It will be a big challenge, but I would not rule it out

No HYUFD, you don't understand. If Tories say Labour are DOOOMED then their word is final.

In all seriousness, I completely agree with your post. Looking at the next five years, events looks a pretty good bet anyway, with the EU ref, the economy, and the impact of austerity on voters'.

Indeed, plenty to play for. The 5 year fixed cycle also helps Labour, had it been 4 years and the next election been in 2018 then Cameron would probably have stayed on and won as Blair did in 2005. However, since WW2 only one party has won an election after 10 or more years in power, the Tories in 1992 and the only reason they won that was because electing John Major seemed like a change of government from Thatcher anyway. Osborne will not seem like such a change from Cameron and the present government as he has been at the forefront of it from the start

Scott_P

Meanwhile...

Angela Merkel was warned today that she faces the toughest battle of her leadership to push any deal with Greece through the German parliament with more than 100 of her MPs threatening to revolt as public opinion hardens against Athens.

The size of the rebellion in her own ranks limits Mrs Merkel’s room to climb down from her tough stance against Greece and all but kills off its bid for a huge debt write-off as part of the new bailout plan it needs to stave off banking collapse.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4491670.ece