There is little doubt pollsters have had their worst year for decades and that is not just in the UK but globally. In Israel, the UK and Greece they all failed to predict the final swing to one side in their polls which had it tied. They will be relying on Canada and Spain later in the year and next year's London Mayoral race and of course the US presidential elections to restore confidence. That may also explain the relative lack of polling, certainly membership polling, for the Labour leadership. When it does come they will want to be certain it looks right
They should purge their bank of people to be polled - and then refill from outside the polling booths on GE day. Those who contributed to the exit poll seemed to be more representative of voters - strangely.
Interestingly, it seem's that at this point after 1992 we'd had 15 published polls... Where-as at this point after 1997 we'd only had six.
So the 1992 polling disaster didn't seem to have much affect on the number of polls published, where-as this time it clearly has (probably because in 1992 the papers were not running on such tight margins where-as now they haven't got the money to waste on dodgy polls.
Ultimately, I think the big reduction in polls we're going to get in this Parliament is clearly a good thing as 2010-2015 just got ridiculous in the amount of polls that was going on.
I felt the 2005-2010 Parliament got the balance about right (both in terms of numbers of polls published and telephone Vs online)
Interestingly, it seem's that at this point after 1992 we'd had 15 published polls... Where-as at this point after 1997 we'd only had six.
So the 1992 polling disaster didn't seem to have much affect on the number of polls published, where-as this time it clearly has (probably because in 1992 the papers were not running on such tight margins where-as now they haven't got the money to waste on dodgy polls.
Ultimately, I think the big reduction in polls we're going to get in this Parliament is clearly a good thing as 2010-2015 just got ridiculous in the amount of polls that was going on.
I felt the 2005-2010 Parliament got the balance about right (both in terms of numbers of polls published and telephone Vs online)
I did a thread last year, saying we suffering from polling overload
Going forward people will have the full knowledge that they'll only have tax credits for two children.
But it suggests that Cameron was lying through his teeth during the election campaign.
What the new Labour leader should do is is put a pledge to restore child tax credits on a giant granite slab, and take it round the country with them
If the image is starting to build that Cameron & Osborne are out and out liars who will say anything during an election campaign and then row back immediately after being returned to office the effect is likely to be damaging.
@Richard_Nabavi An oft overlooked fact was that in England there was a 1.1% swing to Labour.
That wasn't a million miles off what the phone polls were predicting when you stripped them down... the main issue for England was Question 2 of the Ashcroft polls in the Lib Dem seats.
That screwed up alot of perception - in hindsight the most valuable English poll from a betting PoV was the Southwest Con-LD marginal; that was spot on but contrary to the perceived betting/polling/pundit wisdom that the Lib Dems would "stick" in thier heartlands... it was the Southwest wot won it.
Interestingly, it seem's that at this point after 1992 we'd had 15 published polls... Where-as at this point after 1997 we'd only had six.
So the 1992 polling disaster didn't seem to have much affect on the number of polls published, where-as this time it clearly has (probably because in 1992 the papers were not running on such tight margins where-as now they haven't got the money to waste on dodgy polls.
Ultimately, I think the big reduction in polls we're going to get in this Parliament is clearly a good thing as 2010-2015 just got ridiculous in the amount of polls that was going on.
I felt the 2005-2010 Parliament got the balance about right (both in terms of numbers of polls published and telephone Vs online)
I did a thread last year, saying we suffering from polling overload
Going forward people will have the full knowledge that they'll only have tax credits for two children.
But it suggests that Cameron was lying through his teeth during the election campaign.
What the new Labour leader should do is is put a pledge to restore child tax credits on a giant granite slab, and take it round the country with them
If the image is starting to build that Cameron & Osborne are out and out liars who will say anything during an election campaign and then row back immediately after being returned to office the effect is likely to be damaging.
Cameron the first PM to be returned to office with an increase in both seats and share of the vote since Palmerston.
I think the voters rather like what he says before an election and that he delivers on it.
Interestingly, it seem's that at this point after 1992 we'd had 15 published polls... Where-as at this point after 1997 we'd only had six.
So the 1992 polling disaster didn't seem to have much affect on the number of polls published, where-as this time it clearly has (probably because in 1992 the papers were not running on such tight margins where-as now they haven't got the money to waste on dodgy polls.
Ultimately, I think the big reduction in polls we're going to get in this Parliament is clearly a good thing as 2010-2015 just got ridiculous in the amount of polls that was going on.
I felt the 2005-2010 Parliament got the balance about right (both in terms of numbers of polls published and telephone Vs online)
I did a thread last year, saying we suffering from polling overload
Going forward people will have the full knowledge that they'll only have tax credits for two children.
But it suggests that Cameron was lying through his teeth during the election campaign.
What the new Labour leader should do is is put a pledge to restore child tax credits on a giant granite slab, and take it round the country with them
If the image is starting to build that Cameron & Osborne are out and out liars who will say anything during an election campaign and then row back immediately after being returned to office the effect is likely to be damaging.
Going forward people will have the full knowledge that they'll only have tax credits for two children.
But it suggests that Cameron was lying through his teeth during the election campaign.
What the new Labour leader should do is is put a pledge to restore child tax credits on a giant granite slab, and take it round the country with them
If the image is starting to build that Cameron & Osborne are out and out liars who will say anything during an election campaign and then row back immediately after being returned to office the effect is likely to be damaging.
Cameron the first PM to be returned to office with an increase in both seats and share of the vote since Palmerston.
I think the voters rather like what he says before an election and that he delivers on it.
Perhaps the voters are now being presented with evidence which contradicts that. You don't need to go back as far as Palmerston - Harold Wilson did that twice - 1966 and October 1974.
@Richard_Nabavi An oft overlooked fact was that in England there was a 1.1% swing to Labour.
That wasn't a million miles off what the phone polls were predicting when you stripped them down... the main issue for England was Question 2 of the Ashcroft polls in the Lib Dem seats.
That screwed up alot of perception - in hindsight the most valuable English poll from a betting PoV was the Southwest Con-LD marginal; that was spot on but contrary to the perceived betting/polling/pundit wisdom that the Lib Dems would "stick" in thier heartlands... it was the Southwest wot won it.
Yes, the Ashcroft polls were highly misleading. Some of us warned that this might well be the case - I basically ignored them, and I focused on reputable national polls in the couple of weeks leading up to the election. My starting point (before the mental adjustments I mention in my previous post) was that the polls were showing a 2% Conservative lead.
The Ashcroft polls were pretty good in Scotland, though, I think. Mind you the SNP tsunami was so overwhelming that you didn't really need any precision in the polling.
There is little doubt pollsters have had their worst year for decades and that is not just in the UK but globally. In Israel, the UK and Greece they all failed to predict the final swing to one side in their polls which had it tied. They will be relying on Canada and Spain later in the year and next year's London Mayoral race and of course the US presidential elections to restore confidence. That may also explain the relative lack of polling, certainly membership polling, for the Labour leadership. When it does come they will want to be certain it looks right
They should purge their bank of people to be polled - and then refill from outside the polling booths on GE day. Those who contributed to the exit poll seemed to be more representative of voters - strangely.
Indeed, certainly they need to go back to the drawing board in terms of sampling
@Richard_Nabavi An oft overlooked fact was that in England there was a 1.1% swing to Labour.
That wasn't a million miles off what the phone polls were predicting when you stripped them down... the main issue for England was Question 2 of the Ashcroft polls in the Lib Dem seats.
That screwed up alot of perception - in hindsight the most valuable English poll from a betting PoV was the Southwest Con-LD marginal; that was spot on but contrary to the perceived betting/polling/pundit wisdom that the Lib Dems would "stick" in thier heartlands... it was the Southwest wot won it.
I had a twitter exchange about this which Andrew Hawkins of ComRes intervened in. The key bit was as follows:
Alastair Meeks @AlastairMeeks · Apr 17 @JimmyChewNFL The other 2 seats, Yeovil and Bath, are safer. So he'd [Lord Ashcroft] expect 7 holds. ComRes expect none.
Andrew Hawkins @Andrew_ComRes · Apr 17 @AlastairMeeks@JimmyChewNFL not quite true - we found 13pt swing across all seats but with Lib Dems we don't expect UNS to apply
So even ComRes were hypnotised by the idea that of Lib Dem incumbency, despite their own poll.
On 31 March 2015, David Cameron appeared on the Question Time Election Leaders Special. The very first exchange was as follows:
Questioner: "Will you put to bed rumours that you plan to cut child tax credit and restrict child benefit to two children?"
David Cameron: "Well thank you Jenny for that question. No, I don't want to do that, this report that was out today was something that I rejected at the time as prime minister and I reject it again today".
He finishes his answer by pivoting to the successes of his benefits cap.
But Dimbleby clarifies with the Prime Minister: "Sorry – you said you didn’t want to put to bed the rumours that you were going to cut Child Tax Credits, you meant you did want to put to bed the rumour?"
Cameron: "Ah, yes. We increased child tax credits actually, we increased them by £452 under this government because I was determined that while we had to take difficult decisions, and we have, we were left an absolute nightmare to clear up, I wanted to make sure that child poverty continued to fall and it has fallen because of what we did on child tax credits."
Dimbleby: "And so that’s a guarantee that you won’t" (moves on to audience member who asks about benefit cap)
In the run up to the Budget, my colleague Allegra Stratton reported that the Government was looking at options on how to make changes to child tax credits.
Sure enough, George Osborne, presumably with David Cameron's blessing, announced that the Government was going to limit child tax credit for people with more than two children.
He also made other changes, including increasing the rate at which it was withdrawn from people as they got more work (the "taper rate") from 41% to 48%, and reducing the level of income at which it would be withdrawn. They also froze the level of tax credits.
The effect of all of these measures is that the Government will be spending less on tax credits than it would have been if it hadn't done them - to the tune of billions. We know this because the budget book tells us so.
I leave it to you as to whether what George Osborne announced yesterday on tax credits was consistent with what David Cameron told the Question time audience before the election.
So even ComRes were hypnotised by the idea that of Lib Dem incumbency, despite their own poll.
This is another example where the (national and regional) polling was better than the pundits. As regards the LibDems, anyone who bet naively on the polling, ignoring pundits and 'gut feel', would have done rather well.
Interestingly, it seem's that at this point after 1992 we'd had 15 published polls... Where-as at this point after 1997 we'd only had six.
So the 1992 polling disaster didn't seem to have much affect on the number of polls published, where-as this time it clearly has (probably because in 1992 the papers were not running on such tight margins where-as now they haven't got the money to waste on dodgy polls.
Ultimately, I think the big reduction in polls we're going to get in this Parliament is clearly a good thing as 2010-2015 just got ridiculous in the amount of polls that was going on.
I felt the 2005-2010 Parliament got the balance about right (both in terms of numbers of polls published and telephone Vs online)
I did a thread last year, saying we suffering from polling overload
Isn't it just that we know we have 5 years to the election, while in 2010 there was an expectation that the coalition may be shortlived?
There were many people on here and elsewhere predicting that the coalition would not even last the year (2010). I always thought that it would last until at least a few months before the 2015 GE.
I have considerably less confidence in the Conservatives maintaining a majority up to 2020.
Going forward people will have the full knowledge that they'll only have tax credits for two children.
But it suggests that Cameron was lying through his teeth during the election campaign.
What the new Labour leader should do is is put a pledge to restore child tax credits on a giant granite slab, and take it round the country with them
If the image is starting to build that Cameron & Osborne are out and out liars who will say anything during an election campaign and then row back immediately after being returned to office the effect is likely to be damaging.
Cameron the first PM to be returned to office with an increase in both seats and share of the vote since Palmerston.
I think the voters rather like what he says before an election and that he delivers on it.
Perhaps the voters are now being presented with evidence which contradicts that. You don't need to go back as far as Palmerston - Harold Wilson did that twice - 1966 and October 1974.
Going forward people will have the full knowledge that they'll only have tax credits for two children.
But it suggests that Cameron was lying through his teeth during the election campaign.
What the new Labour leader should do is is put a pledge to restore child tax credits on a giant granite slab, and take it round the country with them
If the image is starting to build that Cameron & Osborne are out and out liars who will say anything during an election campaign and then row back immediately after being returned to office the effect is likely to be damaging.
Cameron the first PM to be returned to office with an increase in both seats and share of the vote since Palmerston.
I think the voters rather like what he says before an election and that he delivers on it.
Perhaps the voters are now being presented with evidence which contradicts that. You don't need to go back as far as Palmerston - Harold Wilson did that twice - 1966 and October 1974.
You are getting rather desperate - and its 5 years to the next election.
Interestingly, it seem's that at this point after 1992 we'd had 15 published polls... Where-as at this point after 1997 we'd only had six.
So the 1992 polling disaster didn't seem to have much affect on the number of polls published, where-as this time it clearly has (probably because in 1992 the papers were not running on such tight margins where-as now they haven't got the money to waste on dodgy polls.
Ultimately, I think the big reduction in polls we're going to get in this Parliament is clearly a good thing as 2010-2015 just got ridiculous in the amount of polls that was going on.
I felt the 2005-2010 Parliament got the balance about right (both in terms of numbers of polls published and telephone Vs online)
I did a thread last year, saying we suffering from polling overload
Isn't it just that we know we have 5 years to the election, while in 2010 there was an expectation that the coalition may be shortlived?
There were many people on here and elsewhere predicting that the coalition would not even last the year (2010). I always thought that it would last until at least a few months before the 2015 GE.
I have considerably less confidence in the Conservatives maintaining a majority up to 2020.
Unless there is a mass defection, it's hard to see them not doing it. Put it this way - unless something goes hideously wrong with the referendum in the next couple of years, and the Tombstone group decide to join UKIP or some other fringe party and Ken Clarke and his remaining admirers join the Liberal Democrats, where are the 8 by-election defeats theoretically required going to come from? Tory MPs are now on average much younger and healthier than they were in the 1990s, and it is some years since any of them actually died in office.
Even if they do lose their majority, until the Tories get down to around 290 seats, Labour would find it difficult to actually force them from office. Which puts it to around 40 by election defeats required which seems unrealistic to me. Therefore, I would be surprised if the next election were before 2020.
Although of course something drastic could happen and prove me wrong, it would probably be along the lines of a massive terrorist attack or a major bus accident involving multiple Tory MPs. And that's something I don't think even the current Labour party, in all their arrogant vileness, would wish for.
@Andy_JS Have you seen Pop Gold on ITV? They've themed their pop archives of the last 60yrs and now showing them on Wed nights - some great unseen in decades footage from their old shows.
Interestingly, it seem's that at this point after 1992 we'd had 15 published polls... Where-as at this point after 1997 we'd only had six.
So the 1992 polling disaster didn't seem to have much affect on the number of polls published, where-as this time it clearly has (probably because in 1992 the papers were not running on such tight margins where-as now they haven't got the money to waste on dodgy polls.
Ultimately, I think the big reduction in polls we're going to get in this Parliament is clearly a good thing as 2010-2015 just got ridiculous in the amount of polls that was going on.
I felt the 2005-2010 Parliament got the balance about right (both in terms of numbers of polls published and telephone Vs online)
I did a thread last year, saying we suffering from polling overload
Isn't it just that we know we have 5 years to the election, while in 2010 there was an expectation that the coalition may be shortlived?
There were many people on here and elsewhere predicting that the coalition would not even last the year (2010). I always thought that it would last until at least a few months before the 2015 GE.
I have considerably less confidence in the Conservatives maintaining a majority up to 2020.
Unless there is a mass defection, it's hard to see them not doing it. Put it this way - unless something goes hideously wrong with the referendum in the next couple of years, and the Tombstone group decide to join UKIP or some other fringe party and Ken Clarke and his remaining admirers join the Liberal Democrats, where are the 8 by-election defeats theoretically required going to come from? Tory MPs are now on average much younger and healthier than they were in the 1990s, and it is some years since any of them actually died in office.
Even if they do lose their majority, until the Tories get down to around 290 seats, Labour would find it difficult to actually force them from office. Which puts it to around 40 by election defeats required which seems unrealistic to me. Therefore, I would be surprised if the next election were before 2020.
Although of course something drastic could happen and prove me wrong, it would probably be along the lines of a massive terrorist attack or a major bus accident involving multiple Tory MPs. And that's something I don't think even the current Labour party, in all their arrogant vileness, would wish for.
Eh... Europe.
Soon there will be a long series of votes on membership of the European Union, in which the Conservatives will not have a majority.
Soon there will be a long series of votes on membership of the European Union, in which the Conservatives will not have a majority.
1) You can't know that. Nobody does. Perhaps there will be a rebellion, perhaps not. I'm not placing bets on that, literally, because I think that's one that could go either way.
2) 'Not having a majority' is rather different from 'losing their majority.' Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were both defeated in the Commons, but they still had majorities. That was what I was driving at, and what @JosiasJessop was saying - the numbers to command a majority in a vote of confidence.
Labour would not be able to force one until/unless the Tories have lost very large numbers of seats in some fashion, and I was explaining why I think that is unlikely. It is also unlikely that they will force a vote of confidence unless they are confident of getting an overall majority themselves, which is also quite an implausible scenario at the moment, due to the expense of a double election (if the SNP implode, their tactics might change).
So I would be surprised - not die of a heart attack shocked, but surprised - if this parliament doesn't go the distance.
Greek newspapers reported Tsipras had come up with a new reform package worth €12 billion (£8.6 billion) over the next two years which would be larger than anything yet proposed by his government.
This would see Greece swing from growth of around 0.5% this year to shrinkage of some 3%, the Greek newspaper Kathimerini reported.
A second newspaper, Naftemporiki, detailed what it said were proposed tax hikes to find the money, an increase in corporate tax to 28% from 26%; a rise in VAT on luxury goods to 13% from 10%; in VAT on processed foods, restaurants, transport and some health services offered by the private sector to 23% from 13%; a VAT hike on hotels to 13% from 6.5%.
Greek newspapers reported Tsipras had come up with a new reform package worth €12 billion (£8.6 billion) over the next two years which would be larger than anything yet proposed by his government.
This would see Greece swing from growth of around 0.5% this year to shrinkage of some 3%, the Greek newspaper Kathimerini reported.
A second newspaper, Naftemporiki, detailed what it said were proposed tax hikes to find the money, an increase in corporate tax to 28% from 26%; a rise in VAT on luxury goods to 13% from 10%; in VAT on processed foods, restaurants, transport and some health services offered by the private sector to 23% from 13%; a VAT hike on hotels to 13% from 6.5%.
I can make an educated guess: The reform package fails as have all the previous ones and a new one will be needed in the spring and when the even newer one fails more measures would be needed blah blah blah.
I've seen it in detail and that reform package will definitely fail, Greek GDP will fall by about 7% just from the reform package alone not counting the greek bank crash last week.
Not much of an achievement, since the only Prime Ministers who have served a full term since the term was reduced to five years by the Parliament Act 1911 (excluding those whose terms were extended by Parliament because of war) are Major (1992-1997) and Cameron (2010-2015).
I can make an educated guess: The reform package fails as have all the previous ones and a new one will be needed in the spring and when the even newer one fails more measures would be needed blah blah blah.
I've seen it in detail and that reform package will definitely fail, Greek GDP will fall by about 7% just from the reform package alone not counting the greek bank crash last week.
I think they are screwed now whatever they do. They were in a dire state before, but electing the Greek equivalents of Owen Jones and David Blanchflower to run the country has had the entirely predictable effect.
A chief constable suspended for a year after being accused of making 'inappropriate advances' to women has been found guilty of misconduct - but allowed to return to work.
Nick Gargan, head of Avon and Somerset Police, was suspended last May while the police watchdog investigated allegations he 'abused his senior position by making inappropriate advances to junior female colleagues'.
The 48-year-old faced a total of 10 charges of gross misconduct and three charges of misconduct and has now been found guilty of eight charges at the level of misconduct after a 10-day hearing behind closed doors.
It emerged last year that, in a separate scandal, Gargan left a previous post at the British embassy in Paris under a cloud after it emerged he had formed a close relationship with a colleague's daughter.
He had been working on the investigation into the death of Princess Diana in the French capital at the time.
Greek newspapers reported Tsipras had come up with a new reform package worth €12 billion (£8.6 billion) over the next two years which would be larger than anything yet proposed by his government.
This would see Greece swing from growth of around 0.5% this year to shrinkage of some 3%, the Greek newspaper Kathimerini reported.
A second newspaper, Naftemporiki, detailed what it said were proposed tax hikes to find the money, an increase in corporate tax to 28% from 26%; a rise in VAT on luxury goods to 13% from 10%; in VAT on processed foods, restaurants, transport and some health services offered by the private sector to 23% from 13%; a VAT hike on hotels to 13% from 6.5%.
I can make an educated guess: The reform package fails as have all the previous ones and a new one will be needed in the spring and when the even newer one fails more measures would be needed blah blah blah.
I've seen it in detail and that reform package will definitely fail, Greek GDP will fall by about 7% just from the reform package alone not counting the greek bank crash last week.
Second verse same as the first indeed, I suspect. I wonder how the next final final deadline for some deal or so will be described.
I can make an educated guess: The reform package fails as have all the previous ones and a new one will be needed in the spring and when the even newer one fails more measures would be needed blah blah blah.
I've seen it in detail and that reform package will definitely fail, Greek GDP will fall by about 7% just from the reform package alone not counting the greek bank crash last week.
I think they are screwed now whatever they do. They were in a dire state before, but electing the Greek equivalents of Owen Jones and David Blanchflower to run the country has had the entirely predictable effect.
While electing the equivalents of John Major and Tony Blair has had an equally predictable effect of crashing the greek economy by 25% in just 6 years.
The problem is always the same it never changes, Greece and it's reforms are doomed to fail because they never address the currency issue which is the heart of the problem. Greece will predictably continue to collapse until they stop using euros as currency, their crisis is a monetary one.
norman smith @BBCNormanS 4h4 hours ago It is "arithmetically impossible" for Chancellor's National Living Wage to offset loss of income in tax credits - IFS
No doubt those figures are all a lefty conspiracy, though.
Soon there will be a long series of votes on membership of the European Union, in which the Conservatives will not have a majority.
1) You can't know that. Nobody does. Perhaps there will be a rebellion, perhaps not. I'm not placing bets on that, literally, because I think that's one that could go either way.
2) 'Not having a majority' is rather different from 'losing their majority.' Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were both defeated in the Commons, but they still had majorities. That was what I was driving at, and what @JosiasJessop was saying - the numbers to command a majority in a vote of confidence.
Labour would not be able to force one until/unless the Tories have lost very large numbers of seats in some fashion, and I was explaining why I think that is unlikely. It is also unlikely that they will force a vote of confidence unless they are confident of getting an overall majority themselves, which is also quite an implausible scenario at the moment, due to the expense of a double election (if the SNP implode, their tactics might change).
So I would be surprised - not die of a heart attack shocked, but surprised - if this parliament doesn't go the distance.
In a way I hope you're right, as Labour are in no fit state to run a whelk stall, yet alone a country at the moment (although that might change under a new leader).
But there are other possibilities. As well as MPs dying (and you are right that their MPs are younger than they were), you will also have defections (how will the referendum alter thinking, both before and after), scandal-led resignations, and even Mensch-like people who just say 'sod this'.
norman smith @BBCNormanS 4h4 hours ago It is "arithmetically impossible" for Chancellor's National Living Wage to offset loss of income in tax credits - IFS
No doubt those figures are all a lefty conspiracy, though.
Again, the IFS make the silly assumption that everyone claims tax credits for low wages, there are plenty of people who don't.
Tax credits for people who work are bad. Welfare dependency is bad. Middle class welfare dependency is awful. Higher wages and lower tax is the solution. Maybe we haven't repaired all of the damage done by Brown's tax credits nightmare, but it is a start. We need to continue to bear down on tax credits until they are eliminated for all but the first two children and even that needs to eventually be turned into a tax allowance rather than cash money.
norman smith @BBCNormanS 4h4 hours ago It is "arithmetically impossible" for Chancellor's National Living Wage to offset loss of income in tax credits - IFS
No doubt those figures are all a lefty conspiracy, though.
I don't doubt the figures. The issue is a simple one, really.
Redistribution of wealth from the richer members of society to the poorer members is still taking place. The argument is about the level of that redistribution.
Labour want more distribution, the Conservatives less. 'Twas ever thus.
Tax credits for people who work are bad. Welfare dependency is bad. Middle class welfare dependency is awful. Higher wages and lower tax is the solution.
Nobody disagrees with that though. The issue is that the rate it's done IS going to lead to huge numbers of people having drops in their income (contrary to what the Tories were initially spinning) - and it's not going to be much consolation to the hundreds of thousands that are consequently going to be struggling to put food on the table that they're collateral damage in some long-term project to make the economy more efficient.
David Cameron stated in the IPSE magazine that: “The self-employed are a key part of our long-term economic plan for the country.”
Budget reaction from IPSE: The Chancellor has greatly disappointed us by listening to the army of faceless wonders in HMRC and threatening contractors throughout the UK.
If you work through your own limited company things are going to get tougher, much tougher.
HMRC dealt not one, not two, but three blows to the UK's smallest businesses yesterday. In all cases we believe the blows are below the belt!
First, arcane rules known as IR35 are ominously to be made 'more effective'. These rules try and almost always fail to separate disguised employees from genuine businesses.
Second, new restrictions on travel and subsistence expenses are to be imposed on one-person limited companies.
Third, there is a significant tax hike on dividends - a change that will affect all company directors, not just independent professionals.
I think these rule changes are going to end up hurting a lot of small businesses.
They seem to want to target one-person service companies as they think they are skipping paying some tax. But they don't seem to understand two important points:-
1. The changes affect many other "normal" start-ups.
2. If someone starts as a one-person service they might end up employing others - but not if you punish them right at the start.
Those people would naturally veer towards the Tories; I wonder how many will think again next time they're expected to cast a vote?
Well, yeah. There are an estimated 4.6 million freelancers, and, as you say, most of them tended Tory in the past. There's also the fact that if they do pay themselves through the salary method, one-man companies are the only ones explicitly denied the Employment Allowance on Employer's NICs. And the new travel and subsistence rules will hugely restrict a freelancer's range - you'll have to only get contracts within ready commuting distance. Many work on projects far from home (the ultimate adherence to Tebbit's "Get on your bike and look for work") and have to incur accommodation and food charges when away for the duration of those projects. Bang goes that option. Freelancers are fucked. Still, at least they've got job security, paid holidays and paid sick days. Oh, wait...
Tax credits for people who work are bad. Welfare dependency is bad. Middle class welfare dependency is awful. Higher wages and lower tax is the solution.
Nobody disagrees with that though. The issue is that the rate it's done IS going to lead to huge numbers of people having drops in their income (contrary to what the Tories were initially spinning) - and it's not going to be much consolation to the hundreds of thousands that are consequently going to be struggling to put food on the table that they're collateral damage in some long-term project to make the economy more efficient.
Then blame Labour for putting them in this situation in the first place by addicting them to welfare with their web of tax credits and means testing combined with perverse incentives to refuse work.
Labour are the guy who ran someone over and then shout and scream at the doctor trying to heal the patient because there is some temporary discomfort. The doctor is not to blame for the discomfort the original idiot is.
In a way I hope you're right, as Labour are in no fit state to run a whelk stall, yet alone a country at the moment (although that might change under a new leader).
But there are other possibilities. As well as MPs dying (and you are right that their MPs are younger than they were), you will also have defections (how will the referendum alter thinking, both before and after), scandal-led resignations, and even Mensch-like people who just say 'sod this'.
Yes - but even allowing for those, I can't see it happening. The coalition - not the Conservatives, the coalition - lost a grand total of three seats in by-elections (four changed hands in total) in the last parliament. There were 21 total by-elections, of which a substantial number were Labour members resigning to become police commissioners. There were two defections, two major personal scandals (the egregious Huhne and MacShameless) one 'sod this I'm off', one declared void, six deaths, and the others were resignations to become PCCs, which is not likely to happen again. So effectively, 12 is about the norm (and many of them would be expected to come from Labour anyway - or possibly the SNP will have some of the 'sod it I'm off' brigade).
Therefore, it's becoming a rare event and I think 15 (in practice) is almost certainly enough to see the Conservatives through for five years. It won't be an easy government, but it should be a fairly safe one.
Unsurprisingly I am not remotely interested. But just to show willing, how would you pay for the £17 billions in benefits the govt are cutting - not to mention total £37 billions of spending cuts the govt have announced? We have a deficit because we are spending more than we can afford and even the labour hierarchy have realised that putting up tax to 50p will lose money rather than collect it.
Everyone will remember where they were the day Owen Jones spoke sense
(snip)
Hmmm. Does this mean that if I vote for 'out', I'll be on the same side as Jones?
That'll feel odd.
Yes I guess so... If Russell Brand follows suit I might say to hell with the good of the country and vote in
I can see the dilemma. However, by doing the opposite of what those two say you would be restoring sanity to the universe and that could be argued to be in the national interest.
Everyone will remember where they were the day Owen Jones spoke sense
(snip)
Hmmm. Does this mean that if I vote for 'out', I'll be on the same side as Jones?
That'll feel odd.
Yes I guess so... If Russell Brand follows suit I might say to hell with the good of the country and vote in
I can see the dilemma. However, by doing the opposite of what those two say you would be restoring sanity to the universe and that could be argued to be in the national interest.
Many work on projects far from home (the ultimate adherence to Tebbit's "Get on your bike and look for work") and have to incur accommodation and food charges when away for the duration of those projects. Bang goes that option.
The "ultimate adherence" would be to visit only places in cycling range, surely?
Lefty conspiracy....in the Daily Mail. 13m is an awful lot of "nitpicking exceptions".
This is an early gift for Labour if they paint it as a tax rise for some of the lowest-paid people in the country, but it will involve them actually having some persistence to keep going on and on about it (something they were pathetic at in the last parliament--they'd always give up after a couple of days if they didn't start gaining traction with one of their attacks).
Lefty conspiracy....in the Daily Mail. 13m is an awful lot of "nitpicking exceptions".
This is an early gift for Labour if they paint it as a tax rise for some of the lowest-paid people in the country, but it will involve them actually having some persistence to keep going on and on about it (something they were pathetic at in the last parliament--they'd always give up after a couple of days if they didn't start gaining traction with one of their attacks).
More dishonesty from Labour. A withdrawal of benefit is not a tax rise.
Lefty conspiracy....in the Daily Mail. 13m is an awful lot of "nitpicking exceptions".
This is an early gift for Labour if they paint it as a tax rise for some of the lowest-paid people in the country, but it will involve them actually having some persistence to keep going on and on about it (something they were pathetic at in the last parliament--they'd always give up after a couple of days if they didn't start gaining traction with one of their attacks).
More dishonesty from Labour. A withdrawal of benefit is not a tax rise.
Actually, if you consider tax credits as a negative income tax, it arguably is a tax rise.
Either way, it's pretty easy to paint it as a "tax" when people's pay packets are going to be cut, and I'm not sure I share the PBTories' optimism that those people affected aren't going to notice. I called it yesterday that this would have a long fuse on it like the 10p tax band scrapping did.
Lefty conspiracy....in the Daily Mail. 13m is an awful lot of "nitpicking exceptions".
This is an early gift for Labour if they paint it as a tax rise for some of the lowest-paid people in the country, but it will involve them actually having some persistence to keep going on and on about it (something they were pathetic at in the last parliament--they'd always give up after a couple of days if they didn't start gaining traction with one of their attacks).
More dishonesty from Labour. A withdrawal of benefit is not a tax rise.
Actually, if you consider tax credits as a negative income tax, it arguably is a tax rise.
Either way, it's pretty easy to paint it as a "tax" when people's pay packets are going to be cut, and I'm not sure I share the PBTories' optimism that those people affected aren't going to notice.
Except they aren't a negative income tax, so there we go.
Lefty conspiracy....in the Daily Mail. 13m is an awful lot of "nitpicking exceptions".
This is an early gift for Labour if they paint it as a tax rise for some of the lowest-paid people in the country, but it will involve them actually having some persistence to keep going on and on about it (something they were pathetic at in the last parliament--they'd always give up after a couple of days if they didn't start gaining traction with one of their attacks).
As always, reducing benefits dependency is going to be tough and it is going to have a lot of people that lose out, but it still needs to be done. It is one of those "tough choices" that the people rate the Tories so highly on and Labour so poorly on. Being in government is hard, and if Labour do try and oppose the benefits changes, the Tories will very, very easily paint them as weak on benefit scroungers, get the Mail and Telegraph to run front pages with dole monkey and scroungers moaning about how hard life is going to be having to feed their 9 children and then claim they "can't" work.
It isn't going to be as easy as you describe for Labour to come up with a decent answer to welfare cuts.
You know who hates welfare more than people like me? People who work hard for much less money and don't claim benefits. You continually ignore this point, so please address it this time. All of these studies take into account the ideal case where someone always claims what they are entitled to. In reality there are a lot of people who don't, especially wrt to working tax credit which is one of the major changes this budget. Those people who work hard, don't claim tax credits, pay their way, pay their taxes and NICs and get on with their lives hate benefit scroungers more than everyone else. This budget speaks to them directly and Labour would do well not to piss them off.
" Britain’s contribution to the European Union budget is set to be £3.1 billion higher over the next five years than was forecast before the election.
The Office for Budget Responsibility said it expects Britain’s contributions to Brussels to jump by £1.3 billion next year alone.
The revisions are in part due to a reassessment by economists of the size of Britain’s economy compared to the rest of Europe. Critics will argue that it in effect means that Britain is being penalised for economic success. "
Comments
So the 1992 polling disaster didn't seem to have much affect on the number of polls published, where-as this time it clearly has (probably because in 1992 the papers were not running on such tight margins where-as now they haven't got the money to waste on dodgy polls.
Ultimately, I think the big reduction in polls we're going to get in this Parliament is clearly a good thing as 2010-2015 just got ridiculous in the amount of polls that was going on.
I felt the 2005-2010 Parliament got the balance about right (both in terms of numbers of polls published and telephone Vs online)
Pulpstar said: Will the dog eat Tsipras' homework again ?
Guardian Liveblog Afternoon summary: Waiting for Greece's homework.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/08/15/are-we-suffering-from-polling-overload/
That wasn't a million miles off what the phone polls were predicting when you stripped them down... the main issue for England was Question 2 of the Ashcroft polls in the Lib Dem seats.
That screwed up alot of perception - in hindsight the most valuable English poll from a betting PoV was the Southwest Con-LD marginal; that was spot on but contrary to the perceived betting/polling/pundit wisdom that the Lib Dems would "stick" in thier heartlands... it was the Southwest wot won it.
Alas, I think we're going to have to put #megapollingmonday on ice for this Parliament...
I think the voters rather like what he says before an election and that he delivers on it.
You don't need to go back as far as Palmerston - Harold Wilson did that twice - 1966 and October 1974.
The ECB are going to change the special paper that is used for Euro banknotes.
The new material is going to be Greece proof paper.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Disraeli, so's that
The Ashcroft polls were pretty good in Scotland, though, I think. Mind you the SNP tsunami was so overwhelming that you didn't really need any precision in the polling.
Alastair Meeks @AlastairMeeks · Apr 17
@JimmyChewNFL The other 2 seats, Yeovil and Bath, are safer. So he'd [Lord Ashcroft] expect 7 holds. ComRes expect none.
Andrew Hawkins @Andrew_ComRes · Apr 17
@AlastairMeeks @JimmyChewNFL not quite true - we found 13pt swing across all seats but with Lib Dems we don't expect UNS to apply
So even ComRes were hypnotised by the idea that of Lib Dem incumbency, despite their own poll.
I have considerably less confidence in the Conservatives maintaining a majority up to 2020.
Even if they do lose their majority, until the Tories get down to around 290 seats, Labour would find it difficult to actually force them from office. Which puts it to around 40 by election defeats required which seems unrealistic to me. Therefore, I would be surprised if the next election were before 2020.
Although of course something drastic could happen and prove me wrong, it would probably be along the lines of a massive terrorist attack or a major bus accident involving multiple Tory MPs. And that's something I don't think even the current Labour party, in all their arrogant vileness, would wish for.
https://twitter.com/guidofawkes/status/619173765549830144
So now who's left to vote to keep Britain in the EU now that Labour has turned against the EU?
The OUT camp is looking impressive: UKIP, Non-Cameron Tory party, Labour, SNP, Greens.
The IN camp is now just: Cameron, LD's.
Soon there will be a long series of votes on membership of the European Union, in which the Conservatives will not have a majority.
2) 'Not having a majority' is rather different from 'losing their majority.' Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were both defeated in the Commons, but they still had majorities. That was what I was driving at, and what @JosiasJessop was saying - the numbers to command a majority in a vote of confidence.
Labour would not be able to force one until/unless the Tories have lost very large numbers of seats in some fashion, and I was explaining why I think that is unlikely. It is also unlikely that they will force a vote of confidence unless they are confident of getting an overall majority themselves, which is also quite an implausible scenario at the moment, due to the expense of a double election (if the SNP implode, their tactics might change).
So I would be surprised - not die of a heart attack shocked, but surprised - if this parliament doesn't go the distance.
Only Cameron has the same level of ability as his 70s counterpart though
Hopefully a different result
Greek newspapers reported Tsipras had come up with a new reform package worth €12 billion (£8.6 billion) over the next two years which would be larger than anything yet proposed by his government.
This would see Greece swing from growth of around 0.5% this year to shrinkage of some 3%, the Greek newspaper Kathimerini reported.
A second newspaper, Naftemporiki, detailed what it said were proposed tax hikes to find the money, an increase in corporate tax to 28% from 26%; a rise in VAT on luxury goods to 13% from 10%; in VAT on processed foods, restaurants, transport and some health services offered by the private sector to 23% from 13%; a VAT hike on hotels to 13% from 6.5%.
http://www.hl.co.uk/news/2015/7/9/greek-debt-crisis-greece-squeezed-by-germany-as-deadline-looms
http://www.politico.eu/article/labour-leftists-turn-anti-eu-over-greece-grexit-brexit-referendum-tsipras/
"Labour leftists turn anti-EU over Greece
The Greek crisis is beginning to convert Britain’s left to the wisdom of a Brexit."
The reform package fails as have all the previous ones and a new one will be needed in the spring and when the even newer one fails more measures would be needed blah blah blah.
I've seen it in detail and that reform package will definitely fail, Greek GDP will fall by about 7% just from the reform package alone not counting the greek bank crash last week.
I don't watch TV much these days, who is he?
The problem is always the same it never changes, Greece and it's reforms are doomed to fail because they never address the currency issue which is the heart of the problem.
Greece will predictably continue to collapse until they stop using euros as currency, their crisis is a monetary one.
It is "arithmetically impossible" for Chancellor's National Living Wage to offset loss of income in tax credits - IFS
No doubt those figures are all a lefty conspiracy, though.
But there are other possibilities. As well as MPs dying (and you are right that their MPs are younger than they were), you will also have defections (how will the referendum alter thinking, both before and after), scandal-led resignations, and even Mensch-like people who just say 'sod this'.
Tax credits for people who work are bad. Welfare dependency is bad. Middle class welfare dependency is awful. Higher wages and lower tax is the solution. Maybe we haven't repaired all of the damage done by Brown's tax credits nightmare, but it is a start. We need to continue to bear down on tax credits until they are eliminated for all but the first two children and even that needs to eventually be turned into a tax allowance rather than cash money.
That'll feel odd.
Redistribution of wealth from the richer members of society to the poorer members is still taking place. The argument is about the level of that redistribution.
Labour want more distribution, the Conservatives less. 'Twas ever thus.
https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/tunisia
There are an estimated 4.6 million freelancers, and, as you say, most of them tended Tory in the past.
There's also the fact that if they do pay themselves through the salary method, one-man companies are the only ones explicitly denied the Employment Allowance on Employer's NICs.
And the new travel and subsistence rules will hugely restrict a freelancer's range - you'll have to only get contracts within ready commuting distance. Many work on projects far from home (the ultimate adherence to Tebbit's "Get on your bike and look for work") and have to incur accommodation and food charges when away for the duration of those projects. Bang goes that option.
Freelancers are fucked.
Still, at least they've got job security, paid holidays and paid sick days. Oh, wait...
Labour are the guy who ran someone over and then shout and scream at the doctor trying to heal the patient because there is some temporary discomfort. The doctor is not to blame for the discomfort the original idiot is.
Therefore, it's becoming a rare event and I think 15 (in practice) is almost certainly enough to see the Conservatives through for five years. It won't be an easy government, but it should be a fairly safe one.
Full details on recent by-elections are here:
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/by-elections/by-elections-2010/
We have a deficit because we are spending more than we can afford and even the labour hierarchy have realised that putting up tax to 50p will lose money rather than collect it.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/594817333664817152
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/619191560048132096
Thank god it wasn't Ed Miliband!
She must have some serious dirt on some higher-ups to be constantly getting these good gigs.
This is an early gift for Labour if they paint it as a tax rise for some of the lowest-paid people in the country, but it will involve them actually having some persistence to keep going on and on about it (something they were pathetic at in the last parliament--they'd always give up after a couple of days if they didn't start gaining traction with one of their attacks).
Either way, it's pretty easy to paint it as a "tax" when people's pay packets are going to be cut, and I'm not sure I share the PBTories' optimism that those people affected aren't going to notice. I called it yesterday that this would have a long fuse on it like the 10p tax band scrapping did.
Self deprecating humour is the best
It isn't going to be as easy as you describe for Labour to come up with a decent answer to welfare cuts.
You know who hates welfare more than people like me? People who work hard for much less money and don't claim benefits. You continually ignore this point, so please address it this time. All of these studies take into account the ideal case where someone always claims what they are entitled to. In reality there are a lot of people who don't, especially wrt to working tax credit which is one of the major changes this budget. Those people who work hard, don't claim tax credits, pay their way, pay their taxes and NICs and get on with their lives hate benefit scroungers more than everyone else. This budget speaks to them directly and Labour would do well not to piss them off.
"Budget 2015: Cost of EU member to be £3 billion higher than expected"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11727741/Budget-2015-Cost-of-EU-member-to-be-3-billion-higher-than-expected.html
" Britain’s contribution to the European Union budget is set to be £3.1 billion higher over the next five years than was forecast before the election.
The Office for Budget Responsibility said it expects Britain’s contributions to Brussels to jump by £1.3 billion next year alone.
The revisions are in part due to a reassessment by economists of the size of Britain’s economy compared to the rest of Europe. Critics will argue that it in effect means that Britain is being penalised for economic success. "