politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tonight’s PB/Polling Matters TV Show: WH2016, the impact of

SystemSystem Posts: 12,267
edited March 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tonight’s PB/Polling Matters TV Show: WH2016, the impact of the budget on Osborn’s ambitions and the latest on BREXIT

The latest PB/PM TV Show is just out and rather than examine the detail of the budget seeks to look at its impact on the EURef and, of course, Osbo’s leadership ambitions. Also, of course, there’s a look at the latest “Super Tuesday” primaries and whether Hillary versus Trump is now a foregone conclusion.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • dodradedodrade Posts: 597
    Great volley by Suarez.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    FPT:
    Fenster said:

    felix said:

    rogerh said:

    The changes in personal allowance are crafted to help the struggling middle classes.I calculate that the increase in the allowance from £11,000 to £11500 will give £100 to the standard rate tax payer and £200 to a 40% tax payer.That benefit is dwarfed by raising the level that 40% is paid by £2615 yielding a further £523.So its £100 gain for hard working people and for better off tax payers.One thing you can say about the Tories they look after their own well.

    Since 2010 the personal allowance has gone from £6500 to £11000 - that is a fantastic increase for the lower paid - way better than anything Labour offered. The higher rate allowance was frozen for much of that period. You're cherry-picking and on the outrage bus. Heard it all before many times since 2010 - change the record.
    The raise in the personal allowance is something the left must find very difficult to complain about.

    Well done the Lib Dems.
    Indeed. Logically the left shouldn't hesitate to say it's a bad thing, but ... difficult. I do wonder if the Lib Dems realised how sharp-edged it was when they adopted the policy.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,554
    Joe Marler: England prop avoids sanction for 'Gypsy boy' comment
  • jayfdeejayfdee Posts: 618
    Curse of the new thread.
    Can any of our resident experts comment.
    Can I now gift £4k/annum to my offspring, to put in a lifetime ISA, and get a 25% state uplift.
    I was planning to do the gifting anyway, so a 25% uplift sounds too good to be true.
    I think I will live another 7 years.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Off topic, but apparently Obama's approval rating is at a 3-year high.

    Since I can't think of anything policy-wise that would trigger it, one wonders if it's simply people looking at the candidates for his replacement and thinking "God, we didn't know we'd been born".
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    The only answer to Remains war of fear on the question of security:
    https://twitter.com/igeldard/status/710215242287091713
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    dodrade said:

    Great volley by Suarez.

    That's why Spain have top notch oversea's players and the prem have players that wouldn't get in Barca/R-Madrid reserves.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    edited March 2016
    This from the Guardian debate the other day on Labour remain support,very well put.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7NaA8qZy2s
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Danny565 said:

    Off topic, but apparently Obama's approval rating is at a 3-year high.

    Since I can't think of anything policy-wise that would trigger it, one wonders if it's simply people looking at the candidates for his replacement and thinking "God, we didn't know we'd been born".

    I would treat these internal polls on Obama as POTUS with a grain of salt. The questions asked are nearly always naive and leading to the answers required of the pollster.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited March 2016
    dodrade said:

    Great volley by Suarez.

    off his knee/shin

    Great performance by Arsenal, v unlucky

    Story of our season, we just don't take our chances

    https://twitter.com/colinttrainor/status/710050152770347008
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,554
    edited March 2016
    In the podcast it is mentioned that Trump might stand a chance in Florida, but probably not because of too many Latinos and his whole build a wall thing.

    I don't think this analysis is quite correct. I think it is worth noting that a large proportion of "Latino's" in Florida aren't Mexican, they are Cuban and Puerto Rican, and the Cuban's are traditionally more GOP leaning. A quick look on wikipedia says Mexicans only make up 15% of the Latino's in Florida. So I am not sure "the wall" factor is quite so in play.

    Trump also employs tonnes of people in Florida as well.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    In the podcast it is mentioned that Trump might stand a chance in Florida, but probably not because of too many Latinos and his whole build a wall thing.

    I don't think this analysis is quite correct. I think it is worth noting that a large proportion of "Latino's" in Florida aren't Mexican, they are Cuban and Puerto Rican, and the Cuban's are traditionally more GOP leaning. A quick look on wikipedia says Mexicans only make up 15% of the Latino's in Florida. So I am not sure "the wall" factor is quite so in play.

    That's right, but Cubans have been trending Democrat in recent elections as the Castro factor fades.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    @isam Story of our season, we just don't take our chances

    And defend properly ;-)
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    isam said:

    dodrade said:

    Great volley by Suarez.

    off his knee

    Great performance by Arsenal, v unlucky

    Story of our season, we just don't take our chances

    https://twitter.com/colinttrainor/status/710050152770347008
    I'm not sure why the Manager can't be expected to take responsibility for the fact that five key players haven't got the ball into the back of the net as often as they should have done. While it's a challenge surely getting players to play to their potential is precisely the Manager's responsibility?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Philip_Thompson said:

    isam said:

    dodrade said:

    Great volley by Suarez.

    off his knee

    Great performance by Arsenal, v unlucky

    Story of our season, we just don't take our chances

    https://twitter.com/colinttrainor/status/710050152770347008
    I'm not sure why the Manager can't be expected to take responsibility for the fact that five key players haven't got the ball into the back of the net as often as they should have done. While it's a challenge surely getting players to play to their potential is precisely the Manager's responsibility?
    I would say that is absolute nonsense of the highest order

    What wouldn't be the managers responsibility in your opinion?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Danny565 said:

    Off topic, but apparently Obama's approval rating is at a 3-year high.

    Since I can't think of anything policy-wise that would trigger it, one wonders if it's simply people looking at the candidates for his replacement and thinking "God, we didn't know we'd been born".

    The American economy is not doing too badly now either, enough to lead to a rise in interest rates recently.
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    isam said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    isam said:

    dodrade said:

    Great volley by Suarez.

    off his knee

    Great performance by Arsenal, v unlucky

    Story of our season, we just don't take our chances

    https://twitter.com/colinttrainor/status/710050152770347008
    I'm not sure why the Manager can't be expected to take responsibility for the fact that five key players haven't got the ball into the back of the net as often as they should have done. While it's a challenge surely getting players to play to their potential is precisely the Manager's responsibility?
    I would say that is absolute nonsense of the highest order

    What wouldn't be the managers responsibility in your opinion?
    One of the players shagging the physio? Much as I detest Mourinho even I can't blame him for that.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    My mum: "Not watching the news, I can't bear to watch that smug git"
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    On the Democrat side, Clinton looks like a sure fire cert, but as the primaries move to the rust belt and industrial states, Sanders should do better. All democratic primaries are proportional.

    On the Republican side with the withdrawal of Rubio the numbers tend to favor Trump. Republicans have a smorgasbord of winner take all, winner take most, and proportional primaries. The question becomes whether he can get the 1237 delegates before the convention, ensuring the nomination for him. Otherwise the Rules Committee will be involved at the convention.

    An ABC/Washington Post poll surveyed 1,000 adults and asked if Donald Trump should win the nomination if he has the most delegates going into the RNC.

    Should win - 53%
    Pick someone else - 42%
    No opinion - 5%

    A brokered convention could be very dangerous for the Republicans. If, after the people have spoken - and spoken very loudly, primary turnout is up 35% or so - the back room boys at the convention choose someone else than the person with the most votes, that could be a disaster for the GOP.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,943
    MikeK said:

    The only answer to Remains war of fear on the question of security:
    https://twitter.com/igeldard/status/710215242287091713

    Presumably you would support the repeal of all the illiberal anti terrorism and surveillance state legislation of the last 15 years.
  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 672
    The next round of golf course negotiations with eck&sturgeon should be good for a laugh.

    Their interlocutor could well arrive via the FirthoForth with a couple of Carrier Groups and the Launch Codes in his back pocket.

    https://youtu.be/17EOM3RTD1Y

    He's going to slaughter Hills
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Coman the Bavarian makes it 4-2 in Munich

  • NorfolkTilIDieNorfolkTilIDie Posts: 1,268
    Danny565 said:

    Off topic, but apparently Obama's approval rating is at a 3-year high.

    Since I can't think of anything policy-wise that would trigger it, one wonders if it's simply people looking at the candidates for his replacement and thinking "God, we didn't know we'd been born".

    Think thats right. It rose around the time of 2012 election too, when folk realised Romney was alternative.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Ross Hawkins ‏@rosschawkins
    Budget night - some Tories worried about disability benefit cuts, may stage EU related fight about tampon tax, furious about pro EU speech
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Tykejohnno said:

    Ross Hawkins ‏@rosschawkins
    Budget night - some Tories worried about disability benefit cuts, may stage EU related fight about tampon tax, furious about pro EU speech

    But we have been assured that the disability benefit cuts are a figment of lefties' imagination, and that they are actually at "their highest level ever".
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,554
    Danny565 said:

    My mum: "Not watching the news, I can't bear to watch that smug git"

    That's a bit harsh on Huw Edwards
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Danny565 said:

    My mum: "Not watching the news, I can't bear to watch that smug git"

    That's a bit harsh on Huw Edwards
    Ha! She loves his Elvis lip-sneer.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,663
    Ooh blimey, did George come up with 3 "golden rules" which he was bound to break ?

    I don't get the fuss over the sugar tax, personally I just guzzle tonnes of aspartime anyway ;)
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/710226783640100864
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,663
    Tykejohnno said:

    https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/710226783640100864

    Stick Sprinter Sacre in charge of the country. Might do a better job than George.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Osborne getting an eye full ;-)

    https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/710227851048558592
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    shiney2 said:

    The next round of golf course negotiations with eck&sturgeon should be good for a laugh.

    Their interlocutor could well arrive via the FirthoForth with a couple of Carrier Groups and the Launch Codes in his back pocket.

    https://youtu.be/17EOM3RTD1Y

    He's going to slaughter Hills

    Correct. Clinton desperately wants to be 'liked' and agreed with.

    Trump doesn't give a shit.
  • gettingbettergettingbetter Posts: 564
    NorfolkTilIDie said:

    Danny565 said:

    Off topic, but apparently Obama's approval rating is at a 3-year high.

    Since I can't think of anything policy-wise that would trigger it, one wonders if it's simply people looking at the candidates for his replacement and thinking "God, we didn't know we'd been born".

    Think thats right. It rose around the time of 2012 election too, when folk realised Romney was alternative.
    I was just thinking that president Obama is a much better president than my Clinton will be and that Romney would probably have been better than any of the republicans this time round
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,554
    Pulpstar said:

    Ooh blimey, did George come up with 3 "golden rules" which he was bound to break ?

    I don't get the fuss over the sugar tax, personally I just guzzle tonnes of aspartime anyway ;)

    It keeps the Guardian/BBC chatting classes busy...
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Laura Kuenssberg reporting on a "whiff of rebellion from Tory MPs" on disability benefits.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Danny565 said:

    Laura Kuenssberg reporting on a "whiff of rebellion from Tory MPs" on disability benefits.

    Good.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,663
    See Hillary won Missouri. Real kick in the teeth for Sanders that !
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Pulpstar said:

    See Hillary won Missouri. Real kick in the teeth for Sanders that !

    Hope you don't blame me for anything you lost on Ohio :D
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Pulpstar said:

    See Hillary won Missouri. Real kick in the teeth for Sanders that !

    Has Sanders still got teeth?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,736
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    In the podcast it is mentioned that Trump might stand a chance in Florida, but probably not because of too many Latinos and his whole build a wall thing.

    I don't think this analysis is quite correct. I think it is worth noting that a large proportion of "Latino's" in Florida aren't Mexican, they are Cuban and Puerto Rican, and the Cuban's are traditionally more GOP leaning. A quick look on wikipedia says Mexicans only make up 15% of the Latino's in Florida. So I am not sure "the wall" factor is quite so in play.

    Trump also employs tonnes of people in Florida as well.

    Florida was 2% more Republican than the nation in 2012 I think Trump will win it but narrowly lose overall to Hillary
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    Pulpstar said:

    Ooh blimey, did George come up with 3 "golden rules" which he was bound to break ?

    I don't get the fuss over the sugar tax, personally I just guzzle tonnes of aspartime anyway ;)

    Have I gone back in time and Brown is still the CofE with him breaking these nutjob rules?
    Sadly no. “The creatures outside looked from Osborne to Brown, and from Brown to Osborne, and from Osborne to Brown again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    Danny565 said:

    Laura Kuenssberg reporting on a "whiff of rebellion from Tory MPs" on disability benefits.

    Surprise? Osborne stupidly infects his budget with Project Fear and expects no reaction. Silly runt.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    Tim_B said:

    On the Democrat side, Clinton looks like a sure fire cert, but as the primaries move to the rust belt and industrial states, Sanders should do better. All democratic primaries are proportional.

    On the Republican side with the withdrawal of Rubio the numbers tend to favor Trump. Republicans have a smorgasbord of winner take all, winner take most, and proportional primaries. The question becomes whether he can get the 1237 delegates before the convention, ensuring the nomination for him. Otherwise the Rules Committee will be involved at the convention.

    An ABC/Washington Post poll surveyed 1,000 adults and asked if Donald Trump should win the nomination if he has the most delegates going into the RNC.

    Should win - 53%
    Pick someone else - 42%
    No opinion - 5%

    A brokered convention could be very dangerous for the Republicans. If, after the people have spoken - and spoken very loudly, primary turnout is up 35% or so - the back room boys at the convention choose someone else than the person with the most votes, that could be a disaster for the GOP.

    I'm very curious to understand how the American public would view a brokered convention that didn't nominate Trump if he were a few delegates short. Would it be seen as stealing the nomination from him or would the prevailing view be that he "hadn't got it done in regular time" and couldn't complain if he got a rough deal in overtime?

    I bring up the sports analogy because the Americans are notoriously less tolerant of draws in sport than Europeans and don't seem to acknowledge the idea of an almost-winner.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,663
    That lifetime ISA sounds interesting. Gov't gives me 25% on my money or some such ?!

    Or have I misunderstood it.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,663
    Danny565 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    See Hillary won Missouri. Real kick in the teeth for Sanders that !

    Hope you don't blame me for anything you lost on Ohio :D
    I had Hillary zeroed out on that so no damage, perhaps even 17 pence or so :D

    Your analysis and vision on that was fine btw.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/710224772123238400
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    rcs1000 said:

    MikeK said:

    The only answer to Remains war of fear on the question of security:
    https://twitter.com/igeldard/status/710215242287091713

    Presumably you would support the repeal of all the illiberal anti terrorism and surveillance state legislation of the last 15 years.
    Presumably not too keen on freedom of movement and freedom to bear arms either.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Wanderer said:

    Tim_B said:

    On the Democrat side, Clinton looks like a sure fire cert, but as the primaries move to the rust belt and industrial states, Sanders should do better. All democratic primaries are proportional.

    On the Republican side with the withdrawal of Rubio the numbers tend to favor Trump. Republicans have a smorgasbord of winner take all, winner take most, and proportional primaries. The question becomes whether he can get the 1237 delegates before the convention, ensuring the nomination for him. Otherwise the Rules Committee will be involved at the convention.

    An ABC/Washington Post poll surveyed 1,000 adults and asked if Donald Trump should win the nomination if he has the most delegates going into the RNC.

    Should win - 53%
    Pick someone else - 42%
    No opinion - 5%

    A brokered convention could be very dangerous for the Republicans. If, after the people have spoken - and spoken very loudly, primary turnout is up 35% or so - the back room boys at the convention choose someone else than the person with the most votes, that could be a disaster for the GOP.

    I'm very curious to understand how the American public would view a brokered convention that didn't nominate Trump if he were a few delegates short. Would it be seen as stealing the nomination from him or would the prevailing view be that he "hadn't got it done in regular time" and couldn't complain if he got a rough deal in overtime?

    I bring up the sports analogy because the Americans are notoriously less tolerant of draws in sport than Europeans and don't seem to acknowledge the idea of an almost-winner.
    I think if it were strictly by the rules, everyone could live with it. But that leaves Cruz as the only possible alternative "by the rules".

    If the rules are completely torn up [along with all ballots] to coronate someone else entirely then there would be justifiable fireworks...
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    Just watched the first half of TipTV on the US election. Lots of good stuff. I was particularly struck by Rob's observation that the anti-Trump movement showed its lack of conviction by not rallying round Cruz. Of course, we know why this is, but if you really see Trump as beyond the pale, the American Mussolini etc etc, then Lyin' Ted must be the lesser of two evils. If you are faffing about with dreams of Paul Ryan then you aren't really serious about stopping Trump.

    Which suggests to me that the GOP is going to come to terms with a Trump candidacy before the convention.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,663
    Is Missouri Congressional district 5 definitely for Cruz ?

    Looks to be the only one in doubt now.
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    Pulpstar said:

    That lifetime ISA sounds interesting. Gov't gives me 25% on my money or some such ?!

    Or have I misunderstood it.

    According to Monevator the Lifetime ISA is exceptionally good value:

    http://monevator.com/lifetime-isa/
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,628
    Wanderer said:

    Tim_B said:

    On the Democrat side, Clinton looks like a sure fire cert, but as the primaries move to the rust belt and industrial states, Sanders should do better. All democratic primaries are proportional.

    On the Republican side with the withdrawal of Rubio the numbers tend to favor Trump. Republicans have a smorgasbord of winner take all, winner take most, and proportional primaries. The question becomes whether he can get the 1237 delegates before the convention, ensuring the nomination for him. Otherwise the Rules Committee will be involved at the convention.

    An ABC/Washington Post poll surveyed 1,000 adults and asked if Donald Trump should win the nomination if he has the most delegates going into the RNC.

    Should win - 53%
    Pick someone else - 42%
    No opinion - 5%

    A brokered convention could be very dangerous for the Republicans. If, after the people have spoken - and spoken very loudly, primary turnout is up 35% or so - the back room boys at the convention choose someone else than the person with the most votes, that could be a disaster for the GOP.

    I'm very curious to understand how the American public would view a brokered convention that didn't nominate Trump if he were a few delegates short. Would it be seen as stealing the nomination from him or would the prevailing view be that he "hadn't got it done in regular time" and couldn't complain if he got a rough deal in overtime?

    I bring up the sports analogy because the Americans are notoriously less tolerant of draws in sport than Europeans and don't seem to acknowledge the idea of an almost-winner.
    Good point, and like the sports analogy.

    The problem as I see it with a brokered convention is that everyone involved except Trump is a clear loser, and the average angry Republican voter would see an Establishment stitch-up which would most likely hand the election to Hillary.

    One gets the impression that a fair few of the NRC would prefer Hillary to Trump as President. There probably would be riots if they tried to kick out the Donald now.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited March 2016
    Pulpstar said:

    That lifetime ISA sounds interesting. Gov't gives me 25% on my money or some such ?!

    Or have I misunderstood it.

    It's great for an 18-25 year old who can save/get given £4k/year, every year for the next decade or so.

    Then they get +£10k towards their deposit when they buy a house.

    Not so good for those in their 30's/40's looking to buy their first house soon, unfortunately.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,663
    Pong said:

    Pulpstar said:

    That lifetime ISA sounds interesting. Gov't gives me 25% on my money or some such ?!

    Or have I misunderstood it.

    It's great for an 18-25 year old who can save/get given £4k/year, every year for the next decade or so.

    Then they get +£10k towards their deposit when they buy a house.

    Not so good for those in their 30's/40's looking to buy a house soon.
    I'm 34 and own a (modest) house. What's the deal ?
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited March 2016
    Danny565 said:

    .......

    Wow. "This website is temporarily closed owing to Disability Cuts.
    The domain name will be transfered when the group secure new hosting. The owner of the hosting package Graeme Ellis has resigned over disability cuts from the group and will no longer develop or host this site"

    http://conservativedisabilitygroup.org.uk/
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    The most Government-friendly Mail front page in a long while

    https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/710230176068722688
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,628
    edited March 2016
    Merkel's Massive Migration Mess - Part 26:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/angela-merkel/12195883/Turkey-deal-is-only-way-to-stop-migrants-arriving-in-Europe-warns-Angela-Merkel.html
    under a fast-tracked process drawn up by Angela Merkel to deter crossings.
    Reception centres used to register asylum seekers on the holiday islands of Lesbos, Chios and Leros will be converted into vast detention camps, dormitories and court rooms.
    Migrants will undergo face-to-face to interviews with EU asylum officers, before Greek judges rule on any appeals in rapid-fire hearings. Economic migrants determined to be at risk of absconding will be detained.
    The operation – to cost €20 million a month and handle up to 2000 migrants a day – will involve chartering a flotilla of ferries to send both economic migrants and legitimate asylum seekers back to Turkey.
    EU Summit is tomorrow. Some leaders say that the latest plan is illegally tough, others that it doesn't go far enough in helping the migrants to resettle in the EU.
  • LewisDuckworthLewisDuckworth Posts: 379
    Pulpstar said:

    See Hillary won Missouri. Real kick in the teeth for Sanders that !

    I wonder if support for Sanders was damaged by the protestor antics last week.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,628
    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    Danny565 said:

    .......

    Wow. "This website is temporarily closed owing to Disability Cuts.
    The domain name will be transfered when the group secure new hosting. The owner of the hosting package Graeme Ellis has resigned over disability cuts from the group and will no longer develop or host this site"

    http://conservativedisabilitygroup.org.uk/
    How come everyone is up in arms about "Disability Cuts" yet we have yet to see a link to the actual proposals..?
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Pong said:

    Pulpstar said:

    That lifetime ISA sounds interesting. Gov't gives me 25% on my money or some such ?!

    Or have I misunderstood it.

    It's great for an 18-25 year old who can save/get given £4k/year, every year for the next decade or so.

    Then they get +£10k towards their deposit when they buy a house.

    Not so good for those in their 30's/40's looking to buy their first house soon, unfortunately.
    And combined with a parent's IHT planning, it would seemingly give a 108.3% bonus to a child.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    @Wanderer,Not friendly front page from the sun ;-)

    https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/710233482400833538
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,554
    Tykejohnno said:

    @Wanderer,Not friendly front page from the sun ;-)

    https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/710233482400833538

    The Sun does it again...that made me chuckle.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,158
    Main conclusion drawn from the post-Budget spin.

    Javid and Malhotra are both dreadful at communicating respective messages.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    RNC delegate and Rules Committee member Curley Haugland on CNBC earlier today.

    "The media has created the perception that the voters will decide the nomination and that's the conflict here."

    Trouble in Paradise.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,158
    I'm sick of her rubbish 'investing for growth' mantra.

    It is called borrowing - and we had enough of it under Brown, ta muchly.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,158
    I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.

    So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    It was a pretty desperate budget. If the deficit is so critical then why tax cuts rather than tax rises?

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,554
    The government has been heavily defeated in the House of Lords over trade union reforms Labour fears will cost it millions of pounds in funding.

    Ministers want to require Labour-affiliated union members to "opt in" to paying a levy to the party.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35828335
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Tykejohnno said:

    @Wanderer,Not friendly front page from the sun ;-)

    twitter.com/suttonnick/status/710233482400833538

    The Sun does it again...that made me chuckle.
    That's the dead cat doing its job?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,158
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    The government has been heavily defeated in the House of Lords over trade union reforms Labour fears will cost it millions of pounds in funding.

    Ministers want to require Labour-affiliated union members to "opt in" to paying a levy to the party.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35828335

    Everything is annoying me tonight.

    The political levy is disgusting, and, to steal a phrase, 'hits the poor the most'. Most Union members are not interested in the Labour party. Especially this Labour party.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,554
    Wanderer said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Tykejohnno said:

    @Wanderer,Not friendly front page from the sun ;-)

    twitter.com/suttonnick/status/710233482400833538

    The Sun does it again...that made me chuckle.
    That's the dead cat doing its job?
    Absolutely.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Mortimer said:

    I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.

    So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?

    8p on a can of Coke or Red Bull is not going to make a jot of difference.

    If it is to be a sugar tax then it should be on all sugar containing foods, not just pop, and at a rate that influences behaviour. I cannot see it happening.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,158
    foxinsoxuk said:

    Mortimer said:

    I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.

    So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?

    8p on a can of Coke or Red Bull is not going to make a jot of difference.

    If it is to be a sugar tax then it should be on all sugar containing foods, not just pop, and at a rate that influences behaviour. I cannot see it happening.
    Should be 80p IMHO.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited March 2016
    RodCrosby said:

    Wanderer said:

    Tim_B said:

    On the Democrat side, Clinton looks like a sure fire cert, but as the primaries move to the rust belt and industrial states, Sanders should do better. All democratic primaries are proportional.

    On the Republican side with the withdrawal of Rubio the numbers tend to favor Trump. Republicans have a smorgasbord of winner take all, winner take most, and proportional primaries. The question becomes whether he can get the 1237 delegates before the convention, ensuring the nomination for him. Otherwise the Rules Committee will be involved at the convention.

    An ABC/Washington Post poll surveyed 1,000 adults and asked if Donald Trump should win the nomination if he has the most delegates going into the RNC.

    Should win - 53%
    Pick someone else - 42%
    No opinion - 5%

    A brokered convention could be very dangerous for the Republicans. If, after the people have spoken - and spoken very loudly, primary turnout is up 35% or so - the back room boys at the convention choose someone else than the person with the most votes, that could be a disaster for the GOP.

    I'm very curious to understand how the American public would view a brokered convention that didn't nominate Trump if he were a few delegates short. Would it be seen as stealing the nomination from him or would the prevailing view be that he "hadn't got it done in regular time" and couldn't complain if he got a rough deal in overtime?

    I bring up the sports analogy because the Americans are notoriously less tolerant of draws in sport than Europeans and don't seem to acknowledge the idea of an almost-winner.
    I think if it were strictly by the rules, everyone could live with it. But that leaves Cruz as the only possible alternative "by the rules".

    If the rules are completely torn up [along with all ballots] to coronate someone else entirely then there would be justifiable fireworks...
    Was my post last night about Trump having taken 47% of delegates so far and needing 53% from now on more or less correct?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    The government has been heavily defeated in the House of Lords over trade union reforms Labour fears will cost it millions of pounds in funding.

    Ministers want to require Labour-affiliated union members to "opt in" to paying a levy to the party.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35828335

    It was in the manifesto, the government should use the Parliament Act if necessary.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    foxinsoxuk said:

    It was a pretty desperate budget. If the deficit is so critical then why tax cuts rather than tax rises?

    Because tax rises are self-defeating while tax cuts grow the economy.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,554
    edited March 2016
    foxinsoxuk said:

    Mortimer said:

    I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.

    So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?

    8p on a can of Coke or Red Bull is not going to make a jot of difference.

    If it is to be a sugar tax then it should be on all sugar containing foods, not just pop, and at a rate that influences behaviour. I cannot see it happening.
    This has already been talked about that a) fizzy pop is constantly on rotating offers and the price differential is huge between say supermarkets and the petrol station , b) that even the lowest prices have vastly increased over the past 2-3 years e.g. from 99p for a 500ml bottle to £1.35+ and I doubt that has had any difference.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    Mortimer said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Mortimer said:

    I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.

    So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?

    8p on a can of Coke or Red Bull is not going to make a jot of difference.

    If it is to be a sugar tax then it should be on all sugar containing foods, not just pop, and at a rate that influences behaviour. I cannot see it happening.
    Should be 80p IMHO.
    80p on a bottle of Chateau d'Yquem? How am I supposed to live?
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    The government has been heavily defeated in the House of Lords over trade union reforms Labour fears will cost it millions of pounds in funding.

    Ministers want to require Labour-affiliated union members to "opt in" to paying a levy to the party.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35828335

    It was in the manifesto, the government should use the Parliament Act if necessary.
    David Davis and other Tory MPs have threatened to vote against it in the Commons on later readings, too.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,628
    edited March 2016
    Mortimer said:

    I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.

    So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?

    It's 8p on a can of coke, hardly the end of the world. If they really wanted to influence behaviour they should have made the tax much much higher, as with cigarettes. Coke at £2 a can would reduce consumption, at 70p instead of 62p, not so much.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    The government has been heavily defeated in the House of Lords over trade union reforms Labour fears will cost it millions of pounds in funding.

    Ministers want to require Labour-affiliated union members to "opt in" to paying a levy to the party.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35828335

    I haven't been following this closely. Do you know how solid the Government's vote is in the Commons on this?
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    edited March 2016
    Danny565 said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    The government has been heavily defeated in the House of Lords over trade union reforms Labour fears will cost it millions of pounds in funding.

    Ministers want to require Labour-affiliated union members to "opt in" to paying a levy to the party.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35828335

    It was in the manifesto, the government should use the Parliament Act if necessary.
    David Davis and other Tory MPs have threatened to vote against it in the Commons on later readings, too.
    Ha! You answer the question I have just asked. Thank you. (I nearly made a joke about David Davis being against it and it turns out he is.)
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,158
    Danny565 said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    The government has been heavily defeated in the House of Lords over trade union reforms Labour fears will cost it millions of pounds in funding.

    Ministers want to require Labour-affiliated union members to "opt in" to paying a levy to the party.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35828335

    It was in the manifesto, the government should use the Parliament Act if necessary.
    David Davis and other Tory MPs have threatened to vote against it in the Commons on later readings, too.
    If DD votes against something in the manifesto he should have the whip withdrawn.

    Wouldn't be a great loss - he has been an absolute pain since losing the leadership election 11 bloody years ago.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,768
    @sajidjavid if you wouldn't be involved in a government that cuts benefits for disabled then i suggest you resign pal. #Budget2016
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,158
    Sandpit said:

    Mortimer said:

    I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.

    So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?

    It's 8p on a can of coke, hardly the end of the world. If they really wanted to influence behaviour they should have made the tax much much higher, as with cigarettes. Coke at £2 a can would reduce consumption, at 70p instead of 62p, not so much.
    I agree. I hope it is the start of that. Pop should be made to be more expensive than water. In most places, it is cheaper.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Mortimer said:

    Danny565 said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    The government has been heavily defeated in the House of Lords over trade union reforms Labour fears will cost it millions of pounds in funding.

    Ministers want to require Labour-affiliated union members to "opt in" to paying a levy to the party.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35828335

    It was in the manifesto, the government should use the Parliament Act if necessary.
    David Davis and other Tory MPs have threatened to vote against it in the Commons on later readings, too.
    If DD votes against something in the manifesto he should have the whip withdrawn.

    Wouldn't be a great loss - he has been an absolute pain since losing the leadership election 11 bloody years ago.
    When you already have a wafer-thin majority (and, I would argue, a non-negligible chance of defections to UKIP after the EURef), do you really want to be withdrawing the whip from anyone?
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Sandpit said:

    Mortimer said:

    I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.

    So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?

    It's 8p on a can of coke, hardly the end of the world. If they really wanted to influence behaviour they should have made the tax 10x higher.
    It needed a start,the escalator tax will only go upwards.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,158
    Danny565 said:

    Mortimer said:

    Danny565 said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    The government has been heavily defeated in the House of Lords over trade union reforms Labour fears will cost it millions of pounds in funding.

    Ministers want to require Labour-affiliated union members to "opt in" to paying a levy to the party.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35828335

    It was in the manifesto, the government should use the Parliament Act if necessary.
    David Davis and other Tory MPs have threatened to vote against it in the Commons on later readings, too.
    If DD votes against something in the manifesto he should have the whip withdrawn.

    Wouldn't be a great loss - he has been an absolute pain since losing the leadership election 11 bloody years ago.
    When you already have a wafer-thin majority (and, I would argue, a non-negligible chance of defections to UKIP after the EURef), do you really want to be withdrawing the whip from anyone?
    For David Davis, it would be worth it. His strop is almost Heathesque in proportions now...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,554
    edited March 2016
    Tykejohnno said:

    Sandpit said:

    Mortimer said:

    I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.

    So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?

    It's 8p on a can of coke, hardly the end of the world. If they really wanted to influence behaviour they should have made the tax 10x higher.
    It needed a start,the escalator tax will only go upwards.
    My fear is with any new tax...it a) only ever goes up and b) only ever starts to include new things. Tax on sugary fizzy pop I don't care about, but where will it end, the doorway has been opened.

    Also, funny how sugar tax seems to get thumbs up from the same people who attacked Osborne so vigorously over "pasty tax"...cos pasties are so so healthy.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    The government has been heavily defeated in the House of Lords over trade union reforms Labour fears will cost it millions of pounds in funding.

    Ministers want to require Labour-affiliated union members to "opt in" to paying a levy to the party.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35828335

    If you are having a levy taken out of your paycheck, you should be able to vote positively that it should be, rather than rely on the passivity of those who can't be bothered to say no.

    That's just intellectually dishonest.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,942
    Tim_B said:

    RNC delegate and Rules Committee member Curley Haugland on CNBC earlier today.

    "The media has created the perception that the voters will decide the nomination and that's the conflict here."

    Trouble in Paradise.

    Pretty extraordinary interview - http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/16/we-choose-the-nominee-not-the-voters-senior-gop-official.html
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,158
    Tim_B said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    The government has been heavily defeated in the House of Lords over trade union reforms Labour fears will cost it millions of pounds in funding.

    Ministers want to require Labour-affiliated union members to "opt in" to paying a levy to the party.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35828335

    If you are having a levy taken out of your paycheck, you should be able to vote positively that it should be, rather than rely on the passivity of those who can't be bothered to say no.

    That's just intellectually dishonest.
    It is just common sense.

    My new rule of thumb is that if my luvvie mate on fb whinges about it then it is a damn good thing.

    He has been going crazy about the TU reforms.

    My old rule of thumb was that if DD was against it, it was probably worth at least considering.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    Mortimer said:

    Sandpit said:

    Mortimer said:

    I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.

    So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?

    It's 8p on a can of coke, hardly the end of the world. If they really wanted to influence behaviour they should have made the tax much much higher, as with cigarettes. Coke at £2 a can would reduce consumption, at 70p instead of 62p, not so much.
    I agree. I hope it is the start of that. Pop should be made to be more expensive than water. In most places, it is cheaper.
    Is it really the government's job to tell you what soda you should drink? This is Bloomberg territory in NYC. It is nuts.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,158
    edited March 2016
    Tim_B said:

    Mortimer said:

    Sandpit said:

    Mortimer said:

    I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.

    So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?

    It's 8p on a can of coke, hardly the end of the world. If they really wanted to influence behaviour they should have made the tax much much higher, as with cigarettes. Coke at £2 a can would reduce consumption, at 70p instead of 62p, not so much.
    I agree. I hope it is the start of that. Pop should be made to be more expensive than water. In most places, it is cheaper.
    Is it really the government's job to tell you what soda you should drink? This is Bloomberg territory in NYC. It is nuts.
    Thing is, when the government's job is to fix people when they're overweight and/or diabetic, then it is in their interest to stop people drinking this liquid sugar.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,865
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    The government has been heavily defeated in the House of Lords over trade union reforms Labour fears will cost it millions of pounds in funding.

    Ministers want to require Labour-affiliated union members to "opt in" to paying a levy to the party.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35828335

    Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,172
    bigjohnowls said:

    @sajidjavid if you wouldn't be involved in a government that cuts benefits for disabled then i suggest you resign pal. #Budget2016

    You should probably also include who it's from.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,768
    RobD said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    @sajidjavid if you wouldn't be involved in a government that cuts benefits for disabled then i suggest you resign pal. #Budget2016

    You should probably also include who it's from.
    Nigella Lawson ‏@AndrewRacklyeft 26m26 minutes ago
    Did I just hear Sajid Javid correctly when he said he wouldn't be part of a government that cuts disability benefits? #newsnight
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Tykejohnno said:

    Sandpit said:

    Mortimer said:

    I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.

    So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?

    It's 8p on a can of coke, hardly the end of the world. If they really wanted to influence behaviour they should have made the tax 10x higher.
    It needed a start,the escalator tax will only go upwards.
    My fear is with any new tax...it a) only ever goes up and b) only ever starts to include new things. Tax on sugary fizzy pop I don't care about, but where will it end, the doorway has been opened.

    Also, funny how sugar tax seems to get thumbs up from the same people who attacked Osborne so vigorously over "pasty tax"...cos pasties are so so healthy.
    Jamie oliver is happy,but not everyone happy with him(read the tweets ;-) )

    http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/16/fans-vent-fury-at-jamie-oliver-following-sugar-tax-announcement-5756482/
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    AndyJS said:

    RodCrosby said:

    Wanderer said:

    Tim_B said:

    On the Democrat side, Clinton looks like a sure fire cert, but as the primaries move to the rust belt and industrial states, Sanders should do better. All democratic primaries are proportional.

    On the Republican side with the withdrawal of Rubio the numbers tend to favor Trump. Republicans have a smorgasbord of winner take all, winner take most, and proportional primaries. The question becomes whether he can get the 1237 delegates before the convention, ensuring the nomination for him. Otherwise the Rules Committee will be involved at the convention.

    An ABC/Washington Post poll surveyed 1,000 adults and asked if Donald Trump should win the nomination if he has the most delegates going into the RNC.

    Should win - 53%
    Pick someone else - 42%
    No opinion - 5%

    A brokered convention could be very dangerous for the Republicans. If, after the people have spoken - and spoken very loudly, primary turnout is up 35% or so - the back room boys at the convention choose someone else than the person with the most votes, that could be a disaster for the GOP.

    I'm very curious to understand how the American public would view a brokered convention that didn't nominate Trump if he were a few delegates short. Would it be seen as stealing the nomination from him or would the prevailing view be that he "hadn't got it done in regular time" and couldn't complain if he got a rough deal in overtime?

    I bring up the sports analogy because the Americans are notoriously less tolerant of draws in sport than Europeans and don't seem to acknowledge the idea of an almost-winner.
    I think if it were strictly by the rules, everyone could live with it. But that leaves Cruz as the only possible alternative "by the rules".

    If the rules are completely torn up [along with all ballots] to coronate someone else entirely then there would be justifiable fireworks...
    Was my post last night about Trump having taken 47% of delegates so far and needing 53% from now on more or less correct?
    In terms of elected delegates I think it's more like 47% and 59%.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,554
    edited March 2016
    bigjohnowls said:

    RobD said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    @sajidjavid if you wouldn't be involved in a government that cuts benefits for disabled then i suggest you resign pal. #Budget2016

    You should probably also include who it's from.
    Nigella Lawson ‏@AndrewRacklyeft 26m26 minutes ago
    Did I just hear Sajid Javid correctly when he said he wouldn't be part of a government that cuts disability benefits? #newsnight
    Not THAT Nigella...rather LabourUK Nigella from Derby with a 1% of the followers on twitter.
This discussion has been closed.