That is the first time I have heard a Tory complain that businesses are reinvesting in jobs and technology, driving forward some areas by leaps and bounds instead of taking fat profits for the shareholders. Are you sure you are in the right party ? Amazon might not pay any tax, but those ten of thousand of people it employs all over the world pay tax, those billions it spends with hardware companies and other suppliers, they all pay tax because of the money Amazon spends with them.
Well, it is unfair trading and unfair competition on those that do pay their taxes. I don't see anything Conservative about that. It reduces our tax base and allows capital appreciation as a result. All perfectly legal. All perfectly ridiculous.
Well I guess it could expand a lot more slowly, employ a lot less people, we could all hand back our Kindles, we could turn off half the cloud services used by businesses, forget about all that nice digital media investment, the half a dozen other companies they bought would probably not have made it, including Blue Origin, and we could pay for a couple of thousand extra dole cheques in the UK and up to a 100,000 world wide....
You are assuming that the business would not otherwise exist and would not employ others. You are assuming that these services would not be provided otherwise. I think if we had a variety of companies providing internet shopping based in the UK and paying tax in the UK we would have more employment, a better choice of services and considerably more tax paid for services in the society that provided those companies with their opportunities to make money.
The problem (well, a problem) is that for users it is actually a lot more convenient to interact with a single, giant company than lots of smaller ones.
and when you are looking for a provider for an online services platform (without an awful lot of time and money spent doing integration) for your big corporation, or high volume business, you want someone with global reach, that is going to give you the performance and reliability you want anywhere in on the global, the number of players in that market is pretty small, and they are all major multinationals.
There is no justification to expect private citizens to declare their income publicly if it is entirely privately generated.
But there is absolutely no reason for Tax Consumers to be given the right to privacy over their consumption of tax. Indeed, anyone who consumes tax should be required to declare all their income so it is transparent that they are entitled to the tax they consume.
That may well be logical. But I'm afraid that I think the right to privacy is pretty fundamental. With no privacy we have no real freedom. I disagree with Mr Meeks over this. My financial affairs, like my medical affairs, indeed, like any sort of affairs, are private. I answer to HMRC for my financial affairs not to anyone else.
If an individual is asking the taxpayer to provide them with an income, it is only right that the taxpayer has a right to see full disclosure on why that is the case. After all the individual always has the choice not to consume tax.
Freedom is given up as part of the Social Contract on a universal basis to some degree in all countries on earth, in no country are you given "real freedom". It would seem that if you want to consume tax, you should be relatively comfortable the idea of a fairly encompassing Social Contract which has to come with a relatively high "freedom sacrifice".
Conor McGinn MPVerified account @ConorMcGinn Tory MP after Tory MP now standing up in House of Commons to say if you aren't rich you aren't successful. Draw your own conclusions, folks.
There's more to success than making money. But is it a surprise that this is now being said when we've had Labour giving the impression that being rich is, per se, some sort of crime or immoral and attacking Cameron and his dead father for doing things which were and are legal and which were legal at the time Labour was in power.
There's something very unpleasant about the nauseating moralising and hypocrisy emanating from Labour over this. It's little wonder Tories are responding in the way they are, however tasteless it may appear. It's not as if Labour people aren't wealthy by comparison with ordinary folk.
Even the apparently hair-shirted Corbyn will get a pension I and many others can only dream of. And for what, exactly? For the contribution to public life a not very bright individual has made by inviting the IRA to Parliament and consorting with multiple other terrorist sympathizers. How dare he and those like him claim the moral high ground?
It's those who pay their taxes who pay for the NHS which patches up those injured by Corbyn's IRA friends.
@DairA When I looked at Plaid Cymru's performance after the 2015 general election I concluded by noting:
"But if Plaid Cymru are to make any progress at all, they need to start gaining vote share. They can't profit by being bystanders while other parties rise and fall. They need to look at what the SNP has achieved in Scotland, consider how that may be applied to their circumstances in Wales and act accordingly. Otherwise, they could be waiting for the great leap forward for a very long time indeed."
They still don't seem to be making the necessary progress.
There is no justification to expect private citizens to declare their income publicly if it is entirely privately generated.
But there is absolutely no reason for Tax Consumers to be given the right to privacy over their consumption of tax. Indeed, anyone who consumes tax should be required to declare all their income so it is transparent that they are entitled to the tax they consume.
That may well be logical. But I'm afraid that I think the right to privacy is pretty fundamental. With no privacy we have no real freedom. I disagree with Mr Meeks over this. My financial affairs, like my medical affairs, indeed, like any sort of affairs, are private. I answer to HMRC for my financial affairs not to anyone else.
If an individual is asking the taxpayer to provide them with an income, it is only right that the taxpayer has a right to see full disclosure on why that is the case. After all the individual always has the choice not to consume tax.
Freedom is given up as part of the Social Contract on a universal basis to some degree in all countries on earth, in no country are you given "real freedom". It would seem that if you want to consume tax, you should be relatively comfortable the idea of a fairly encompassing Social Contract which has to come with a relatively high "freedom sacrifice".
Does that apply to GPs, teachers, nurses, firefighters etc too?
There is no justification to expect private citizens to declare their income publicly if it is entirely privately generated.
But there is absolutely no reason for Tax Consumers to be given the right to privacy over their consumption of tax. Indeed, anyone who consumes tax should be required to declare all their income so it is transparent that they are entitled to the tax they consume.
That may well be logical. But I'm afraid that I think the right to privacy is pretty fundamental. With no privacy we have no real freedom. I disagree with Mr Meeks over this. My financial affairs, like my medical affairs, indeed, like any sort of affairs, are private. I answer to HMRC for my financial affairs not to anyone else.
If an individual is asking the taxpayer to provide them with an income, it is only right that the taxpayer has a right to see full disclosure on why that is the case. After all the individual always has the choice not to consume tax.
Freedom is given up as part of the Social Contract on a universal basis to some degree in all countries on earth, in no country are you given "real freedom". It would seem that if you want to consume tax, you should be relatively comfortable the idea of a fairly encompassing Social Contract which has to come with a relatively high "freedom sacrifice".
The government authority has the right to check that the person claiming benefits is entitled to what they are claiming. That government authority is acting on behalf of taxpayers. It does not follow that every single individual taxpayer is entitled to pry into another's private affairs.
Nothing you have said justifies anyone other than the tax/benefits agency knowing what income a person seeking benefits has. That person has as much right to individual dignity and privacy as I do. In both cases we accept that the state in the form of the taxman has the right to know our affairs for the purpose of ensuring that we are complying with the law and not committing fraud. But there is no need for anyone else to know that information. "Need to know" is a pretty good principle to be adopted.
Does anyone know whether his tawdry book was successful or not. Isabel Oakshott was a little kinder to the PM on the Sunday Politics. Indeed, they all were. Have the media finally realised that they went a little over the top?
There is no justification to expect private citizens to declare their income publicly if it is entirely privately generated.
But there is absolutely no reason for Tax Consumers to be given the right to privacy over their consumption of tax. Indeed, anyone who consumes tax should be required to declare all their income so it is transparent that they are entitled to the tax they consume.
That may well be logical. But I'm afraid that I think the right to privacy is pretty fundamental. With no privacy we have no real freedom. I disagree with Mr Meeks over this. My financial affairs, like my medical affairs, indeed, like any sort of affairs, are private. I answer to HMRC for my financial affairs not to anyone else.
If an individual is asking the taxpayer to provide them with an income, it is only right that the taxpayer has a right to see full disclosure on why that is the case. After all the individual always has the choice not to consume tax.
Freedom is given up as part of the Social Contract on a universal basis to some degree in all countries on earth, in no country are you given "real freedom". It would seem that if you want to consume tax, you should be relatively comfortable the idea of a fairly encompassing Social Contract which has to come with a relatively high "freedom sacrifice".
Does that apply to GPs, teachers, nurses, firefighters etc too?
Given almost every referendum sees a swing to the status quo* at the end, I'd want to see Leave averaging about 55% before I'd give it a 50% chance. Just gut feeling no science.
* The argument that the status quo is not an option is above the head of most don't know voters I think so.if we are looking at predictions rather than arguments it's moot/invalid.
There is no justification to expect private citizens to declare their income publicly if it is entirely privately generated.
But there is absolutely no reason for Tax Consumers to be given the right to privacy over their consumption of tax. Indeed, anyone who consumes tax should be required to declare all their income so it is transparent that they are entitled to the tax they consume.
That may well be logical. But I'm afraid that I think the right to privacy is pretty fundamental. With no privacy we have no real freedom. I disagree with Mr Meeks over this. My financial affairs, like my medical affairs, indeed, like any sort of affairs, are private. I answer to HMRC for my financial affairs not to anyone else.
If an individual is asking the taxpayer to provide them with an income, it is only right that the taxpayer has a right to see full disclosure on why that is the case. After all the individual always has the choice not to consume tax.
Freedom is given up as part of the Social Contract on a universal basis to some degree in all countries on earth, in no country are you given "real freedom". It would seem that if you want to consume tax, you should be relatively comfortable the idea of a fairly encompassing Social Contract which has to come with a relatively high "freedom sacrifice".
Does that apply to GPs, teachers, nurses, firefighters etc too?
All tax consumers is all tax consumers. So yes.
So if the Daily Mail wants to rifle through the earnings of various junior doctors (including from outside interests) to produce lurid headlines that should be ok?
I think it's perfectly valid to know pay rates from taxes as a rule etc but I don't see why outside interests that aren't tax related should be included and privacy lost due to claiming an income.
There is no justification to expect private citizens to declare their income publicly if it is entirely privately generated.
But there is absolutely no reason for Tax Consumers to be given the right to privacy over their consumption of tax. Indeed, anyone who consumes tax should be required to declare all their income so it is transparent that they are entitled to the tax they consume.
That may well be logical. But I'm afraid that I think the right to privacy is pretty fundamental. With no privacy we have no real freedom. I disagree with Mr Meeks over this. My financial affairs, like my medical affairs, indeed, like any sort of affairs, are private. I answer to HMRC for my financial affairs not to anyone else.
I suspect much of the country agree. Think about the uproar over ID cards. It wasn't the fact you were going to have a card kinda of like a passport, it was all the personal info and the wide range of people who were going to be able to access it that did for the scheme.
IMO, the biggest problem was actually biometrics were (and still aren't) as reliable as they needed to be and of course IT / governments, cos nothing ever goes wrong with highly complex IT schemes when the government is involved.
Well, quite. ID cards are an abomination.
Amazing how concerned everyone got over celebrity phones being hacked, the appalling breach of privacy, damages, sob stories, evil press etc. But when it's people's financial records being hacked, apparently breaches of privacy are all tickety boo and a good thing etc. Hard to discern any principle here - other than it's OK to do bad things to people we dislike and bad to do them to people we like, the liking and disliking being determined by a few people according to some criterion yet to be discerned, let alone understood.
Can anyone join in? I mean: I really dislike Corbyn and McDonnell. Is it OK for me to hack into their private affairs and publish what I find or what I think I find all over the place, even if not true and in the most sensational way possible?
Does anyone know whether his tawdry book was successful or not. Isabel Oakshott was a little kinder to the PM on the Sunday Politics. Indeed, they all were. Have the media finally realised that they went a little over the top?
Still being offered at a giveaway price in my local Waterstones. Still not buying.
That starts to look like VALUE to me, given the level-pegging of the polls, and the fact that presumed reversion to the status quo, by DUNNOS, might easily be outweighed by greater turnout amongst LEAVERS.
There are three swing factors the polls I expect to make a mistake on:
Age related turnout - favours Leave Class related turnout - favours Remain Reversion to status quo - favours Remain.
That gives Remain two advantages and Leave one. Two to one in odds feels right at this stage and is closer than I'd have expected a year ago.
If an individual is asking the taxpayer to provide them with an income, it is only right that the taxpayer has a right to see full disclosure on why that is the case. After all the individual always has the choice not to consume tax.
Freedom is given up as part of the Social Contract on a universal basis to some degree in all countries on earth, in no country are you given "real freedom". It would seem that if you want to consume tax, you should be relatively comfortable the idea of a fairly encompassing Social Contract which has to come with a relatively high "freedom sacrifice".
The government authority has the right to check that the person claiming benefits is entitled to what they are claiming. That government authority is acting on behalf of taxpayers. It does not follow that every single individual taxpayer is entitled to pry into another's private affairs.
Nothing you have said justifies anyone other than the tax/benefits agency knowing what income a person seeking benefits has. That person has as much right to individual dignity and privacy as I do. In both cases we accept that the state in the form of the taxman has the right to know our affairs for the purpose of ensuring that we are complying with the law and not committing fraud. But there is no need for anyone else to know that information. "Need to know" is a pretty good principle to be adopted.
Actually I think you have persuaded me to change my position.
It should not just be tax consumers, it should be the Norwegian model of full disclosure for everyone.
My focus on tax consumers isn't coherent given that it is to ensure the necessary checks and balances under Custodiet Ipsos Custodes but there's no reason why that should not also apply to private income.
"Privacy" is merely the ideological justification for "the right to hide". There are areas where that clearly should apply, but when it involves the tax that individuals should be paying and consuming, there is no reason why a "right to hide" should exist at all.
Does anyone know whether his tawdry book was successful or not. Isabel Oakshott was a little kinder to the PM on the Sunday Politics. Indeed, they all were. Have the media finally realised that they went a little over the top?
They realise that their tax affairs may be the next to become public under the new world of openness they were all calling for.
According to the radio, someone in Labour (McDonnell?) is already including political journalists amongst the people to have their tax records released.
Some journalists may be rather concerned about this ...
Amazing how concerned everyone got over celebrity phones being hacked, the appalling breach of privacy, damages, sob stories, evil press etc. But when it's people's financial records being hacked, apparently breaches of privacy are all tickety boo and a good thing etc. Hard to discern any principle here - other than it's OK to do bad things to people we dislike and bad to do them to people we like, the liking and disliking being determined by a few people according to some criterion yet to be discerned, let alone understood.
Can anyone join in? I mean: I really dislike Corbyn and McDonnell. Is it OK for me to hack into their private affairs and publish what I find or what I think I find all over the place, even if not true and in the most sensational way possible?
Steve Coogan is the one that makes me laugh the most. He was all mates with the gossip guy at NOTW and had quite a few really bad stories about him spiked and spun to sound a lot better than they were.
Then Coulson got the gig and said, why do we keep giving this drug addled, hooker obsessed guy an easy ride....just print the truth about him. So they did. And Coogan went apes##t, because the NOTW printed a load of stories about his illegal activities.
I still don't understand how Out can lose. It is the only side with a compelling narrative, emotional connection while the starting position is very close to the Status Quo. It has win written all over it.
If Vote Leave wins the campaign nod and successfully marginalises Farage, then surely any odds on Out are close to money purchase.
Anyone else getting a banner ad starting with 'Final call for Captain Cameron'? I assumed it was a roundabout way for an political ad to call for his resignation, but turns out it's about Heathrow
Does anyone know whether his tawdry book was successful or not. Isabel Oakshott was a little kinder to the PM on the Sunday Politics. Indeed, they all were. Have the media finally realised that they went a little over the top?
They realise that their tax affairs may be the next to become public under the new world of openness they were all calling for.
According to the radio, someone in Labour (McDonnell?) is already including political journalists amongst the people to have their tax records released.
Some journalists may be rather concerned about this ...
The thing is you can't just say "political" journalists, because you will basically have to include all journalists, expect perhaps sports, holiday section and the 3am girls, because everything else has a potential political angle.
"A month ago we issued our first forecast for the EU membership referendum on 23rd June 2016. Based on an analysis of referendums in the UK and on the EU outside the UK, and on vote intention opinion polls we forecast that Remain had an 87% chance of winning, and that Remain would get 58% of the vote, plus or minus 14. This was in part based on our polling average (excluding Don’t Knows) of 55% for Remain on 11th March.
Our current forecast suggests the contest is a fair bit closer. Our polling average now puts Remain on 52%. We now give Remain a 73% chance of winning and estimate that the Remain share of the vote will be 54% plus or minus 13 points."
It's getting perilously close, and LEAVE has the trend.
If you believe their logic and that Remain has a 73% chance then the value at 2/1 is with Remain though isn't it? It may only be a close advantage that Remain has but that may be all they need.
Freedom is given up as part of the Social Contract on a universal basis to some degree in all countries on earth, in no country are you given "real freedom". It would seem that if you want to consume tax, you should be relatively comfortable the idea of a fairly encompassing Social Contract which has to come with a relatively high "freedom sacrifice".
The government authority has the right to check that the person claiming benefits is entitled to what they are claiming. That government authority is acting on behalf of taxpayers. It does not follow that every single individual taxpayer is entitled to pry into another's private affairs.
Nothing you have said justifies anyone other than the tax/benefits agency knowing what income a person seeking benefits has. That person has as much right to individual dignity and privacy as I do. In both cases we accept that the state in the form of the taxman has the right to know our affairs for the purpose of ensuring that we are complying with the law and not committing fraud. But there is no need for anyone else to know that information. "Need to know" is a pretty good principle to be adopted.
Actually I think you have persuaded me to change my position.
It should not just be tax consumers, it should be the Norwegian model of full disclosure for everyone.
My focus on tax consumers isn't coherent given that it is to ensure the necessary checks and balances under Custodiet Ipsos Custodes but there's no reason why that should not also apply to private income.
"Privacy" is merely the ideological justification for "the right to hide". There are areas where that clearly should apply, but when it involves the tax that individuals should be paying and consuming, there is no reason why a "right to hide" should exist at all.
I fundamentally disagree with your last paragraph. Privacy is vital for any number of reasons. Yours is a very Calvinist viewpoint. I think that it is wrong and scary and fundamentally totalitarian. In any free society there has to be private space away from the state, from neighbours, from partners, from anyone. Privacy is essential to our sense of self. It is essential to a free society. After all, using your argument why have a secret ballot?
And privacy does not mean a right to hide from the tax authorities, as you seem to think. But it does mean the right not to have your neighbour or that random person five streets away or 500 miles away knowing about your affairs. And I think that right is far too valuable to throw away because some idiots are hyper-ventilating about legal behaviour.
So if the Daily Mail wants to rifle through the earnings of various junior doctors (including from outside interests) to produce lurid headlines that should be ok?
I think it's perfectly valid to know pay rates from taxes as a rule etc but I don't see why outside interests that aren't tax related should be included and privacy lost due to claiming an income.
While I would have pretty fundamental concerns with the Mail's motivation, it wouldn't be a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The principle is sound and there is actually a reason why it might be quite useful to know if the Doctor on the TV advocating widespread use of a pharmaceutical is in the pay of that pharmaceutical company.
Not just a reason, a compelling reason. Disclosure might clean up the highly corrupt nature of the United Kingdom. It may take a while but it would certainly help.
"A month ago we issued our first forecast for the EU membership referendum on 23rd June 2016. Based on an analysis of referendums in the UK and on the EU outside the UK, and on vote intention opinion polls we forecast that Remain had an 87% chance of winning, and that Remain would get 58% of the vote, plus or minus 14. This was in part based on our polling average (excluding Don’t Knows) of 55% for Remain on 11th March.
Our current forecast suggests the contest is a fair bit closer. Our polling average now puts Remain on 52%. We now give Remain a 73% chance of winning and estimate that the Remain share of the vote will be 54% plus or minus 13 points."
It's getting perilously close, and LEAVE has the trend.
If you believe their logic and that Remain has a 73% chance then the value at 2/1 is with Remain though isn't it? It may only be a close advantage that Remain has but that may be all they need.
But REMAIN is in freefall, if these guys are right. The trend, my friend, the trend.
Well indeed and given the total lack of positive argument for remaining, Remain deserves to lose. As someone who expected to vote Remain I'm shocked and disgusted by the nihilistic arguments that seems to be all Remain has. But I'm afraid I think it will work. I hope you're right.
Amazing how concerned everyone got over celebrity phones being hacked, the appalling breach of privacy, damages, sob stories, evil press etc. But when it's people's financial records being hacked, apparently breaches of privacy are all tickety boo and a good thing etc. Hard to discern any principle here - other than it's OK to do bad things to people we dislike and bad to do them to people we like, the liking and disliking being determined by a few people according to some criterion yet to be discerned, let alone understood.
Can anyone join in? I mean: I really dislike Corbyn and McDonnell. Is it OK for me to hack into their private affairs and publish what I find or what I think I find all over the place, even if not true and in the most sensational way possible?
Steve Coogan is the one that makes me laugh the most. He was all mates with the gossip guy at NOTW and had quite a few really bad stories about him spiked and spun to sound a lot better than they were.
Then Coulson got the gig and said, why do we keep giving this drug addled, hooker obsessed guy an easy ride....just print the truth about him. So they did. And Coogan went apes##t, because the NOTW printed a load of stories about his illegal activities.
Indeed. If Hacked Off were really concerned about hacking you'd think they'd be pretty concerned about how this material was hacked. But no - hacking was just a pretext.
Given almost every referendum sees a swing to the status quo* at the end, I'd want to see Leave averaging about 55% before I'd give it a 50% chance. Just gut feeling no science.
* The argument that the status quo is not an option is above the head of most don't know voters I think so.if we are looking at predictions rather than arguments it's moot/invalid.
This is my reckoning.
We know the Government is going to throw everything at this, and more, and that Remain have a clear lead amongst the more apathetic.
The higher the turnout, the higher Remain's victory.
So if the Daily Mail wants to rifle through the earnings of various junior doctors (including from outside interests) to produce lurid headlines that should be ok?
I think it's perfectly valid to know pay rates from taxes as a rule etc but I don't see why outside interests that aren't tax related should be included and privacy lost due to claiming an income.
While I would have pretty fundamental concerns with the Mail's motivation, it wouldn't be a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The principle is sound and there is actually a reason why it might be quite useful to know if the Doctor on the TV advocating widespread use of a pharmaceutical is in the pay of that pharmaceutical company.
Not just a reason, a compelling reason. Disclosure might clean up the highly corrupt nature of the United Kingdom. It may take a while but it would certainly help.
In this country we don't really get pharmaceutical ads on TV. Though I think in general it's safe to assume someone advertising a product is paid to do so.
So if the Daily Mail wants to rifle through the earnings of various junior doctors (including from outside interests) to produce lurid headlines that should be ok?
I think it's perfectly valid to know pay rates from taxes as a rule etc but I don't see why outside interests that aren't tax related should be included and privacy lost due to claiming an income.
While I would have pretty fundamental concerns with the Mail's motivation, it wouldn't be a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The principle is sound and there is actually a reason why it might be quite useful to know if the Doctor on the TV advocating widespread use of a pharmaceutical is in the pay of that pharmaceutical company.
Not just a reason, a compelling reason. Disclosure might clean up the highly corrupt nature of the United Kingdom. It may take a while but it would certainly help.
There's a reason why in 1984 the citizens were given no privacy. You might want to reflect on why that was and whether you really want to live in the sort of dystopia your "make everyone tell everyone else everything about themselves" principle will create.
Freedom is given up as part of the Social Contract on a universal basis to some degree in all countries on earth, in no country are you given "real freedom". It would seem that if you want to consume tax, you should be relatively comfortable the idea of a fairly encompassing Social Contract which has to come with a relatively high "freedom sacrifice".
The government authority has the right to check that the person claiming benefits is entitled to what they are claiming. That government authority is acting on behalf of taxpayers. It does not follow that every single individual taxpayer is entitled to pry into another's private affairs.
Nothing you have said justifies anyone other than the tax/benefits agency knowing what income a person seeking benefits has. That person has as much right to individual dignity and privacy as I do. In both cases we accept that the state in the form of the taxman has the right to know our affairs for the purpose of ensuring that we are complying with the law and not committing fraud. But there is no need for anyone else to know that information. "Need to know" is a pretty good principle to be adopted.
Actually I think you have persuaded me to change my position.
It should not just be tax consumers, it should be the Norwegian model of full disclosure for everyone.
My focus on tax consumers isn't coherent given that it is to ensure the necessary checks and balances under Custodiet Ipsos Custodes but there's no reason why that should not also apply to private income.
"Privacy" is merely the ideological justification for "the right to hide". There are areas where that clearly should apply, but when it involves the tax that individuals should be paying and consuming, there is no reason why a "right to hide" should exist at all.
I fundamentally disagree with your last paragraph. Privacy is vital for any number of reasons. Yours is a very Calvinist viewpoint. I think that it is wrong and scary and fundamentally totalitarian. In any free society there has to be private space away from the state, from neighbours, from partners, from anyone. Privacy is essential to our sense of self. It is essential to a free society. After all, using your argument why have a secret ballot?
And privacy does not mean a right to hide from the tax authorities, as you seem to think. But it does mean the right not to have your neighbour or that random person five streets away or 500 miles away knowing about your affairs. And I think that right is far too valuable to throw away because some idiots are hyper-ventilating about legal behaviour.
Well said. Accepting the government needs to know certain things does not mean it is anyone else's business.
That starts to look like VALUE to me, given the level-pegging of the polls, and the fact that presumed reversion to the status quo, by DUNNOS, might easily be outweighed by greater turnout amongst LEAVERS.
There are three swing factors the polls I expect to make a mistake on:
Age related turnout - favours Leave Class related turnout - favours Remain Reversion to status quo - favours Remain.
That gives Remain two advantages and Leave one. Two to one in odds feels right at this stage and is closer than I'd have expected a year ago.
But:
Apathy-related abstention - favours LEAVE
I reckon the odds should be more like 6/4 on LEAVE, right now. Maybe 7/4. Minor differences, but a clever bettor (not me) could possibly make money.
And yes, this is WAAAAAY closer than I expected.
The 10/10 to vote numbers are overwhelmingly Leave in most recent polls.
They are based on what appear to be realistic turnout levels in the 60-70% range.
If feels like even money to me, even with some late drift back to Remain.
"A month ago we issued our first forecast for the EU membership referendum on 23rd June 2016. Based on an analysis of referendums in the UK and on the EU outside the UK, and on vote intention opinion polls we forecast that Remain had an 87% chance of winning, and that Remain would get 58% of the vote, plus or minus 14. This was in part based on our polling average (excluding Don’t Knows) of 55% for Remain on 11th March.
Our current forecast suggests the contest is a fair bit closer. Our polling average now puts Remain on 52%. We now give Remain a 73% chance of winning and estimate that the Remain share of the vote will be 54% plus or minus 13 points."
It's getting perilously close, and LEAVE has the trend.
If you believe their logic and that Remain has a 73% chance then the value at 2/1 is with Remain though isn't it? It may only be a close advantage that Remain has but that may be all they need.
But REMAIN is in freefall, if these guys are right. The trend, my friend, the trend.
Funny freefall from a betting perspective.
Political betting isn't really about chance in the same way other betting is. A small lead can be 100% nailed on, or completely meaningless.
Vote today and remain is a near certain win. June, because of what we already know will happen (immigrants) and the chance of other things happening - well closer to 50/50.
So if the Daily Mail wants to rifle through the earnings of various junior doctors (including from outside interests) to produce lurid headlines that should be ok?
I think it's perfectly valid to know pay rates from taxes as a rule etc but I don't see why outside interests that aren't tax related should be included and privacy lost due to claiming an income.
While I would have pretty fundamental concerns with the Mail's motivation, it wouldn't be a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The principle is sound and there is actually a reason why it might be quite useful to know if the Doctor on the TV advocating widespread use of a pharmaceutical is in the pay of that pharmaceutical company.
Not just a reason, a compelling reason. Disclosure might clean up the highly corrupt nature of the United Kingdom. It may take a while but it would certainly help.
Last time I looked the UK ranked 10/168 in the global least corrupt stakes.
Actually I think you have persuaded me to change my position.
It should not just be tax consumers, it should be the Norwegian model of full disclosure for everyone.
My focus on tax consumers isn't coherent given that it is to ensure the necessary checks and balances under Custodiet Ipsos Custodes but there's no reason why that should not also apply to private income.
"Privacy" is merely the ideological justification for "the right to hide". There are areas where that clearly should apply, but when it involves the tax that individuals should be paying and consuming, there is no reason why a "right to hide" should exist at all.
I fundamentally disagree with your last paragraph. Privacy is vital for any number of reasons. Yours is a very Calvinist viewpoint. I think that it is wrong and scary and fundamentally totalitarian. In any free society there has to be private space away from the state, from neighbours, from partners, from anyone. Privacy is essential to our sense of self. It is essential to a free society. After all, using your argument why have a secret ballot?
And privacy does not mean a right to hide from the tax authorities, as you seem to think. But it does mean the right not to have your neighbour or that random person five streets away or 500 miles away knowing about your affairs. And I think that right is far too valuable to throw away because some idiots are hyper-ventilating about legal behaviour.
Is it really totalitarian? After all, your argument is the one which wishes to place the trust and control in the hands of government with absolutely no public oversight that this is conducted fairly and without corruption. We know that HMRC has entered some very dubious deals with corporations when whistleblown but don't even get to see most because of "tax privacy".
I believe in the right to privacy in a lot of areas. But where that interacts with your participation in society and your rights and obligations under the Social Contract with the state, there is no right to privacy.
As a (be)leaver I want the EU referendum to be close. But I still feel it will not be.
I really don't go in for all the accusations of lying every time there is a difference of opinion about something. But if Leave are to win they must win the argument that remain is not the status quo. In my opinion they are a very long way from doing so.
So if the Daily Mail wants to rifle through the earnings of various junior doctors (including from outside interests) to produce lurid headlines that should be ok?
I think it's perfectly valid to know pay rates from taxes as a rule etc but I don't see why outside interests that aren't tax related should be included and privacy lost due to claiming an income.
While I would have pretty fundamental concerns with the Mail's motivation, it wouldn't be a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The principle is sound and there is actually a reason why it might be quite useful to know if the Doctor on the TV advocating widespread use of a pharmaceutical is in the pay of that pharmaceutical company.
Not just a reason, a compelling reason. Disclosure might clean up the highly corrupt nature of the United Kingdom. It may take a while but it would certainly help.
Last time I looked the UK ranked 10/168 in the global least corrupt stakes.
Yes, I chuckled at highly corrupt, given some of the places I visit for work.
As a (be)leaver I want the EU referendum to be close. But I still feel it will not be.
I really don't go in for all the accusations of lying every time there is a difference of opinion about something. But if Leave are to win they must win the argument that remain is not the status quo. In my opinion they are a very long way from doing so.
Really? That's one area I think the job is practically done, and it's Remain who have to convince people further integration has been halted.
So if the Daily Mail wants to rifle through the earnings of various junior doctors (including from outside interests) to produce lurid headlines that should be ok?
I think it's perfectly valid to know pay rates from taxes as a rule etc but I don't see why outside interests that aren't tax related should be included and privacy lost due to claiming an income.
While I would have pretty fundamental concerns with the Mail's motivation, it wouldn't be a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The principle is sound and there is actually a reason why it might be quite useful to know if the Doctor on the TV advocating widespread use of a pharmaceutical is in the pay of that pharmaceutical company.
Not just a reason, a compelling reason. Disclosure might clean up the highly corrupt nature of the United Kingdom. It may take a while but it would certainly help.
In this country we don't really get pharmaceutical ads on TV. Though I think in general it's safe to assume someone advertising a product is paid to do so.
BBC Breakfast frequently has doctors (and other professionals) on "campaigning" for the Government to spend money on this or that or the other. Without disclosure there is no way to know if these are genuine heartfelt campaigns or professionals in the pay of whatever company will benefit from the new spending.
"Privacy" is merely the ideological justification for "the right to hide". There are areas where that clearly should apply, but when it involves the tax that individuals should be paying and consuming, there is no reason why a "right to hide" should exist at all.
What makes you think a tax return contains a full disclosure of anything ? By definition it includes those bit you intend to pay tax on. It probably doesn't contain many details of nominee controlled offshore shell companies and similarly dubious arrangements. If someone tell you he has no secrets, how do you know if he is telling you the truth ?
So if the Daily Mail wants to rifle through the earnings of various junior doctors (including from outside interests) to produce lurid headlines that should be ok?
I think it's perfectly valid to know pay rates from taxes as a rule etc but I don't see why outside interests that aren't tax related should be included and privacy lost due to claiming an income.
While I would have pretty fundamental concerns with the Mail's motivation, it wouldn't be a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The principle is sound and there is actually a reason why it might be quite useful to know if the Doctor on the TV advocating widespread use of a pharmaceutical is in the pay of that pharmaceutical company.
Not just a reason, a compelling reason. Disclosure might clean up the highly corrupt nature of the United Kingdom. It may take a while but it would certainly help.
There's a reason why in 1984 the citizens were given no privacy. You might want to reflect on why that was and whether you really want to live in the sort of dystopia your "make everyone tell everyone else everything about themselves" principle will create.
That's just a hyperbolic extension of your argument with no basis in reality.
Norway already has a full disclosure system on taxation (although not consumption) and is ranking top or near the top of every international measure of freedom and happiness. There really is nothing worse than the ideological need to reduce arguments to such hyperbolic nonsense.
"Privacy" is merely the ideological justification for "the right to hide". There are areas where that clearly should apply, but when it involves the tax that individuals should be paying and consuming, there is no reason why a "right to hide" should exist at all.
What makes you think a tax return contains a full disclosure of anything ? By definition it includes those bit you intend to pay tax on. It probably doesn't contain many details of nominee controlled offshore shell companies and similarly dubious arrangements. If someone tell you he has no secrets, how do you know if he is telling you the truth ?
Which is why I think the clamour for getting the PM to publish his tax return was so stupid.
So if the Daily Mail wants to rifle through the earnings of various junior doctors (including from outside interests) to produce lurid headlines that should be ok?
I think it's perfectly valid to know pay rates from taxes as a rule etc but I don't see why outside interests that aren't tax related should be included and privacy lost due to claiming an income.
While I would have pretty fundamental concerns with the Mail's motivation, it wouldn't be a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The principle is sound and there is actually a reason why it might be quite useful to know if the Doctor on the TV advocating widespread use of a pharmaceutical is in the pay of that pharmaceutical company.
Not just a reason, a compelling reason. Disclosure might clean up the highly corrupt nature of the United Kingdom. It may take a while but it would certainly help.
There's a reason why in 1984 the citizens were given no privacy. You might want to reflect on why that was and whether you really want to live in the sort of dystopia your "make everyone tell everyone else everything about themselves" principle will create.
That's just a hyperbolic extension of your argument with no basis in reality.
Interesting retort following the accusations of corruption in the UK, given what genuinely, severely corrupt places are like.
So if the Daily Mail wants to rifle through the earnings of various junior doctors (including from outside interests) to produce lurid headlines that should be ok?
I think it's perfectly valid to know pay rates from taxes as a rule etc but I don't see why outside interests that aren't tax related should be included and privacy lost due to claiming an income.
While I would have pretty fundamental concerns with the Mail's motivation, it wouldn't be a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The principle is sound and there is actually a reason why it might be quite useful to know if the Doctor on the TV advocating widespread use of a pharmaceutical is in the pay of that pharmaceutical company.
Not just a reason, a compelling reason. Disclosure might clean up the highly corrupt nature of the United Kingdom. It may take a while but it would certainly help.
In this country we don't really get pharmaceutical ads on TV. Though I think in general it's safe to assume someone advertising a product is paid to do so.
But even that doesn't tell us the whole story. Someone not being paid may not be disinterested either. They may know someone there or be sleeping with the boss or hoping for favours. Equally, you cannot assume that because someone is paid that they are incapable of exercising independent judgment. Not everyone's decisions are motivated solely by money. We don't, for instance, automatically assume that when doctors tell us that there are some issues with the NHS they are purely motivated by money given that the NHS is their employer, as opposed to their medical judgment. And if we did we'd have to ignore everything doctors tell us about the NHS. Would that be wise? Or might it be best to use some judgment?
So if the Daily Mail wants to rifle through the earnings of various junior doctors (including from outside interests) to produce lurid headlines that should be ok?
I think it's perfectly valid to know pay rates from taxes as a rule etc but I don't see why outside interests that aren't tax related should be included and privacy lost due to claiming an income.
While I would have pretty fundamental concerns with the Mail's motivation, it wouldn't be a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The principle is sound and there is actually a reason why it might be quite useful to know if the Doctor on the TV advocating widespread use of a pharmaceutical is in the pay of that pharmaceutical company.
Not just a reason, a compelling reason. Disclosure might clean up the highly corrupt nature of the United Kingdom. It may take a while but it would certainly help.
Last time I looked the UK ranked 10/168 in the global least corrupt stakes.
Yes, I chuckled at highly corrupt, given some of the places I visit for work.
Who did you plump for in the end btw ?
And would you be happier with a Cruz or Trump victory ?
So if the Daily Mail wants to rifle through the earnings of various junior doctors (including from outside interests) to produce lurid headlines that should be ok?
I think it's perfectly valid to know pay rates from taxes as a rule etc but I don't see why outside interests that aren't tax related should be included and privacy lost due to claiming an income.
While I would have pretty fundamental concerns with the Mail's motivation, it wouldn't be a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The principle is sound and there is actually a reason why it might be quite useful to know if the Doctor on the TV advocating widespread use of a pharmaceutical is in the pay of that pharmaceutical company.
Not just a reason, a compelling reason. Disclosure might clean up the highly corrupt nature of the United Kingdom. It may take a while but it would certainly help.
Last time I looked the UK ranked 10/168 in the global least corrupt stakes.
Quite. Once one gets beyond tinfoil hattery, the only real conclusion is that it's not found because it's not there, not because of a baroque cover-up. At a corporate level, the implications of the Bribery Act is really striking corporate behaviour and had SFO begun to behave competently. You want corrupt, speak to Labour about letting BAE off the hook: a strictly political decision.
"Privacy" is merely the ideological justification for "the right to hide". There are areas where that clearly should apply, but when it involves the tax that individuals should be paying and consuming, there is no reason why a "right to hide" should exist at all.
What makes you think a tax return contains a full disclosure of anything ? By definition it includes those bit you intend to pay tax on. It probably doesn't contain many details of nominee controlled offshore shell companies and similarly dubious arrangements. If someone tell you he has no secrets, how do you know if he is telling you the truth ?
If your the taxman, you almost certainly don't or will only do so by accident.
The fundamental question becomes which right you believe should have higher priority. The right of individuals to hide their income or the right of the public to notify HMRC of individuals who appear to be spending well beyond their (declared) means.
Of course, I do understand (and to an extent sympathise) with those who would see the latter as a sinister and unwelcome situation. But I assume anyone who believes this also thinks the Benefits Agency and HMRC should immediately cease their "tip off" lines.
So if the Daily Mail wants to rifle through the earnings of various junior doctors (including from outside interests) to produce lurid headlines that should be ok?
I think it's perfectly valid to know pay rates from taxes as a rule etc but I don't see why outside interests that aren't tax related should be included and privacy lost due to claiming an income.
While I would have pretty fundamental concerns with the Mail's motivation, it wouldn't be a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The principle is sound and there is actually a reason why it might be quite useful to know if the Doctor on the TV advocating widespread use of a pharmaceutical is in the pay of that pharmaceutical company.
Not just a reason, a compelling reason. Disclosure might clean up the highly corrupt nature of the United Kingdom. It may take a while but it would certainly help.
There's a reason why in 1984 the citizens were given no privacy. You might want to reflect on why that was and whether you really want to live in the sort of dystopia your "make everyone tell everyone else everything about themselves" principle will create.
That's just a hyperbolic extension of your argument with no basis in reality.
Interesting retort following the accusations of corruption in the UK, given what genuinely, severely corrupt places are like.
Just because the UK is highly corrupt doesn't mean that I don't think most other places are likely to be more corrupt.
"Privacy" is merely the ideological justification for "the right to hide". There are areas where that clearly should apply, but when it involves the tax that individuals should be paying and consuming, there is no reason why a "right to hide" should exist at all.
I fundamentally disagree with your last paragraph. Privacy is vital for any number of reasons. Yours is a very Calvinist viewpoint. I think that it is wrong and scary and fundamentally totalitarian. In any free society there has to be private space away from the state, from neighbours, from partners, from anyone. Privacy is essential to our sense of self. It is essential to a free society. After all, using your argument why have a secret ballot?
And privacy does not mean a right to hide from the tax authorities, as you seem to think. But it does mean the right not to have your neighbour or that random person five streets away or 500 miles away knowing about your affairs. And I think that right is far too valuable to throw away because some idiots are hyper-ventilating about legal behaviour.
Is it really totalitarian? After all, your argument is the one which wishes to place the trust and control in the hands of government with absolutely no public oversight that this is conducted fairly and without corruption. We know that HMRC has entered some very dubious deals with corporations when whistleblown but don't even get to see most because of "tax privacy".
I believe in the right to privacy in a lot of areas. But where that interacts with your participation in society and your rights and obligations under the Social Contract with the state, there is no right to privacy.
BTW, in the UK you do not have a secret ballot.
I have to disclose matters to the state. You have failed - yet again - to make any sort of case for why I - or let's take you - should have to disclose anything to some random stranger.
The issue of appropriate oversight of state bodies in the way they conduct state business is a fair one. But that can be done - and can probably be done better - without requiring my or your personal tax affairs to be available to 50 million other people. Just as oversight of the NHS does not need my medical records to be made available to all and sundry.
All totalitarian states have sought to abolish privacy. It might be worth bearing that in mind and the experience of those who have lived under such regimes before sounding so casually dismissive of the right to privacy.
Completely off topic, but since we have the UK's best resource here for answering dificult questions:
I am a director and company secretary. I understand of course that we are bound to maintain an accurate register of shareholders. But I cannot find anywhere any reference to what this actually means in practice in terms of whether it is entirely the shareholder's responsibility to notify us of a change of address, or whether we should pro-actively do Google searches or otherwise try to find shareholders with whom we have lost contact. In other words, should the register show the last formally-notified address we have received for a given shareholder, or our best guess of what the address might be, or what we might know from other sources?
"A month ago we issued our first forecast for the EU membership referendum on 23rd June 2016. Based on an analysis of referendums in the UK and on the EU outside the UK, and on vote intention opinion polls we forecast that Remain had an 87% chance of winning, and that Remain would get 58% of the vote, plus or minus 14. This was in part based on our polling average (excluding Don’t Knows) of 55% for Remain on 11th March.
Our current forecast suggests the contest is a fair bit closer. Our polling average now puts Remain on 52%. We now give Remain a 73% chance of winning and estimate that the Remain share of the vote will be 54% plus or minus 13 points."
It's getting perilously close, and LEAVE has the trend.
If you believe their logic and that Remain has a 73% chance then the value at 2/1 is with Remain though isn't it? It may only be a close advantage that Remain has but that may be all they need.
But REMAIN is in freefall, if these guys are right. The trend, my friend, the trend.
Funny freefall from a betting perspective.
Political betting isn't really about chance in the same way other betting is. A small lead can be 100% nailed on, or completely meaningless.
Vote today and remain is a near certain win. June, because of what we already know will happen (immigrants) and the chance of other things happening - well closer to 50/50.
This is about change in probability.
Which means I'm right, no?
Coral's 2/1 today, on LEAVE, has a smidgen of VALUE
"A month ago we issued our first forecast for the EU membership referendum on 23rd June 2016. Based on an analysis of referendums in the UK and on the EU outside the UK, and on vote intention opinion polls we forecast that Remain had an 87% chance of winning, and that Remain would get 58% of the vote, plus or minus 14. This was in part based on our polling average (excluding Don’t Knows) of 55% for Remain on 11th March.
Our current forecast suggests the contest is a fair bit closer. Our polling average now puts Remain on 52%. We now give Remain a 73% chance of winning and estimate that the Remain share of the vote will be 54% plus or minus 13 points."
It's getting perilously close, and LEAVE has the trend.
If you believe their logic and that Remain has a 73% chance then the value at 2/1 is with Remain though isn't it? It may only be a close advantage that Remain has but that may be all they need.
But REMAIN is in freefall, if these guys are right. The trend, my friend, the trend.
Remain is in freefall, really?
There's well over 2 months to go, so far it's just been about Tories fighting like ferrets in a sack, tearing the party apart as many predicted would happen. Non-tories are just sitting back with their popcorn hoping to benefit from their disarray in the May elections .
During the last month, once the May elections are over, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, SNP will begin campaigning in earnest and if their voters turnout it large numbers for Remain then it will be all over as I expect Tory voters to split around 50/50 in the end.
The people that want change always make the most noise, it doesn't follow that they are winning. Once we are into June the polling will become relevant.
I still don't understand how Out can lose. It is the only side with a compelling narrative, emotional connection while the starting position is very close to the Status Quo. It has win written all over it.
If Vote Leave wins the campaign nod and successfully marginalises Farage, then surely any odds on Out are close to money purchase.
Farage has said that GO will campaign alongside VL (assuming VL get the nod) targeting different aspects of the campaign. VL have kept off immigration and no doubt will continue to do so. We are still (incredibly) 2 1/2 months away from the Referendum.
Completely off topic, but since we have the UK's best resource here for answering dificult questions:
I am a director and company secretary. I understand of course that we are bound to maintain an accurate register of shareholders. But I cannot find anywhere any reference to what this actually means in practice in terms of whether it is entirely the shareholder's responsibility to notify us of a change of address, or whether we should pro-actively do Google searches or otherwise try to find shareholders with whom we have lost contact. In other words, should the register show the last formally-notified address we have received for a given shareholder, or our best guess of what the address might be, or what we might know from other sources?
How many shareholders have you got ? If a few it should be manageable.
If you have lots I'd say it;s the shareholders responsibility to keep you advised of changes of address.
wrt shareholding that's more your repsonsibility as you have to keep track of who owns the company.
Anyone else getting a banner ad starting with 'Final call for Captain Cameron'? I assumed it was a roundabout way for an political ad to call for his resignation, but turns out it's about Heathrow
I still don't understand how Out can lose. It is the only side with a compelling narrative, emotional connection while the starting position is very close to the Status Quo. It has win written all over it.
If Vote Leave wins the campaign nod and successfully marginalises Farage, then surely any odds on Out are close to money purchase.
Farage has said that GO will campaign alongside VL (assuming VL get the nod) targeting different aspects of the campaign. VL have kept off immigration and no doubt will continue to do so. We are still (incredibly) 2 1/2 months away from the Referendum.
Farage can say whatever he wants.
If Vote Leave get the nod, he will not feature in any TV debates, be kept off official platforms and get no coverage on television which will be compelled to cover Vote LEave and whatever the Remain group is called. In order for Grassroots Out to get coverage and maintain balance, there would have to be a second major Remain group to offer airtime to and AFAIK there isn't.
In the press, Vote Leave will get coverage from the Tory Outer papers - Telegraph and Mail, while Farage will get featured in the Express. Should Vote Leave get the nod then Farage is finished and Out almost certainly wins.
Which is why one has to suspect the possibility of a nod and a wink being sent the way of the Electoral Commission.
The fundamental question becomes which right you believe should have higher priority. The right of individuals to hide their income or the right of the public to notify HMRC of individuals who appear to be spending well beyond their (declared) means.
Of course, I do understand (and to an extent sympathise) with those who would see the latter as a sinister and unwelcome situation. But I assume anyone who believes this also thinks the Benefits Agency and HMRC should immediately cease their "tip off" lines.
There is quite compelling evidence that the major users of both tip-off lines are aggrieved ex-partners and pissed off neighbours. The about of money recovered is nothing short of piss poor as well, typically of the order of a few million quid, almost certainly less than it costs to run. Its very good as a PR device for browbeating people considering not paying, but pretty useless at catching people that actually don't pay, and most of those are window cleaners being paid cash in hand not serious sums.
A decade or so ago, the Inland Revenue as then was investigated a woman on the basis that the number of supermarket reward points she was earning (yes they get to see those) was much larger than would be expected for someone of her very limited means, they didn't tell her why they were investigating here, and left her stressed and puzzled for several months before they put it to her that she appeared to be living beyond her means. "Oh no, you've got it all wrong, I do the shopping for my elderly neighbours and they let me have the reward points on my card". Pitiful - fishing expeditions on public data are a liability, they have too many edge cases that never get considered.
As a (be)leaver I want the EU referendum to be close. But I still feel it will not be.
I really don't go in for all the accusations of lying every time there is a difference of opinion about something. But if Leave are to win they must win the argument that remain is not the status quo. In my opinion they are a very long way from doing so.
Really? That's one area I think the job is practically done, and it's Remain who have to convince people further integration has been halted.
That's because you are a leaver. If Leave can persuade the majority of that fact they win. But I don't believe they can.
@RichardNabavi It is the company's responsibility to maintain the register. Do you have reason to suspect the register is inaccurate? If so, you should take reasonable steps to correct it.
As @Alanbrooke suggests, I see this as a question of proportionality, depending on the number of shareholders.
"A month ago we issued our first forecast for the EU membership referendum on 23rd June 2016. Based on an analysis of referendums in the UK and on the EU outside the UK, and on vote intention opinion polls we forecast that Remain had an 87% chance of winning, and that Remain would get 58% of the vote, plus or minus 14. This was in part based on our polling average (excluding Don’t Knows) of 55% for Remain on 11th March.
Our current forecast suggests the contest is a fair bit closer. Our polling average now puts Remain on 52%. We now give Remain a 73% chance of winning and estimate that the Remain share of the vote will be 54% plus or minus 13 points."
It's getting perilously close, and LEAVE has the trend.
If you believe their logic and that Remain has a 73% chance then the value at 2/1 is with Remain though isn't it? It may only be a close advantage that Remain has but that may be all they need.
But REMAIN is in freefall, if these guys are right. The trend, my friend, the trend.
Remain is in freefall, really?
There's well over 2 months to go, so far it's just been about Tories fighting like ferrets in a sack, tearing the party apart as many predicted would happen. Non-tories are just sitting back with their popcorn hoping to benefit from their disarray in the May elections .
During the last month, once the May elections are over, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, SNP will begin campaigning in earnest and if their voters turnout it large numbers for Remain then it will be all over as I expect Tory voters to split around 50/50 in the end.
The people that want change always make the most noise, it doesn't follow that they are winning. Once we are into June the polling will become relevant.
You could have said the same about indyref....
9 and a half weeks left. And I can't see any killer arguments from REMAIN. Not a hint. The voters seem impervious to PROJECT FRIT.
REMAIN will probably win but the europhiles are now palpably scared.
The killer Remain argument is surely this: that Leave will lead to uncertainty and while uncertainty also means opportunity Leave has done nothing to explain what that uncertainty will mean for you, your job, your family, your life.
And the second killer argument is this: don't think for a moment that the minute we leave we will be able to stop / control immigration. Things are likely to remain broadly the same for quite some time.
I expect both of these to be deployed and to have some effect. Most people don't like uncertainty.
During the last month, once the May elections are over, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, SNP will begin campaigning in earnest and if their voters turnout it large numbers for Remain then it will be all over as I expect Tory voters to split around 50/50 in the end.
Wishful thinking if you think a lot of particularly working class voters are going to turn out to save Dave's bacon.
"A month ago we issued our first forecast for the EU membership referendum on 23rd June 2016. Based on an analysis of referendums in the UK and on the EU outside the UK, and on vote intention opinion polls we forecast that Remain had an 87% chance of winning, and that Remain would get 58% of the vote, plus or minus 14. This was in part based on our polling average (excluding Don’t Knows) of 55% for Remain on 11th March.
Our current forecast suggests the contest is a fair bit closer. Our polling average now puts Remain on 52%. We now give Remain a 73% chance of winning and estimate that the Remain share of the vote will be 54% plus or minus 13 points."
It's getting perilously close, and LEAVE has the trend.
I know it is.
I did an analysis based on the petition and it's regional breakdown, using the most recent and largest polls as a comparison and the most marginal seats as a yard stick. If voter registration and turnout throughout the country where equal, then the result would range from a Remain lead of 2.5% to a Leave lead of 1.5% .
I've already selected 3 seats which will tell me who won on the night of the count, but I don't know if the count will be conducted on a constituency basis or a local authority one.
I hope it's by constituency basis, so if Sunderland comes in first as usual, I could even then make a reasonable guess.
@RichardNabavi It is the company's responsibility to maintain the register. Do you have reason to suspect the register is inaccurate? If so, you should take reasonable steps to correct it.
As @Alanbrooke suggests, I see this as a question of proportionality, depending on the number of shareholders.
Thanks to both. In a couple of cases we've had mail returned as 'Not known at this address' (the company has been going for 30+ years).
I think it's perfectly valid to know pay rates from taxes as a rule etc but I don't see why outside interests that aren't tax related should be included and privacy lost due to claiming an income.
While I would have pretty fundamental concerns with the Mail's motivation, it wouldn't be a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The principle is sound and there is actually a reason why it might be quite useful to know if the Doctor on the TV advocating widespread use of a pharmaceutical is in the pay of that pharmaceutical company.
Not just a reason, a compelling reason. Disclosure might clean up the highly corrupt nature of the United Kingdom. It may take a while but it would certainly help.
In this country we don't really get pharmaceutical ads on TV. Though I think in general it's safe to assume someone advertising a product is paid to do so.
But even that doesn't tell us the whole story. Someone not being paid may not be disinterested either. They may know someone there or be sleeping with the boss or hoping for favours. Equally, you cannot assume that because someone is paid that they are incapable of exercising independent judgment. Not everyone's decisions are motivated solely by money. We don't, for instance, automatically assume that when doctors tell us that there are some issues with the NHS they are purely motivated by money given that the NHS is their employer, as opposed to their medical judgment. And if we did we'd have to ignore everything doctors tell us about the NHS. Would that be wise? Or might it be best to use some judgment?
I used to think I knew the answer to that question. After this junior doctor nonsense I am not so sure.
@GoodwinMJ 2m2 minutes ago Updated academic forecast for #EURef Chance of Remain win down 87->73% Forecast Remain vote down 58->54% (+/-13 pts)
It's getting perilously close, and LEAVE has the trend.
If you believe their logic and that Remain has a 73% chance then the value at 2/1 is with Remain though isn't it? It may only be a close advantage that Remain has but that may be all they need.
But REMAIN is in freefall, if these guys are right. The trend, my friend, the trend.
Remain is in freefall, really?
There's well over 2 months to go, so far it's just been about Tories fighting like ferrets in a sack, tearing the party apart as many predicted would happen. Non-tories are just sitting back with their popcorn hoping to benefit from their disarray in the May elections .
During the last month, once the May elections are over, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, SNP will begin campaigning in earnest and if their voters turnout it large numbers for Remain then it will be all over as I expect Tory voters to split around 50/50 in the end.
The people that want change always make the most noise, it doesn't follow that they are winning. Once we are into June the polling will become relevant.
Also, I'm really unsure that the Left and Centre Left WILL turn out en masse for REMAIN.
Lib Dems and Greens, sure. But they are piffling in number. The Nats by contrast seem ambivalent, plenty of them will want a LEAVE vote just to get a second indyref, and a number of Nats are convinced sceptics (people forget this).
Which leaves Labour, led by a man so indifferent about the fate of the EU, he's going to Glastonbury the same week as the referendum, when the country and continent could be in turmoil, after Brexit. Will Labourites take their cue from him, or dutifully follow the advice of Blair and Mandelson?
Hmm.
When push comes Ito shove I fully expect Labour voters to turn out in sufficient numbers to ensure Remain wins. We shall have to wait and see. Till the May elections are over we are in a phoney war as far as the EU goes.
Worth a read: the objections seem to be real, but overstated.
Interesting. But given that there are places where there is such concentration of populations and from particular countries I would have thought that a poll of attitudes in those communities is perfectly valid. Aren't those the communities which have been growing the most?
It does also smack of attacking the messenger rather than trying to engage with the message, which is a pity.
"A month ago we issued our first forecast for the EU membership referendum on 23rd June 2016. Based on an analysis of referendums in the UK and on the EU outside the UK, and on vote intention opinion polls we forecast that Remain had an 87% chance of winning, and that Remain would get 58% of the vote, plus or minus 14. This was in part based on our polling average (excluding Don’t Knows) of 55% for Remain on 11th March.
Our current forecast suggests the contest is a fair bit closer. Our polling average now puts Remain on 52%. We now give Remain a 73% chance of winning and estimate that the Remain share of the vote will be 54% plus or minus 13 points."
It's getting perilously close, and LEAVE has the trend.
I know it is.
I did an analysis based on the petition and it's regional breakdown, using the most recent and largest polls as a comparison and the most marginal seats as a yard stick. If voter registration and turnout throughout the country where equal, then the result would range from a Remain lead of 2.5% to a Leave lead of 1.5% .
I've already selected 3 seats which will tell me who won on the night of the count, but I don't know if the count will be conducted on a constituency basis or a local authority one.
I hope it's by constituency basis, so if Sunderland comes in first as usual, I could even then make a reasonable guess.
During the last month, once the May elections are over, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, SNP will begin campaigning in earnest and if their voters turnout it large numbers for Remain then it will be all over as I expect Tory voters to split around 50/50 in the end.
Wishful thinking if you think a lot of particularly working class voters are going to turn out to save Dave's bacon.
Fine if the referendum was just about saving "Dave's bacon" but it's not. That is a wholly Tory-centric point of view.
I think it's perfectly valid to know pay rates from taxes as a rule etc but I don't see why outside interests that aren't tax related should be included and privacy lost due to claiming an income.
While I would have pretty fundamental concerns with the Mail's motivation, it wouldn't be a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The principle is sound and there is actually a reason why it might be quite useful to know if the Doctor on the TV advocating widespread use of a pharmaceutical is in the pay of that pharmaceutical company.
Not just a reason, a compelling reason. Disclosure might clean up the highly corrupt nature of the United Kingdom. It may take a while but it would certainly help.
In this country we don't really get pharmaceutical ads on TV. Though I think in general it's safe to assume someone advertising a product is paid to do so.
But even that doesn't tell us the whole story. Someone not being paid may not be disinterested either. They may know someone there or be sleeping with the boss or hoping for favours. Equally, you cannot assume that because someone is paid that they are incapable of exercising independent judgment. Not everyone's decisions are motivated solely by money. We don't, for instance, automatically assume that when doctors tell us that there are some issues with the NHS they are purely motivated by money given that the NHS is their employer, as opposed to their medical judgment. And if we did we'd have to ignore everything doctors tell us about the NHS. Would that be wise? Or might it be best to use some judgment?
I used to think I knew the answer to that question. After this junior doctor nonsense I am not so sure.
Money is a factor in motivation. But it is rarely the only factor. Even in the City. It's very Marxist to assume that one's economic position will determine your views on a range of matters. I don't think it is psychologically true and is far too rigid an explanation for most human behaviour.
@GoodwinMJ 2m2 minutes ago Updated academic forecast for #EURef Chance of Remain win down 87->73% Forecast Remain vote down 58->54% (+/-13 pts)
It's getting perilously close, and LEAVE has the trend.
If you believe their logic and that Remain has a 73% chance then the value at 2/1 is with Remain though isn't it? It may only be a close advantage that Remain has but that may be all they need.
But REMAIN is in freefall, if these guys are right. The trend, my friend, the trend.
Remain is in freefall, really?
There's well over 2 months to go, so far it's just been about Tories fighting like ferrets in a sack, tearing the party apart as many predicted would happen. Non-tories are just sitting back with their popcorn hoping to benefit from their disarray in the May elections .
During the last month, once the May elections are over, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, SNP will begin campaigning in earnest and if their voters turnout it large numbers for Remain then it will be all over as I expect Tory voters to split around 50/50 in the end.
The people that want change always make the most noise, it doesn't follow that they are winning. Once we are into June the polling will become relevant.
Also, I'm really unsure that the Left and Centre Left WILL turn out en masse for REMAIN.
Lib Dems and Greens, sure. But they are piffling in number. The Nats by contrast seem ambivalent, plenty of them will want a LEAVE vote just to get a second indyref, and a number of Nats are convinced sceptics (people forget this).
Which leaves Labour, led by a man so indifferent about the fate of the EU, he's going to Glastonbury the same week as the referendum, when the country and continent could be in turmoil, after Brexit. Will Labourites take their cue from him, or dutifully follow the advice of Blair and Mandelson?
Hmm.
Corbyn is going to Glastonbury instead ? I didn't knew that.
What a convenient excuse: "Dear David Cameron, sorry I forgot to campaign for Remain, I was planning for Glastonbury, signed Jeremy Corbyn".
There's a reason why in 1984 the citizens were given no privacy. You might want to reflect on why that was and whether you really want to live in the sort of dystopia your "make everyone tell everyone else everything about themselves" principle will create.
We don't need to be guided by a novel in this case - we can inspect the countries where universal disclosure of tax returns is well-established, Norway and Sweden. Do you feel these are dystopic and tyranninal societies?
I agree that the idea of informers is another matter. In theory it already exists (Crimestoppers and all that). In practice I'm not sure I want every vague suspicion reported.
As a (be)leaver I want the EU referendum to be close. But I still feel it will not be.
I really don't go in for all the accusations of lying every time there is a difference of opinion about something. But if Leave are to win they must win the argument that remain is not the status quo. In my opinion they are a very long way from doing so.
Really? That's one area I think the job is practically done, and it's Remain who have to convince people further integration has been halted.
That's because you are a leaver. If Leave can persuade the majority of that fact they win. But I don't believe they can.
Granted, I'm a Leaver, but the reason I think that aspect of the job is done is because outside a minority most people don't like the EU, even if some think leaving would be worse or the wrong solution to its problems, and one of the reasons people dislike it is because of its inexorable power creep. Even many people who don't want to Leave can be heard saying things like 'The EU does not allow x' or that the EU interferes too much and in an increasing manner. It doesn't follow that that, on its own, will sway people to Leave, but on the issue of if most people think further integration is on the cards, ie Remain is not the status quo? If not achieved, it's achieved more than most Leave arguments.
Worth a read: the objections seem to be real, but overstated.
Interesting. But given that there are places where there is such concentration of populations and from particular countries I would have thought that a poll of attitudes in those communities is perfectly valid. Aren't those the communities which have been growing the most?
It does also smack of attacking the messenger rather than trying to engage with the message, which is a pity.
"The poll of Conservatives was criticised because only Tories from Hampshire North East, Maidenhead and Newbury"...
Well psephologically it's a valid criticism but it's not the Ali family living in a predominantly white middle class neighbourhood that tends to have the problem with radicalisation etc..
I still don't understand how Out can lose. It is the only side with a compelling narrative, emotional connection while the starting position is very close to the Status Quo. It has win written all over it.
If Vote Leave wins the campaign nod and successfully marginalises Farage, then surely any odds on Out are close to money purchase.
Farage has said that GO will campaign alongside VL (assuming VL get the nod) targeting different aspects of the campaign. VL have kept off immigration and no doubt will continue to do so. We are still (incredibly) 2 1/2 months away from the Referendum.
Farage can say whatever he wants.
If Vote Leave get the nod, he will not feature in any TV debates, be kept off official platforms and get no coverage on television which will be compelled to cover Vote LEave and whatever the Remain group is called. In order for Grassroots Out to get coverage and maintain balance, there would have to be a second major Remain group to offer airtime to and AFAIK there isn't.
In the press, Vote Leave will get coverage from the Tory Outer papers - Telegraph and Mail, while Farage will get featured in the Express. Should Vote Leave get the nod then Farage is finished and Out almost certainly wins.
Which is why one has to suspect the possibility of a nod and a wink being sent the way of the Electoral Commission.
I suspect a lot of this is hope - And DON'T forget THE SUN newspaper. Still a big reader base and can sway a lot of one side to the other. Looking at the website there is nothing much there - so maybe someone is hedging their bets.
@GoodwinMJ 2m2 minutes ago Updated academic forecast for #EURef Chance of Remain win down 87->73% Forecast Remain vote down 58->54% (+/-13 pts)
It's getting perilously close, and LEAVE has the trend.
If you believe their logic and that Remain has a 73% chance then the value at 2/1 is with Remain though isn't it? It may only be a close advantage that Remain has but that may be all they need.
But REMAIN is in freefall, if these guys are right. The trend, my friend, the trend.
Remain is in freefall, really?
There's well over 2 months to go, so far it's just been about Tories fighting like ferrets in a sack, tearing the party apart as many predicted would happen. Non-tories are just sitting back with their popcorn hoping to benefit from their disarray in the May elections .
During the last month, once the May elections are over, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, SNP will begin campaigning in earnest and if their voters turnout it large numbers for Remain then it will be all over as I expect Tory voters to split around 50/50 in the end.
The people that want change always make the most noise, it doesn't follow that they are winning. Once we are into June the polling will become relevant.
Also, I'm really unsure that the Left and Centre Left WILL turn out en masse for REMAIN.
Lib Dems and Greens, sure. But they are piffling in number. The Nats by contrast seem ambivalent, plenty of them will want a LEAVE vote just to get a second indyref, and a number of Nats are convinced sceptics (people forget this).
Which leaves Labour, led by a man so indifferent about the fate of the EU, he's going to Glastonbury the same week as the referendum, when the country and continent could be in turmoil, after Brexit. Will Labourites take their cue from him, or dutifully follow the advice of Blair and Mandelson?
Hmm.
Corbyn is going to Glastonbury instead ? I didn't knew that.
What a convenient excuse: "Dear David Cameron, sorry I forgot to campaign for Remain, I was planning for Glastonbury, signed Jeremy Corbyn".
Worth a read: the objections seem to be real, but overstated.
Interesting. But given that there are places where there is such concentration of populations and from particular countries I would have thought that a poll of attitudes in those communities is perfectly valid. Aren't those the communities which have been growing the most?
It does also smack of attacking the messenger rather than trying to engage with the message, which is a pity.
I guess it's a little different to a poll of Muslims, not hugely, just a little, like a poll of Conservatives in seats where they win lots of votes would give slightly different responses.
"A month ago we issued our first forecast for the EU membership referendum on 23rd June 2016. Based on an analysis of referendums in the UK and on the EU outside the UK, and on vote intention opinion polls we forecast that Remain had an 87% chance of winning, and that Remain would get 58% of the vote, plus or minus 14. This was in part based on our polling average (excluding Don’t Knows) of 55% for Remain on 11th March.
Our current forecast suggests the contest is a fair bit closer. Our polling average now puts Remain on 52%. We now give Remain a 73% chance of winning and estimate that the Remain share of the vote will be 54% plus or minus 13 points."
It's getting perilously close, and LEAVE has the trend.
I know it is.
I did an analysis based on the petition and it's regional breakdown, using the most recent and largest polls as a comparison and the most marginal seats as a yard stick. If voter registration and turnout throughout the country where equal, then the result would range from a Remain lead of 2.5% to a Leave lead of 1.5% .
I've already selected 3 seats which will tell me who won on the night of the count, but I don't know if the count will be conducted on a constituency basis or a local authority one.
I hope it's by constituency basis, so if Sunderland comes in first as usual, I could even then make a reasonable guess.
As goes Sunderland Central, so goes the nation ?
Nope, but if Leave comes very close or even wins in Sunderland Central I think it will look very good for Leave, but it's not on my list of 3 constituencies that I have penciled that will tell us who won.
Results will be declared as soon as they are known by the 382 local counting officers. There are 380 council areas in Great Britain plus one area for Northern Ireland and one for Gibraltar. Regional and national running totals will be available. Polling stations should not have more than 2,500 electors
"A month ago we issued our first forecast for the EU membership referendum on 23rd June 2016. Based on an analysis of referendums in the UK and on the EU outside the UK, and on vote intention opinion polls we forecast that Remain had an 87% chance of winning, and that Remain would get 58% of the vote, plus or minus 14. This was in part based on our polling average (excluding Don’t Knows) of 55% for Remain on 11th March.
Our current forecast suggests the contest is a fair bit closer. Our polling average now puts Remain on 52%. We now give Remain a 73% chance of winning and estimate that the Remain share of the vote will be 54% plus or minus 13 points."
It's getting perilously close, and LEAVE has the trend.
I know it is.
I did an analysis based on the petition and it's regional breakdown, using the most recent and largest polls as a comparison and the most marginal seats as a yard stick. If voter registration and turnout throughout the country where equal, then the result would range from a Remain lead of 2.5% to a Leave lead of 1.5% .
I've already selected 3 seats which will tell me who won on the night of the count, but I don't know if the count will be conducted on a constituency basis or a local authority one.
I hope it's by constituency basis, so if Sunderland comes in first as usual, I could even then make a reasonable guess.
As goes Sunderland Central, so goes the nation ?
Nope, but if Leave comes very close or even wins in Sunderland Central I think it will look very good for Leave, but it's not on my list of 3 constituencies that I have penciled that will tell us who won.
During the last month, once the May elections are over, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, SNP will begin campaigning in earnest and if their voters turnout it large numbers for Remain then it will be all over as I expect Tory voters to split around 50/50 in the end.
Wishful thinking if you think a lot of particularly working class voters are going to turn out to save Dave's bacon.
Fine if the referendum was just about saving "Dave's bacon" but it's not. That is a wholly Tory-centric point of view.
The temptation to wreck Cameron's legacy must be near irresistible for many Labour voters.
As a (be)leaver I want the EU referendum to be close. But I still feel it will not be.
I really don't go in for all the accusations of lying every time there is a difference of opinion about something. But if Leave are to win they must win the argument that remain is not the status quo. In my opinion they are a very long way from doing so.
Really? That's one area I think the job is practically done, and it's Remain who have to convince people further integration has been halted.
That's because you are a leaver. If Leave can persuade the majority of that fact they win. But I don't believe they can.
Granted, I'm a Leaver, but the reason I think that aspect of the job is done is because outside a minority most people don't like the EU, even if some think leaving would be worse or the wrong solution to its problems, and one of the reasons people dislike it is because of its inexorable power creep. Even many people who don't want to Leave can be heard saying things like 'The EU does not allow x' or that the EU interferes too much and in an increasing manner. It doesn't follow that that, on its own, will sway people to Leave, but on the issue of if most people think further integration is on the cards, ie Remain is not the status quo? If not achieved, it's achieved more than most Leave arguments.
I'm a leaver too. A "thus far and no further" option would have smashed it. Was never going to happen though.
During the last month, once the May elections are over, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, SNP will begin campaigning in earnest and if their voters turnout it large numbers for Remain then it will be all over as I expect Tory voters to split around 50/50 in the end.
Wishful thinking if you think a lot of particularly working class voters are going to turn out to save Dave's bacon.
Fine if the referendum was just about saving "Dave's bacon" but it's not. That is a wholly Tory-centric point of view.
"It is a common criticism among Labour MPs, but Corbyn’s camp insist there are no votes in being slavishly pro-European. A source close to the leader said next week’s speech could be characterized as “yes, and.”
“If you speak to Labour voters, they are not happy with everything about the EU,” the source said. “It’s right we reflect that.”
Corbyn wants to see more of “social Europe” and is leading the charge against the increasingly controversial free-trade deal between the EU and U.S. known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).
Corbyn’s reticence to praise the EU has infuriated Labour MPs.
“I’m no fan of Jeremy’s, but the fact is he is the leader of the Labour party and that is important in all of this,” said one Labour MP. “When he finally gives this speech he has to be unequivocal — none of this TTIP rubbish, because it’s really starting to take hold in the debates I’m listening to among Labour members.” "
There's a reason why in 1984 the citizens were given no privacy. You might want to reflect on why that was and whether you really want to live in the sort of dystopia your "make everyone tell everyone else everything about themselves" principle will create.
We don't need to be guided by a novel in this case - we can inspect the countries where universal disclosure of tax returns is well-established, Norway and Sweden. Do you feel these are dystopic and tyranninal societies?
I agree that the idea of informers is another matter. In theory it already exists (Crimestoppers and all that). In practice I'm not sure I want every vague suspicion reported.
I have been to neither so feel unable to comment.
I remember you saying at one point that even the Norwegians had had to row back on some of what they made public about people's financial affairs. I may have misremembered and it may not have been you. Bear in mind that financial affairs are far wider than just tax returns and that Mr Dair wanted full disclosure of the financial affairs of everyone receiving benefits and all those who got their income from the state.
Also my point was a broader one - rather than just limited to tax returns.
I do think that ID cards, the demand for full transparency on everything, the idea that seems to be about that nothing should be private is tyrannical in its effects and that such a society would be quite unbearable to live in.
There's a reason why in 1984 the citizens were given no privacy. You might want to reflect on why that was and whether you really want to live in the sort of dystopia your "make everyone tell everyone else everything about themselves" principle will create.
We don't need to be guided by a novel in this case - we can inspect the countries where universal disclosure of tax returns is well-established, Norway and Sweden. Do you feel these are dystopic and tyranninal societies?
I agree that the idea of informers is another matter. In theory it already exists (Crimestoppers and all that). In practice I'm not sure I want every vague suspicion reported.
Whistleblowing/informers are another matter. A lot of Continental countries have strong cultural/historical objections to this, particularly when anonymous, for obvious reasons. The Anglo-Saxon world tends to take a different view but even we find it difficult to create an effective whistleblowing culture. How many MPs blew the whistle on their colleagues?
During the last month, once the May elections are over, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, SNP will begin campaigning in earnest and if their voters turnout it large numbers for Remain then it will be all over as I expect Tory voters to split around 50/50 in the end.
Wishful thinking if you think a lot of particularly working class voters are going to turn out to save Dave's bacon.
Fine if the referendum was just about saving "Dave's bacon" but it's not. That is a wholly Tory-centric point of view.
No, defeating the Tories is, or should be an almost wholly Labour view, but as has been shown rather frequently recently there are many things Labour tribalists love more than winning, the EU being one of the most prominent. You may find the working class "Mr Duffy" voters slightly less convinced.
"A month ago we issued our first forecast for the EU membership referendum on 23rd June 2016. Based on an analysis of referendums in the UK and on the EU outside the UK, and on vote intention opinion polls we forecast that Remain had an 87% chance of winning, and that Remain would get 58% of the vote, plus or minus 14. This was in part based on our polling average (excluding Don’t Knows) of 55% for Remain on 11th March.
Our current forecast suggests the contest is a fair bit closer. Our polling average now puts Remain on 52%. We now give Remain a 73% chance of winning and estimate that the Remain share of the vote will be 54% plus or minus 13 points."
It's getting perilously close, and LEAVE has the trend.
I know it is.
I did an analysis based on the petition and it's regional breakdown, using the most recent and largest polls as a comparison and the most marginal seats as a yard stick. If voter registration and turnout throughout the country where equal, then the result would range from a Remain lead of 2.5% to a Leave lead of 1.5% .
I've already selected 3 seats which will tell me who won on the night of the count, but I don't know if the count will be conducted on a constituency basis or a local authority one.
I hope it's by constituency basis, so if Sunderland comes in first as usual, I could even then make a reasonable guess.
As goes Sunderland Central, so goes the nation ?
Nope, but if Leave comes very close or even wins in Sunderland Central I think it will look very good for Leave, but it's not on my list of 3 constituencies that I have penciled that will tell us who won.
Comments
Freedom is given up as part of the Social Contract on a universal basis to some degree in all countries on earth, in no country are you given "real freedom". It would seem that if you want to consume tax, you should be relatively comfortable the idea of a fairly encompassing Social Contract which has to come with a relatively high "freedom sacrifice".
Indeed are not Lord Ashcrofts assets also offshore in Central America?
There's something very unpleasant about the nauseating moralising and hypocrisy emanating from Labour over this. It's little wonder Tories are responding in the way they are, however tasteless it may appear. It's not as if Labour people aren't wealthy by comparison with ordinary folk.
Even the apparently hair-shirted Corbyn will get a pension I and many others can only dream of. And for what, exactly? For the contribution to public life a not very bright individual has made by inviting the IRA to Parliament and consorting with multiple other terrorist sympathizers. How dare he and those like him claim the moral high ground?
It's those who pay their taxes who pay for the NHS which patches up those injured by Corbyn's IRA friends.
What an utter **** that man is!
"But if Plaid Cymru are to make any progress at all, they need to start gaining vote share. They can't profit by being bystanders while other parties rise and fall. They need to look at what the SNP has achieved in Scotland, consider how that may be applied to their circumstances in Wales and act accordingly. Otherwise, they could be waiting for the great leap forward for a very long time indeed."
They still don't seem to be making the necessary progress.
Nothing you have said justifies anyone other than the tax/benefits agency knowing what income a person seeking benefits has. That person has as much right to individual dignity and privacy as I do. In both cases we accept that the state in the form of the taxman has the right to know our affairs for the purpose of ensuring that we are complying with the law and not committing fraud. But there is no need for anyone else to know that information. "Need to know" is a pretty good principle to be adopted.
LAB: 31% (-)
CON: 20% (-2)
PC: 20% (-2)
UKIP: 16% (+2)
LDEM: 5% (-)
GRN: 4% (-)
(via YouGov / 07 - 11 Apr)
Welsh Assembly VI (constituency):
LAB: 35% (+1)
PC: 21% (-)
CON: 19% (-3)
UKIP: 17% (+2)
LDEM: 6% (-)
(via YouGov / 07 - 11 Apr)
* The argument that the status quo is not an option is above the head of most don't know voters I think so.if we are looking at predictions rather than arguments it's moot/invalid.
I think it's perfectly valid to know pay rates from taxes as a rule etc but I don't see why outside interests that aren't tax related should be included and privacy lost due to claiming an income.
Amazing how concerned everyone got over celebrity phones being hacked, the appalling breach of privacy, damages, sob stories, evil press etc. But when it's people's financial records being hacked, apparently breaches of privacy are all tickety boo and a good thing etc. Hard to discern any principle here - other than it's OK to do bad things to people we dislike and bad to do them to people we like, the liking and disliking being determined by a few people according to some criterion yet to be discerned, let alone understood.
Can anyone join in? I mean: I really dislike Corbyn and McDonnell. Is it OK for me to hack into their private affairs and publish what I find or what I think I find all over the place, even if not true and in the most sensational way possible?
Age related turnout - favours Leave
Class related turnout - favours Remain
Reversion to status quo - favours Remain.
That gives Remain two advantages and Leave one. Two to one in odds feels right at this stage and is closer than I'd have expected a year ago.
It should not just be tax consumers, it should be the Norwegian model of full disclosure for everyone.
My focus on tax consumers isn't coherent given that it is to ensure the necessary checks and balances under Custodiet Ipsos Custodes but there's no reason why that should not also apply to private income.
"Privacy" is merely the ideological justification for "the right to hide". There are areas where that clearly should apply, but when it involves the tax that individuals should be paying and consuming, there is no reason why a "right to hide" should exist at all.
According to the radio, someone in Labour (McDonnell?) is already including political journalists amongst the people to have their tax records released.
Some journalists may be rather concerned about this ...
Then Coulson got the gig and said, why do we keep giving this drug addled, hooker obsessed guy an easy ride....just print the truth about him. So they did. And Coogan went apes##t, because the NOTW printed a load of stories about his illegal activities.
If Vote Leave wins the campaign nod and successfully marginalises Farage, then surely any odds on Out are close to money purchase.
And privacy does not mean a right to hide from the tax authorities, as you seem to think. But it does mean the right not to have your neighbour or that random person five streets away or 500 miles away knowing about your affairs. And I think that right is far too valuable to throw away because some idiots are hyper-ventilating about legal behaviour.
Not just a reason, a compelling reason. Disclosure might clean up the highly corrupt nature of the United Kingdom. It may take a while but it would certainly help.
We know the Government is going to throw everything at this, and more, and that Remain have a clear lead amongst the more apathetic.
The higher the turnout, the higher Remain's victory.
They are based on what appear to be realistic turnout levels in the 60-70% range.
If feels like even money to me, even with some late drift back to Remain.
Political betting isn't really about chance in the same way other betting is. A small lead can be 100% nailed on, or completely meaningless.
Vote today and remain is a near certain win. June, because of what we already know will happen (immigrants) and the chance of other things happening - well closer to 50/50.
This is about change in probability.
I believe in the right to privacy in a lot of areas. But where that interacts with your participation in society and your rights and obligations under the Social Contract with the state, there is no right to privacy.
BTW, in the UK you do not have a secret ballot.
I really don't go in for all the accusations of lying every time there is a difference of opinion about something. But if Leave are to win they must win the argument that remain is not the status quo. In my opinion they are a very long way from doing so.
Shame something important hangs on the vote.
Norway already has a full disclosure system on taxation (although not consumption) and is ranking top or near the top of every international measure of freedom and happiness. There really is nothing worse than the ideological need to reduce arguments to such hyperbolic nonsense.
And would you be happier with a Cruz or Trump victory ?
The fundamental question becomes which right you believe should have higher priority. The right of individuals to hide their income or the right of the public to notify HMRC of individuals who appear to be spending well beyond their (declared) means.
Of course, I do understand (and to an extent sympathise) with those who would see the latter as a sinister and unwelcome situation. But I assume anyone who believes this also thinks the Benefits Agency and HMRC should immediately cease their "tip off" lines.
The issue of appropriate oversight of state bodies in the way they conduct state business is a fair one. But that can be done - and can probably be done better - without requiring my or your personal tax affairs to be available to 50 million other people. Just as oversight of the NHS does not need my medical records to be made available to all and sundry.
All totalitarian states have sought to abolish privacy. It might be worth bearing that in mind and the experience of those who have lived under such regimes before sounding so casually dismissive of the right to privacy.
I am a director and company secretary. I understand of course that we are bound to maintain an accurate register of shareholders. But I cannot find anywhere any reference to what this actually means in practice in terms of whether it is entirely the shareholder's responsibility to notify us of a change of address, or whether we should pro-actively do Google searches or otherwise try to find shareholders with whom we have lost contact. In other words, should the register show the last formally-notified address we have received for a given shareholder, or our best guess of what the address might be, or what we might know from other sources?
There's well over 2 months to go, so far it's just been about Tories fighting like ferrets in a sack, tearing the party apart as many predicted would happen. Non-tories are just sitting back with their popcorn hoping to benefit from their disarray in the May elections .
During the last month, once the May elections are over, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, SNP will begin campaigning in earnest and if their voters turnout it large numbers for Remain then it will be all over as I expect Tory voters to split around 50/50 in the end.
The people that want change always make the most noise, it doesn't follow that they are winning. Once we are into June the polling will become relevant.
If you have lots I'd say it;s the shareholders responsibility to keep you advised of changes of address.
wrt shareholding that's more your repsonsibility as you have to keep track of who owns the company.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/channel-4-british-muslims_uk_570badf0e4b0fa55639d65a9?sxbyy14i
Worth a read: the objections seem to be real, but overstated.
If Vote Leave get the nod, he will not feature in any TV debates, be kept off official platforms and get no coverage on television which will be compelled to cover Vote LEave and whatever the Remain group is called. In order for Grassroots Out to get coverage and maintain balance, there would have to be a second major Remain group to offer airtime to and AFAIK there isn't.
In the press, Vote Leave will get coverage from the Tory Outer papers - Telegraph and Mail, while Farage will get featured in the Express. Should Vote Leave get the nod then Farage is finished and Out almost certainly wins.
Which is why one has to suspect the possibility of a nod and a wink being sent the way of the Electoral Commission.
A decade or so ago, the Inland Revenue as then was investigated a woman on the basis that the number of supermarket reward points she was earning (yes they get to see those) was much larger than would be expected for someone of her very limited means, they didn't tell her why they were investigating here, and left her stressed and puzzled for several months before they put it to her that she appeared to be living beyond her means. "Oh no, you've got it all wrong, I do the shopping for my elderly neighbours and they let me have the reward points on my card". Pitiful - fishing expeditions on public data are a liability, they have too many edge cases that never get considered.
As @Alanbrooke suggests, I see this as a question of proportionality, depending on the number of shareholders.
And the second killer argument is this: don't think for a moment that the minute we leave we will be able to stop / control immigration. Things are likely to remain broadly the same for quite some time.
I expect both of these to be deployed and to have some effect. Most people don't like uncertainty.
I did an analysis based on the petition and it's regional breakdown, using the most recent and largest polls as a comparison and the most marginal seats as a yard stick.
If voter registration and turnout throughout the country where equal, then the result would range from a Remain lead of 2.5% to a Leave lead of 1.5% .
I've already selected 3 seats which will tell me who won on the night of the count, but I don't know if the count will be conducted on a constituency basis or a local authority one.
I hope it's by constituency basis, so if Sunderland comes in first as usual, I could even then make a reasonable guess.
It does also smack of attacking the messenger rather than trying to engage with the message, which is a pity.
To what degree am I allowed to wish ill-fate on Paul Murton, who seems to be pretending to be Michael Portillo?
Within the bounds that I'm allowed I'd like to turn up the knob to maximum anyway.
What an awful oik.
I didn't knew that.
What a convenient excuse:
"Dear David Cameron, sorry I forgot to campaign for Remain, I was planning for Glastonbury, signed Jeremy Corbyn".
I agree that the idea of informers is another matter. In theory it already exists (Crimestoppers and all that). In practice I'm not sure I want every vague suspicion reported.
Well psephologically it's a valid criticism but it's not the Ali family living in a predominantly white middle class neighbourhood that tends to have the problem with radicalisation etc..
Not so much MIA as AWOL.
A "thus far and no further" option would have smashed it.
Was never going to happen though.
http://www.politico.eu/article/corbyn-to-the-rescue-in-tories-brexit-storm/
"It is a common criticism among Labour MPs, but Corbyn’s camp insist there are no votes in being slavishly pro-European. A source close to the leader said next week’s speech could be characterized as “yes, and.”
“If you speak to Labour voters, they are not happy with everything about the EU,” the source said. “It’s right we reflect that.”
Corbyn wants to see more of “social Europe” and is leading the charge against the increasingly controversial free-trade deal between the EU and U.S. known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).
Corbyn’s reticence to praise the EU has infuriated Labour MPs.
“I’m no fan of Jeremy’s, but the fact is he is the leader of the Labour party and that is important in all of this,” said one Labour MP. “When he finally gives this speech he has to be unequivocal — none of this TTIP rubbish, because it’s really starting to take hold in the debates I’m listening to among Labour members.” "
I remember you saying at one point that even the Norwegians had had to row back on some of what they made public about people's financial affairs. I may have misremembered and it may not have been you. Bear in mind that financial affairs are far wider than just tax returns and that Mr Dair wanted full disclosure of the financial affairs of everyone receiving benefits and all those who got their income from the state.
Also my point was a broader one - rather than just limited to tax returns.
I do think that ID cards, the demand for full transparency on everything, the idea that seems to be about that nothing should be private is tyrannical in its effects and that such a society would be quite unbearable to live in.
South East
East
South West
East Midlands
North east
West midlands
Northwest
Wales
London
Scotland
Northern Ireland