Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tories get to within one percent in today’s YouGov daily po

2

Comments

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    TGOHF said:


    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    JackW said:

    Latest ARSE 2015 General Election Projection :

    Con 298 .. Lab 276 .. LibDem 38 .. SNP 12 .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. Ukip 2 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 1 .. Speaker 1

    Conservatives 28 seats short of a majority.

    Ukip are simply not going to win any seats on anything like their current level of polling Jack. Other than that I think that is a fairly good stab. As I said watching whether largest party + Lib Dems equals a majority is something to keep an eye on. You are indicating an overall majority of 20 which is about the minimum for stable government (ask John major).
    You could probably make an argument that a coalition with a majority of 20 is more stable than a single party with a majority of 20.

    In theory, the disagreements should get thrashed out before they hit the floor of the house, whereas in a single party it's down to the whips to keep the Peter Bones and Jeremy Corbyns in line

    Drifting into fantasy though...if this were the result, do you think the boundary changes would get through this time...
    With just 38 LDs left it would have to be on a 650 MP basis rather than 600 or less.
    You're arguing that enough tory backbenchers would rebel?
  • tim said:

    JackW said:

    Latest ARSE 2015 General Election Projection :

    Con 298 .. Lab 276 .. LibDem 38 .. SNP 12 .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. Ukip 2 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 1 .. Speaker 1

    Conservatives 28 seats short of a majority.

    Err... exactly which 6 seats are you predicting the SNP to gain? Airdrie and Shotts? Glasgow NE? Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath?
    He must be predicting Dundee West for starters
    What fun! Cos Martin Baxter has LAB with a 74.6% chance of holding Dundee West (MAJ in 2010 was over 7,000). But Jack thinks that majority will tumble does he? I wonder why? ;)
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Plato said:

    Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes
    Remember first time I met @ChrisBryantMP years ago (at PCC seminar) he told everyone he wanted to see my blog closed down. @hugorifkind

    And so it should be! Guido is crap compared to PB.com!!
    Sorry but Guido is way way better. There was a time, about 3-5 years ago, when this site posted balanced, neutral, yet incisive threads but it has gone steadily downhill coinciding with the LibDems advent in Government.
    pb.com has slightly suffered since the advent of the Coalition for two main reasons.

    1. The Fixed Term Parliament Act means that we know the date of the next election with near-certainty. Thus there's no potential for an early election, with all of the betting interest that would bring.

    2. There have been remarkably few reshuffles, and those that have occurred have been necessarily constrained by the Coalition balancing act. This also has an impact on betting. There was a lot more interest in the Cabinet next exit odds earlier in the Parliament before this became apparent.

    When you combine that with the absence of a Commons seats spread-betting market and the motivating principle of the site is much reduced in vigour. Things will liven up as the Euro elections approach, particularly if then followed by opinion polling on Scottish independence showing a narrowing of No's current lead. It could all be quite the run-up to the General Election.
    By the way, what did that long ROFL acronym you posted the other day actually stand for?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Charles said:

    Plato said:

    Mario Creatura @MarioCreatura
    Green policies add 41% to energy costs by 2030: ft.com/cms/s/0/826d34… (£) That Clegg wants to block a reduction in these taxes is absurd.

    Which other taxes are you going to put up so that you can reduce green taxes on energy ?
    Absorb them within the deficit reduction plans.

    At the margin it reduces the ability to cut other taxes (e.g. raising the PA threshold) but should have a material impact on the perceived cost of living
    CLAPS - I assume Green Taxes aren't hypothicated so why not spend them on other things like food instead since our supposedly obese children also require Red Cross food parcels...

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    TGOHF said:

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    Latest ARSE 2015 General Election Projection :

    Con 298 .. Lab 276 .. LibDem 38 .. SNP 12 .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. Ukip 2 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 1 .. Speaker 1

    Conservatives 28 seats short of a majority.

    Err... exactly which 6 seats are you predicting the SNP to gain? Airdrie and Shotts? Glasgow NE? Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath?
    My ARSE be undertaking individual seat projections within the JackW Dozen - 13 marginal seats to follow for the election. It will include SNP targets but will not issue these projections until May 2014.

    Does your latest ARSE show a Sourby HOLD ?
    The initial projection has Broxtowe as "Too Close To Call" - within 500 votes. However all seats have to be called and the final projection calls the seat as Labour GAIN.

    Broxtowe is one of the "JackW Dozen".

  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,112
    Charles - rolling on (the) floor laughing
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Charles said:

    TGOHF said:


    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    JackW said:

    Latest ARSE 2015 General Election Projection :

    Con 298 .. Lab 276 .. LibDem 38 .. SNP 12 .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. Ukip 2 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 1 .. Speaker 1

    Conservatives 28 seats short of a majority.

    Ukip are simply not going to win any seats on anything like their current level of polling Jack. Other than that I think that is a fairly good stab. As I said watching whether largest party + Lib Dems equals a majority is something to keep an eye on. You are indicating an overall majority of 20 which is about the minimum for stable government (ask John major).
    You could probably make an argument that a coalition with a majority of 20 is more stable than a single party with a majority of 20.

    In theory, the disagreements should get thrashed out before they hit the floor of the house, whereas in a single party it's down to the whips to keep the Peter Bones and Jeremy Corbyns in line

    Drifting into fantasy though...if this were the result, do you think the boundary changes would get through this time...
    With just 38 LDs left it would have to be on a 650 MP basis rather than 600 or less.
    You're arguing that enough tory backbenchers would rebel?
    I'd suggest the LD's would prefer 38/650 than less than 32 ish /600 or whatever it would be.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    Charles said:

    tim said:

    "Betrayal of elderly on social care costs
    Thousands could be forced to sell homes despite earlier Government assurances"

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10378848/Betrayal-of-elderly-on-social-care-costs.html

    Lefty paper.

    Why should the taxpayer pay for someone just so they can preserve their assets?

    Clearly there is a case for allowing deferment in some cases (e.g. when there is a couple of whom only one needs care) and for insurance against catastrophic costs (hence the capping) but otherwise people should expect to spend the assets they have built up during their working life.
    A death tax is and was always the best option.

    How are your mates Rupert and Justin's valuation of Royal Mail looking this morning, "Mad Dog" doesn't seem to have got much of a deal for the taxpayer does he.
    Never mind, sure he'll be doing nicely anyway.

    I don't like the death tax idea because it is relatively easy to structure around with careful planning. As always the rich and the poor can avoid it and it's the people in the middle who get hit.

    You really don't understand how capital markets work, do you? Rupert didn't value the company: he just collated the orders and explained the demand at different prices: the government then chose the price they wanted to sell at. Depending on how fast the size and quality of the book declined above 330p (and Peston suggested it was rapid - with the UK long-onlys falling away fastest) then that would determine the optimal price.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    JackW said:

    Latest ARSE 2015 General Election Projection :

    Con 298 .. Lab 276 .. LibDem 38 .. SNP 12 .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. Ukip 2 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 1 .. Speaker 1

    Conservatives 28 seats short of a majority.

    From my personal betting perspective this is an ideal outcome.

    I've 8/1 on UKIP getting more than one seat and 9/1 on another LD-CON coalition - both substantial bets.

    I've also got 40/1 bet that UKIP would be in next coalition.

    If there is no coalition but a hung parliament I've a substantial bet at 12/1.

    My worse outcome is a LAB majority.

    The serious money to be made, and the obvious steer you should give if you can get over your innate personal LibDem bias, is to follow the trend, and bet on an outright Cons win. That's where the money is. I shall be proved right in 2015.
    Here is the current polling trend.

    Eagle-eyed viewers will notice that it has changed direction more than once. It has been in the Tories favour for about the last eight months, but it's a matter of judgement as to whether that will continue.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Edinburgh panda not pregnant - no baby boost for Eck.

    Tian Tian will "rue the day"
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,671
    Roger said:

    Owing to some pretty lax security I was able to get a sneak preview of Jack's ARSE and I have to say it's not a pretty sight. The headline is ED WILL NEVER BE PRIME MINISTER.

    I'm looking at the internals as I type and they don't make comfortable viewing

    LOL, excellent
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Inflation unchanged at 2.7%

    "The biggest pressure upward - air fares- and downward -fuel costs - came from within the same category: transport."

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim said:

    Royal Mail, energy prices and press regulation .

    Ah the top 3 issues in voters minds since time began...


  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,786

    Wonder why weighted numbers of 594/520 equals a 1 pt lead?

    Wonder why you don't understand how polling works?....
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Plato said:

    Charles said:

    Plato said:

    Mario Creatura @MarioCreatura
    Green policies add 41% to energy costs by 2030: ft.com/cms/s/0/826d34… (£) That Clegg wants to block a reduction in these taxes is absurd.

    Which other taxes are you going to put up so that you can reduce green taxes on energy ?
    Absorb them within the deficit reduction plans.

    At the margin it reduces the ability to cut other taxes (e.g. raising the PA threshold) but should have a material impact on the perceived cost of living
    CLAPS - I assume Green Taxes aren't hypothicated so why not spend them on other things like food instead since our supposedly obese children also require Red Cross food parcels...

    I'd rather cut taxes than spend more

    (BTW, if you look at what the Red Cross is actually doing, they are simply providing volunteers to transport the food from Tescos to some of the food charities that give it away)
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382

    Plato said:

    Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes
    Remember first time I met @ChrisBryantMP years ago (at PCC seminar) he told everyone he wanted to see my blog closed down. @hugorifkind

    And so it should be! Guido is crap compared to PB.com!!
    Sorry but Guido is way way better. There was a time, about 3-5 years ago, when this site posted balanced, neutral, yet incisive threads but it has gone steadily downhill coinciding with the LibDems advent in Government.
    pb.com has slightly suffered since the advent of the Coalition for two main reasons.

    1. The Fixed Term Parliament Act means that we know the date of the next election with near-certainty. Thus there's no potential for an early election, with all of the betting interest that would bring.

    2. There have been remarkably few reshuffles, and those that have occurred have been necessarily constrained by the Coalition balancing act. This also has an impact on betting. There was a lot more interest in the Cabinet next exit odds earlier in the Parliament before this became apparent.

    When you combine that with the absence of a Commons seats spread-betting market and the motivating principle of the site is much reduced in vigour. Things will liven up as the Euro elections approach, particularly if then followed by opinion polling on Scottish independence showing a narrowing of No's current lead. It could all be quite the run-up to the General Election.
    Very good post.

    What has always driven PB is betting and there is precious little of that at the moment for the reasons you list.

    The absence of commons seat spread betting, which used to attract the really serious punters, is an enormous gap.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    RobD said:

    Charles - rolling on (the) floor laughing

    I know that!

    He posted something like ROLFWMLITAWBAC.... [4 letters I can't remember]

    I got as far as rolling on the floor laughing with my legs in the air...
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Tim

    'It's not meant to be taken seriously, he had UKIP at five seats in May.'

    JackW & Rod called 2010 right,you didn't,get over it.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,112
    Charles said:

    RobD said:

    Charles - rolling on (the) floor laughing

    I know that!

    He posted something like ROLFWMLITAWBAC.... [4 letters I can't remember]

    I got as far as rolling on the floor laughing with my legs in the air...
    OMGWTFBBQ? LOL ;-)

    Seriously, I have no idea.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,574
    tim said:
    Do 5 out of 10 'certainty to vote' actually get off their backsides on polling day ?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,112
    Pulpstar said:

    tim said:
    Do 5 out of 10 'certainty to vote' actually get off their backsides on polling day ?
    About 50% of them do, yes ;-)
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Charles said:

    Plato said:

    Charles said:

    Plato said:

    Mario Creatura @MarioCreatura
    Green policies add 41% to energy costs by 2030: ft.com/cms/s/0/826d34… (£) That Clegg wants to block a reduction in these taxes is absurd.

    Which other taxes are you going to put up so that you can reduce green taxes on energy ?
    Absorb them within the deficit reduction plans.

    At the margin it reduces the ability to cut other taxes (e.g. raising the PA threshold) but should have a material impact on the perceived cost of living
    CLAPS - I assume Green Taxes aren't hypothicated so why not spend them on other things like food instead since our supposedly obese children also require Red Cross food parcels...

    I'd rather cut taxes than spend more

    (BTW, if you look at what the Red Cross is actually doing, they are simply providing volunteers to transport the food from Tescos to some of the food charities that give it away)
    I was sort of being ironic but that's an interesting point re Red Cross PR hyperbole vs Reality.

    They've still gone down in my estimation - I used to give to them but put off by endless badgering once I'd donated and being sent Christmas cards etc free - if I wanted them - I'd buy them.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,574
    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    tim said:
    Do 5 out of 10 'certainty to vote' actually get off their backsides on polling day ?
    About 50% of them do, yes ;-)
    50% of them THINK they will but that is not the same thing :P
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    RobD said:

    Charles - rolling on (the) floor laughing

    I know that!

    He posted something like ROLFWMLITAWBAC.... [4 letters I can't remember]

    I got as far as rolling on the floor laughing with my legs in the air...
    OMGWTFBBQ? LOL ;-)

    Seriously, I have no idea.
    These are all places in Wales - I'm surprised PBers don't know this.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited October 2013
    tim said:

    This rip off of the taxpayer over Royal Mail is immense.
    15 years savings from the benefit cap blown in one misjudgement

    If you'd like to talk about losses to the taxpayer, we could discuss the Millennium Dome, or the NHS IT fiasco, or the Iraq War, or GP contracts, or the best time to sell gold, or ... cont. p94
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    Charles said:

    tim said:

    Charles said:

    tim said:

    "Betrayal of elderly on social care costs
    Thousands could be forced to sell homes despite earlier Government assurances"

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10378848/Betrayal-of-elderly-on-social-care-costs.html

    Lefty paper.

    Why should the taxpayer pay for someone just so they can preserve their assets?

    Clearly there is a case for allowing deferment in some cases (e.g. when there is a couple of whom only one needs care) and for insurance against catastrophic costs (hence the capping) but otherwise people should expect to spend the assets they have built up during their working life.
    A death tax is and was always the best option.

    How are your mates Rupert and Justin's valuation of Royal Mail looking this morning, "Mad Dog" doesn't seem to have got much of a deal for the taxpayer does he.
    Never mind, sure he'll be doing nicely anyway.

    I don't like the death tax idea because it is relatively easy to structure around with careful planning. As always the rich and the poor can avoid it and it's the people in the middle who get hit.

    You really don't understand how capital markets work, do you? Rupert didn't value the company: he just collated the orders and explained the demand at different prices: the government then chose the price they wanted to sell at. Depending on how fast the size and quality of the book declined above 330p (and Peston suggested it was rapid - with the UK long-onlys falling away fastest) then that would determine the optimal price.
    Ruperts optimal price happens to be a huge rip off of the taxpayer, quelle surprise.
    That's the fault of Lazard then who set the original price range based on the European comparables

    (Although RM now trades at a premium to their European comparables. Lazard is never that good at anything that invovles thought rather than mechanics: an investor will assume that there is potential for improving the profitability of a newly independent organisation. This isn't just a privatisation thing - look at the performance of Zoetis since it's IPO +25% day one, for instance)
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Oh come on - won't someone argue with tim this morning - he's tried madrassas, Royal Mail, press regulation, energy prices , housing prices...

  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,047
    @Ricardohos

    "Sorry but Guido is way way better. There was a time, about 3-5 years ago, when this site posted balanced, neutral, yet incisive threads but it has gone steadily downhill coinciding with the LibDems advent in Government."

    Well as Guido would say why not collect your refund on the way out and piss off.

    Incidentally if you are as convinced as you appear to be that the Tories will get an overall majority I'll happily bet you £500 at evens-a mere bagatelle to a best selling author-that they don't.

    Are we on?
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    edited October 2013
    Plato said:

    Charles said:

    Plato said:

    Mario Creatura @MarioCreatura
    Green policies add 41% to energy costs by 2030: ft.com/cms/s/0/826d34… (£) That Clegg wants to block a reduction in these taxes is absurd.

    Which other taxes are you going to put up so that you can reduce green taxes on energy ?
    Absorb them within the deficit reduction plans.

    At the margin it reduces the ability to cut other taxes (e.g. raising the PA threshold) but should have a material impact on the perceived cost of living
    CLAPS - I assume Green Taxes aren't hypothicated so why not spend them on other things like food instead since our supposedly obese children also require Red Cross food parcels...
    Green Taxes should be hypothecated, but that's another argument.

    The levies on domestic fuel bills are all hypothecated, though, which is unusual in the UK. The Guardian had a good graphical breakdown recently - less than half of the levies are for renewables. A lot of it is spent on insulation, etc, for low-income homes.
  • Royal Mail was deliberately sold rather cheaply so that investors will be eager to buy the much larger and more significant Lloyds, Bank of Scotland and Co-op in due course.

    Not to mention, post 2015, the schools and NHS, neither of which should ever have been in monopoly ownership.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    RobD said:

    Charles - rolling on (the) floor laughing

    I know that!

    He posted something like ROLFWMLITAWBAC.... [4 letters I can't remember]

    I got as far as rolling on the floor laughing with my legs in the air...
    OMGWTFBBQ? LOL ;-)

    Seriously, I have no idea.
    Stop using some many TLASPDQITSOTTLOL!
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,047
    @TGOHF

    "Edinburgh panda not pregnant"

    Oh really? I've just sent her a card
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    @Charles, moving the blame around between different Ruperts and Justins doesn't change the fact that the taxpayer has been royally ripped off.

    Let's see where the price is trading in a year before having that discussion, shall we.

    Now, do you want to talk about Qinetiq?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,098

    JackW said:

    Latest ARSE 2015 General Election Projection :

    Con 298 .. Lab 276 .. LibDem 38 .. SNP 12 .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. Ukip 2 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 1 .. Speaker 1

    Conservatives 28 seats short of a majority.

    My worse outcome is a LAB majority.

    You and the whole nation, Mike.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Charles said:

    RobD said:

    Charles - rolling on (the) floor laughing

    I know that!

    He posted something like ROLFWMLITAWBAC.... [4 letters I can't remember]

    I got as far as rolling on the floor laughing with my legs in the air...
    To be fair, someone else posted the acronym up to the point with legs in the air, which I responded to with an extension to demonstrate my amazement that such acronyms are still growing.

    I don't remember what I added on, though.
  • tim said:

    @Charles, moving the blame around between different Ruperts and Justins doesn't change the fact that the taxpayer has been royally ripped off.

    Garbage.

    Here's an article from the 12th September, from an impeccable source:

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/18/royal-mail-privatisation-small-investors

    Stockbrokers warn that the level of interest from the general public is likely to be even lower, which could embarrass Michael Fallon, the business minister in charge of the sale, who said he hopes millions of ordinary people will buy into Royal Mail.

    Justin Urquhart Stewart, director and co-founder of stockbroker Seven Investment Management, said there had been "remarkably little" interest from ordinary people not experienced in share dealing.
    ...
    A third of the experienced retailer investors surveyed by SharePrice, which is part of share trading service Interactive Investor, said they were not interested in buying into Royal Mail because of its "poor prospects". A further 21% said they were "not a fan of privatisation".


    But if you really think you are better at pricing new issues than Lazards, I suggest a change of career.
  • tim said:

    @Charles, moving the blame around between different Ruperts and Justins doesn't change the fact that the taxpayer has been royally ripped off.
    [My emphasis]
    Since the vast majority of the RM shares are held either by people themselves or indirectly through their pension funds and other investments, that's completely and utterly untrue.

    Apologise - and retract.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,574
    edited October 2013
    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    tim said:
    Do 5 out of 10 'certainty to vote' actually get off their backsides on polling day ?
    About 50% of them do, yes ;-)
    Applying that logic I've deweighted the ICM figures (They don't weight much anyway as one would expect with 1000 TRULY random phone numbers) and reweighted according to certainty to vote - 10/10 voters worth 1 person, 9/10 voters worth 0.9 etc

    It yields

    CON 31.5
    LAB 43.4
    LD 9.5
    UKIP 8.5
    OTHERS 7.1


    One thing though - Are all C1s and C2s out the house on their mobiles, whereas housebound benefit claiming DEs and AB's butlers are answering landlines ?



  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,192
    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    JackW said:

    Latest ARSE 2015 General Election Projection :

    Con 298 .. Lab 276 .. LibDem 38 .. SNP 12 .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. Ukip 2 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 1 .. Speaker 1

    Conservatives 28 seats short of a majority.

    Ukip are simply not going to win any seats on anything like their current level of polling Jack. Other than that I think that is a fairly good stab. As I said watching whether largest party + Lib Dems equals a majority is something to keep an eye on. You are indicating an overall majority of 20 which is about the minimum for stable government (ask John major).
    You could probably make an argument that a coalition with a majority of 20 is more stable than a single party with a majority of 20.

    In theory, the disagreements should get thrashed out before they hit the floor of the house, whereas in a single party it's down to the whips to keep the Peter Bones and Jeremy Corbyns in line

    Drifting into fantasy though...if this were the result, do you think the boundary changes would get through this time...
    My immediate thought was that Labour and Lib Dems as democrats would recognise how undemocratic it was for some votes to be worth substantially more than others but that is indeed drifting into fantasy isn't it?

    I would have thought that implementation of the boundaries review would be a non negotiable condition of any Coalition involving the tories.

    But as I said earlier I can see scenarios where no government is going to be possible. Using Jack's numbers if Labour took another 10 seats off the tories a working Coalition would not be possible. The NI bloc and a likely increase in SNP numbers (think 12 is pushing it a bit myself) make this increasingly problematic. A Parliament/govenment like that would find devoplus an absolute nightmare to negotiate.

    Of course if the tories had forced through a resolution of the West Lothian question in this Parliament it would all get a lot easier. Hey ho.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Man with Post Office shares thinks he's Gordon Gekko

    "“Does anyone know how you actually sell these shares? I’ve looked on Google but I don’t want to do it wrong."

    Is it SeanT?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    tim said:

    @Charles, moving the blame around between different Ruperts and Justins doesn't change the fact that the taxpayer has been royally ripped off.

    Garbage.

    Here's an article from the 12th September, from an impeccable source:

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/18/royal-mail-privatisation-small-investors

    Stockbrokers warn that the level of interest from the general public is likely to be even lower, which could embarrass Michael Fallon, the business minister in charge of the sale, who said he hopes millions of ordinary people will buy into Royal Mail.

    Justin Urquhart Stewart, director and co-founder of stockbroker Seven Investment Management, said there had been "remarkably little" interest from ordinary people not experienced in share dealing.
    ...
    A third of the experienced retailer investors surveyed by SharePrice, which is part of share trading service Interactive Investor, said they were not interested in buying into Royal Mail because of its "poor prospects". A further 21% said they were "not a fan of privatisation".


    But if you really think you are better at pricing new issues than Lazards, I suggest a change of career.
    Actually, Lazard's capital markets capabilities are notably shite. They were dependant on Stiefel Nicholaus in the US for goodness sake!
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick
    IPCC confirm statement on investigation into Mitchell + his Plebgate meeting with west mids Police Fed officers to be published this morning
  • And here's a sensible view on the Royal Mail privatisation (which, incidentally, was very smoothly executed):

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/12/royal-mail-stock-flotation-went-well
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,192
    Roger said:

    @TGOHF

    "Edinburgh panda not pregnant"

    Oh really? I've just sent her a card

    I was told on good authority last night at a dinner in Edinburgh that they absolutely hate each other and cannot be put into the same enclosure as they would tear lumps off one another. Some marriages like this do seem to produce children but female pandas can apparently decide whether to carry the fetus to term or to absorb it.

    The bar for Scottish tories looks likely to remain at 2.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Yeah!

    Jaguar Land Rover @JLRPR
    Jaguar Land Rover delivers best ever September sales performance retailing 43,181 vehicles, up 17%: bit.ly/1bIZBe7
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Anorak said:

    Man with Post Office shares thinks he's Gordon Gekko

    "“Does anyone know how you actually sell these shares? I’ve looked on Google but I don’t want to do it wrong."

    Is it SeanT?

    Thanks for that link...this might amuse...

    http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/features/agony-aunt/no-matter-what-i-do-everybody-hates-me-2013091979616
  • Charles said:


    Actually, Lazard's capital markets capabilities are notably shite. They were dependant on Stiefel Nicholaus in the US for goodness sake!

    There you are. If only they'd called in tim instead.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited October 2013
    If you read the Times - check out their Health Section - 3D printed prosthetic hands for £600 or 1/10th of cost now.
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    It won't be long until they are bleating when their postal subsidies are removed.
    tim said:

    More rigging the market in communist subsidies for rural voters

    Tom Newton Dunn ‏@tnewtondunn
    EXCL: Remote regions in line for a 5p a litre fuel duty cut as @dannyalexander applies to EU this week #sunplus http://cma.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/5202223/Treasury-Chief-Sec-in-bid-to-knock-5p-off-country-petrol.html

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    tim said:

    @Charles, moving the blame around between different Ruperts and Justins doesn't change the fact that the taxpayer has been royally ripped off.

    Garbage.

    Here's an article from the 12th September, from an impeccable source:

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/18/royal-mail-privatisation-small-investors

    Stockbrokers warn that the level of interest from the general public is likely to be even lower, which could embarrass Michael Fallon, the business minister in charge of the sale, who said he hopes millions of ordinary people will buy into Royal Mail.

    Justin Urquhart Stewart, director and co-founder of stockbroker Seven Investment Management, said there had been "remarkably little" interest from ordinary people not experienced in share dealing.
    ...
    A third of the experienced retailer investors surveyed by SharePrice, which is part of share trading service Interactive Investor, said they were not interested in buying into Royal Mail because of its "poor prospects". A further 21% said they were "not a fan of privatisation".


    But if you really think you are better at pricing new issues than Lazards, I suggest a change of career.
    How many Justins and Ruperts are involved in this mess?
    Anyhow, Charles reckons the Justins and Ruperts at Lazards are shite and it's not his Justins and Ruperts to blame.
    That's not what I said. I said Lazard is not noted for its capital markets capabilities. Not the same as saying all the partners of the firm are no good.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,295
    tim said:

    JohnO said:

    @tim - 'Ere moosh, you willing to add me to that bet (£50) with DavidL on this year's deficit being lower than last?


    You can have the PB Tory "Draw no bet" special, he cuts spending and the deficit you win, he cuts neither I win, cuts one and not the other, no bet

    £50
    LoL. Bollox. I know you too well, sunshine: in retrospect you're not so confident about winning with David, are you? And now trying to retreat with as little as loss of face as poss.
  • tim said:

    Help To Buy is clearly insane economically.
    This polling suggests that it might not be smart politically either

    http://blog.shelter.org.uk/2013/10/help-to-buy-not-just-bad-economics-but-bad-politics-too/

    A poll by Shelter that disses help to buy, and you add no qualifying comment? It's easy to see why you are so vilified.

    Socialists like you have never liked the idea of people owning their own things.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Charles said:



    That's not what I said. I said Lazard is not noted for its capital markets capabilities. Not the same as saying all the partners of the firm are no good.

    Doesn't Mandy work for Lazard's now?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Something worth reading on Guido (I don't write that often) Deputy Speaker Labour Hustings:

    http://order-order.com/2013/10/15/sketch-deputy-speaker-plp-meeting/
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim said:

    TGOHF said:

    Oh come on - won't someone argue with tim this morning - he's tried madrassas, Royal Mail, press regulation, energy prices , housing prices...

    Unlikely, because even the PB Tories know I'm right on all of those issues, as the polling clearly shows.
    (No polling yet on Goves Madrassa, doubt it will be good for Gove)

    You'll support even the insane Help To Buy at the very moment prices hit their crisis peak, but then again you're going to help Labour get closer in your constituency so you're a secret weapon.

    tim you are right on everything - every issue , every topic , morning noon and night you could not be righter.

    Possibly that is why people don't engage with you - they know they will be bested by you on every topic from farming to being moderated to IHT payments for dead people...



  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Plato said:

    Charles said:



    That's not what I said. I said Lazard is not noted for its capital markets capabilities. Not the same as saying all the partners of the firm are no good.

    Doesn't Mandy work for Lazard's now?
    Is that supposed to be a recommendation?
  • RicardohosRicardohos Posts: 258
    edited October 2013


    Tim wrote:

    Loaded polls vs Tea Party PB Tory view
    Tough call which to believe.

    Unlikely, because even the PB Tories know I'm right on all of those issues, as the polling clearly shows.
    (No polling yet on Goves Madrassa, doubt it will be good for Gove)

    You'll support even the insane Help To Buy at the very moment prices hit their crisis peak, but then again you're going to help Labour get closer in your constituency so you're a secret weapon.

    Tim you are such a berk. You're not right: actually you're way wrong. The reason Tony Blair won so handsomely is that he understood the Thatcherite economic agenda. Brown struggled more with the concept, and Miliband hasn't a f-ing clue. Socialism not only doesn't work, it isn't liked. You can back up your guff with any number of loaded vodoo polls if you wish that spike people's responses with toxic words like 'privatisation' or 'do you think such-and-such is right?' questions expecting the answer no etc. but you are, were, and always will be a berk. And a misguided berk at that. And for your info I voted LibDem last time (god help me). I'm a centrist who believes in the Thatcherite economic model as Tony Blair did, and Cameron does.

    Plato - saw your comment. You may be right!!
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,047
    edited October 2013
    @RichardN

    "Here's an article from the 12th September, from an impeccable source:"

    But written a week too early and by a financial journalist with the financial insight of Hunchman....

    My stock broker (WHI) called me on the 24th Sept saying apply for as many as you can afford. it's a flotation which the government can't afford to fail and which we expect to be over subscribed by about 10x.

    He said the government are guaranteeing the pension fund and with a dividend of over 6% it's as close to free money as you'll get.

    Unfortunately he applied for too many.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,847
    British racing driver Sean Edwards has died aged 26.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/motorsport/24532901

    His father was one of the men who pulled Niki Lauda out of his burning Ferrari at the Nurburgring in 1976.

    A great but little-known British driver. RIP.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,061
    F1: Lauda reckons it's 50/50 as to whether Brawn leaves Mercedes, and has asserted he will have be Undoubted Principal if he remains:
    http://www.espn.co.uk/mercedes/motorsport/story/130289.html

    Part of the problem has been that Mercedes' approach has been to have a confused leadership, with many people in charge of many things (Lauda, Wolff, Lowe and Brawn). Brawn wants clarity, and to be in charge (which is fair enough). There have been mutterings about where he might go, with McLaren and Williams both mentioned. The problem with Williams it that Sir Frank is obviously in charge and he's got a long-term succession plan with the rather lovely Claire Williams (his daughter). It is possible Brawn could become chief technical officer or take over as Principal for an interim period, with Sir Frank retiring, to give Claire more time to learn the trade (as it were).
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    The Stats the EU could not find - DWP Benefits claims by nationality (at time of NI registration):

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/233032/nino-statistical-bulletin-aug-13.pdf
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,061
    Mr. Jessop, just saw that sad story a moment ago. One of the best things about modern F1 is the great safety standard. Motor racing can never be wholly safe, but many people working together have helped make the sport much safer than it used to be.
  • DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    JackW said:

    Latest ARSE 2015 General Election Projection :

    Con 298 .. Lab 276 .. LibDem 38 .. SNP 12 .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. Ukip 2 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 1 .. Speaker 1

    Conservatives 28 seats short of a majority.

    Ukip are simply not going to win any seats on anything like their current level of polling Jack. Other than that I think that is a fairly good stab. As I said watching whether largest party + Lib Dems equals a majority is something to keep an eye on. You are indicating an overall majority of 20 which is about the minimum for stable government (ask John major).
    You could probably make an argument that a coalition with a majority of 20 is more stable than a single party with a majority of 20.

    In theory, the disagreements should get thrashed out before they hit the floor of the house, whereas in a single party it's down to the whips to keep the Peter Bones and Jeremy Corbyns in line

    Drifting into fantasy though...if this were the result, do you think the boundary changes would get through this time...
    I can see scenarios where no government is going to be possible. Using Jack's numbers if Labour took another 10 seats off the tories a working Coalition would not be possible. The NI bloc and a likely increase in SNP numbers (think 12 is pushing it a bit myself) make this increasingly problematic. A Parliament/govenment like that would find devoplus an absolute nightmare to negotiate.

    Of course if the tories had forced through a resolution of the West Lothian question in this Parliament it would all get a lot easier. Hey ho.
    Fiddling while Rome burns is a bit of a Tory speciality.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    @Richardohos

    Tony was extremely smart at taking the temperature and playing to it.

    I really didn't like him at all in around 1995 - it was endless moaning and carping with no alternatives offered, I found mindself tuning out when he was on the radio. Then he twigged, changed his tune and I ended up voting for him willingly.

    EdM doesn't have that talent or ear for the public mood. I don't think Cameron has it either. Lynton Crosby does - the change in the Tories mood since he was installed has been considerable. No wonder Labour did their best to unseat him.

    And they failed.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    The Stats the EU could not find - DWP Benefits claims by nationality (at time of NI registration):

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/233032/nino-statistical-bulletin-aug-13.pdf

    Was there ever an answer to the EU claiming that more Uk people were claiming benefits in or from Spain than were EU benefit claimants in the Uk ?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Will all the Eastern European Sparks and Plumbers be singing "If Adnan Januzaj can play for England so can I" during tonight's game?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Can anyone get on w Paddy Power? There is a political bet that I really fancy with them. Please let me know
  • Plato - I'm the same on TB actually. Didn't vote for him every time by any means but I did admire the man's political savvy and knew he was a winner from the outset, in the way you could just tell Brown was a disaster, and EdM if anything even worse. I don't really like Dave C that much, but you're right about the Crosby effect and I think Cameron might be learning too. He's sharpening up his political game a lot and the economics are turning into dream timing for them. I really think they're going to win outright.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    tim said:
    Do 5 out of 10 'certainty to vote' actually get off their backsides on polling day ?
    About 50% of them do, yes ;-)
    Applying that logic I've deweighted the ICM figures (They don't weight much anyway as one would expect with 1000 TRULY random phone numbers) and reweighted according to certainty to vote - 10/10 voters worth 1 person, 9/10 voters worth 0.9 etc

    It yields

    CON 31.5
    LAB 43.4
    LD 9.5
    UKIP 8.5
    OTHERS 7.1


    One thing though - Are all C1s and C2s out the house on their mobiles, whereas housebound benefit claiming DEs and AB's butlers are answering landlines ?



    ICM already do that, although it's a bit more complicated, something like 10/10 if you are certain to vote and voted in 2010 and 5/5 if you are certain to vote but didn't vote in 2010. With only 51% certain to vote in this latest ICM and only 55% picking a party first time round it shows how much number crunching goes on.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    It's just one poll. Right now it seems that Labour retain the same smallish lead in the polls that they have held for a while (ignoring the conference season fluctuations).
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,847

    Mr. Jessop, just saw that sad story a moment ago. One of the best things about modern F1 is the great safety standard. Motor racing can never be wholly safe, but many people working together have helped make the sport much safer than it used to be.

    The problem with non-prototype car racing (and F1 cars are essentially prototypes than can change massively between races) is that they are road cars, altered to race. This means that things like side impact protection will never be as good as it is in specialist or prototype cars, which are purely for racing.

    As for the Brawn-to-Williams story: Frank is the team principal, whilst Claire is his deputy and represents the family on the board. However, Claire's responsibilities are the commercial and marketing aspects, which Brawn does not have massive interest in. It's feasible for them to work together. He could be a brilliant replacement for Frank whilst Claire learns the ropes of the non-commercial side of the business, if indeed she's interested in that.

    Frank is team principal in name only; he hasn't attended all the races for years, and AIUI his role is basically in long-term strategy and broad-brush decisions, such as engine choices. He's also 71. I *think* he has also stepped down from making driver decisions, which is probably a good thing considering his track record. ;-)

    Brawn therefore could fit in, but it would be interesting to see how well he'd fit in with their CTO, the excellent Pat Symonds. They worked together back in the Schumacher/Benetton years.

    But can Williams afford him?

    And yes, Claire Williams is absolutely lovely.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,587

    tim said:

    Help To Buy is clearly insane economically.
    This polling suggests that it might not be smart politically either

    http://blog.shelter.org.uk/2013/10/help-to-buy-not-just-bad-economics-but-bad-politics-too/

    A poll by Shelter that disses help to buy, and you add no qualifying comment? It's easy to see why you are so vilified.

    Socialists like you have never liked the idea of people owning their own things.
    It's popping up on the doorstep too in middle-class areas, invariably negatively in my experience - "Government trying to get us back onto 95% mortgages, they're mad" and similar comments. Presumably people who actually take it up do think it's great (though maybe ask them again when interest rates rise).

    As for the poll, shrug - Labour has a modest lead, and there's not much happening in either direction IMO. I'll say the same if the next one is +3 or +7.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    antifrank said:

    It's just one poll. Right now it seems that Labour retain the same smallish lead in the polls that they have held for a while (ignoring the conference season fluctuations).

    @Tony_McNulty: Real concern in today's Guardian/ICM poll, Tories only 2% off 2010 support at general election - 36-34%. Lab 4% ahead though not good enough
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim said:

    Ed Conway ‏@EdConwaySky 7m
    Treasury response to house price figures this morning: pic.twitter.com/hwFscQEf4c

    "house prices are recovering from a low base."

    They've lost the plot

    Craig Woodhouse ‏@craigawoodhouse 1h
    In Aug, UK house price index went higher than previous peak (Jan 08 - pre crash), ONS stats show.

    tim - are you bragging that your analysis is on a par with Ed Conway ?

    Interesting.

    The rest of us are looking at the market outside London - and comparing with the inflation figure and shrugging.


  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    "Oh dear. Poor old Adam Afriyie. Just over a week ago he was boasting of a ‘cross party’ campaign behind his amendment to James Wharton’s EU referendum bill. Now the updated list of signatures has been supported, and there hasn’t exactly been a stampede of support."

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/afriyie-amendments-continue-to-wait-hopefully-for-supporters/

    What was Keith Vaz thinking?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,574
    Millsy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    tim said:
    Do 5 out of 10 'certainty to vote' actually get off their backsides on polling day ?
    About 50% of them do, yes ;-)
    Applying that logic I've deweighted the ICM figures (They don't weight much anyway as one would expect with 1000 TRULY random phone numbers) and reweighted according to certainty to vote - 10/10 voters worth 1 person, 9/10 voters worth 0.9 etc

    It yields

    CON 31.5
    LAB 43.4
    LD 9.5
    UKIP 8.5
    OTHERS 7.1


    One thing though - Are all C1s and C2s out the house on their mobiles, whereas housebound benefit claiming DEs and AB's butlers are answering landlines ?



    ICM already do that, although it's a bit more complicated, something like 10/10 if you are certain to vote and voted in 2010 and 5/5 if you are certain to vote but didn't vote in 2010. With only 51% certain to vote in this latest ICM and only 55% picking a party first time round it shows how much number crunching goes on.
    The Labour vote seems to be 'softer' than the others. Is this typical of mid term opposition ?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,061
    Mr. Jessop, ah, I didn't realise that lovely Claire's interest were mostly commercial. That could make it a perfect fit.

    On money: I suspect this is almost irrelevant. Brawn's loaded, and his issue is motivation (he really dislikes the many cooks Mercedes seem to want).

    Cheers for the racecar/modified roadcar explanation.

    Miss Vance, Afriyie reminds me of Rik in The Young Ones when he says "Hands up, who likes me?" and nobody does.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim said:

    TGOHF said:

    tim said:

    Ed Conway ‏@EdConwaySky 7m
    Treasury response to house price figures this morning: pic.twitter.com/hwFscQEf4c

    "house prices are recovering from a low base."

    They've lost the plot

    Craig Woodhouse ‏@craigawoodhouse 1h
    In Aug, UK house price index went higher than previous peak (Jan 08 - pre crash), ONS stats show.

    tim - are you bragging that your analysis is on a par with Ed Conway ?

    Interesting.

    The rest of us are looking at the market outside London - and comparing with the inflation figure and shrugging.



    Conway posted the like to the Treasury piece, no analysis, and you still don't understand that its income:house price ratios that matter do you.

    A house in the Thirties was twice income, it was £500, the fact that the same house is now 6 times income is what counts, not what has happened to the basket of shopping items in between.

    You seem to think that if inflation and house prices are both rising at three times real pay than that equates to no loss of affordability.

    And I bet you want Help to buy to apply to London too anyway.
    You must really hate prospective home owners..



  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    "Oh dear. Poor old Adam Afriyie. Just over a week ago he was boasting of a ‘cross party’ campaign behind his amendment to James Wharton’s EU referendum bill. Now the updated list of signatures has been supported, and there hasn’t exactly been a stampede of support."

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/afriyie-amendments-continue-to-wait-hopefully-for-supporters/

    What was Keith Vaz thinking?

    Maybe he signed before the whips killed it.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,709
    Pulpstar said:

    Millsy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    tim said:
    Do 5 out of 10 'certainty to vote' actually get off their backsides on polling day ?
    About 50% of them do, yes ;-)
    Applying that logic I've deweighted the ICM figures (They don't weight much anyway as one would expect with 1000 TRULY random phone numbers) and reweighted according to certainty to vote - 10/10 voters worth 1 person, 9/10 voters worth 0.9 etc

    It yields

    CON 31.5
    LAB 43.4
    LD 9.5
    UKIP 8.5
    OTHERS 7.1


    One thing though - Are all C1s and C2s out the house on their mobiles, whereas housebound benefit claiming DEs and AB's butlers are answering landlines ?



    ICM already do that, although it's a bit more complicated, something like 10/10 if you are certain to vote and voted in 2010 and 5/5 if you are certain to vote but didn't vote in 2010. With only 51% certain to vote in this latest ICM and only 55% picking a party first time round it shows how much number crunching goes on.
    The Labour vote seems to be 'softer' than the others. Is this typical of mid term opposition ?
    I think it's true of Labour, and left-wing parties generally. Right-wing parties like Con and UKIP do better with older people, who are more reliable voters.

    It also seems to be true that Labour supporters are more likely to answer the phone to pollsters, so you'd go quite badly wrong if you didn't have weighting and/or sampling techniques to rebalance the results you got by dialling random numbers.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    edited October 2013

    Plato - I'm the same on TB actually. Didn't vote for him every time by any means but I did admire the man's political savvy and knew he was a winner from the outset, in the way you could just tell Brown was a disaster, and EdM if anything even worse. I don't really like Dave C that much, but you're right about the Crosby effect and I think Cameron might be learning too. He's sharpening up his political game a lot and the economics are turning into dream timing for them. I really think they're going to win outright.

    Pure fantasy I'm afraid.

    I can see situation where Tories win more votes than LAB and where they might even win more seats - but an overall majority is pure wishful thinking. If they couldn't do it against Brown in 2010 they're going to find it even tougher going now.

    I notice that you never refer to the Ashcroft marginals poll which had a bigger phone sample, 13k, in one survey than the aggregate all the ICM Guardian phone polls in a year.

    That had, to recall, Labour doing disproprtionately better in the key marginals than elsewhere. What was a 3% CON lead in seats polled at GE2010 had now become a 14% LAB one.





  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim said:

    TGOHF said:

    tim said:

    TGOHF said:

    tim said:

    Ed Conway ‏@EdConwaySky 7m
    Treasury response to house price figures this morning: pic.twitter.com/hwFscQEf4c

    "house prices are recovering from a low base."

    They've lost the plot

    Craig Woodhouse ‏@craigawoodhouse 1h
    In Aug, UK house price index went higher than previous peak (Jan 08 - pre crash), ONS stats show.

    tim - are you bragging that your analysis is on a par with Ed Conway ?

    Interesting.

    The rest of us are looking at the market outside London - and comparing with the inflation figure and shrugging.



    Conway posted the like to the Treasury piece, no analysis, and you still don't understand that its income:house price ratios that matter do you.

    A house in the Thirties was twice income, it was £500, the fact that the same house is now 6 times income is what counts, not what has happened to the basket of shopping items in between.

    You seem to think that if inflation and house prices are both rising at three times real pay than that equates to no loss of affordability.

    And I bet you want Help to buy to apply to London too anyway.
    You must really hate prospective home owners..



    You're the one who supports a policy that will make homes less affordable.

    You seem to be favouring open season for spiv cash buyers over prospective home owners including hard working families.

    What happened to hard-wiring fairness in ?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,709

    "Oh dear. Poor old Adam Afriyie. Just over a week ago he was boasting of a ‘cross party’ campaign behind his amendment to James Wharton’s EU referendum bill. Now the updated list of signatures has been supported, and there hasn’t exactly been a stampede of support."

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/afriyie-amendments-continue-to-wait-hopefully-for-supporters/

    What was Keith Vaz thinking?

    "Oh dear. Poor old Adam Afriyie. Just over a week ago he was boasting of a ‘cross party’ campaign behind his amendment to James Wharton’s EU referendum bill. Now the updated list of signatures has been supported, and there hasn’t exactly been a stampede of support."

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/afriyie-amendments-continue-to-wait-hopefully-for-supporters/

    What was Keith Vaz thinking?

    He was probably thinking there should be a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU, preferably in this parliament.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724

    Plato - I'm the same on TB actually. Didn't vote for him every time by any means but I did admire the man's political savvy and knew he was a winner from the outset, in the way you could just tell Brown was a disaster, and EdM if anything even worse. I don't really like Dave C that much, but you're right about the Crosby effect and I think Cameron might be learning too. He's sharpening up his political game a lot and the economics are turning into dream timing for them. I really think they're going to win outright.

    Pure fantasy I'm afraid.

    I can see situation where Tories win more votes than LAB and where they might even win more seats - but an overall majority is pure wishful thinking. If they couldn't do it against Brown in 2010 they're going to find it even tougher going now.

    I notice that you never refer to the Ashcroft marginals poll which had a bigger phone sample, 13k, in one survey than the aggregate all the ICM Guardian phone polls in a year.

    That had, to recall, Labour doing disproprtionately better in the key marginals than elsewhere. What was a 3% CON lead in seats polled at GE2010 had now become a 14% LAB one.

    I think @Richardohos has a point - you have an alternative one. Calling anyone's opinion with the polls so close over 500 days out *pure fantasy* seems a bit odd to me.

    I think the Tories have a pretty good chance of pulling ahead - they've already been level-pegging with both YouGov and ICM IIRC in the last couple of months or so.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim said:

    TGOHF said:

    tim said:

    TGOHF said:

    tim said:

    TGOHF said:

    tim said:

    Ed Conway ‏@EdConwaySky 7m
    Treasury response to house price figures this morning: pic.twitter.com/hwFscQEf4c

    "house prices are recovering from a low base."

    They've lost the plot

    Craig Woodhouse ‏@craigawoodhouse 1h
    In Aug, UK house price index went higher than previous peak (Jan 08 - pre crash), ONS stats show.

    tim - are you bragging that your analysis is on a par with Ed Conway ?

    Interesting.

    The rest of us are looking at the market outside London - and comparing with the inflation figure and shrugging.



    Conway posted the like to the Treasury piece, no analysis, and you still don't understand that its income:house price ratios that matter do you.

    A house in the Thirties was twice income, it was £500, the fact that the same house is now 6 times income is what counts, not what has happened to the basket of shopping items in between.

    You seem to think that if inflation and house prices are both rising at three times real pay than that equates to no loss of affordability.

    And I bet you want Help to buy to apply to London too anyway.
    You must really hate prospective home owners..



    You're the one who supports a policy that will make homes less affordable.

    You seem to be favouring open season for spiv cash buyers over prospective home owners including hard working families.

    What happened to hard-wiring fairness in ?
    You haven't a clue, you think 5% house price rises, 5% inflation and 1% real pay rises = no change in affordabilitty.
    And that chasing up prices with state funded deposits helps first time buyers rather than baby boomer downsizers.

    Wrong on all counts.

    House prices aren't rising 5% outside London - and inflation isn't 5%.

    Apart from being wrong - you are so right.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    I really think they're going to win outright.

    The Tory strategy for a majority is said to rely on restricting Labour to 31% of the vote, and increasing their own vote share on 2010.

    To give an idea of the challenge this presents to the Tories, it is worth noting that even with daily YouGov polls providing ample opportunity for outliers, the last time Labour polled as low as 31% was on the 27th June 2010.

    I wouldn't say it was impossible, but it's certainly a big ask.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Plato said:

    Plato - I'm the same on TB actually. Didn't vote for him every time by any means but I did admire the man's political savvy and knew he was a winner from the outset, in the way you could just tell Brown was a disaster, and EdM if anything even worse. I don't really like Dave C that much, but you're right about the Crosby effect and I think Cameron might be learning too. He's sharpening up his political game a lot and the economics are turning into dream timing for them. I really think they're going to win outright.

    Pure fantasy I'm afraid.

    I can see situation where Tories win more votes than LAB and where they might even win more seats - but an overall majority is pure wishful thinking. If they couldn't do it against Brown in 2010 they're going to find it even tougher going now.

    I notice that you never refer to the Ashcroft marginals poll which had a bigger phone sample, 13k, in one survey than the aggregate all the ICM Guardian phone polls in a year.

    That had, to recall, Labour doing disproprtionately better in the key marginals than elsewhere. What was a 3% CON lead in seats polled at GE2010 had now become a 14% LAB one.

    I think @Richardohos has a point - you have an alternative one. Calling anyone's opinion with the polls so close over 500 days out *pure fantasy* seems a bit odd to me.

    I think the Tories have a pretty good chance of pulling ahead - they've already been level-pegging with both YouGov and ICM IIRC in the last couple of months or so.
    Mike also said he can see the Tories pulling ahead, in terms of votes, but that is a very, very long way from winning a majority, as we saw in 2010.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    It's a bubble

    @faisalislam: There's definitely a decent economists phd thesis to be done on the different trajectories of UK housing indices @fd @pawelmorski

    or not...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    "Oh dear. Poor old Adam Afriyie. Just over a week ago he was boasting of a ‘cross party’ campaign behind his amendment to James Wharton’s EU referendum bill. Now the updated list of signatures has been supported, and there hasn’t exactly been a stampede of support."

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/afriyie-amendments-continue-to-wait-hopefully-for-supporters/

    What was Keith Vaz thinking?

    "Oh dear. Poor old Adam Afriyie. Just over a week ago he was boasting of a ‘cross party’ campaign behind his amendment to James Wharton’s EU referendum bill. Now the updated list of signatures has been supported, and there hasn’t exactly been a stampede of support."

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/afriyie-amendments-continue-to-wait-hopefully-for-supporters/

    What was Keith Vaz thinking?

    He was probably thinking there should be a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU, preferably in this parliament.
    A man of principle!

    Who has run away.....
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim said:

    TGOHF said:

    tim said:

    TGOHF said:

    tim said:

    TGOHF said:

    tim said:

    TGOHF said:

    tim said:

    Ed Conway ‏@EdConwaySky 7m
    Treasury response to house price figures this morning: pic.twitter.com/hwFscQEf4c

    "house prices are recovering from a low base."

    They've lost the plot

    Craig Woodhouse ‏@craigawoodhouse 1h
    In Aug, UK house price index went higher than previous peak (Jan 08 - pre crash), ONS stats show.





    And I bet you want Help to buy to apply to London too anyway.



    You're the one who supports a policy that will make homes less affordable.


    What happened to hard-wiring fairness in ?
    You haven't a clue, you think 5% house price rises, 5% inflation and 1% real pay rises = no change in affordabilitty.
    And that chasing up prices with state funded deposits helps first time buyers rather than baby boomer downsizers.

    Wrong on all counts.

    House prices aren't rising 5% outside London - and inflation isn't 5%.

    Apart from being wrong - you are so right.
    They are rising at 3 times real pay, but according to your logic that doesn't impact on affordability, nor would 10% rises so long as inflation is also 10%


    And first time buyers are falling behind faster

    "House prices up 3.8% in a year to hit record £247k high and costs for first-time buyers grow even faster, show official figures
    Property prices reach £247k in August surpassing 2008 peak
    First-time buyers now paying prices 4.9% higher than same time last year
    House prices in August 2011 were £218k - almost £30k lower


    Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-2460612/ONS-House-prices-3-8-record-high-247k-time-buyer-costs-rise-faster.html#ixzz2hmpCnm1q
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
    You keep posting the same national figures - which include London.

    Conwayesque.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited October 2013
    Gaz Corfield @GazTheJourno
    IPCC commish says Andrew Mitchell Plebgate police lied and West Mids Police whitewashedinvestigation into those lies ipcc.gov.uk/news/ipcc-disa…

    Martin Evans @evansma
    IPCC rules that three Police Federation representatives should face a panel to determine whether they lied over the #Plebgate affair

    James Kirkup @jameskirkup
    IPCC says West Mids Police Fed reps shd face inquiry by their force:
    "evidence indicates an issue of honesty and integrity' #plebgate

    Sean O'Neill @TimesCrime
    IPCC: Fed reps "were running a successful, high profile, anti-cuts campaign + the account AM provided to them did not fit with their agenda"

    PoliticsHome @politicshome
    IPCC: There's "an issue of honesty and integrity" in how Police Fed representatives described meeting with Andrew Mitchell on #plebgate.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    IPCC on Plebgate:

    "The investigation by West Mercia Police concluded that although the Police Federation undoubtedly contributed to the pressure on Mr Mitchell and his decision to resign, none of the officers had a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct. The investigating officer concluded that while the federation representatives' comments to the media could be viewed as ambiguous or misleading, there was no deliberate intention to lie.

    "I disagree. In my view, the evidence is such that a panel should determine whether the three officers gave a false account of the meeting in a deliberate attempt to support their MPS colleague and discredit Mr Mitchell, in pursuit of a wider agenda. In my opinion the evidence indicates an issue of honesty and integrity, not merely naïve or poor professional judgment."

    emphasis added

    See more at: http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/ipcc-disagrees-findings-west-mercia-investigation-conduct-police-federation-representatives#sthash.iFcpe9WD.dpuf
  • tim said:

    Chris Ship ‏@chrisshipitv 42s
    BREAK: IPCC says Police Fed officers who met Andrew Mitchell on Oct 12 last year DO HAVE case to answer over their honesty & integrity

    I'm sure they do, and the Prime Minister will need to answer why he sat on the CCTV evidence for three months.


    Priceless..... trolling of the highest order once again.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    The FT on the impact of London house prices on the national position:

    The answer is that whether house prices are at a “record” or not depends entirely on the methodology of their measurement. If you try to value the total housing stock, that does appear to be at a record. (This is what the ONS does, as does the LSL/Acadametrics index, which also hit a record in June). The reason is that London’s house prices are high, well-past the previous peak and rising fast, so the value of the total housing stock has gone up to new highs.

    If you attempt to answer a different question: what is the price of the “average” property in the UK, you will find that it is still well below the previous peak. This is essentially what the Halifax and Nationwide indices do....

    .......If 100 Britons in a bar are complaining about their living standards, for example, and a millionaire who has just taken a huge bonus walks in, what has happened to living standards?

    http://blogs.ft.com/money-supply/2013/10/15/house-prices-hit-a-record-or-do-they/
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    West Mids Police have managed to cover themselves in guano yet again.

    It's not often that the IPCC actually find anything to criticise - but they've done it here.

    Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick
    IPCC disagrees with West Mercia police conclusion than that 3 Police Fed officers had no case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,709

    I really think [Con are] going to win outright.

    Out of interest what vote shares are you expecting that to happen on?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Pulpstar said:

    Millsy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    tim said:
    Do 5 out of 10 'certainty to vote' actually get off their backsides on polling day ?
    About 50% of them do, yes ;-)
    Applying that logic I've deweighted the ICM figures (They don't weight much anyway as one would expect with 1000 TRULY random phone numbers) and reweighted according to certainty to vote - 10/10 voters worth 1 person, 9/10 voters worth 0.9 etc

    It yields

    CON 31.5
    LAB 43.4
    LD 9.5
    UKIP 8.5
    OTHERS 7.1


    One thing though - Are all C1s and C2s out the house on their mobiles, whereas housebound benefit claiming DEs and AB's butlers are answering landlines ?



    ICM already do that, although it's a bit more complicated, something like 10/10 if you are certain to vote and voted in 2010 and 5/5 if you are certain to vote but didn't vote in 2010. With only 51% certain to vote in this latest ICM and only 55% picking a party first time round it shows how much number crunching goes on.
    The Labour vote seems to be 'softer' than the others. Is this typical of mid term opposition ?
    I think it's true of Labour, and left-wing parties generally. Right-wing parties like Con and UKIP do better with older people, who are more reliable voters.

    It also seems to be true that Labour supporters are more likely to answer the phone to pollsters, so you'd go quite badly wrong if you didn't have weighting and/or sampling techniques to rebalance the results you got by dialling random numbers.
    That is because dialling random numbers is not a good way to get a random sample because of the way phone numbers are allocated, as I've explained many times on here in the past.

  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    On thread, golly gosh, just a pity that YouGov polls sway more than a drunken sailor on home leave.

    Whatever the truth about "Plebgate" the image of the police as an entity whom the public should trust will be yet further harmed and trust in them eroded. From personal experience I wouldn't trust most police officers as far as I can projectile vomit. That sadly overshadows the current and retired police officers I greatly admire and respect and whose honesty and integrity I take to be 100% above board.
This discussion has been closed.