Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The great GE 2015 divide: CON 57pc chance of a majority or
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The great GE 2015 divide: CON 57pc chance of a majority or LAB an 81pc one
Nine days ago the prominent Oxford political scientist, Dr. Stephen Fisher, produced what appeared to be a startling new forecast for GE2015 that gave the Conservatives a 57% chance of winning an overall majority.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I think most of us would expect Con to recover, at least at the expense of UKIP. So it makes sense to do something like Fisher is doing and try to model how much the Labour lead will shrink between now and then. The hitch is that Fisher's attempt relies on comparing polls that aren't really comparable, because the methodologies are changing under our feet, partly in a deliberate attempt to eliminate the historical skew that he's correcting for. Since we don't have a meaningful way to unskew historical polling data, I like Rod Crosby's approach of using by-election swing. IIUC that's currently pointing at a small Labour majority or Labour-heavy NOM.
Nothing there to allay fears of losing on the centrist swings what Crosby gains on the right wing roundabouts.
Unless the dog whistles really are dog whistles. Classically the idea is that policy statements are heard only by interest groups, but that works only if all the people who care, care in the same way. The problem now is that on all sorts of issues, the people who will hear the dog
whistles care in opposite directions. Can the Conservatives' other big summer signing, ex-Obama social media guru Jim Messina, direct Crosby's messages only to those voters who care in the "right" way?
If the LibDems seek to distance themselves too much from their successes then they risk keeping the negative stories of their role (tuition fees etc) and disowning the positive govt ones (growing economy rescued from Labour's mess etc)
Some LibDem ministers have done a surprisingly solid job. It'd be a shame for their legacy if they were disowned in a 2015 rush to the left.
Under the proposals, temporary migrants from high-risk countries – such as Sri Lanka, Nigeria and Ghana – would have paid a surety before coming to Britain, and have it seized if they failed to leave when their visa expired.
The proposal, a Tory manifesto commitment, was to be tested later this month.
In a speech in March Mr Clegg tried to take credit for the idea but later disowned it
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2486848/Plan-temporary-migrants-high-risk-countries-pay-3-000-bond-coming-Britain-blocked-Clegg.html#ixzz2jedzYadh
Levies which go towards low-carbon energy and insulating draughty homes will be taken off electricity and gas bills and put into general taxation, they said.
Since David Cameron announced his intention to 'roll back' the green levies on households bills last month, this is the first time a concrete figure has been put forward.
The power industry are braced for an announcement by the chancellor in the Autumn Statement, his mini-budget on December 4, to try and contain the growing row about rising energy bills.
An average household's dual fuel bill has reached £1,400 after four of the Big Six energy firms, which cover 98pc of customers, hiked prices by an average of 9.1 per cent this winter.
Green levies add £112 to annual bills, but are set to reach £286 by 2020 according to forecasts from the Department for Energy and Climate Change, who claim in the long run they will reduce bills.
Attempts to cut down the burden have focused on the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) which is supposed to insulate the homes of people in fuel poverty but much of it is used for large, draughty homes.
It accounts for £47 of green levies - although energy companies claim it can be far higher, npower claiming it adds £69 to the average bill.
The Warm Homes Discount, costing £11 per household, which does help those struggling with their bills, could also be moved to general taxation.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2486879/Osborne-cut-75-green-tax-bills-month-Levies-low-carbon-energy-insulating-draughty-homes-general-taxation.html#ixzz2jefM6YAH
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
A good and sensible move; hopefully it will be put in place just in time for winter.
Labour should readily back this: it means those of us who earn well will pay more, whilst those who earn less should pay less or none of these taxes. I never saw why some of these taxes were on fuel bills rather than general taxation in the first place ...
True, coherent action from the coalition, as opposed to Miliband's dangerously stupid scheme.
In all, migrants account for 20 per cent of workers in fields such as oil and gas extraction, aerospace manufacturing and computer, electronic and optical engineering.
The report warns that half of the 119 occupations featured on the Government’s “shortage occupation list” – which gives firms special dispensation to employ overseas staff – require engineering skills.
Another 20 per cent involve scientific and technical roles.
The shortage is so acute that universities are also filling courses with overseas applicants, with a third of places in engineering and technology subjects taken by non-British students, the report states.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10424148/Immigrants-fill-one-in-five-skilled-British-jobs.html
The British Gas owner will not build the Race Bank wind farm, 17 miles off the north Norfolk coast, unless proposed subsidies are significantly increased, three sources told The Telegraph.
Ministers will not confirm final subsidy levels until December but are thought unlikely to increase draft prices enough for the project, which Centrica said could power 450,000 homes, to go ahead.
The move will raise fresh doubts over the future for the offshore wind industry, which ministers publicly insist they want to see developed.
They have privately indicated that they are happy to see some planned wind farms scrapped because they believe some companies, such as Centrica and its unnamed financial partner for Race Bank, are demanding too high returns.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10423952/Centrica-threatening-to-pull-plug-on-2bn-offshore-wind-farm-plan.html
Alternatively "Ed M as opposition leader should be popular in mid-term. He isn't."
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemID=88
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/39ezgco4v2/YG-Archives-Pol-Trackers-Leaders-301013.pdf
And fewer than half of his party supporters rate him. Do you think they will be solid?
Also we find that most UK science graduates have too narrow a scientific and engineering base and only know about their narrow specialism.
They are answering different questions.
Baxter: "if there was a GE tomorrow?"
Fisher: "as we know there won't be a GE tomorrow, how might polls change between now and May 2015?"
It will be interesting to see how/whether these models converge between now and 2015.
Miliband under pressure as Deans to quit in Falkirk row
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/wider-political-news/miliband-under-pressure-as-deans-to-quit-in-falkirk-row.22603558
The whistleblower at the centre of Labour’s vote-rigging scandal last night sensationally rejected claims by Unite that she had withdrawn her story.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2486824/Did-Unite-tamper-grandmothers-statement-Key-witnesss-bombshell-accusation-vote-rigging-storm.
"Fewer than half, where's that made up stat from?"
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ed-miliband-poll-blow-only-2189683
First one google come up with, there are plenty more.
I sense that you're rather - how can we put it nicely - emotionally invested in this line
"The Tory brand is dog shite so Dave needs a big ratings lead over Ed to keep his job"
But, - we may have touched on this already - Ed is Crap
Less crap than before. But still crap.
I don't think Labour's current poll ratings are bankable at a GE. Not with Ed M.. He's had - What is it now? 3 years? And he's not popular.
Alastair Campbell@campbellclaret17m
After long exchanges with @louisemensch (more than 140 crctrs allow)re recent spat, I do see her point. Apologies for @everydaysexism lapse
Of course there will be exceptions who can overcome the deficiencies of their education and will do well internationally. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that our children have any less inherent talent than anyone else's. High flyers and the driven still succeed but the more ordinary and less motivated are being deprived of the chance of earning a good living.
Every time a member of the educational establishment claims what they are achieving is wonderful they should be asked whether this will be enough to get us into the top 20 in either category. Out of 24. It really should not be that hard.
JackW's ARSE is 100% accurate in stating the 2015 General Election will result in :
A Hung Parliament.
If the baby eaters got back into power, I would still be able to abuse my staff and make loads of money.
Do you think he's looking solid?
39% of his party supporters don't rate him. He's a drag on his party.
The reluctance of Balls to have much or anything to do with these policies is telling. It may be my natural sunny Monday morning optimism but I wonder if we have seen another peak in Labour support over the last few days.
Louise Mensch@LouiseMensch31 Oct
Also in Telegraph "Most Influential" list ahead of @CampbellClaret, would-be Labour MP who told me to get my tits out for Page 3.#femiism
Alastair Campbell@campbellclaret31 Oct
.@LouiseMensch er no I didn't. And it is feminism btw. If you believe in it join the @NoMorePage3 campaign
Louise Mensch@LouiseMensch31 Oct
So being caught in a lie about whether he personally tweeted that I should be put on Page 3, Labour candidate @CampbellClaret says "ZZZZZ"
Louise Mensch@LouiseMensch31 Oct
@campbellclaret @NoMorePage3 You RTed a tweet saying Rupert Murdoch should have me get my tits out for Page 3.
all from this....
Alastair Campbell@campbellclaret25 Mar
“@chalongcircle: .Wouldnt be suprised if @LouiseMensch turned up on page 3 next”> great idea @rupertmurdoch sort it out
'Miliband’s living wage tax break will raise prices, warns CBI chief
Ed Miliband’s new plan to encourage employers to pay workers a living wage will increase the price of goods, business leaders have warned."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10424153/Milibands-living-wage-tax-break-will-raise-prices-warns-CBI-chief.html
That's very amusing.
It's perfectly possible that Ed will go down as the man who failed to beat the man who failed to beat Brown.
Would it be bad form to point out that you've lost money to me before from overestimating Ed Milliband?
With anyone else, yes. In your case, I'm prepared to forgive myself.
But electorally the latter may be more important than the former. Not many people will change their votes over the price freeze, but looking like you'll do something about low wages potentially appeals to a lot of people who could plausibly vote Labour, but might well not have bothered otherwise.
I know we've seen polls that show the impact of different leaders on policy popularity, but not parties per se.
1 day 1 hour 11 minutes
He's also in unchartered territory in modern politics. He can't march in and demand all his policies and there would be no point acquiescing to everything the Cons want.
If he looks back he has much to be proud of and, although perhaps it might as easily have been a donkey in an orange rosette, he has brought the LibDems to power after many years as the worthless NOTA protest vote.
By the same token, Cons who get angry at failure to implement all Cons policies suffer from severe delusions of overall majorityitis.
Indeed on the figures quoted of £6.31 and £8.55, for a forty hour week the gross extra income would be ~£4,600. Out of that would come Tax and NI of about £1,500, leaving a nett of ~£3,000 before tax credit adjustment. Also would that extra income affect housing benefit?
So EdM should declare the real nett benefit to the employee and not build images of castles in Spain.
But Labour believe in increasing low wages via general inflation. Fair enough. That is a fairly Labour way of doing things...
But how does increased inflation help the low paid? Surely it hits them worst of all?
While Miliband must publish the first internal report, it is the second - the one that purportedly found no case to answer after allegations were mysteriously withdrawn, that potentially reflects poorly on him. Why were his suspicions not aroused when, according to reports, at least one interviewee told the invesigator to f**k off? Did that not sound the alarm bells of intimidation? Presumably, the invesigators reported all this back in their report. Why then did Ed just meekly stand back passively?
And so this morning we learn that the leading whistleblower did not retract her accusations. Was this acknowledged in any second report?
If you add this debacle to the fiasco that has been Miliband's risible squirming on HS 2 (well, tim did advise us that Labour's evolution would be a BIG story....he got that one right lol), then we should hardly be surprised that the weak, weak, weak mantra is having another outing.
I hope Fisher is correct, but suspect Baxter is the closer. Will they be releasing more predictions of this type before the next election? Maybe we'll see a convergence.
In addition, the state will pay one third of the company's extra wages bill from this measure for that year.
How easy will this be to implement? Is there a better way for the same situation to be reached?
As ever, the devil is in the details.
John Cridland, CBI.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10424153/Milibands-living-wage-tax-break-will-raise-prices-warns-CBI-chief.html
But sunny Monday optimism is good!
I am of the "trust the people" school and I think that they, like anyone sensible, will realise that that there is a world of difference between "saying" something on low pay and being able to do something on low pay. Anyone can make hollow pronouncements.
We all know there is a cost of living problem but we equally all know that the answer is not to wave an economically illiterate wand saying we will pay everyone more.
It's a bit transparently bollocks.
Tough long haul policy choices - like raising educational outcomes and lifting the poor out of tax - both government policies, being implemented - are better solutions than Ed's "if it's the weekend I must have a policy announcement".
"Helping those on low incomes must become a national priority – but there are no cheap or easy solutions and no quick-fix legislative solutions. Better training and lower taxes will take time and effort but are the only sustainable solutions."
http://www.cityam.com/article/1383543948/help-low-paid-slashing-their-tax-and-boosting-education#sthash.w44s0yjZ.dpuf
It seems that most Tories believe that we should just continue to subsidise employers that do not pay their employees enough to live on.
Non-low-paid: $990
$1 raise for low-paid, funded by an inflation tax of $1, or 0.1%, across the whole economy:
Low-paid: $10 + $1 - $0.01 = $10.99 net + $0.99
Non-low-paid: $990 - $0.99 = $989.01 net -$0.99
There are also non-low-paid poor people (eg the unemployed) but their total spending is also very low as a proportion of the whole economy, so you could fix them back up with a very small increase in benefits.
Put another way, inflation is indeed a progressive tax if you give all the money you print to the poor.
As to your second point. We (the taxpayers) don't subsidise employers to do anything. You the consumer subsidise them. You are free to find an "ethical" employer, oh I don't know, perhaps the Co Op Bank, and give them your business.
As has been noted previously in this thread, there are plenty of the UK's top scientists and engineers working overseas. This is due to a variety of reasons: their employer's work has moved overseas (e.g. oil and gas), there is more opportunity for their subject/speciality outside the UK, the climate and lifestyle is better for their family and more often they are working in a low tax/zero tax economy and so can accumulate capital more quickly for house purchase/family education/pension.
But we do need more of these people in the UK as well as more of the middle range ability people. Is this not a case for tax breaks for such people who are working in industry and not for HMG or academia?
Like a number of others, Gerry, I first got into political betting big time at the 1997 General Election when I noticed how the Tory price was being sustained by overoptimistic supporters betting with the ticker instead of their brains. Professional punter Alan Potts noted the same in his book, Against The Crowd. He didn't give a hoot about the politics but could see that the 1/6 Labour was a gift, and placed a large bet on them on the Tote at the racecourse, thus avoiding the betting tax which was payable off-course back them. As he wrote in the book, '...It was like writing myself a large cash cheque."
Such opportunities seem much rarer these days. The best recent example I can think of if is Republican support on Intrade at the last Presidentials, but sadly Intrade has gone....and possibly Republicans are getting smarter.
I don't see any value in the main UK betting markets at present.
The company either reduces wages or becomes less competitive.
We have seen recently the consequences for workers, not to say entire regional economies, when companies become uncompetitive.
How many people are willing to do that ?
The fact is there are millions of British workers who are unable to add enough economic value to be able to afford to live.
So they will be subsidised in one way or another.
Either by British people buying that economic output for more than its worth or by the government taking tax from others and redistributing it to the low skilled/productive.
What is this nebulous general taxation to which Ozzy refers? Remember that the government is reducing the top rate to 45p in April. Is that still planned, or will it be modified? If not, why not? Is Ozzy going to lay the burden elsewhere? If so where? Who does he intend to hammer? And why? Ed's policy was about saving households money. This is just about shifting the cost about.
Because if you're not then this is all faux posturing.
Does your concern for the working poor stretch as far as your wallet or only to your keyboard ?
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/banking/2013/03/budget-2013-personal-tax-allowance
grabsplatter 05 November 2012 10:25am
Where are all the usual suspects telling us that BJ is a dangerous far-right extremist? Are they all dusting down that Darius Guppy story that hardly anyone cared about ten years ago in the hope that it will work against him eventually?
Keep trying boys and girls!
Boris, mayor of LONDON, says people should be paid more in LONDON.
What do you suppose the average salary in LONDON is and how do you think that compares with rUK?
In this case the proposal is for a corporate tax break leading to lower benefits claims, so in theory it should mean less money collected by the government and less money paid out in in-work benefits.
"The first minister is "frightened" of taking responsibility over income tax powers, Welsh Lib Dem leader Kirsty Williams has claimed.
The UK Government announced it was to transfer some financial powers to the Welsh Assembly, including some over income tax.
Carwyn Jones says he will not pursue income tax powers until Treasury funding of Wales is reformed.
She told the BBC Sunday Politics Wales programme she thought it was "extraordinary" that Mr Jones was not keen to take on more responsibility and powers to vary income tax.
Ms Williams added: "I think the first minister is genuinely concerned about having to take greater responsibility for the outcomes of his policy decisions here in Cardiff.
"At the moment it doesn't matter whether his policies succeed or fail in terms of finance. He simply gets that money given to him by London.
"If he was responsible - because of his policy interventions - for raising some of that money he'd be much more accountable when he does not do things well and I think he's frightened of that."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-24797105
Coalition: By next year, someone earning just £10K a year will pay zero income tax (this tax year, £112).
On the subject of who is helping the low-paid, 'nuff said.
Ed will just hide for another week.
For myself, I'm somewhere in between.
I would expect Labour to work on their communication strategy before May 2015 and not to make too many errors. Therefore Labour should be able to overcome any negative campaigning from the Tories.
If I were placing bets, I would think the safe money is on Labour winning a very small majority.