politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The search for the answer to Labour’s woes

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Carpet, that's faintly ridiculous.

Mr. Borough, what about those who shun technology? I recall hearing of a Quaker firm with which my brother did business. He was very impressed by their efficiency, but their sole technological device was a landline telephone. Everything else was paper and ink.

OldKingCole said:

prh47bridge said:

The "ridiculous case" last year and the Supreme Court case this year are the same case.

The original judge decided that Mrs Ilott (the estranged daughter cut out of her mother's will) was entitled to reasonable provision from her mother's estate and awarded her £50,000 - a little over 10% of the estate. The Court of Appeal increased the award to £163,000. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that the original judge could have awarded nothing at all and that, if he had, it is unlikely that an appeal would have succeeded. As his decision that Mrs Ilott was entitled to some provision was not legally flawed it has been upheld. However, their judgement today is very critical of the Court of Appeal. They find:

- the original judge did not make either of the errors attributed to him
- the Court of Appeal attached too little weight to the deceased's wishes
- the original judge was correct regarding the effect of his award on Mrs Ilott's benefits and the Court of Appeal was completely wrong in this regard
- the process followed by the Court of Appeal in determining the award was contrary to the law
- the original judge was correct to consider only Mrs Ilott's maintenance needs and the Court of Appeal's award of a lump sum to allow her to buy her house from the Housing Association was contrary to the law

As a result they have restored the original judgement, so Mrs Ilott is entitled to £50,000.

I understand there was an arrangement between the charities involved and Mrs Ilott regarding what would happen if the charities won the appeal. The details of this arrangement have not been made public.

Is there now anything left of the estate?

CarlottaVance said:

Much as Corbyn is atrocious, May is gradually getting better.....

CarlottaVance said:

Another one that won't be popular:
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/841984967332794368

rottenborough said:

Real LOTO up now.

AndyJS said:

I think the unemployment statistics should be taken with a large pinch of salt, since in many western countries there are large numbers of people who are not included in any of the employment or unemployment statistics because they don't actively seek work. Lots of people have given up completely and they often don't show up in the figures.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/record-94708000-americans-not-labor-force-participation-rate-drops
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/14/more-and-more-americans-are-outside-the-labor-force-entirely-who-are-they/

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

JonathanD said:

Yeah but we're going to have a yacht - that will show them.

If you look at the evidence, having a "royal yacht" is very effective at bolstering trade links. It's better at persuading individual businessmen to sign deals .

An interesting answer and one that probably reveals a broader disconnect in what people understand by 'trade deals'. Your language suggests that you simply mean trade, which of course we are perfectly free to pursue within the EU. Free trade agreements are something very different and are the stuff of diplomacy.

There's isn't a disconnect. I think I was pretty clear that it is helpful with trade, not with trade agreements. I didn't see Johnson's original comments, but I'm sure he didn't get into the specifics.

The words 'after Brexit' imply that all of this trade promotion is something that needs to wait until we've left the EU.

rottenborough said:

Real LOTO up now.

williamglenn said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

Real LOTO up now.

Angus Robertson?

He's way more effective in Westminster than Salmond. The SNP are lucky they've got him.

NickPalmer said:

MarqueeMark said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

On topic:

1. Knocking doors and delivering leaflets to build up the reputation of a local MP/councillor in between elections is a quite effective approach especially when you need to distract the electorate from the limitations of a national leader plumbing the depths of unpopularity.

2. In terms of "The search for the answers to Labour's woes", Yougov have another poll out of Labour party members:
"Would X make a good or poor leader of the Labour Party if Jeremy Corbyn were to stand down"
Net scores:
Starmer +32
Lewis +24
Rayner +9
Jarvis +6
McDonnell +5
Umunna +4
Long Bailey +1
Nandy -2
Ashworth -6
Watson -22
Abbott -43

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ahgsjavm5a/TimesResults_170310_LabourMembers_Website.pdf

Nandy marked down for talking sense?

I reckon she is the one off that list that CCHQ would be most worried about facing. Talks sense, comes across well, young, female...what am I saying? This is the Labour membership we are talking about!

Nandy, Jarvis, Rayner, Long-Bailey and Ashworth have huge "don't know" scores in the poll if you follow the link. McDonnell and Umunna get polarised results - lots of fans, lots of opponents - while Watson and Abbott seem really not fancied as leaders by the membership. Starmer and Lewis both have lots of fans and not many opponents. In an actual context, I'd expect some of the "don't know" pack to become better known with a more marked result, but at present I think Lewis is probably the favourite - more left of centre than Starmer (right back to Harold Wilson it was said that the party is most effectivley led from the centre-left) but doesn't have the entrenched opposition that McDonnell and Umunna seem to have.

As an example, I suspect that both Southam Observer and I could live comfortably with Starmer or Lewis, though I remain a supporter of Corbyn and SO...not so much.

rottenborough said:

So NIC u-turn will now be wiped off front pages by 'Corbyn fails to actually ask questions at PMQs'

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

So NIC u-turn will now be wiped off front pages by 'Corbyn fails to actually ask questions at PMQs'

Corbyn not being great is old news, May proving she's as frit as any PM with a slender majority is not.

Think TM ordered the change as she would be furious about a manifesto breach - sure Hammond was told to scrap it or resign

not_on_fire said:

Sandpit said:

rottenborough said:

(((Dan Hodges)))‏Verified account @DPJHodges 48s49 seconds ago
More
May has just announced the most staggering U-turn in Budget history. It has been turned into a humiliation for the leader of the opposition.

A bigger humiliation than Brown's 10p tax abolition? Don't think so.

The 10p tax abolition actually went ahead, though

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/841988385912811520

HYUFD said:

Bad move by Hammond today, undoubtedly the worst move by the government so far and just stores up future tax increases elsewhere to pay for social care

not_on_fire said:

Sandpit said:

rottenborough said:

(((Dan Hodges)))‏Verified account @DPJHodges 48s49 seconds ago
More
May has just announced the most staggering U-turn in Budget history. It has been turned into a humiliation for the leader of the opposition.

A bigger humiliation than Brown's 10p tax abolition? Don't think so.

The 10p tax abolition actually went ahead, though

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Bad move by Hammond today, undoubtedly the worst move by the government so far and just stores up future tax increases elsewhere to pay for social care

I dont agree - TM had to address the breach, or perceived breach, of the manifesto

Big_G_NorthWales said:

tlg86 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

So NIC u-turn will now be wiped off front pages by 'Corbyn fails to actually ask questions at PMQs'

Corbyn not being great is old news, May proving she's as frit as any PM with a slender majority is not.

Think TM ordered the change as she would be furious about a manifesto breach - sure Hammond was told to scrap it or resign

She obviously wasn't too bother about the manifesto breach last year.

Which one

tlg86 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

tlg86 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

So NIC u-turn will now be wiped off front pages by 'Corbyn fails to actually ask questions at PMQs'

Corbyn not being great is old news, May proving she's as frit as any PM with a slender majority is not.

Think TM ordered the change as she would be furious about a manifesto breach - sure Hammond was told to scrap it or resign

She obviously wasn't too bother about the manifesto breach last year.

Which one

Civil service NICs went up. It had something to do with a chance in their pensions, but the bottom line is my NI went up £30 a month last April.

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

Bad move by Hammond today, undoubtedly the worst move by the government so far and just stores up future tax increases elsewhere to pay for social care

Agree. Unless a snap election is in the offing after all....

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Bad move by Hammond today, undoubtedly the worst move by the government so far and just stores up future tax increases elsewhere to pay for social care

I dont agree - TM had to address the breach, or perceived breach, of the manifesto

Cyan said:

French prosecutors opened an investigation yesterday into Macron's trip last year to Las Vegas when he was economics minister. They are particularly interested in why he gave a €400,000 contract to public relations firm Havas without inviting bids from anyone else.

Meanwhile, nearly 20,000 people have signed a petition calling for an open inquiry into three "scandales Macron", namely

* Vegasgate

* alleged influence trafficking for the pharmaceutical company Servier

* alleged dodgy returns for wealth tax and income tax

peter_from_putney said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

pb is oddly slow to discuss the national insurance climbdown that's been announced:

https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/841977464414965765

I called this a week ago.

So did I, but was shouted down at the time and told in no uncertain terms that there was absolutely no chance of the Treasury back-tracking on this.

So that's Part One of the battle won, Part Two relates to the even more anti-Tory bashing measure, spread over the last two budgets, firstly the scrapping last year of ACT, replaced by a miserable £5k annual allowance, followed this year by a more than halving of this allowance from £5k to £2k. How's about a serious bit of cost saving instead Mr Hammond by way of a change?

Paristonda said:

Perhaps the Labour Party actually have a very cunning plan. They let Corbyn play pretend at being leader until late 2018, 2019. He continues to be as useful as the proverbial chocolate teapot. Tories get increasingly complacent and let themselves go. Labour depose Corbyn in a swift coup, Jarvis takes over, and Labour ride to victory in a 2020 landslide.

I'm too much of an optimist to believe the alternative.

Chris_A said:

What an utter shambles. And I don't mean Hammond but Davis before Brexit select committee this morning. And we really expect this shower to get ensuring they've promised us from the EU negotiations? The amazing thing is that they're still 40% in the polls.

FrancisUrquhart said:

So I presume now everybody is going to get a tax rise in one form or another to compensate for the NI u-turn.

Mortimer said:

This morning I started writing a thread header that referenced the NI storm being weathered. Just don't get why they'd u turn now.

rcs1000 said:

Cyan said:

French prosecutors opened an investigation yesterday into Macron's trip last year to Las Vegas when he was economics minister. They are particularly interested in why he gave a €400,000 contract to public relations firm Havas without inviting bids from anyone else.

Meanwhile, nearly 20,000 people have signed a petition calling for an open inquiry into three "scandales Macron", namely

* Vegasgate

* alleged influence trafficking for the pharmaceutical company Servier

* alleged dodgy returns for wealth tax and income tax

Here's the full story:

http://www.politico.eu/article/probe-into-vegas-event-attended-by-emmanuel-macron/

Mortimer said:

This morning I started writing a thread header that referenced the NI storm being weathered. Just don't get why they'd u turn now.

HYUFD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

So I presume now everybody is going to get a tax rise in one form or another to compensate for the NI u-turn.

Cameron's manifesto ruled out any IHT, NI or income tax rise so that leaves corporation tax and stamp duty and alcohol and cigarette and fuel taxes

JosiasJessop said:

The problem with u-turns like this is that they don't fully fix the issue. People like the boiler man who was ranting about the NIC change whilst fixing my boiler last Thursday won't be thinking: "Oh, that's alright then."

They might feel relief, but many will still feel sore, and some will wonder, rightly or wrongly, how the government will get the money by stealth.

The damage has been done. Some trust in the government will have been lost by many of its supporters.

A question is where the most pressure for the u-turn came from: it certainly wasn't from the opposition. If it was from the Conservative backbenchers rather than the media, then May has some fairly significant problems bubbling under the surface.

Carolus_Rex said:

rcs1000 said:

Cyan said:

French prosecutors opened an investigation yesterday into Macron's trip last year to Las Vegas when he was economics minister. They are particularly interested in why he gave a €400,000 contract to public relations firm Havas without inviting bids from anyone else.

Meanwhile, nearly 20,000 people have signed a petition calling for an open inquiry into three "scandales Macron", namely

* Vegasgate

* alleged influence trafficking for the pharmaceutical company Servier

* alleged dodgy returns for wealth tax and income tax

Here's the full story:

http://www.politico.eu/article/probe-into-vegas-event-attended-by-emmanuel-macron/

So strictly speaking it's not Macron himself who is under investigation then?

Mortimer said:

peter_from_putney said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

pb is oddly slow to discuss the national insurance climbdown that's been announced:

https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/841977464414965765

I called this a week ago.

So did I, but was shouted down at the time and told in no uncertain terms that there was absolutely no chance of the Treasury back-tracking on this.

So that's Part One of the battle won, Part Two relates to the even more anti-Tory bashing measure, spread over the last two budgets, firstly the scrapping last year of ACT, replaced by a miserable £5k annual allowance, followed this year by a more than halving of this allowance from £5k to £2k. How's about a serious bit of cost saving instead Mr Hammond by way of a change?

I'm gutted that they've u-turned on this.

The dividend tax reforms were sorely needed - and I say this as someone who pays far more since the changes.

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Bad move by Hammond today, undoubtedly the worst move by the government so far and just stores up future tax increases elsewhere to pay for social care

I dont agree - TM had to address the breach, or perceived breach, of the manifesto

Nah - she is just terrified of bad headlines in the Tory press.

nunu said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

So I presume now everybody is going to get a tax rise in one form or another to compensate for the NI u-turn.

It only raised £200 million in total.

JosiasJessop said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

JosiasJessop said:

The problem with u-turns like this is that they don't fully fix the issue. People like the boiler man who was ranting about the NIC change whilst fixing my boiler last Thursday won't be thinking: "Oh, that's alright then."

They might feel relief, but many will still feel sore, and some will wonder, rightly or wrongly, how the government will get the money by stealth.

The damage has been done. Some trust in the government will have been lost by many of its supporters.

A question is where the most pressure for the u-turn came from: it certainly wasn't from the opposition. If it was from the Conservative backbenchers rather than the media, then May has some fairly significant problems bubbling under the surface.

The instigator in my opinion was TM herself. She would not accept a manifesto breach

But she must have read and discussed the budget before Hammond read it out? That explanation just makes her look incompetent.