politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Be wary of YouGov’s finding that Britain’s voting intentions i

Sean_F said:

another_richard said:

HYUFD said:

MikeSmithson said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

IanB2 said:

May feels like a stopgap leader, like Callaghan, Brown, and arguably Heath. We await what will follow.

Was Heath the most influential Prime Minister since Atlee? Not only did he close more grammar schools than anyone else through his Ed Sec Margaret Thatcher (two threads yesterday iirc), he also took us into Europe (without a referendum btw).

If judged by the number and volume of pb threads dominated by his legacies, Edward Heath is surely the greatest Prime Minister of all time.

Heath is also the only post-war party leader to win an overall working majority from a party that also had an overall working majority. That was GE1970. No one else has achieved that.

When Heath lost in February and October 1974 to Wilson it was also on topic the last time a majority of working class voters beat a majority of middle class voters until Brexit

Much of the Remainer anger is an echo of Margo Leadbetter's bewailing of the state of Britain "since the fall of the Conservative government".

There would be much less angst over a 52/48 Brexit vote, had wealthy voters backed Leave, and poor voters backed Remain.

Brexiteers in the political elite need to stop using ordinary voters as a human shield.

My Father was a big Conservative supporter .However he was very upset when Lawson put VAT on house extensions , which as a small builder created problems.

There is no VAT on new housing , does any country put tax on new builds ?

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

FF43 said:

another_richard said:

FF43 said:

Fair enough. The euro would never have worked for the UK because we wouldn't accept short term (actually extensive medium term) pain for long term gain.

There was extensive pain from the ERM without any prospect of long term gain and the UK economy did very well in the years after leaving it.

Now where things started going wrong was when we began shaking the magic money tree for over £100bn per year and using it to buy a lifestyle we hadn't earned.

The long term gain is feeding through now for those that joined the euro. It's taken it's time and I agree with you it wouldn't have worked for the UK. I have moved from negative to neutral on the euro in general.

There doesn't seem to be much long term gain for southern Europe.

The Euro was probably a reasonable idea for the German economic bloc but the more it was extended the greater the internal difficulties would be.

If your economic model was based around an inflexible labour market offset by constant devaluations (Italy, Greece, Portugal and Spain), then entering into an arrangement where you could not devalue was always going to cause problems.

That being said, Spain (and to a lesser extent Portugal) have decided to change their economic models to one based around exports and a flexible labour force. They may come out the other side.

Italy and Greece, however, are trying to keep their old models and will continue to suffer horribly.

The Eurozone is a racket designed to subsidise German exports by keeping her currency artificially low. It is so obvious that even President Trump knows.

IanB2 said:

MarkHopkins said:

rcs1000 said:

rural_voter said:

We didn't have VAT until 1973. We had a purchase tax. VAT was imposed by the EU.

I don't understand why the EU bothered to invent such a tax as VAT. It's far more work than a sales tax and there's a lot of cross-border fraud because a business in another EU country can charge 0% VAT if the buyer gives them a VAT number.

HMRC of course couldn't care less that some businesses must employ extra staff to do the VAT records. Transferring costs from tax collectors to tax payers counts as a win for the treasury, even if total costs increase. It would be good for UK PLC if such changes were banned.

From a purely economic point of view, VAT and sales/purchase taxes act as taxes on consumption. However, the economic effects of VAT are somewhat less distorting, and it is significantly harder to evade. Also, VAT effectively works by taking a small share everywhere along the economic value chain, which is a positive.

I would prefer us to move a genuine consumption tax (albeit one with a large tax free element), but I don't think that is likely on any reasonable time horizon.

"VAT effectively works by taking a small share everywhere along the economic value chain"

Does it? The consumer pays +20%. That's one large share, on the end user.

Businesses charge and reclaim VAT along the way, but that doesn't change what the consumer pays.

We would be better off with a wealth tax and less VAT

It would certainly be more progressive and VAT evasion is widespread. Well, blow me down with a feather.

Meanwhile, motor fuel duty raises £40 billion per year and takes very few people to collect, making it an efficient means to raise revenue. So what does the govt do? Announce after a lot of heavy lobbying that future cars will run on electricity.

Here's one way for future cars to run on renewable energy and maintain this easy tax revenue - http://carbonrecycling.is/

Nigel Farage could join the DUP in an attempt to become an MP after addressing a DUP fundraiser last week. It would have echoes of Enoch Powell's joining the Ulster Unionists in the 1970s

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage-could-join-dup-12517424

DecrepitJohnL said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

FF43 said:

another_richard said:

FF43 said:

Fair enough. The euro would never have worked for the UK because we wouldn't accept short term (actually extensive medium term) pain for long term gain.

There was extensive pain from the ERM without any prospect of long term gain and the UK economy did very well in the years after leaving it.

Now where things started going wrong was when we began shaking the magic money tree for over £100bn per year and using it to buy a lifestyle we hadn't earned.

The long term gain is feeding through now for those that joined the euro. It's taken it's time and I agree with you it wouldn't have worked for the UK. I have moved from negative to neutral on the euro in general.

There doesn't seem to be much long term gain for southern Europe.

The Euro was probably a reasonable idea for the German economic bloc but the more it was extended the greater the internal difficulties would be.

If your economic model was based around an inflexible labour market offset by constant devaluations (Italy, Greece, Portugal and Spain), then entering into an arrangement where you could not devalue was always going to cause problems.

That being said, Spain (and to a lesser extent Portugal) have decided to change their economic models to one based around exports and a flexible labour force. They may come out the other side.

Italy and Greece, however, are trying to keep their old models and will continue to suffer horribly.

The Eurozone is a racket designed to subsidise German exports by keeping her currency artificially low. It is so obvious that even President Trump knows.

I thought the euro was benefiting Germany by keeping the currency "artificially high" thus preventing Greece, Italy and us, had we been in the euro, from competitively devaluing our currencies.

Whatever.

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

CarlottaVance said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/995058540703338496

From the comments:

The referendum informed the decision to trigger Article 50, but it was the Parliamentary vote based on it that formally did the deed with the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.
Sympathetic as I am to the writer, it has to be accepted that the UK’s actions do satisfy the need to arrive at the decision by the UK’s constitutional requirements. Ironically, if Gina Miller hadn’t intervened, the UK’s government’s fatal error would have stood and, the fraud exposed, the EU would not have accepted that the UK had legitimately served Article 50

Heart of stone etc.

It is strange that a lecturer in law should be unaware that no Court can overrule primary legislation. That's pretty basic stuff.

But, suppose for the sake of argument, that Gina Miller had never brought her case? The EU would surely have treated an A.50 Notification by the Government as valid. They have no interest in arguing over our constitutional law.

Well, no Court will be able to do so again once we have left the EU (Factortame).

DecrepitJohnL said:

FF43 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

FF43 said:

another_richard said:

FF43 said:

Fair enough. The euro would never have worked for the UK because we wouldn't accept short term (actually extensive medium term) pain for long term gain.

There was extensive pain from the ERM without any prospect of long term gain and the UK economy did very well in the years after leaving it.

Now where things started going wrong was when we began shaking the magic money tree for over £100bn per year and using it to buy a lifestyle we hadn't earned.

The long term gain is feeding through now for those that joined the euro. It's taken it's time and I agree with you it wouldn't have worked for the UK. I have moved from negative to neutral on the euro in general.

There doesn't seem to be much long term gain for southern Europe.

The Euro was probably a reasonable idea for the German economic bloc but the more it was extended the greater the internal difficulties would be.

old models and will continue to suffer horribly.

The Eurozone is a racket designed to subsidise German exports by keeping her currency artificially low. It is so obvious that even President Trump knows.

I thought the euro was benefiting Germany by keeping the currency "artificially high" thus preventing Greece, Italy and us, had we been in the euro, from competitively devaluing our currencies.

Whatever.

Semantics disguises our agreement. The German Euro is too low; the Greek Euro too high.

The Euro benefits Germany by keeping Germany's currency artificially low. This favours Germany's exports. It harms Greece by keeping Greece's currency artificially high, which hurts Greece's exports and favours Greek imports from Germany.

I don't think we do agree. A hard currency is an article of faith for the Germans, to avoid inflation as they experienced in the 1920s. Companies that struggle with hard currency are told to improve their productivity because.we are not going to devalue. They went through this with East Germany.

Italy and Greece, and apparently us, suffer from not being like Germany. And maybe the euro hurts by not recognizing that fact. But it's a case of Germany doing things better and not of them having an unfair advantage.

rcs1000 said:

MarkHopkins said:

rcs1000 said:

MarkHopkins said:

rcs1000 said:

rural_voter said:

We didn't have VAT until 1973. We had a purchase tax. VAT was imposed by the EU.

I don't understand why the EU bothered to invent such a tax as VAT. It's far more work than a sales tax and there's a lot of cross-border fraud because a business in another EU country can charge 0% VAT if the buyer gives them a VAT number.

HMRC of course couldn't care less that some businesses must employ extra staff to do the VAT records. Transferring costs from tax collectors to tax payers counts as a win for the treasury, even if total costs increase. It would be good for UK PLC if such changes were banned.

From a purely economic point of view, VAT and sales/purchase taxes act as taxes on consumption. However, the economic effects of VAT are somewhat less distorting, and it is significantly harder to evade. Also, VAT effectively works by taking a small share everywhere along the economic value chain, which is a positive.

I would prefer us to move a genuine consumption tax (albeit one with a large tax free element), but I don't think that is likely on any reasonable time horizon.

"VAT effectively works by taking a small share everywhere along the economic value chain"

Does it? The consumer pays +20%. That's one large share, on the end user.

Businesses charge and reclaim VAT along the way, but that doesn't change what the consumer pays.

Ah ha, and that's where you are both right and wrong

The retailer offsets the VAT he paid on his cost of buying goods, so the burden of payment is split between his supplier and him, and in turn the suppliers to the supplier, all the way down the value chain. By breaking it down like this, it minimises the risk tax leakage.

So VAT is designed to minimise the ability to be dishonest.

Or, alternatively, maximise how much the government can get, so they can increase it with less consequences.

Yes, that's probably fair.

Given the scale of VAT fraud, both small (your plumber, for example) and large (carousel), the first aim ended a little away from the mark...

FF43 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

FF43 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

The Eurozone is a racket designed to subsidise German exports by keeping her currency artificially low. It is so obvious that even President Trump knows.

I thought the euro was benefiting Germany by keeping the currency "artificially high" thus preventing Greece, Italy and us, had we been in the euro, from competitively devaluing our currencies.

Whatever.

Semantics disguises our agreement. The German Euro is too low; the Greek Euro too high.

The Euro benefits Germany by keeping Germany's currency artificially low. This favours Germany's exports. It harms Greece by keeping Greece's currency artificially high, which hurts Greece's exports and favours Greek imports from Germany.

I don't think we do agree. A hard currency is an article of faith for the Germans, to avoid inflation as they experienced in the 1920s. Companies that struggle with hard currency are told to improve their productivity because.we are not going to devalue. They went through this with East Germany.

Italy and Greece, and apparently us, suffer from not being like Germany. And maybe the euro hurts by not recognizing that fact. But it's a case of Germany doing things better and not of them having an unfair advantage.

As a thought experiment, what happens if countries left the Euro tomorrow? But with one new Deutschmark set to one new Drachma. What would happen when the markets open on Monday? The Deutschmark would rise and the Drachma would fall. That shows that the current arrangement where one German Euro equals one Greek Euro is wrong.

Forget the morality tale about how the Greeks should be like the Germans and build Mercedes and BMWs rather than grow olives and old ruins. Maybe they should but the fact is the current system locks in an unfair advantage to Germany.

Look at China. What is the big complaint about China? Currency manipulation to keep the Yuan low. Germany does not need to manipulate its currency down because the Euro does its dirty work for it.

DecrepitJohnL said:

FF43 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

FF43 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

The Eurozone is a racket designed to subsidise German exports by keeping her currency artificially low. It is so obvious that even President Trump knows.

I thought the euro was benefiting Germany by keeping the currency "artificially high" thus preventing Greece, Italy and us, had we been in the euro, from competitively devaluing our currencies.

Whatever.

Semantics disguises our agreement. The German Euro is too low; the Greek Euro too high.

The Euro benefits Germany by keeping Germany's currency artificially low. This favours Germany's exports. It harms Greece by keeping Greece's currency artificially high, which hurts Greece's exports and favours Greek imports from Germany.

I don't think we do agree. A hard currency is an article of faith for the Germans, to avoid inflation as they experienced in the 1920s. Companies that struggle with hard currency are told to improve their productivity because.we are not going to devalue. They went through this with East Germany.

Italy and Greece, and apparently us, suffer from not being like Germany. And maybe the euro hurts by not recognizing that fact. But it's a case of Germany doing things better and not of them having an unfair advantage.

As a thought experiment, what happens if countries left the Euro tomorrow? But with one new Deutschmark set to one new Drachma. What would happen when the markets open on Monday? The Deutschmark would rise and the Drachma would fall. That shows that the current arrangement where one German Euro equals one Greek Euro is wrong.

And what would happen if there were a California Dollar and a Mississippi Dollar?

FF43 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

FF43 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

FF43 said:

another_richard said:

FF43 said:

Fair enough. The euro would never have worked for the UK because we wouldn't accept short term (actually extensive medium term) pain for long term gain.

There was extensive pain from the ERM without any prospect of long term gain and the UK economy did very well in the years after leaving it.

Now where things started going wrong was when we began shaking the magic money tree for over £100bn per year and using it to buy a lifestyle we hadn't earned.

The long term gain is feeding through now for those that joined the euro. It's taken it's time and I agree with you it wouldn't have worked for the UK. I have moved from negative to neutral on the euro in general.

There doesn't seem to be much long term gain for southern Europe.

The Euro was probably a reasonable idea for the German economic bloc but the more it was extended the greater the internal difficulties would be.

old models and will continue to suffer horribly.

The Eurozone is a racket designed to subsidise German exports by keeping her currency artificially low. It is so obvious that even President Trump knows.

I thought the euro was benefiting Germany by keeping the currency "artificially high" thus preventing Greece, Italy and us, had we been in the euro, from competitively devaluing our currencies.

Whatever.

Semantics disguises our agreement. The German Euro is too low; the Greek Euro too high.

The Euro benefits Germany by keeping Germany's currency artificially low. This favours Germany's exports. It harms Greece by keeping Greece's currency artificially high, which hurts Greece's exports and favours Greek imports from Germany.

I don't think we do agree. A hard currency is an article of faith for the Germans, to avoid inflation as they experienced in the 1920s. Companies that struggle with hard currency are told to improve their productivity because.we are not going to devalue. They went through this with East Germany.

Italy and Greece, and apparently us, suffer from not being like Germany. And maybe the euro hurts by not recognizing that fact. But it's a case of Germany doing things better and not of them having an unfair advantage.

Actually, what the Germans get is a stable currency when trading with the rest of the EU. That's worth alot when you're an exporter.

HYUFD said:

Nigel Farage could join the DUP in an attempt to become an MP after addressing a DUP fundraiser last week. It would have echoes of Enoch Powell's joining the Ulster Unionists in the 1970s

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage-could-join-dup-12517424

At which point can we consider that Farage has echoed Enoch's maxim that all political lives end in failure?

Richard_Tyndall said:

Except the vote was not corrupt and Parliament was not misled.

The campaigns have been referred to the police.

What definition of "not corrupt" are you using?

DecrepitJohnL said:

FF43 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

FF43 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

The Eurozone is a racket designed to subsidise German exports by keeping her currency artificially low. It is so obvious that even President Trump knows.

I thought the euro was benefiting Germany by keeping the currency "artificially high" thus preventing Greece, Italy and us, had we been in the euro, from competitively devaluing our currencies.

Whatever.

Semantics disguises our agreement. The German Euro is too low; the Greek Euro too high.

The Euro benefits Germany by keeping Germany's currency artificially low. This favours Germany's exports. It harms Greece by keeping Greece's currency artificially high, which hurts Greece's exports and favours Greek imports from Germany.

I don't think we do agree. A hard currency is an article of faith for the Germans, to avoid inflation as they experienced in the 1920s. Companies that struggle with hard currency are told to improve their productivity because.we are not going to devalue. They went through this with East Germany.

Italy and Greece, and apparently us, suffer from not being like Germany. And maybe the euro hurts by not recognizing that fact. But it's a case of Germany doing things better and not of them having an unfair advantage.

As a thought experiment, what happens if countries left the Euro tomorrow? But with one new Deutschmark set to one new Drachma. What would happen when the markets open on Monday? The Deutschmark would rise and the Drachma would fall. That shows that the current arrangement where one German Euro equals one Greek Euro is wrong.

Forget the morality tale about how the Greeks should be like the Germans and build Mercedes and BMWs rather than grow olives and old ruins. Maybe they should but the fact is the current system locks in an unfair advantage to Germany.

Look at China. What is the big complaint about China? Currency manipulation to keep the Yuan low. Germany does not need to manipulate its currency down because the Euro does its dirty work for it.

The disruption from the end of the euro would see a flight to quality. If we hypothesize a stable situation where each country's virtual currency finds its natural level, I suspect the euro will be nearer Germany's level.

The point is, currency devaluations are short term palliatives as benefits are wiped out by consequent inflation, while productivity improvements are permanently locked in benefits. Germany.went through ten years of wage restraint to make itself competitive. Its strength is a result of choices it made while Greek and Italian weaknesses are the result of choices THEY made. People don't like to hear this, of course. It's easier to blame the callous Germans, who are probably all still Nazis anyway.

Scott_P said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Except the vote was not corrupt and Parliament was not misled.

The campaigns have been referred to the police.

What definition of "not corrupt" are you using?

Tell us who has been convicted of illegal or corrupt practices.

Theuniondivvie said:

Apropos of nothing, someone on Facebook just shared an ITV live link to a Jezza rally. Don't think I've ever seen such a constant stream of comments (love & hate) on any FB post, one every a second.

I'd imagine that the Corbyn phenomenon will only really be over when people are indifferent to him.

It will happen eventually, but certainly not anytime soon. Much like the massive support May appeared at least to have before the GE campaign, I don't quite understand the level of fervour, even if I can understand why people like him and liked her. It's the passionate, angry energy of it I just do not get.

viewcode said:

Pro_Rata said:

Pro_Rata said:

Stereotomy said:

rcs1000 said:

viewcode said:

In what is possibly the most useful post I've ever posted on here:

"Why do mirrors flip horizontally (but not vertically)?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBpxhfBlVLU

I haven't watched it, but they don't flip horizontally.

Your left arm in reality is near your left arm in the mirror. Your head in reality is near your head on the mirror. Repeat ad nauseum.

Okay, so why is writing back to front, not upside down?

When you write 'enormo haddock' in the mirror, it is facing towards you, and the front of the word appears the correct way. The mirror, on the other hand, reflects a view of the back of the word.

No, that's a total nonsense initial pub reply.

It's because your left is the mirror's right, but your top is still the mirror's top.

If you'll excuse me, I'm off to play with some sideways and vertical writing!

Conversely, you could just watch the video that I posted with the nice lady who explains these things...

(grumble grumble goshdarn it grumble grumble...)

Watch a four minute video?! I'm not made of time here.

(I watched it)

Good afternoon, everyone.

F1: tip failed by 0.04s, and the hedge wasn't matched. *sighs*

Will probably write the first half of the pre-race ramble now(ish) but wait until tomorrow morning for the tips etc.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Look at China. What is the big complaint about China? Currency manipulation to keep the Yuan low. Germany does not need to manipulate its currency down because the Euro does its dirty work for it.

This is Donald Trump's big complaint about China, not the big complaint of any actual informed person. It's total bullshit. It may have been true once, but if anything they've been trying to keep their currency high for the last few years. He says it because it's a more popular line to use domestically than "China are making better, cheaper stuff than us" or "Our savings rate is too low, we need to buy less stuff".

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Nigel Farage could join the DUP in an attempt to become an MP after addressing a DUP fundraiser last week. It would have echoes of Enoch Powell's joining the Ulster Unionists in the 1970s

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage-could-join-dup-12517424

At which point can we consider that Farage has echoed Enoch's maxim that all political lives end in failure?

The DUP would be mad, literally mad, to let Farage become an MP (to use another Enoch phrase).

Fred had written a new blog post
Or do I mean new thread?