politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The polling lesson of the week: Don’t get too excited about

Stuart_Dickson said:

JackW said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

JackW said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

AveryLP said:

felix said:

surbiton said:

Even with a recovery apparently, the voters are saying to the Tories: THanks, but no thanks.

By the way, I sell to Manufacturing British industry only. And my sales per day this quarter is slightly below last quarter !

Maybe you're not much of a salesman.

There will be tears in fourteen months, I tell you.

There will be tears a lot sooner than that. When is Osborne next in Scotland?

Quite. There'll be tears before bedtime for YES on 19th September as a day of resounding defeats echo through Scotland.

Who will you blame for the YES defeat and why will it be so resoundingly rejected ?

I prefer to do my autopsies post-mortem. Unlike you and George Osborne, I don't yet know if Scotland is going to win or lose on 18 September. It is customary to let the electorate have their say before declaring a winner.

You might consider doing your autopsy now as YES is already dead in the water.

This being a political betting site it is customary to put your cash/opinion down before the voters choose as I've yet to find a bookie who's overly keen on letting one wager after the result is known !?!

You might consider doing your autopsy now as Con Maj is already dead in the water.

Who will you blame for the Conservatives' defeat and why will they be so resoundingly rejected?

Current Ladbrokes' YES price = 7/2
Current Ladbrokes' CON MAJ price = 7/2

Hmmm... identical prices. And yet, according to Jack YES is dead in the water while CON MAJ is nailed on.

More hot air than a well-used bagpipe.

His ARSE will be nipping shortly

I do hope our fraternal PB YES colleagues mellow over the coming months as reality dawns on them.

So fellow PBers let us now embrace them to the greater PB bosom and condole with them in the darkness of their sad and bleak condition. Let it not be said that PB is found wanting and let us reach out to these wretched individuals and not walk on by.

Come hither friends. Your cause is doomed but you are not.

state_go_away said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Hmm, what a numpty this Plaid Cymru MP is.

Has he never heard of the British and Irish Lions?

A political spat has broken out after a Plaid Cymru MP questioned how Sam Warburton could captain the Wales rugby team if he considered himself British.

Warburton had said his nationality was British in response to comments from England players suggesting some of their Welsh rivals "hated" England.

Jonathan Edwards MP said on Twitter that it was hard to understand how Warburton could be skipper if he did not consider himself Welsh.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-26472782

That is stupid on a lot of levels

2) A taxpayer funded MP should have more relevant areas to work and comment on than getting involved in rugby team selection.

This is Wales, they take their rugby quite seriously round there.

Theuniondivvie said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

You might consider doing your autopsy now as Con Maj is already dead in the water.

Who will you blame for the Conservatives' defeat and why will they be so resoundingly rejected?

Current Ladbrokes' YES price = 7/2
Current Ladbrokes' CON MAJ price = 7/2

Hmmm... identical prices. And yet, according to Jack YES is dead in the water while CON MAJ is nailed on.

More hot air than a well-used bagpipe.

Things I have read on PB regarding the the next UK GE.

Mainly from Tories, the Cons will need around a 7% swing to get a working majority, but it's still all to play for and it'll be the 6 month run-up to the GE that counts.

Mainly from Labour & LDs, it's boots on the ground and gotv that'll be crucial.

*strokes chin*

Those are not inconsistent.

Labour has plenty of supporters, but as we saw yesterday a significant number may not vote - so GOTV (and hence BotG) are critical.

The Tories need to both GOTV and to win new supporters.

O/T
I am wandering slightly outside my comfort zone at the moment by getting involved in a divorce case which (happily) involves some interesting company law problems. But I am just, yet again utterly gobsmacked at what I am seeing.

The director of the company is paying himself £2K a month at the moment. He has one child with him and he is receiving £198 PER WEEK in CTC plus, of course £80 per month CB. His wife is receiving benefits of £2,000 per month for herself and the other 2 kids to which he contributes £200 a month through the CSA.

So a family that were previously taxpayers are now being subsidised by the state to the tune of over £2,600 a month. It is just incredible.

What is even more alarming and frankly outrageous is that because of the sleight of hand by Brown very little of this shows in the national acccounts. Instead of this showing as a huge increase in benefit spending it shows as deflated income tax receipts (since the CTC and WTC are simply debited there). I really do not understand why the government has tolerated this nonsense. It makes it very difficult to work out what the cost of inwork benefits are and distorts the apparent returns on income tax.

In the interests of clarity I would urge George Osborne in the budget to fix this so that the amounts paid out in CTC and WTC is added to the benefits bill. We could then have a sensible conversation about the affordability of low skill, minimum wage, part time people working so that they qualify for this avalanche of additional entitlements. At the moment this is very difficult to do. And extremely difficult to afford.

This made me laugh far too much

Russian minister branded 'gay lover' in Channel 4 subtitle gaffe

Sergey Lavrov’s name is translated as ‘so gay lover of’ by broadcaster’s automated software in report on Ukraine crisis

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/mar/07/russian-minister-branded-gay-lover-in-channel-4-subtitle-gaffe

DavidL said:

O/T
I am wandering slightly outside my comfort zone at the moment by getting involved in a divorce case which (happily) involves some interesting company law problems. But I am just, yet again utterly gobsmacked at what I am seeing.

The director of the company is paying himself £2K a month at the moment. He has one child with him and he is receiving £198 PER WEEK in CTC plus, of course £80 per month CB. His wife is receiving benefits of £2,000 per month for herself and the other 2 kids to which he contributes £200 a month through the CSA.

So a family that were previously taxpayers are now being subsidised by the state to the tune of over £2,600 a month. It is just incredible.

What is even more alarming and frankly outrageous is that because of the sleight of hand by Brown very little of this shows in the national acccounts. Instead of this showing as a huge increase in benefit spending it shows as deflated income tax receipts (since the CTC and WTC are simply debited there). I really do not understand why the government has tolerated this nonsense. It makes it very difficult to work out what the cost of inwork benefits are and distorts the apparent returns on income tax.

In the interests of clarity I would urge George Osborne in the budget to fix this so that the amounts paid out in CTC and WTC is added to the benefits bill. We could then have a sensible conversation about the affordability of low skill, minimum wage, part time people working so that they qualify for this avalanche of additional entitlements. At the moment this is very difficult to do. And extremely difficult to afford.

How's he getting CTC (Child Tax Credits?) on that salary?

This reminds me of that Sion Simon piece in the new statesman

John McTernan ‏@johnmcternan 1m

When Scotland votes No, Scottish Labour will be the big winners. My @TheScotsman column:

http://bit.ly/1qethUM

Carnyx said:

JackW said:

I do hope our fraternal PB YES colleagues mellow over the coming months as reality dawns on them.

So fellow PBers let us now embrace them to the greater PB bosom and condole with them in the darkness of their sad and bleak condition. Let it not be said that PB is found wanting and let us reach out to these wretched individuals and not walk on by.

Come hither friends. Your cause is doomed but you are not.

I quite agree about the problems facing the Brexit supporters. Do you think that counsellors should be recruited for them?

Without doubt.

Mike may also have to put a "Donate" button up to provide funds for the private dentists required because of all the gnashing of teeth.

Opinium Research ‏@OpiniumResearch 1m

Opinium's @AGKD123 blog: Despite having “UK” in name UKIP voters among most likely to prefer Scots to be independent http://bit.ly/1dyn8NV

TwistedFireStopper said:

DavidL said:

O/T
I am wandering slightly outside my comfort zone at the moment by getting involved in a divorce case which (happily) involves some interesting company law problems. But I am just, yet again utterly gobsmacked at what I am seeing.

The director of the company is paying himself £2K a month at the moment. He has one child with him and he is receiving £198 PER WEEK in CTC plus, of course £80 per month CB. His wife is receiving benefits of £2,000 per month for herself and the other 2 kids to which he contributes £200 a month through the CSA.

So a family that were previously taxpayers are now being subsidised by the state to the tune of over £2,600 a month. It is just incredible.

What is even more alarming and frankly outrageous is that because of the sleight of hand by Brown very little of this shows in the national acccounts. Instead of this showing as a huge increase in benefit spending it shows as deflated income tax receipts (since the CTC and WTC are simply debited there). I really do not understand why the government has tolerated this nonsense. It makes it very difficult to work out what the cost of inwork benefits are and distorts the apparent returns on income tax.

In the interests of clarity I would urge George Osborne in the budget to fix this so that the amounts paid out in CTC and WTC is added to the benefits bill. We could then have a sensible conversation about the affordability of low skill, minimum wage, part time people working so that they qualify for this avalanche of additional entitlements. At the moment this is very difficult to do. And extremely difficult to afford.

How's he getting CTC (Child Tax Credits?) on that salary?

My understanding is that he could get CTC (albeit on a diminishing scale) on twice that salary since you can still qualify up to just over £50K a year. The£2K is gross so he nets about £1600 pcm.

Because the family is split up they clearly have a lot more housing costs etc but it does seem to me that the consequences of all of this are being borne by the taxpayer not the parties themselves who probably have more free cash than they did when they lived together.

BenM said:

More Tory failure

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26470392

Tory Failures are stacking up so much they're teetering.

Because government contracts were just peachy under Labour!

TheScreamingEagles said:

This reminds me of that Sion Simon piece in the new statesman

John McTernan ‏@johnmcternan 1m

When Scotland votes No, Scottish Labour will be the big winners. My @TheScotsman column:

http://bit.ly/1qethUM

Thanks - had missed that. Hmmmm ... "As Labour offer a radical, social democratic vision of Scotland within the UK the left of the SNP face a choice. Equally, as the excellent Ruth Davidson makes her mark on the Scottish Conservatives, pragmatic centre-right policies are developed and offered to voters."

Yet the SNP are centrist and well to the left of Labour! As is clear every time Ms Lamont goes on about the need for means testing and moans about something for nothing. Irrespective of what one thinks about the merits of the different approaches, it doesn't say much for Mr McTernan that he can't or won't order a simple sequence from L to R. And it would not be the first time Mr McTernan has got his predictions in a twist.

I was reading this just this morning, with its rather different conclusions

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/03/scotland-referendum-no-labour-fear

JohnLoony said:

Rejoice! Rejoice!

The evil homophobic bigot who openly condoned an arson attack on the offices of a gay magazine has, at long last, become a rotting corpse

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/10681346/Dame-Elaine-Kellett-Bowman.html

You don't really celebrate the death of a fellow human being do you?

BenM said:

More Tory failure

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26470392

Tory Failures are stacking up so much they're teetering.

Err, how is that a failure? Canning the contract is actually a success by the government so they can get a better provider for the service. Sticking with a rubbish company is what Labour did and it cost the NHS £12bn for a computer system that still doesn't work properly.

It's like saying a manager has failed because they had to sack an under performing employee. Only in Labour's world is that the manager's failure and not the employee's failure.

DavidL said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

DavidL said:

O/T
I am wandering slightly outside my comfort zone at the moment by getting involved in a divorce case which (happily) involves some interesting company law problems. But I am just, yet again utterly gobsmacked at what I am seeing.

The director of the company is paying himself £2K a month at the moment. He has one child with him and he is receiving £198 PER WEEK in CTC plus, of course £80 per month CB. His wife is receiving benefits of £2,000 per month for herself and the other 2 kids to which he contributes £200 a month through the CSA.

So a family that were previously taxpayers are now being subsidised by the state to the tune of over £2,600 a month. It is just incredible.

What is even more alarming and frankly outrageous is that because of the sleight of hand by Brown very little of this shows in the national acccounts. Instead of this showing as a huge increase in benefit spending it shows as deflated income tax receipts (since the CTC and WTC are simply debited there). I really do not understand why the government has tolerated this nonsense. It makes it very difficult to work out what the cost of inwork benefits are and distorts the apparent returns on income tax.

In the interests of clarity I would urge George Osborne in the budget to fix this so that the amounts paid out in CTC and WTC is added to the benefits bill. We could then have a sensible conversation about the affordability of low skill, minimum wage, part time people working so that they qualify for this avalanche of additional entitlements. At the moment this is very difficult to do. And extremely difficult to afford.

How's he getting CTC (Child Tax Credits?) on that salary?

My understanding is that he could get CTC (albeit on a diminishing scale) on twice that salary since you can still qualify up to just over £50K a year. The£2K is gross so he nets about £1600 pcm.

Because the family is split up they clearly have a lot more housing costs etc but it does seem to me that the consequences of all of this are being borne by the taxpayer not the parties themselves who probably have more free cash than they did when they lived together.

I earn broadly similar to that, And I don't qualify for CTC. Unless the guy has high childcare costs, I'm not sure how he gets it. Looking at the HMRC website, if he earns 25 grand a year, with one kid and no child care costs, he'd get 340 quid a year!

Stuart_Dickson said:

state_go_away said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Hmm, what a numpty this Plaid Cymru MP is.

Has he never heard of the British and Irish Lions?

A political spat has broken out after a Plaid Cymru MP questioned how Sam Warburton could captain the Wales rugby team if he considered himself British.

Warburton had said his nationality was British in response to comments from England players suggesting some of their Welsh rivals "hated" England.

Jonathan Edwards MP said on Twitter that it was hard to understand how Warburton could be skipper if he did not consider himself Welsh.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-26472782

That is stupid on a lot of levels

1) The captain should be decided on who is the best person in terms of experience, talent and leadership not on where you are on the nationalist spectrum.
2) A taxpayer funded MP should have more relevant areas to work and comment on than getting involved in rugby team selection.
3) You can consider yourself to be Welsh and British at the same time (as most Welsh actually do) . Fair enough if Warbuton said he considered himself to be English but he didn't.
4) confirms that PC are petty nationalists above anything else

- "A taxpayer funded MP should have more relevant areas to work and comment on than getting involved in rugby team selection. "

This from a supporter of the PM who on countless occasions has used sport (eg. the Olympics) to further his own political interests.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/02/07/article-2553833-1B453B9100000578-636_634x400.jpg

Sigh! Did Cameron try to interfere with who was selected for the athletics or who carried the flag ? er no

TwistedFireStopper said:

DavidL said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

DavidL said:

O/T
I am wandering slightly outside my comfort zone at the moment by getting involved in a divorce case which (happily) involves some interesting company law problems. But I am just, yet again utterly gobsmacked at what I am seeing.

The director of the company is paying himself £2K a month at the moment. He has one child with him and he is receiving £198 PER WEEK in CTC plus, of course £80 per month CB. His wife is receiving benefits of £2,000 per month for herself and the other 2 kids to which he contributes £200 a month through the CSA.

So a family that were previously taxpayers are now being subsidised by the state to the tune of over £2,600 a month. It is just incredible.

What is even more alarming and frankly outrageous is that because of the sleight of hand by Brown very little of this shows in the national acccounts. Instead of this showing as a huge increase in benefit spending it shows as deflated income tax receipts (since the CTC and WTC are simply debited there). I really do not understand why the government has tolerated this nonsense. It makes it very difficult to work out what the cost of inwork benefits are and distorts the apparent returns on income tax.

In the interests of clarity I would urge George Osborne in the budget to fix this so that the amounts paid out in CTC and WTC is added to the benefits bill. We could then have a sensible conversation about the affordability of low skill, minimum wage, part time people working so that they qualify for this avalanche of additional entitlements. At the moment this is very difficult to do. And extremely difficult to afford.

How's he getting CTC (Child Tax Credits?) on that salary?

My understanding is that he could get CTC (albeit on a diminishing scale) on twice that salary since you can still qualify up to just over £50K a year. The£2K is gross so he nets about £1600 pcm.

Because the family is split up they clearly have a lot more housing costs etc but it does seem to me that the consequences of all of this are being borne by the taxpayer not the parties themselves who probably have more free cash than they did when they lived together.

I earn broadly similar to that, And I don't qualify for CTC. Unless the guy has high childcare costs, I'm not sure how he gets it. Looking at the HMRC website, if he earns 25 grand a year, with one kid and no child care costs, he'd get 340 quid a year!

CTC thresholds have come down a lot in the last two years . I used to get the basic amount but nowhere near qualify for it now. I suspect the example given was what he used to be able to claim and maybe , due to the ridiculously complicated and yet not joined up system, still be doing

taffys said:

This is why I love PB.

One day after we were discussing why the tories aren;t targeting Wales more, Grant Schapps is all over the front of Wales online.

And Polly Toynbee writes a shrill article defending Ed's rotten principality.

"And Polly Toynbee writes a shrill article" - you could have just stopped there.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

300: Rise of an Empire.

One word. Wow

Ok, it was as historically accurate as Morris Dancer's observation on the Second Punic War Michael Gove's thoughts on The First World War.

I mean I can't ever imagine Athenian senators debating with each other and saying "Shut your cockhole"

At times it was (deliberately) camper than a row of pink tents, there were some genuinely laugh out loud moments.

But it was an enjoyable, story and visceral treat, if you loved the first one, you'll love this one.

Final thought, I would do horrible, unforgivable things to conquer Eva Green's [moderated]*

*Yes, I know a terrible human being, and deserve to be punished, by her.

Senate? In Athens? Maybe just the film's translation, which is fair enough.

Mind you, I can't imagine the UK establishment putting on plays as part of an official state-religious festival like the Athenians did, with tragedies on the abuse of power, and satirical characters called the equivalent of, say, FartyCameron (a purely academic analogy, with apologies to Mr C), as a modern equivalent of Bdelycleon in Aristophanes' Wasps - who, to quote the helpful website below, "fears that the old man and his senile cronies will ruin Athens by constantly voting according to their geriatric right-wing reactionary inclinations"). And there is the giant dung-beetle which the hero had to fly to Heaven to secure peace, in Peace. I remember being so surprised at school at the way my translations of Aristophanes came out that I had to be reassured by the Greek master that it wasn't a big windup.

http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/clasdram/chapters/091aristoph.htm

I dumbed down for the PB Plebs by calling it the Senate.

The Areopagus had a lot in common with the Roman Senate.

anotherDave said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

300: Rise of an Empire.

One word. Wow

Ok, it was as historically accurate as Morris Dancer's observation on the Second Punic War Michael Gove's thoughts on The First World War.

I mean I can't ever imagine Athenian senators debating with each other and saying "Shut your cockhole"

At times it was (deliberately) camper than a row of pink tents, there were some genuinely laugh out loud moments.

But it was an enjoyable, story and visceral treat, if you loved the first one, you'll love this one.

Final thought, I would do horrible, unforgivable things to conquer Eva Green's [moderated]*

*Yes, I know a terrible human being, and deserve to be punished, by her.

How big a role does Lena Headey have?

Lena Headey is so good as Cersei.

BenM said:

RobD said:

BenM said:

More Tory failure

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26470392

Tory Failures are stacking up so much they're teetering.

Because government contracts were just peachy under Labour!

The Tory Work Programme is a colossal failure.

yes a huge failure given how much unemployment has dropped since labour

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anorak said:

taffys said:

This is why I love PB.

One day after we were discussing why the tories aren;t targeting Wales more, Grant Schapps is all over the front of Wales online.

And Polly Toynbee writes a shrill article defending Ed's rotten principality.

"And Polly Toynbee writes a shrill article" - you could have just stopped there.

Here's a non shrill piece from Polly in 2006.

It includes this corker

People used to laugh when Brown bombastically promised to end boom and bust: it was once the natural British economic weather. Who's having the last laugh now?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/mar/21/comment.budget2006

Tremble before the Antinostradamus.

state_go_away said:

BenM said:

RobD said:

BenM said:

More Tory failure

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26470392

Tory Failures are stacking up so much they're teetering.

Because government contracts were just peachy under Labour!

The Tory Work Programme is a colossal failure.

yes a huge failure given how much unemployment has dropped since labour

130,000 lower in 4 years?

BenM said:

state_go_away said:

BenM said:

RobD said:

BenM said:

More Tory failure

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26470392

Tory Failures are stacking up so much they're teetering.

Because government contracts were just peachy under Labour!

The Tory Work Programme is a colossal failure.

yes a huge failure given how much unemployment has dropped since labour

130,000 lower in 4 years?

The key word seems to be lower ,hardly a failure

Charting the Tories' miserable failure on unemployment going right back to the early nineties.

Note how in desperation they fiddled the claimant count so it dropped away from the IFO series.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117

state_go_away said:

BenM said:

state_go_away said:

BenM said:

RobD said:

BenM said:

More Tory failure

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26470392

Tory Failures are stacking up so much they're teetering.

Because government contracts were just peachy under Labour!

The Tory Work Programme is a colossal failure.

yes a huge failure given how much unemployment has dropped since labour

130,000 lower in 4 years?

The key word seems to be lower ,hardly a failure

Yes, let's leave millions languishing on the dole for ages.

The Tory way after all.

The Tory Work Programme is a colossal failure.

If I was you Ben, I'd be busy dreaming up excuses for the labour services meltdown in the principality that is finally being dragged into the spotlight.

How about these?

Wales has lots of valleys and mountains and stuff and so its more difficult to get to schools and hospitals.
Welsh people are going to England for their health treatment because the weather's a bit nicer.
Welsh children are falling behind their English counterparts because they are thinking about Gareth Bale too much.
Its not fair because England have decided to bring in all these academies and free schools without telling us how good they would be.
Cruel English people expoited our resources a century ago, which is not that long ago when you think about it.

taffys said:

The Tory Work Programme is a colossal failure.

If I was you Ben, I'd be busy dreaming up excuses for the labour services meltdown in the principality that is finally being dragged into the spotlight.


Its not fair because England have decided to bring in all these academies and free schools without telling us how good they would be.

That's definitely case not proven and if anything the early evidence is negative.

hat's definitely case not proven and if anything the early evidence is negative.

You and Polly really are in Dalek mode this morning

Coalition better than us on health and education....''DOES NOT COMPUTE......DOES NOT COMPUTE.....!!!''

TwistedFireStopper said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

DavidL said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

DavidL said:

O/T
I

How's he getting CTC (Child Tax Credits?) on that salary?

My understanding is that he could get CTC (albeit on a diminishing scale) on twice that salary since you can still qualify up to just over £50K a year. The£2K is gross so he nets about £1600 pcm.

Because the family is split up they clearly have a lot more housing costs etc but it does seem to me that the consequences of all of this are being borne by the taxpayer not the parties themselves who probably h

I'm sorry, David, but I can't find anywhere in the HMRC entitlement tables where a single parent, with one child, earning 24 grand a year can get nearly 800 quid a month in CTC. If he does, then what the feck have this government been doing?

ITs not an easy system to work out (thanks Labour) but I thinkt he thresholds have been much reduced in he last two years from those David quotes

I ain't quoting 'em, it's David's client who is supposedly getting CTC at that level. I just can't see it. If its true, I want some of that!



This is the benefits he is getting now. I met him on Wednesday. Given the age of the child I think some of it might be WTC rather than CTC but he has absolutely no incentive to overstate the figures, quite the reverse really.

NickPalmer said:

Easterross said:

Good morning all and I noted that as the polls have been indicating the Tories are a lost cause in the north of England. That will fully explain why they took the Bury seat yesterday on a fairly large swing.

Just how much of that 37-41% Labour vote expressed in the polls represents people who actually go out to vote rather than just shout their mouths off?

A very good Tory result in Bury, but in weeks where Labour has had poor polls but good local elections I've resisted the "Oh, look at the real votes" line. I'd always rather have a good national poll, since individual local elections usually have unique special factors. I'm not at all worried by the GOTV competition on the day (the Tory ground war these days is very thinly stretched and suffers from lack of recent canvass information), though I do think the Tories are much better at postal votes as a rule (Bury was a spectacular example, with two thirds of the turnout being postal votes), and at anything else they can do by post. 2015 will be a good test of air war vs ground war, in fact.

It was a good result for the Conservatives (particularly as UKIP polled quite well in a marginal seat). However, I think there is a view that is a seat that the Conservatives should never have lost in the first place.

And now it is the turn of Alliance Trust. They state in their report:

"The referendum in September is creating uncertainty for our customers and our business, which we have a responsibility to address. Regardless of the outcome it is critical that we are able to provide continuity of service and protection for their investments and savings. To give them full confidence, we have started work to establish additional companies registered in England, in order to provide operational flexibility and to complement our existing business in Scotland."
http://www.investegate.co.uk/alliance-trust-plc/gnw/alliance-trust-plc---final-results/20140307070029H6843/

Does Stuart really want another contribution from Osborne? Is this some sort of masochism strategy? Surely once was enough.

BenM said:

Sean_F said:

BenM said:

Sean_F said:

BenM said:

state_go_away said:

BenM said:

RobD said:

BenM said:

More Tory failure

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26470392

Tory Failures are stacking up so much they're teetering.

Because government contracts were just peachy under Labour!

The Tory Work Programme is a colossal failure.

yes a huge failure given how much unemployment has dropped since labour

130,000 lower in 4 years?

And about a million more in work than 4 years ago.

Sean_F said:

BenM said:

state_go_away said:

BenM said:

RobD said:

BenM said:

More Tory failure

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26470392

Tory Failures are stacking up so much they're teetering.

Because government contracts were just peachy under Labour!

The Tory Work Programme is a colossal failure.

yes a huge failure given how much unemployment has dropped since labour

130,000 lower in 4 years?

And about a million more in work than 4 years ago.

Labour posted "record highs" in employment throughout its term in office.

With a growing population that's not a particularly difficult metric to achieve.

As a proportion of the population of working age, the proportion of people in employment is about 1.5% higher than in May 2010. That's about 500,000 people.

Whatever their other faults, the Coalition has enjoyed a great deal of success on employment.

The Tories switch to talking about "employment" rather than "unemployment" because their record on those out of work is utterly abysmal, as it always is.

Yet the Tory record on "employment" still compares poorly to most of Labour's period in office too!

Even the Labour front bench have stopped dissing the Tories for the overall employment/unemployment figures Ben -To get on message you need to moan about the types of job the tories are creating , you know generally useful ones rather than proper jobs like coordinator roles and diversity managers

BenM said:

Sean_F said:

BenM said:

Sean_F said:

BenM said:

state_go_away said:

BenM said:

RobD said:

BenM said:

More Tory failure

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26470392

Tory Failures are stacking up so much they're teetering.

Because government contracts were just peachy under Labour!

The Tory Work Programme is a colossal failure.

yes a huge failure given how much unemployment has dropped since labour

130,000 lower in 4 years?

And about a million more in work than 4 years ago.

Sean_F said:

BenM said:

state_go_away said:

BenM said:

RobD said:

BenM said:

More Tory failure

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26470392

Tory Failures are stacking up so much they're teetering.

Because government contracts were just peachy under Labour!

The Tory Work Programme is a colossal failure.

yes a huge failure given how much unemployment has dropped since labour

130,000 lower in 4 years?

And about a million more in work than 4 years ago.

Labour posted "record highs" in employment throughout its term in office.

With a growing population that's not a particularly difficult metric to achieve.

As a proportion of the population of working age, the proportion of people in employment is about 1.5% higher than in May 2010. That's about 500,000 people.

Whatever their other faults, the Coalition has enjoyed a great deal of success on employment.

The Tories switch to talking about "employment" rather than "unemployment" because their record on those out of work is utterly abysmal, as it always is.

Yet the Tory record on "employment" still compares poorly to most of Labour's period in office too!

Both unemployment and employment are a good deal better than they were in May 2010.

When employment rises, more people come back into the Labour market. That's why economic inactivity is also a good deal lower than four years ago.

I'd have thought you'd consider this to be a good thing.

DavidL said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

DavidL said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

DavidL said:

O/T
I

How's he getting CTC (Child Tax Credits?) on that salary?

My understanding is that he could get CTC (albeit on a diminishing scale) on twice that salary since you can still qualify up to just over £50K a year. The£2K is gross so he nets about £1600 pcm.

Because the family is split up they clearly have a lot more housing costs etc but it does seem to me that the consequences of all of this are being borne by the taxpayer not the parties themselves who probably h

I'm sorry, David, but I can't find anywhere in the HMRC entitlement tables where a single parent, with one child, earning 24 grand a year can get nearly 800 quid a month in CTC. If he does, then what the feck have this government been doing?

ITs not an easy system to work out (thanks Labour) but I thinkt he thresholds have been much reduced in he last two years from those David quotes

I ain't quoting 'em, it's David's client who is supposedly getting CTC at that level. I just can't see it. If its true, I want some of that!

This is the benefits he is getting now. I met him on Wednesday. Given the age of the child I think some of it might be WTC rather than CTC but he has absolutely no incentive to overstate the figures, quite the reverse really.



I don't doubt you, David, but there's no way he's getting over 9 grand a year in tax credits for one kid, even if he has the maximum childcare costs, if he's earning 24 grand.

Here are the entitlement tables.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcredits/people-advise-others/entitlement-tables/work-and-child/index.htm

If he is, then the system is broken beyond all repair, and this coalition government isn't fit for purpose, and should just give up.

foxinsoxuk said:

@DavidL

I largely agree with you on CTC/WTC;

Your example is perhaps not anonymous enough for a public blog.

I was conscious of that and tried to keep things sufficiently annoymous. It is a point well made though.

Anorak said:

School allows 14 year olds to have smoking breaks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-26480334

Sounds abhorrent, doesn't it? But after reading the article I actually applaud the headmasters decision - given the shoeing he must have anticipated receiving - as he clearly [and paradoxically] has put the long-term interests of the children first.

Sounds weak from the headmaster. I am no anti smoking obsessive but you cannot have one rule for people who are disruptive and another for people who behave

It did amuse me that the film I saw last weekend (Monuments Men) had a warning that it 'contained moderate violence AND scenes of smoking!!

Anorak said:

School allows 14 year olds to have smoking breaks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-26480334

Sounds abhorrent, doesn't it? But after reading the article I actually applaud the headmaster's decision - especially given the shoeing he must have anticipated receiving - as he clearly [and paradoxically] has put the long-term interests of the children first.

Brave policy from the school.
Actually sounds like a good thing...

Anorak said:

state_go_away said:

Anorak said:

School allows 14 year olds to have smoking breaks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-26480334

Sounds abhorrent, doesn't it? But after reading the article I actually applaud the headmasters decision - given the shoeing he must have anticipated receiving - as he clearly [and paradoxically] has put the long-term interests of the children first.

Sounds weak from the headmaster. I am no anti smoking obsessive but you cannot have one rule for people who are disruptive and another for people who behave

It's a referral unit. They are all disruptive and/or troubled. At least this way they remain in a structured environment and get the help they sorely need. The alternative is higher levels of truancy - no doubt with alcohol and worse mixed in - and ever-lengthening juvenile records.

Sometimes you have to go with the lesser evil. Weakness would have been a failure to depart from accepted norms to achieve that.

yes I meant that you cannot allow one school to be more permissive just because the kids there do not behave and not give the same allowance to other schools where kids can behave. It creates disincentives for a start and is unfair

@BenM

Two facts for you to reflect on :

1. Every Labour government has left office with unemployment higher than when it was elected.

2. Unemployment is substantially over a million lower than Ed Balls predicted it would be under the Coalition government.

state_go_away said:

Anorak said:

state_go_away said:

Anorak said:

School allows 14 year olds to have smoking breaks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-26480334

Sounds abhorrent, doesn't it? But after reading the article I actually applaud the headmasters decision - given the shoeing he must have anticipated receiving - as he clearly [and paradoxically] has put the long-term interests of the children first.

Sounds weak from the headmaster. I am no anti smoking obsessive but you cannot have one rule for people who are disruptive and another for people who behave

It's a referral unit. They are all disruptive and/or troubled. At least this way they remain in a structured environment and get the help they sorely need. The alternative is higher levels of truancy - no doubt with alcohol and worse mixed in - and ever-lengthening juvenile records.

Sometimes you have to go with the lesser evil. Weakness would have been a failure to depart from accepted norms to achieve that.

It creates disincentives for a start and is unfair

Rubbish.

This is a school dealing with children who have failed, often several times, in mainstream education. Keeping these children in FTE is hard, but surely it is better that they are in school than absconding.

Are you suggesting that the school is going to be attractive to kids who smoke so much that they get themselves expelled (repeatedly) until they are referred?

And this gives numerical breakdown for tax and nic receipts, including WTC and CTC https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/282929/20140212_HMRCReceiptsBulletin_Jan_v0.1.pdf

JackW said:

@BenM

Two facts for you to reflect on :

1. Every Labour government has left office with unemployment higher than when it was elected.

2. Unemployment is substantially over a million lower than Ed Balls predicted it would be under the Coalition government.

Hi Jack
Whilst your point 1 is technically correct it is not really true of 1951 as the 1945 figures had many millions still waiting demob . It is also true that the Conservative governments when they lost office in 1964/1974 and 1997 also left office with unemployment higher than when they were first elected .

Verulamius said:

Official stats on CTC and WTC :
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/282597/cwtc-dec13.pdf

Verulamius said:

Official stats on CTC and WTC :
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/282597/cwtc-dec13.pdf

Thanks for the link. The summary that is perhaps the most interesting is:

"Table 2.1 shows that, on 02 December 2013:
4.6 million families, containing 7.7 million children, were tax credit recipients
or were receiving the equivalent child support through benefits;
These families comprised:
4.1 million families with children receiving CTC, or the equivalent via benefits:
1.4 million in which no adult was in-work
1.9 million in-work receiving the maximum CTC, and also receiving WTC
0.8 million in-work receiving less than the maximum CTC
0.5 million families in-work without children, receiving only WTC.
2.6 million recipient families were couples (2.2 million had children).
2.0 million were single adults (1.9 million had children).
Later tables show that:
422 thousand families were benefiting from the childcare element of WTC; they were receiving an average of £59 per week help with their childcare costs;
115 thousand families were benefiting from the disabled worker element of WTC;

Any which way you add this up it is a lot of money. 422K x£59 x52= £1,294,696,000 for child care alone.

Life is full of compromises.

It's useful if the teachers are imposing a trade off ie, you lot can have fag breaks if in return you behave or whatever.