Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Where did it go wrong for the Lib Dems?

123457»

Comments

  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,321
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    camel said:

    The last similar blind spot was the removal of the 10p rate in 2009 thereabouts. Brown could not acknowledge that it penalised those on low incomes, insisting tax credits would make up the difference even though many affected weren't eligible for tax credits.

    Tax credits were a stupid idea anyway. They were Universal Credit only more expensive and more hassle.
    Tax credits are the single worst government policy of this century.
    Technically weren’t they the last century?
  • Options
    DeClareDeClare Posts: 483
    edited November 2019
    Cookie said:

    DeClare said:

    camel said:

    BobBeige said:
    Is this just re-announcing the removal of the marriage allowance? I'd like to see the taxes cited here please
    The big one is the labour proposed change to dividend taxation. The 2016 budget made holding a few shares, say a portfolio of 30k or 40k worth, very tax efficient. Lots of pensioners are still sitting on their carpetbagger and privatisation shares, and lots of those pensioners of them have quite low incomes. I think the philosophy is that, while they may have lower thanm median incomes, these people are still filthy capitalists and need to pay more so that the middle classes can get free broadband.
    Don't worry about it, there aren't that many certainties in life but it is a sure fire certainty that he won't ever present a budget.
    Ha ha - yes, that appears to be the Labour line: vite for us because don't worry, we won't actually win. Not saying it's not effective but I'd say those following it are playing with fire somewhat.
    There might be a small 50/1 chance that Labour could win most seats, there's no chance of them winning an overall majority, but whoever went into coalition with them would no doubt want their own person to be chancellor in exchange for making Corbyn PM.
    Anyway - New Thread.
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    edited November 2019
    So I am on:
    Labour Majority [I know this won't happen - but am waiting for odds to hopefully drop so I can cash out]
    Labour Largest Party [as above]
    No Overall Majority
    Laid Con Majority
    I was successful in predicting December GE, albeit I also predicted November but put more on December so came out in profit.
    Also got Johnson at 2/1 to be next Tory leader - I was astonished those odds were available for so long!
  • Options
    https://twitter.com/bricksilk/status/1200747579795034117

    So they already fixed the loophole, this guy was just too early
  • Options
    timmotimmo Posts: 1,469

    So I am on:
    Labour Majority [I know this won't happen - but am waiting for odds to hopefully drop so I can cash out]
    Labour Largest Party [as above]
    No Overall Majority
    Laid Con Majority
    I was successful in predicting December GE, albeit I also predicted November but put more on December so came out in profit.
    Also got Johnson at 2/1 to be next Tory leader - I was astonished those odds were available for so long!

    The 5/6 con seats under 346.5 looks a steal at mom on skybet
  • Options
    timmo said:

    So I am on:
    Labour Majority [I know this won't happen - but am waiting for odds to hopefully drop so I can cash out]
    Labour Largest Party [as above]
    No Overall Majority
    Laid Con Majority
    I was successful in predicting December GE, albeit I also predicted November but put more on December so came out in profit.
    Also got Johnson at 2/1 to be next Tory leader - I was astonished those odds were available for so long!

    The 5/6 con seats under 346.5 looks a steal at mom on skybet
    Might have a look at that - although I might be stake limited at Sky Bet
  • Options
    camelcamel Posts: 815
    DeClare said:

    Cookie said:

    DeClare said:

    camel said:

    BobBeige said:
    Is this just re-announcing the removal of the marriage allowance? I'd like to see the taxes cited here please
    The big one is the labour proposed change to dividend taxation. The 2016 budget made holding a few shares, say a portfolio of 30k or 40k worth, very tax efficient. Lots of pensioners are still sitting on their carpetbagger and privatisation shares, and lots of those pensioners of them have quite low incomes. I think the philosophy is that, while they may have lower thanm median incomes, these people are still filthy capitalists and need to pay more so that the middle classes can get free broadband.
    Don't worry about it, there aren't that many certainties in life but it is a sure fire certainty that he won't ever present a budget.
    Ha ha - yes, that appears to be the Labour line: vite for us because don't worry, we won't actually win. Not saying it's not effective but I'd say those following it are playing with fire somewhat.
    There might be a small 50/1 chance that Labour could win most seats, there's no chance of them winning an overall majority, but whoever went into coalition with them would no doubt want their own person to be chancellor in exchange for making Corbyn PM.
    Labour/SNP C&S most likely. SNP won't need minsterial limos - they have only two objectives. And the they only have the first one because it's a prerequisite for he second.
    Labour 275 seats and JCIPM.
  • Options
    nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,453
    Andrew said:
    Isnt he basically stating the facts.
  • Options
    camel said:

    DeClare said:

    Cookie said:

    DeClare said:

    camel said:

    BobBeige said:
    Is this just re-announcing the removal of the marriage allowance? I'd like to see the taxes cited here please
    The big one is the labour proposed change to dividend taxation. The 2016 budget made holding a few shares, say a portfolio of 30k or 40k worth, very tax efficient. Lots of pensioners are still sitting on their carpetbagger and privatisation shares, and lots of those pensioners of them have quite low incomes. I think the philosophy is that, while they may have lower thanm median incomes, these people are still filthy capitalists and need to pay more so that the middle classes can get free broadband.
    Don't worry about it, there aren't that many certainties in life but it is a sure fire certainty that he won't ever present a budget.
    Ha ha - yes, that appears to be the Labour line: vite for us because don't worry, we won't actually win. Not saying it's not effective but I'd say those following it are playing with fire somewhat.
    There might be a small 50/1 chance that Labour could win most seats, there's no chance of them winning an overall majority, but whoever went into coalition with them would no doubt want their own person to be chancellor in exchange for making Corbyn PM.
    Labour/SNP C&S most likely. SNP won't need minsterial limos - they have only two objectives. And the they only have the first one because it's a prerequisite for he second.
    Labour 275 seats and JCIPM.
    Feasibly if the Tories don't have an overall majority, if Labour is 255+ Labour can feasibly form a minority Government. Corbyn may well have to resign though
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,923
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    camel said:

    The last similar blind spot was the removal of the 10p rate in 2009 thereabouts. Brown could not acknowledge that it penalised those on low incomes, insisting tax credits would make up the difference even though many affected weren't eligible for tax credits.

    Tax credits were a stupid idea anyway. They were Universal Credit only more expensive and more hassle.
    Tax credits are the single worst government policy of this century.
    Technically weren’t they the last century?
    2003 I think. Remember Brown’s friend Prudence who was in charge of the money until the 2001 election? Then she got fired and the spending taps turned on.
  • Options
    nunu2 said:

    Andrew said:
    Isnt he basically stating the facts.
    I think he's essentially implying what we should look at is the trend as opposed to the gap.

    What was consistent in 2017 was the trend. If that's repeated, I think a HP becomes more and more likely.
  • Options
    nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,453
    Brom said:

    Con majority now drifting back in. Very volatile market

    What does this mean? That punters think Con majority getting more likely?
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,985
    nunu2 said:

    Brom said:

    Con majority now drifting back in. Very volatile market

    What does this mean? That punters think Con majority getting more likely?
    That's how I understand it. in = more likely, out = less likely.
  • Options
    camelcamel Posts: 815
    RobD said:

    nunu2 said:

    Brom said:

    Con majority now drifting back in. Very volatile market

    What does this mean? That punters think Con majority getting more likely?
    That's how I understand it. in = more likely, out = less likely.
    I associate the word 'drift' with out not in.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,985
    camel said:

    RobD said:

    nunu2 said:

    Brom said:

    Con majority now drifting back in. Very volatile market

    What does this mean? That punters think Con majority getting more likely?
    That's how I understand it. in = more likely, out = less likely.
    I associate the word 'drift' with out not in.
    But "drifting back in" implies it is going in, no? :p
  • Options
    I’m struck by how little all the journalists and pollsters seem to shift these markets when they see the numbers. If I was sat on, say, a 7% Yougov lead (illustrative example only, I know nothing for the avoidance of doubt) I’d never be able to resist playing the market.
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,997
    RobD said:

    nunu2 said:

    Brom said:

    Con majority now drifting back in. Very volatile market

    What does this mean? That punters think Con majority getting more likely?
    That's how I understand it. in = more likely, out = less likely.
    Except Con majority has drifted OUT from 1.41 to 1.46 today i.e. less likely
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,985
    Barnesian said:

    RobD said:

    nunu2 said:

    Brom said:

    Con majority now drifting back in. Very volatile market

    What does this mean? That punters think Con majority getting more likely?
    That's how I understand it. in = more likely, out = less likely.
    Except Con majority has drifted OUT from 1.41 to 1.46 today i.e. less likely
    I think people are referring to different timescales.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,313
    camel said:

    RobD said:

    nunu2 said:

    Brom said:

    Con majority now drifting back in. Very volatile market

    What does this mean? That punters think Con majority getting more likely?
    That's how I understand it. in = more likely, out = less likely.
    I associate the word 'drift' with out not in.
    It depends on whether the tide is coming in or going out
  • Options
    timmotimmo Posts: 1,469

    timmo said:

    So I am on:
    Labour Majority [I know this won't happen - but am waiting for odds to hopefully drop so I can cash out]
    Labour Largest Party [as above]
    No Overall Majority
    Laid Con Majority
    I was successful in predicting December GE, albeit I also predicted November but put more on December so came out in profit.
    Also got Johnson at 2/1 to be next Tory leader - I was astonished those odds were available for so long!

    The 5/6 con seats under 346.5 looks a steal at mom on skybet
    Might have a look at that - although I might be stake limited at Sky Bet
    I got 200 on
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,985
    New thread
  • Options
    BluerBlueBluerBlue Posts: 521
    edited November 2019
    del
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,898

    Sandpit said:

    BobBeige said:
    Anybody with half a brain knows we are all going to pay a shit load more tax. It is impossible to fund the massive extension of the state, especially as I expect a lot of the super rich are going to bugger off.
    Tories need to go really hard on economics for the last couple of weeks, making it clear that ordinary families will be paying the bill for a Labour government. They need a 1992 - style “Labour’s Tax Bombshell” campaign for the last few days.
    Problem is they have left it far too late. The media will now be dominated by this terrorist attack, then back to Prince Andrew.

    It is like 2017 all over again. They let Labour set the agenda, didn't really contest their manifesto pledges and only went hard with 3 days to go.
    Same mistakes, they just attended a debate and said Boris is a good campaigner.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,062

    BobBeige said:

    Boris will be on Marr tomorrow.

    So Marr won and Andrew Neil is unlikely to see Boris
    BBC pressured with threats no doubt
  • Options
    eggegg Posts: 1,749

    nunu2 said:

    Andrew said:
    Isnt he basically stating the facts.
    I think he's essentially implying what we should look at is the trend as opposed to the gap.

    What was consistent in 2017 was the trend. If that's repeated, I think a HP becomes more and more likely.
    What isn’t likely that whatever tv Lab get from Lib gets cancelled by con tv from BREX. In that regard labour don’t need to close the gap. If you were labour member or supporter say in Cheltenham or Wells and honest to polling “how will you vote” you won’t be saying labour. Labour will PV above their polling
  • Options
    eggegg Posts: 1,749
    malcolmg said:

    BobBeige said:

    Boris will be on Marr tomorrow.

    So Marr won and Andrew Neil is unlikely to see Boris
    BBC pressured with threats no doubt
    A couple of tv stations being shut on Dec 13th 😁
  • Options
    Sandpit said:



    Guildford has a larger Tory majority than Winchester and a smaller Remain advantage. The idea of it falling surely rests on Anne Milton having a large personal vote that will be drawn mostly from Tory defectors? Someone with local knowledge would be best placed to comment on whether or not this is plausible.

    Guildford is down the road from me and the only one of the seats in your post that I know much about. For what it's worth, Labour activists who I talked to two weeks ago think the LibDems will win, and they wryly deride an early report by a journalist that it was a 4-way marginal (Con/LD/Lab/Milton). They say Milton has a reasonable personal vote but will also come nowhere near winning - the YouGov estimate for her of 8% IIRC sounds plausible. Result last time was Con 54, LD 23, Lab 19.
    A problem for the LibDems is that Surrey is target-rich in a GOOD year, so their activists are dispersed fighting seats which looked promising a couple of months ago but aren't working out. Lacking enough canvass data, they are using human wave tactics - I've had 6 LibDem leaflets delivered to me, mostly by hand, and I'm a reasonably well-known Labour councillor in what if we're honest is a Tory safe seat (Surrey SW). The LDs need to concentrate on Guildford and I'm not sure they have enough central direction to make that decision effective. Overall I think the Tories should be 4-7 favourites in Guildford but the LibDems shouldn't be longer than 2-1.
    It always raises a smile to hear of activists spending their time and effort inadvetently targeting members of other parties with leaflets and door knocking. You know their canvassing records are poor when they're trying to win over local councillors!
    I agree with you that Guildford is the closest seat to winnable for the LDs in a sea of safe blue seats, they should have everyone in the area helping in that seat. In spending their efforts trying to unseat John Redwood or Michael Gove, they could lose the best opportunity they have for a win.
    I once spent an enjoyable 30 minutes tying up a couple of canvassers from a rival party with pretty nonsensical questions about their candidates views. At the time I was a regional organiser for a rival party. Got me out of painting my front door as well.

This discussion has been closed.