politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Early voting begins for the May 22nd Euros and for some the

I think the party logos should eliminate most of the confusion.

A vote share in the high twenties seems the likeliest outcome for UKIP to me. I expect all the obscure parties on the ballot paper will poll better than polls suggest, hitting the vote shares of Con, Lab and UKIP.

Blimey, the grumpy right-wing vote is split like seven different ways.

edmundintokyo said:

Blimey, the grumpy right-wing vote is split like seven different ways.

I thought No2EU was grumpy left wing?

Note the VI question asked in the Yougov/Green poll was not quite the standard question . Whether it made any difference or not is debatable .

Afternoon all

Back from a fortnight's cruising in the Med - very pleasant it was too - and living mostly offline - also pleasant in its own way.

So, back to more threads about UKIP - Farage not standing in Newark a no-brainer really. It suits him to be outside the house p*ssing in and the last thing he needs is to be a lone sheep among the wolves (or a lone wolf among the other wolves).

Had a quick look at the Newham nominations - pleased to see a full slate of LDs in my Ward along with the predicted full slate of Labour and Conservative but also three Christian People's Alliance (CPA) candidates. CPA were strong in Canning Town but were wiped out in 2010 - Newham is the least agnostic area of the country according to the 2011 Census so there is a "faith" vote from which Alan Craig could profit. UKIP not standing in my Ward and only odd candidates elsewhere across the Borough.

On more important matters, WAR COMMAND looks a solid bet for the Guineas and I've backed him and TOORMORE against the front two.

Mr. Grandiose, I'm reasonably sure that when the full postal voting experiment occurred it was longer.

I'm very attracted by the party that had the vision to take us into Europe in the first place and whose current leader sought to be put a windmill on his roof

Just bumped into Nigel out canvassing. Very small entourage (for those you think size does matter).

The Conservative's logo seems small and a bit messy when reduced to that size and in black and white. The English Democrat's one also seems rather grey.

In comparison, UKIP, No2EU, Labour and the BNP's all seem large, legible and attract the eye. I suppose that's a problem with having such a long one-word party name, and the obvious shortening might not be too good on a ballot paper... ;-)

Jury Team and Libertas have disappeared since 2009.

"As it happened: Euro elections 09":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8085850.stm

So that's two YouGov Euro polls in a row with Lab leading and UKIP second.

Could this be the first indication of the UKIP surge which looked very strong a week or two ago starting to blow out a bit.

Also note polls take no account of ballot paper confusion. If "true" UKIP support is 27% they could easily lose say 2% through ballot paper confusion resulting in an actual score of 25%.

Starting to think Lab could well win.

Philip_Thompson said:

I think the notion of the potential confusion is being very overplayed. Literal Democrats was a single character away from the proper name and could easily be misread. You can't misread any of those as UKIP. Plus nowadays there's Party Logos which are distinctive too.

Furthermore it seems somewhat ironic to have what is in Westmister a protest spoiler party themselves complaining about a newer protest spoiler party potentially hurting them in Brussels. If anyone doesn't care remotely enough to get the name at all accurate or recognise the logo then they're surely simply protest and not confusion voters and recording their votes accurately.

What will be will be, but if this other party do take a lot of votes from UKIP at least it will show that the truth is a lot of people want out of the EU

I don't think it would be right for the other parties to crow too much if UKIP score 25% and this other mob get 8%

isam said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I think the notion of the potential confusion is being very overplayed. Literal Democrats was a single character away from the proper name and could easily be misread. You can't misread any of those as UKIP. Plus nowadays there's Party Logos which are distinctive too.

Furthermore it seems somewhat ironic to have what is in Westmister a protest spoiler party themselves complaining about a newer protest spoiler party potentially hurting them in Brussels. If anyone doesn't care remotely enough to get the name at all accurate or recognise the logo then they're surely simply protest and not confusion voters and recording their votes accurately.

What will be will be, but if this other party do take a lot of votes from UKIP at least it will show that the truth is a lot of people want out of the EU

I don't think it would be right for the other parties to crow too much if UKIP score 25% and this other mob get 8%

True enough. UKIP and AIFE are both firmly anti-EU parties, so can be counted together in terms of anti-EU sentiment.

But I wouldn't necessarily count No2EU in with UKIP and AIFE, as they might hoover up some of the far-left vote. After all, their strapline is "Yes to workers' rights" rather than anything to do with Europe.

Are No2EU the only hard-left party on the ballot?

Starting to think Lab could well win.

I think there's a difference between people saying they will vote labour in a euro election, and them actually turning up and putting a cross next to a labour name.

In a GE fair enough, but I've never thought labour have provided their core vote with a reason to turn out for this one.

JosiasJessop said:

isam said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I think the notion of the potential confusion is being very overplayed. Literal Democrats was a single character away from the proper name and could easily be misread. You can't misread any of those as UKIP. Plus nowadays there's Party Logos which are distinctive too.

Furthermore it seems somewhat ironic to have what is in Westmister a protest spoiler party themselves complaining about a newer protest spoiler party potentially hurting them in Brussels. If anyone doesn't care remotely enough to get the name at all accurate or recognise the logo then they're surely simply protest and not confusion voters and recording their votes accurately.

What will be will be, but if this other party do take a lot of votes from UKIP at least it will show that the truth is a lot of people want out of the EU

I don't think it would be right for the other parties to crow too much if UKIP score 25% and this other mob get 8%

True enough. UKIP and AIFE are both firmly anti-EU parties, so can be counted together in terms of anti-EU sentiment.

But I wouldn't necessarily count No2EU in with UKIP and AIFE, as they might hoover up some of the far-left vote. After all, their strapline is "Yes to workers' rights" rather than anything to do with Europe.

Are No2EU the only hard-left party on the ballot?

I was only counting the one that Mike says people may confuse with UKIP

isam said:

Only the UKIP daily seem to be interested in this Tory canvasser's tweets

http://www.ukipdaily.com/tory-activist-every-single-muslim-expelled/#.U2UIfvXDVWl

That's despicable. Let's hope that he's expelled from the party, if he is a member and the tweets are as reported (*). I wouldn't even let him canvass for a party; God knows what he'd say to the public.

Yet another example of Cameron's apt adage.

(*) The usual caveats: the account may have been 'hacked' etc. But it doesn't smell like it here.

taffys said:

Starting to think Lab could well win.

I think there's a difference between people saying they will vote labour in a euro election, and them actually turning up and putting a cross next to a labour name.

In a GE fair enough, but I've never thought labour have provided their core vote with a reason to turn out for this one.

Labour got 29% at last year's local elections.

While I mention arbitrage,this stuff is way above my league though I'm sure the PB financiers,the experts in the field,will know more about it.
It does,however,make the case for a Financial Transaction Tax.

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/trading-in-milliseconds-when-correlations-break-down/

I wonder whether one of the Sunday papers will have a Newark poll?

Thanks for the link Sam.
I have just been reading the guys twitter feed.
Is it a spoof account as he seems as mad as the proverbial box of frogs.
Saying Home Rule was a mistake and wants to reoccupy the whole of Ireland etc

isam said:

Only the UKIP daily seem to be interested in this Tory canvasser's tweets

http://www.ukipdaily.com/tory-activist-every-single-muslim-expelled/#.U2UIfvXDVWl

AndyJS said:

Someone posted an interesting comment the other day saying that apparently a lot of pollster people believe the Lab figure for the Euros is far too high.

That was based on the tweets below:

"Damian Lyons Lowe ‏@DamianSurvation Apr 24
For the EP elections, what *we* the pollsters wrestle with is that we show Labour on 30+% in an election where in'09 Lab scored just 15.9%
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More

Karsten Shaw ‏@webkarst Apr 24
@DamianSurvation interesting observation. Maybe voting in EP elections less sticky than GE? Alternatively maybe polls wrong!
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More

Damian Lyons Lowe ‏@DamianSurvation Apr 24
@webkarst e.g., Peter K is on record that UKIP w/b 1st but own methodology disagrees. Seems we all think LTV measure needs strengthening.
Hide conversation Reply Retweet Favorite More

3:36 PM - 24 Apr 2014 · Details
Karsten Shaw ‏@webkarst Apr 24
@DamianSurvation traditionally low turnout elections seem harder to predict. As you say, could be LTV handling. Will be interesting...
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More

Damian Lyons Lowe ‏@DamianSurvation Apr 24
@webkarst right, I'm not convinced we have a proper grip on LTV... not obvious what the solution it.. any view?
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More

Karsten Shaw ‏@webkarst Apr 24
@DamianSurvation not convinced that internet panels help That aside, Qs abt *attitudes* to voting might be superior to stated intention?
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More

Damian Lyons Lowe ‏@DamianSurvation Apr 24
@webkarst ok sure but do you know of any telephone poll ever that overstated ukip in an election?"

JosiasJessop said:

The Conservative's logo seems small and a bit messy when reduced to that size and in black and white. The English Democrat's one also seems rather grey.

In comparison, UKIP, No2EU, Labour and the BNP's all seem large, legible and attract the eye. I suppose that's a problem with having such a long one-word party name, and the obvious shortening might not be too good on a ballot paper... ;-)

The other thing I noticed is that the Conservatives are one of the few parties to use one of their "descriptions" For real change in Europe - while Labour and the Lib Dems don't -
- tho neither have a slogan for Europe - Labour have variations on "Labour Party" while the Lib Dems have "for a fairer Britain", "for a Greener Britain" and "Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats" tho I guess we won't be seeing the latter anytime soon...

https://pefonline.electoralcommission.org.uk/Search/EntitySearch.aspx

Stuart_Dickson said:

LAB tightening in Newark. New best prices:

Con 4/7 (PP, Lad)
Lab 11/4 (PP, Lad)
UKIP 9/2 (Bet365, Lad)
LD 250/1 (Bet365)

Note: Betfair have now opened their Newark market, but almost zilch activity to date and rubbish prices all round.

That's a minute tightening though, Stuart. It's probably due to people like myself following Mike's lead.

volcanopete said:

While I mention arbitrage,this stuff is way above my league though I'm sure the PB financiers,the experts in the field,will know more about it.
It does,however,make the case for a Financial Transaction Tax.

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/trading-in-milliseconds-when-correlations-break-down/

No. It is not making the case for an FTT. What it is making the case for is enforcement of the Insider Trading Rules - which is what the author of the book he is quoting is calling for and what the FBI are looking at in the US.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

Thanks for the link Sam.
I have just been reading the guys twitter feed.
Is it a spoof account as he seems as mad as the proverbial box of frogs.
Saying Home Rule was a mistake and wants to reoccupy the whole of Ireland etc

isam said:

Only the UKIP daily seem to be interested in this Tory canvasser's tweets

http://www.ukipdaily.com/tory-activist-every-single-muslim-expelled/#.U2UIfvXDVWl

Here is the fellows blog.. yes he is a weirdo

http://www.stephenlees.org/115934636

Stuart_Dickson said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

LAB tightening in Newark. New best prices:

Con 4/7 (PP, Lad)
Lab 11/4 (PP, Lad)
UKIP 9/2 (Bet365, Lad)
LD 250/1 (Bet365)

Note: Betfair have now opened their Newark market, but almost zilch activity to date and rubbish prices all round.

That's a minute tightening though, Stuart. It's probably due to people like myself following Mike's lead.

Agreed. But a move is a move. It is instructive. But by all means, feel free to ignore.

I was very happy to follow Mike's lead on this one. He's usually right, although personally I suspect Nick P's assessment was correct when he suggested Labour would do well but without winning.

Peter_the_Punter said:

Ah well, back to the drawing board....

Yes, that kind of day, my friend. The Guineas winner found a real turn of foot off a strong pace. KINGMAN goes to Ascot for the St James's Palace and of course AUSTRALIA has supposedly run a huge Derby Trial.

Oddly enough, I'm less convinced about AUSTRALIA - take a look at the race and see the run of KINGSTON HILL - I thought that was a really good Derby prep run though I wonder if connections will take in the Dante.

Spurs should have helped ensure Big Sam gets to stay a while longer...

So our season isn't a complete and utter failure then.

HurstLlama said:

"So: what practical benefits - from a products standards basis - do we gain from leaving the EU?"

We could make the buggers conform to our standards is they want to sell into our market. I am sure I said that already, but perhaps you didn't see it.

But if we join any free trade block - like NAFTA or EFTA - we will be required not to use local product standards to protect our local market.

rcs1000 said:

HurstLlama said:

"So: what practical benefits - from a products standards basis - do we gain from leaving the EU?"

We could make the buggers conform to our standards is they want to sell into our market. I am sure I said that already, but perhaps you didn't see it.

But if we join any free trade block - like NAFTA or EFTA - we will be required not to use local product standards to protect our local market.

As I mentioned earlier our trade with the EU is currently about 10% of GDP and falling. We need to consider seriously why we are subjecting the rest of our economy to the costs of the rules and regulations of the EU unnecessarily. We do not need to abide by US rules and regulations for our home market and yet they are our largest single trading partner.

rcs1000 said:

HurstLlama said:

"So: what practical benefits - from a products standards basis - do we gain from leaving the EU?"

We could make the buggers conform to our standards is they want to sell into our market. I am sure I said that already, but perhaps you didn't see it.

But if we join any free trade block - like NAFTA or EFTA - we will be required not to use local product standards to protect our local market.

No, perhaps you are basing your opinion on the way the game is played now, and then not realistically. Just remind me why the free single market in services has yet to take effect in the EU.

From the other side, as I have said repeatedly, our own suppliers, in some areas, are required to comply with higher standards than those of their foreign competitors who can sell into our home market. That is just insane.

FWIW, canvassing suggesting Labour doing well at the moment, but I'd say only about 60% of the Labour voters are definitely save-the-date planning to vote Labour in the Euros - many of the others will probably be chivvied into it, but some will go UKIP and some won't bother. Against that, there is some specifically anti-UKIP voting now - people who said they wouldn't normally bother voting in the Euros, but voting Labour to try to stop them coming top. No Tory Euro activity visible so far.

HurstLlama said:

No, perhaps you are basing your opinion on the way the game is played now, and then not realistically. Just remind me why the free single market in services has yet to take effect in the EU.

From the other side, as I have said repeatedly, our own suppliers, in some areas, are required to comply with higher standards than those of their foreign competitors who can sell into our home market. That is just insane.

I am telling you what the NAFTA rules are (which I know from painful experience). I know that US companies have repeatedly used the NAFTA "cannot use local standards to protect local industries" rules to open up Canada and Mexico to products that only meet US standards. I think it is highly unlikely we would get better treatment in negotiations with the EU than (a) EFTA countries do currently with the EU, or (b) Canada and Mexico do with the US.

As an aside, I am a director of Sunbird Solar Ltd, which makes combined solar battery systems to sell into industrial markets. The company is British and based in London (although the key engineers are both French and most of the manufacturing takes place in China and Hong Kong). There is one version of the product that sells worldwide, and it ends up complying with Japanese, EU and US regulations - simply because the cost savings related to only making it for one country are negligable compared with the issues of having separate batches of inventory and changing assembly lines. Now, I know this is only one company (although I am involved in many), but I fail to see how what real, practical difference having our own product standards would have. (Note: if you are happy not being involved in FTAs with either NAFTA or the EU, that's fine - but you need to accept that that would almost certainly involve lower levels of trade and therefore a smaller economy.)

Just as a matter of interest, which specific EU standards regarding manufactured products would you seek to abolish?

Also, and also as an aside, I think in financial services at least, the Single Economic Area is a genuinely free market zone. My small asset management company can sell direct to consumers in France, Germany, etc. When we sell to people outside the SEA (in Japan for example), then we need a local reprentative who is the public face of our firm, and who takes 30% of our fees. I think you can accuse the EU of many things (undemocratic, corrupt, with political ideas above its station, etc. etc.), but I do not think you can accuse it of having failed to make the financial services across Europe a single market.

Good evening, everyone.

Very quiet on here. If anyone's interested, my thoughts on the Silver Arrows duel are up here: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/predicting-hamilton-rosberg-tussle.html

rcs1000 said:

Just as a matter of interest, which specific EU standards regarding manufactured products would you seek to abolish?

For a start as mentioned before I would scrap the EU rules on colour coding on fire extinguishers and return to the old system. It is only one small thing to start with but one I know from experience has been a very retrograde step. I believe Twisted Fire Starter also agreed with me on this from a professional point of view (excuse me TFS if that is not the case, I am working from memory of a previous discussion).

As I say a small example but I know that businesses are crying out for a reduction in EU red tape and I am sure they are not just saying it for fun.

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

HurstLlama said:

"So: what practical benefits - from a products standards basis - do we gain from leaving the EU?"

We could make the buggers conform to our standards is they want to sell into our market. I am sure I said that already, but perhaps you didn't see it.

But if we join any free trade block - like NAFTA or EFTA - we will be required not to use local product standards to protect our local market.

As I mentioned earlier our trade with the EU is currently about 10% of GDP and falling. We need to consider seriously why we are subjecting the rest of our economy to the costs of the rules and regulations of the EU unnecessarily. We do not need to abide by US rules and regulations for our home market and yet they are our largest single trading partner.

And my point is that we're going to end up making our goods and services to EU standards anyway.

In regard to manufactured goods, which specific EU standards do you think we could abolish which would save us money? (I.e. there would be competing products made which don't meet those standards, and which we would not wish to have anyway - like electrical interference regulations.)

I have already given you an example to start with. Obviously I don't know every standard that applies but I do know that businesses are not happy with the burden of EU red tape.

Mind you you are only talking about a small part of the laws and regulations that affect us. Even were we within EFTA there are huge areas of EU law that we would no longer be subject to and that in itself makes it worthwhile doing. As I say, 10% of the GDP and falling is our current trade with the EU and I doubt even the tiniest fraction of that would be effected by our leaving.

I'm not arguing the general point, I am arguing the specific about manufactured products: that is, that smaller countries inevitably end up de facto accepting the standards of the local nearest market.

Your fire extinguisher example is a good one. But it's also one that is clearly not going to save anyone any money. And is clearly tiny in the general scheme of things.

It seems to me that many people complain about EU inspired red tape. But most of the people doing the complaining aren't actually business people. You have a small business yourself, Richard. Which specific EU regulations negatively impact the operation of your business that you would abolish and which would make it more competitive and lower cost?

stodge said:

Away from racing to matters political and as I seek to catch up from a fortnight's holiday in the Med, my attention was caught by an incredible Survation poll for the London Borough Elections reported on UKPR.


IF correct, this would represent an 8% swing in the capital from Conservative to Labour since 2010. Labour would have their best local result since 1974, the Liberal Democrats their worst since 1990 and the Conservatives their worst ever.

On these numbers, I would suspect Barnet, Bexley, Croydon and Hillingdon could all go Labour - Havering would be interesting as would Redbridge where UKIP might surprise.

Merton would return to Labour but the LDs would probably hold on to Kingston and Sutton though the Conservatives would probably hold Richmond.

Labour had a good evening in London in 2010 as far as the local elections were concerned and I have always thought they would struggle to hold on to that but the Survation poll offers better still for Labour with the best night since the mid 1990s on offer.

I can't see LDs holding onto Kingston...there are too many split wards already and some very close battles which I think will favour the Tories.
Sutton will stay LD unless there is a total breakdown of the LD vote in the northern wards where labour could win 5-8 seats from nothing...
If that happens then Sutton could go NOC....LDs have given up in some seats and are targeting their limited resources in critical areas..

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

Just as a matter of interest, which specific EU standards regarding manufactured products would you seek to abolish?

For a start as mentioned before I would scrap the EU rules on colour coding on fire extinguishers and return to the old system. It is only one small thing to start with but one I know from experience has been a very retrograde step. I believe Twisted Fire Starter also agreed with me on this from a professional point of view (excuse me TFS if that is not the case, I am working from memory of a previous discussion).

As I say a small example but I know that businesses are crying out for a reduction in EU red tape and I am sure they are not just saying it for fun.

I agree with that - the change always seemed nonsensical to me. There must have been a reason they did it (looks pleadingly into the distance).

It's also a change that should be fairly inexpensive to do as it is just a paint and transfer job? However the cylinders would still be made to whatever standard is applicable to those pressure vessels.

But unless we scrap the idea of having a colour code scheme (which would indeed be a retrograde step), then it would not reduce the red tape burden - it would just replace EU red tape with UK red tape.

But at least we'd be able to quickly tell what sort of fire extinguisher we've got in an emergency...

Off-topic:

I'm just reading a biography of Sir Daniel Gooch, the Victorian railway and cabling engineer. He was MP for Cricklade for twenty years, and allegedly never once took part in a debate.

At dissolution in 1885, when he left parliament, he said: "I have taken no part in any of the debates. It would be a great advantage to business if there were a greater number of people who followed my example."

I can't help but feel that he had a point ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Gooch

Evening all.
A completely off topic question if there are any PAYE experts here this evening.
I changed employer at the end of April.
My final pay month was the end of April and had YTD figures for the 2014/15 tax year.
My P45 which is dated May 1st has the totals for 2013/14 and I have had no P60 for 2013/14.
Is this correct?
I would have thought that the P45 should have only 1 months earnings on it.

Danny565 said:

stodge said:

Away from racing to matters political and as I seek to catch up from a fortnight's holiday in the Med, my attention was caught by an incredible Survation poll for the London Borough Elections reported on UKPR.

IF correct, this would represent an 8% swing in the capital from Conservative to Labour since 2010. Labour would have their best local result since 1974, the Liberal Democrats their worst since 1990 and the Conservatives their worst ever.

On these numbers, I would suspect Barnet, Bexley, Croydon and Hillingdon could all go Labour - Havering would be interesting as would Redbridge where UKIP might surprise.

Merton would return to Labour but the LDs would probably hold on to Kingston and Sutton though the Conservatives would probably hold Richmond.

Labour had a good evening in London in 2010 as far as the local elections were concerned and I have always thought they would struggle to hold on to that but the Survation poll offers better still for Labour with the best night since the mid 1990s on offer.

I wonder if Labour might put in very strong performances in Barnet and elsewhere in north London with high Jewish populations both this year and in the general election. Partly, perhaps, because of Ed Miliband. But perhaps also, although Jewish people tend to have far less uniform political views than most "ethnic minorities" do (they generally tend to swing however the nation as a whole swings in elections), I wonder if immigration might be one issue where they're more liberal than the average, and which might make them shy away from the Tories and especially UKIP.

Jews are pretty solid for the Conservatives these days. I can't think of a heavily Jewish ward that doesn't have a big Conservative vote.

As we're having a bit of a meander here, I wondered if anyone (super-duper off-topically) could solve the problem I have with an iPhone (just converted, I loved my Nokia 6233) which doesn't seem to format PB properly; the texts run into the sidebar of archived threads and posting is a nightmare?

thanks.

As we approach the Euros my antipathy towards them and to the EU grows and I am a natural europhile.

I think these guys will make headway in the months ahead

globalbritain.co.uk/

rcs1000 said:

@HurstLlama, @ZenPagan, @MrJones

re product standards:

Actually, if you look at North America, you will see that no-one makes products that comply just with Canadian or Mexican standards. Try and find an electronics product made that does not conform to US fire safety standards - they simply do not exist. The US has effectively exported its standards on other countries in its trade block.

The reason this happens is for two reasons. Firstly, the cost of conforming to standards (like CE or the like) is almost entirely in the certification and set-up. The marginal cost of producing a product that meets certification is rarely, if ever, higher. Secondly, large companies like to have global purchasing operations. Therefore, having a cheaper product that is only sold in one country of 60m people is extremely unlikely.

Now, it may be the case that - in agriculture - it's different. But in electronics, medicine, etc., there simply are no companies that sell just into a single country, because it is impossible to have the scale to compete if you are selling into just one country.

If we left the EU, pretty much everything we made would continue to made to EU standards. We could, in theory, have additional standards we required, which EU firms could choose to implement or not implement. However, it is worth remembering that - under NAFTA rules - you cannot use local product rules to protect your local market. (I'm sure the EU has similar rules regarding imports from EFTA countries.) So we would almost certainly continue to be required to sell things that conformed to EU standards alone if we were to be in an FTA with the EU.

So: what practical benefits - from a products standards basis - do we gain from leaving the EU?

Medicines aren't a good example - approvals are national (although there is a centralised mutual recognition procedure in the EU), as are and manufacturing. Canadian manufactured pharmaceuticals, for instance, can't legally be imported into the US unless the site has been inspected by the FDA

surbiton said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

Evening all.
A completely off topic question if there are any PAYE experts here this evening.
I changed employer at the end of April.
My final pay month was the end of April and had YTD figures for the 2014/15 tax year.
My P45 which is dated May 1st has the totals for 2013/14 and I have had no P60 for 2013/14.
Is this correct?
I would have thought that the P45 should have only 1 months earnings on it.

You are absolutely correct !

seconded

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

Evening all.
A completely off topic question if there are any PAYE experts here this evening.
I changed employer at the end of April.
My final pay month was the end of April and had YTD figures for the 2014/15 tax year.
My P45 which is dated May 1st has the totals for 2013/14 and I have had no P60 for 2013/14.
Is this correct?
I would have thought that the P45 should have only 1 months earnings on it.

I an not an expert but your P45 should have a record of 2014-2015 earnings and deductions, i.e month of April.

You should have been issued a P60 for 2013-2014 with your March salary slip - month 12. You should be issued with a P60 for 2014-2015 up to the date of leaving that employment.