Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The August ICM poll sees reverse cross-over with LAB moving

SystemSystem Posts: 12,685
edited August 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The August ICM poll sees reverse cross-over with LAB moving from a 1% deficit to a 7% lead

Tonight’s big polling news is that Labour has moved up sharply in the monthly ICM phone poll for the Guardian. In July EdM’s party was 1% behind. Now they are 7% ahead.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,949
    edited August 2014
    Cameron and Osborne aren't up to it!

    Losers!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,715
    Second!
  • HughHugh Posts: 955
    FPT Gin

    If Cameron (and Sam) are kicked out of Number Ten in utter and abject humiliation next year will it be Osborne's Pastygate fiasco wot ultimately did it?

    When David Cameron is kicked out having failed to win a single election, to go down as a sorry footnote in history as an utter failure, there'll be a few key things that did for him (apart from him being a generally terrible PM)

    Pasties.
    No more top down reorganisation of the NHS.
    You're all in this together Millionaires tax cut (see also, Pasties).
    Failing to control his backbench nutjobs and / or deliver boundary gerrymandering.

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,949
    FPT
    perdix said:

    GIN1138 said:

    If Cameron (and Sam) are kicked out of Number Ten in utter and abject humiliation next year will it be Osborne's Pastygate fiasco wot ultimately did it?

    Rubbish. What are you smoking?

    You can directly trace back the Conservative's polling collapse to the 2012 budget:

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2

    Which went down like a plate of cold sick with the electorate.

    If time run's out for the Conservatives to turn things around, you can directly trace back all their problems to Pastygate and all the other nonsense Osborne created when he arrogantly went flitting off to America instead of staying here to sort out his budget.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,983
    Gold standard ICM LAB 366 CON(2)25 LD 32 UKIP 0 Others 23 (ukpr)

    Ed is crap is landslide PM LT 9 months to go

    DH = Disaster for Ed tweet must be imminent.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,949
    Hugh said:

    FPT Gin

    If Cameron (and Sam) are kicked out of Number Ten in utter and abject humiliation next year will it be Osborne's Pastygate fiasco wot ultimately did it?

    When David Cameron is kicked out having failed to win a single election, to go down as a sorry footnote in history as an utter failure, there'll be a few key things that did for him (apart from him being a generally terrible PM)

    Pasties.
    No more top down reorganisation of the NHS.
    You're all in this together Millionaires tax cut (see also, Pasties).
    Failing to control his backbench nutjobs and / or deliver boundary gerrymandering.

    Evening Tim? X
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    FPT
    The tories are doing badly partly because George Osborne is idiotically allowing the mao-ist leadership of HMRC to dictate his fiscal agenda. People are horrified that HMRC will soon be able to steal their deposits and make them pay inheritance tax before even dying.

    Osborne, incredibly for a conservative chancellor, has the voters thinking they would pay lower taxes under labour.

    I'm a thatcherite, but one consolation about the tories losing is that we can get rid of these big government corporatists masquerading as conservatives.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    9 11 11 9 9 8 7 6 5 6 7 6 6 6 4 4 3 4 3
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    GIN1138 said:

    FPT

    perdix said:

    GIN1138 said:

    If Cameron (and Sam) are kicked out of Number Ten in utter and abject humiliation next year will it be Osborne's Pastygate fiasco wot ultimately did it?

    Rubbish. What are you smoking?

    You can directly trace back the Conservative's polling collapse to the 2012 budget:

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2

    Which went down like a plate of cold sick with the electorate.

    If time run's out for the Conservatives to turn things around, you can directly trace back all their problems to Pastygate and all the other nonsense Osborne created when he arrogantly went flitting off to America instead of staying here to sort out his budget.
    Sad, but true. They have never recovered from that fiasco.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited August 2014
    ''You can directly trace back the Conservative's polling collapse to the 2012 budget:''

    Osborne allows the treasury team and HRMC to run policy. He actually takes their peoples' soviet suggestions seriously.

    It is proving to be a complete disaster. Read what Farage said about the latest inheritance tax proposals.

    Electoral suicide for the tories.
  • HughHugh Posts: 955
    taffys said:

    ''You can directly trace back the Conservative's polling collapse to the 2012 budget:''

    Osborne allows the treasury team and HRMC to run policy. He actually takes their peoples' soviet suggestions seriously.

    It is proving to be a complete disaster. Read what Farage said about the latest inheritance tax proposals.

    Electoral suicide for the tories.

    Haven't heard much about this new Stalinist terror, can you point me in the direction of the relevant Mail / Express link so I can read more?
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    Not sure why everyone's commenting about problems for the Conservatives?

    This poll has them on 31%, same as in the June ICM when the lead was only 1%.

    It's the Labour %age that's going up and down like a [inset cliché here].

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    The No campaign has repeatedly been criticised for being too negative, but the latest results from the survey suggest scepticism about the benefits of leaving the UK has grown and an increasing identification with Britishness.

    More people now believed that independence would leave Scotland with a weaker voice in the world, a striking reversal since 2012, the survey found.

    Voters also appeared to be more sceptical about the benefits of leaving the UK when it comes to national pride, inequality, financial stability and personal finances, said ScotCen Social Research, which conducted the survey.

    “In every case the proportion who think that independence would be beneficial has fallen and/or the proportion who think it would be harmful has increased,” it said.
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0c06effe-2170-11e4-b145-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3A74e8h7Y
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    edited August 2014
    taffys said:

    FPT
    The tories are doing badly partly because George Osborne is idiotically allowing the mao-ist leadership of HMRC to dictate his fiscal agenda. People are horrified that HMRC will soon be able to steal their deposits and make them pay inheritance tax before even dying.

    Osborne, incredibly for a conservative chancellor, has the voters thinking they would pay lower taxes under labour.

    I'm a thatcherite, but one consolation about the tories losing is that we can get rid of these big government corporatists masquerading as conservatives.

    I do sometimes wonder if Cameron and Osborne are doing it deliberately, pissing off ever group of the electorate likely to vote Conservative that is.

    "George, I am a bit concerned our polling figures seem to holding up, we are only a percent or two down on 2010"

    "Not a problem, the group most likely to vote for us are pensioners and they are the most likely to die. So how about I suggest we make them pay their inheritance tax before they are dead. That should piss 'em off"
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    the lengthy referendum campaign appears to have taken its toll on Scots with 39% saying there should never be another vote on independence, while 17% say it should be at least 20 or 30 years before another is staged.
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-poll-61-no-yes-39-1-3505394
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    FPT
    foxinsoxuk said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Financier said:

    It would have been far easier to take out parts of ISIS when they were advancing across open country before entering the towns. Now they are embedded in the towns they have captured, it will be far more difficult without causing significant civilian casualties (even if they are nigh slaves).

    It would appear that the UK and US intelligence was near useless and they were all asleep or did not understand one part of Islam from another.

    If you want to wipe out a good proportion of IS in an occupied town, then I would suggest flattening the towns mosques during Friday prayers. Any mosque under their control will be preaching extremism.

    It may prove a tad controversal though.
    According to that former Al Qaeda man someone posted an interview with yesterday, some of them aren't even observant muslims.

    He made a number of barking mad claims (including 1500 IS wounded being treated in Tel Aviv hospitals). He was an Arab Aldridge Prior.

    I think a lot of IS are there for adventure and for a sort of penance, much like the Crusaders and with much the same motivation.
    He made an interesting practical point "where are their wounded?" If they did have a local regional backer then they might be looking after their wounded. I don't think he knew the answer so he went to his default which was always going to be Tel Aviv but the question remains.


    Separate general point. One of the good things about Isis picking up all that brand spanking new US hardware in Mosul is it won't be easy for them to get more ammo unless someone with access to US supplies gives it to them.


  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,983
    MarkHopkins said:

    Not sure why everyone's commenting about problems for the Conservatives?

    This poll has them on 31%, same as in the June ICM when the lead was only 1%.

    It's the Labour %age that's going up and down like a [inset cliché here].

    Perhaps because 31% for Tories guarantees an Ed is crap is PM result.

    What happened to the only ICM counts comments from PB Tories
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,715
    bigjohnowls said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    Not sure why everyone's commenting about problems for the Conservatives?

    This poll has them on 31%, same as in the June ICM when the lead was only 1%.

    It's the Labour %age that's going up and down like a [inset cliché here].

    Perhaps because 31% for Tories guarantees an Ed is crap is PM result.

    What happened to the only ICM counts comments from PB Tories
    At least we didn't have another Ashcroft, that could have sent a fair chunk of us over the edge....!
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    HurstLlama said:

    taffys said:

    FPT
    The tories are doing badly partly because George Osborne is idiotically allowing the mao-ist leadership of HMRC to dictate his fiscal agenda. People are horrified that HMRC will soon be able to steal their deposits and make them pay inheritance tax before even dying.

    Osborne, incredibly for a conservative chancellor, has the voters thinking they would pay lower taxes under labour.

    I'm a thatcherite, but one consolation about the tories losing is that we can get rid of these big government corporatists masquerading as conservatives.

    I do sometimes wonder if Cameron and Osborne are doing it deliberately, pissing off ever group of the electorate likely to vote Conservative that is.

    "George, I am a bit concerned our polling figures seem to holding up, we are only a percent or two down on 2010"

    "Not a problem, the group most likely to vote for us are pensioners and they are the most likely to die. So how about I suggest we make them pay their inheritance tax before they are dead. That should piss 'em off"
    It's seems to be a request/suggestion from HMRC directly, rather than the government particularly.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,949
    It may soon be time for the Tories to start preparing for LAC (Life After Cameron)

    LAC = ABO (Anyone But Osborne)

    They need to stop Osborne at all costs. Camerons humiliation must be Osborne's humiliation and the pair of them should be cast into oblivion.

    Milliband will be an utter disaster, so the Con's should be competitive in any election between 2015 and 2020 as long as they choose ABO.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited August 2014
    And aren't we always told that ICM is the Gold Standard? :p
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,983
    RobD said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    Not sure why everyone's commenting about problems for the Conservatives?

    This poll has them on 31%, same as in the June ICM when the lead was only 1%.

    It's the Labour %age that's going up and down like a [inset cliché here].

    Perhaps because 31% for Tories guarantees an Ed is crap is PM result.

    What happened to the only ICM counts comments from PB Tories
    At least we didn't have another Ashcroft, that could have sent a fair chunk of us over the edge....!
    I think Ashcroft uses a random number generator.

    Apparently no more polls from the good Lord for a few weeks.

    Looks like he has lent it to ICM because TBF I do not believe the 7% lead for Ed any more than the 1% Tory lead last month.

    I am pretty sure the real lead is circ 4% as it has been since March
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    WTF???

    You're pulling PastyGate out????

    I have faith in Murdoch.

    LD bunker strategy in bull swing.

    Admittedly, it's all a bit SURREAL
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    HurstLlama said:

    taffys said:

    FPT
    The tories are doing badly partly because George Osborne is idiotically allowing the mao-ist leadership of HMRC to dictate his fiscal agenda. People are horrified that HMRC will soon be able to steal their deposits and make them pay inheritance tax before even dying.

    Osborne, incredibly for a conservative chancellor, has the voters thinking they would pay lower taxes under labour.

    I'm a thatcherite, but one consolation about the tories losing is that we can get rid of these big government corporatists masquerading as conservatives.

    I do sometimes wonder if Cameron and Osborne are doing it deliberately, pissing off ever group of the electorate likely to vote Conservative that is.

    "George, I am a bit concerned our polling figures seem to holding up, we are only a percent or two down on 2010"

    "Not a problem, the group most likely to vote for us are pensioners and they are the most likely to die. So how about I suggest we make them pay their inheritance tax before they are dead. That should piss 'em off"
    It is limited to the tiny minority of cases where gifts are made before death not to individuals but to a trust in an attempt to circumvent IHT, and the payment will be provisional, pending determination of whether the gift is valid or not. Do actually read stuff, rather than headlines about stuff. I don't say it is a good idea, but it is not the idea you think it is.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    MarkHopkins said:

    HurstLlama said:

    taffys said:

    FPT
    The tories are doing badly partly because George Osborne is idiotically allowing the mao-ist leadership of HMRC to dictate his fiscal agenda. People are horrified that HMRC will soon be able to steal their deposits and make them pay inheritance tax before even dying.

    Osborne, incredibly for a conservative chancellor, has the voters thinking they would pay lower taxes under labour.

    I'm a thatcherite, but one consolation about the tories losing is that we can get rid of these big government corporatists masquerading as conservatives.

    I do sometimes wonder if Cameron and Osborne are doing it deliberately, pissing off ever group of the electorate likely to vote Conservative that is.

    "George, I am a bit concerned our polling figures seem to holding up, we are only a percent or two down on 2010"

    "Not a problem, the group most likely to vote for us are pensioners and they are the most likely to die. So how about I suggest we make them pay their inheritance tax before they are dead. That should piss 'em off"
    It's seems to be a request/suggestion from HMRC directly, rather than the government particularly.
    Is Osborne in charge of the Treasury or is the Treasury in charge of Osborne? Too often in seems like the later. He has already pushed for the treasury to be able to seize taxpayers assets without due process of law but merely on some clerk's say so and despite the Revenue's appalling record of making mistakes. Now we have the idea that the Revenue can demand 40% of a persons estate while they are still alive. All this from a supposedly Conservative chancellor.

    That some people think he might make a good leader of the Party is astonishing.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,361
    Good poll for Labour on the face of it. I still remain to be convinced that their vote isn't built on sand though.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,983
    Could it be short lived joy for Ed?

    You Gov out in 73mins.

    A 2% Lab lead would be good for Tories.

    If the leads in todays polls continue for next couple of days expect summer polls inaccurate comments.

    In my view GE 2015 will be very close.
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    [Is Osborne in charge of the Treasury or is the Treasury in charge of Osborne?]

    Fuck your bullshit Hurst. No-one here knows that.

    10K Tax free - job done.

    Coalitionistas FTW!!!!!!
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,983
    david_herdson said:

    Good poll for Labour on the face of it. I still remain to be convinced that their vote isn't built on sand though.

    Isn't do you mean Is David?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,983
    bigjohnowls said:

    david_herdson said:

    Good poll for Labour on the face of it. I still remain to be convinced that their vote isn't built on sand though.

    Isn't do you mean Is David?
    Forget that comment just spotted what you mean,

    I see Lab floor at 35% unless UKIP has another surge.

    35% probably results in EICIPM
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    edited August 2014
    Ishmael_X said:

    HurstLlama said:

    taffys said:

    FPT
    The tories are doing badly partly because George Osborne is idiotically allowing the mao-ist leadership of HMRC to dictate his fiscal agenda. People are horrified that HMRC will soon be able to steal their deposits and make them pay inheritance tax before even dying.

    Osborne, incredibly for a conservative chancellor, has the voters thinking they would pay lower taxes under labour.

    I'm a thatcherite, but one consolation about the tories losing is that we can get rid of these big government corporatists masquerading as conservatives.

    I do sometimes wonder if Cameron and Osborne are doing it deliberately, pissing off ever group of the electorate likely to vote Conservative that is.

    "George, I am a bit concerned our polling figures seem to holding up, we are only a percent or two down on 2010"

    "Not a problem, the group most likely to vote for us are pensioners and they are the most likely to die. So how about I suggest we make them pay their inheritance tax before they are dead. That should piss 'em off"
    It is limited to the tiny minority of cases where gifts are made before death not to individuals but to a trust in an attempt to circumvent IHT, and the payment will be provisional, pending determination of whether the gift is valid or not. Do actually read stuff, rather than headlines about stuff. I don't say it is a good idea, but it is not the idea you think it is.
    If trusts are thought to be wrong then the correct thing to do is introduce legislation to ban them. If Parliament passes that legislation then all well and good. The idea that the Revenue can demand inheritance tax when a person is still alive on their own say so is tantamount to tyrany.

    I expect you agree with the idea that the Revenue should be able to seize the contents of bank accounts without having to get a court order. The Revenue never make mistakes, do they? Well, if they do their victim will only have to find a few thousands to take them to court to get back the money they didn't owe.

    If these proposals had come from Ed Balls they would be bad enough, that they come from a person purporting to be a Conservative is staggering. Politically, they are going to piss off people who could be expected to vote Conservative.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,810
    HurstLlama said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    HurstLlama said:

    taffys said:

    FPT
    The tories are doing badly partly because George Osborne is idiotically allowing the mao-ist leadership of HMRC to dictate his fiscal agenda. People are horrified that HMRC will soon be able to steal their deposits and make them pay inheritance tax before even dying.

    Osborne, incredibly for a conservative chancellor, has the voters thinking they would pay lower taxes under labour.

    I'm a thatcherite, but one consolation about the tories losing is that we can get rid of these big government corporatists masquerading as conservatives.

    I do sometimes wonder if Cameron and Osborne are doing it deliberately, pissing off ever group of the electorate likely to vote Conservative that is.

    "George, I am a bit concerned our polling figures seem to holding up, we are only a percent or two down on 2010"

    "Not a problem, the group most likely to vote for us are pensioners and they are the most likely to die. So how about I suggest we make them pay their inheritance tax before they are dead. That should piss 'em off"
    It's seems to be a request/suggestion from HMRC directly, rather than the government particularly.
    Now we have the idea that the Revenue can demand 40% of a persons estate while they are still alive.
    I certainly don't recall seeing anything about a proposal to charge inheritance tax prior to death.

    Please could you supply a link to this proposal.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    HurstLlama said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    HurstLlama said:

    taffys said:

    FPT
    The tories are doing badly partly because George Osborne is idiotically allowing the mao-ist leadership of HMRC to dictate his fiscal agenda. People are horrified that HMRC will soon be able to steal their deposits and make them pay inheritance tax before even dying.

    Osborne, incredibly for a conservative chancellor, has the voters thinking they would pay lower taxes under labour.

    I'm a thatcherite, but one consolation about the tories losing is that we can get rid of these big government corporatists masquerading as conservatives.

    I do sometimes wonder if Cameron and Osborne are doing it deliberately, pissing off ever group of the electorate likely to vote Conservative that is.

    "George, I am a bit concerned our polling figures seem to holding up, we are only a percent or two down on 2010"

    "Not a problem, the group most likely to vote for us are pensioners and they are the most likely to die. So how about I suggest we make them pay their inheritance tax before they are dead. That should piss 'em off"
    It's seems to be a request/suggestion from HMRC directly, rather than the government particularly.
    Is Osborne in charge of the Treasury or is the Treasury in charge of Osborne? Too often in seems like the later. He has already pushed for the treasury to be able to seize taxpayers assets without due process of law but merely on some clerk's say so and despite the Revenue's appalling record of making mistakes. Now we have the idea that the Revenue can demand 40% of a persons estate while they are still alive. All this from a supposedly Conservative chancellor.

    That some people think he might make a good leader of the Party is astonishing.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer sets the high-level objectives, but HMRC is separate managed from the Treasury.

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,361
    GIN1138 said:

    FPT

    perdix said:

    GIN1138 said:

    If Cameron (and Sam) are kicked out of Number Ten in utter and abject humiliation next year will it be Osborne's Pastygate fiasco wot ultimately did it?

    Rubbish. What are you smoking?

    You can directly trace back the Conservative's polling collapse to the 2012 budget:

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2

    Which went down like a plate of cold sick with the electorate.

    If time run's out for the Conservatives to turn things around, you can directly trace back all their problems to Pastygate and all the other nonsense Osborne created when he arrogantly went flitting off to America instead of staying here to sort out his budget.
    While that's true in terms of the Con vote share - and that is a hugely important factor - it's worth noting that the current pbc polling average has an almost identical Labour lead now to what it was in March 2012, immediately before the Omnishambles Budget; it's just that both parties have lost share, from 39.1-36.2 to 34.8-31.8.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    MarkHopkins said:

    HurstLlama said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    HurstLlama said:

    taffys said:

    FPT
    The tories are doing badly partly because George Osborne is idiotically allowing the mao-ist leadership of HMRC to dictate his fiscal agenda. People are horrified that HMRC will soon be able to steal their deposits and make them pay inheritance tax before even dying.

    Osborne, incredibly for a conservative chancellor, has the voters thinking they would pay lower taxes under labour.

    I'm a thatcherite, but one consolation about the tories losing is that we can get rid of these big government corporatists masquerading as conservatives.

    I do sometimes wonder if Cameron and Osborne are doing it deliberately, pissing off ever group of the electorate likely to vote Conservative that is.

    "George, I am a bit concerned our polling figures seem to holding up, we are only a percent or two down on 2010"

    "Not a problem, the group most likely to vote for us are pensioners and they are the most likely to die. So how about I suggest we make them pay their inheritance tax before they are dead. That should piss 'em off"
    It's seems to be a request/suggestion from HMRC directly, rather than the government particularly.
    Is Osborne in charge of the Treasury or is the Treasury in charge of Osborne? Too often in seems like the later. He has already pushed for the treasury to be able to seize taxpayers assets without due process of law but merely on some clerk's say so and despite the Revenue's appalling record of making mistakes. Now we have the idea that the Revenue can demand 40% of a persons estate while they are still alive. All this from a supposedly Conservative chancellor.

    That some people think he might make a good leader of the Party is astonishing.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer sets the high-level objectives, but HMRC is separate managed from the Treasury.

    Who is in charge of HMRC? Which politician is responsible for it?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,361
    bigjohnowls said:

    david_herdson said:

    Good poll for Labour on the face of it. I still remain to be convinced that their vote isn't built on sand though.

    Isn't do you mean Is David?
    No - I think there's a huge amount of soft support for Labour and wouldn't like to stake anything significant on them actually recording the kind of share that ICM give them, once Miliband comes under the scrutiny of an election campaign.
  • HughHugh Posts: 955
    HurstLlama said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    HurstLlama said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    HurstLlama said:

    taffys said:

    FPT
    The tories are doing badly partly because George Osborne is idiotically allowing the mao-ist leadership of HMRC to dictate his fiscal agenda. People are horrified that HMRC will soon be able to steal their deposits and make them pay inheritance tax before even dying.

    Osborne, incredibly for a conservative chancellor, has the voters thinking they would pay lower taxes under labour.

    I'm a thatcherite, but one consolation about the tories losing is that we can get rid of these big government corporatists masquerading as conservatives.

    I do sometimes wonder if Cameron and Osborne are doing it deliberately, pissing off ever group of the electorate likely to vote Conservative that is.

    "George, I am a bit concerned our polling figures seem to holding up, we are only a percent or two down on 2010"

    "Not a problem, the group most likely to vote for us are pensioners and they are the most likely to die. So how about I suggest we make them pay their inheritance tax before they are dead. That should piss 'em off"
    It's seems to be a request/suggestion from HMRC directly, rather than the government particularly.
    Is Osborne in charge of the Treasury or is the Treasury in charge of Osborne? Too often in seems like the later. He has already pushed for the treasury to be able to seize taxpayers assets without due process of law but merely on some clerk's say so and despite the Revenue's appalling record of making mistakes. Now we have the idea that the Revenue can demand 40% of a persons estate while they are still alive. All this from a supposedly Conservative chancellor.

    That some people think he might make a good leader of the Party is astonishing.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer sets the high-level objectives, but HMRC is separate managed from the Treasury.

    Who is in charge of HMRC? Which politician is responsible for it?
    What ARE you ranting on about? Link?
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    HurstLlama said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    HurstLlama said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    HurstLlama said:

    taffys said:

    FPT
    The tories are doing badly partly because George Osborne is idiotically allowing the mao-ist leadership of HMRC to dictate his fiscal agenda. People are horrified that HMRC will soon be able to steal their deposits and make them pay inheritance tax before even dying.

    Osborne, incredibly for a conservative chancellor, has the voters thinking they would pay lower taxes under labour.

    I'm a thatcherite, but one consolation about the tories losing is that we can get rid of these big government corporatists masquerading as conservatives.

    I do sometimes wonder if Cameron and Osborne are doing it deliberately, pissing off ever group of the electorate likely to vote Conservative that is.

    "George, I am a bit concerned our polling figures seem to holding up, we are only a percent or two down on 2010"

    "Not a problem, the group most likely to vote for us are pensioners and they are the most likely to die. So how about I suggest we make them pay their inheritance tax before they are dead. That should piss 'em off"
    It's seems to be a request/suggestion from HMRC directly, rather than the government particularly.
    Is Osborne in charge of the Treasury or is the Treasury in charge of Osborne? Too often in seems like the later. He has already pushed for the treasury to be able to seize taxpayers assets without due process of law but merely on some clerk's say so and despite the Revenue's appalling record of making mistakes. Now we have the idea that the Revenue can demand 40% of a persons estate while they are still alive. All this from a supposedly Conservative chancellor.

    That some people think he might make a good leader of the Party is astonishing.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer sets the high-level objectives, but HMRC is separate managed from the Treasury.

    Who is in charge of HMRC? Which politician is responsible for it?
    HMRC is a non-ministerial department; this makes it different from most other government departments, which work under the direct day-to-day control of a minister.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-revenue-customs/groups/hmrc-commissioners
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    MikeL said:

    HurstLlama said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    HurstLlama said:

    taffys said:

    FPT
    The tories are doing badly partly because George Osborne is idiotically allowing the mao-ist leadership of HMRC to dictate his fiscal agenda. People are horrified that HMRC will soon be able to steal their deposits and make them pay inheritance tax before even dying.

    Osborne, incredibly for a conservative chancellor, has the voters thinking they would pay lower taxes under labour.

    I'm a thatcherite, but one consolation about the tories losing is that we can get rid of these big government corporatists masquerading as conservatives.

    I do sometimes wonder if Cameron and Osborne are doing it deliberately, pissing off ever group of the electorate likely to vote Conservative that is.

    "George, I am a bit concerned our polling figures seem to holding up, we are only a percent or two down on 2010"

    "Not a problem, the group most likely to vote for us are pensioners and they are the most likely to die. So how about I suggest we make them pay their inheritance tax before they are dead. That should piss 'em off"
    It's seems to be a request/suggestion from HMRC directly, rather than the government particularly.
    Now we have the idea that the Revenue can demand 40% of a persons estate while they are still alive.
    I certainly don't recall seeing anything about a proposal to charge inheritance tax prior to death.

    Please could you supply a link to this proposal.
    Here you go

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/11025017/Savers-could-pay-death-tax-while-they-are-still-living.html
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    Cameron is dead and buried. Or at the least, joining Clegg as a zombie politician, dead but still propelled forward as if alive.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    FINAL Scottish Referendum McARSE Projection Countdown

    12 hours
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,810
    HurstLlama said:

    MikeL said:

    HurstLlama said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    HurstLlama said:

    taffys said:

    FPT
    The tories are doing badly partly because George Osborne is idiotically allowing the mao-ist leadership of HMRC to dictate his fiscal agenda. People are horrified that HMRC will soon be able to steal their deposits and make them pay inheritance tax before even dying.

    Osborne, incredibly for a conservative chancellor, has the voters thinking they would pay lower taxes under labour.

    I'm a thatcherite, but one consolation about the tories losing is that we can get rid of these big government corporatists masquerading as conservatives.

    I do sometimes wonder if Cameron and Osborne are doing it deliberately, pissing off ever group of the electorate likely to vote Conservative that is.

    "George, I am a bit concerned our polling figures seem to holding up, we are only a percent or two down on 2010"

    "Not a problem, the group most likely to vote for us are pensioners and they are the most likely to die. So how about I suggest we make them pay their inheritance tax before they are dead. That should piss 'em off"
    It's seems to be a request/suggestion from HMRC directly, rather than the government particularly.
    Now we have the idea that the Revenue can demand 40% of a persons estate while they are still alive.
    I certainly don't recall seeing anything about a proposal to charge inheritance tax prior to death.

    Please could you supply a link to this proposal.
    Here you go

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/11025017/Savers-could-pay-death-tax-while-they-are-still-living.html
    Well here's another link - looks like a complete non-story.

    http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/hmrc-ponders-inheritance-tax-reform-2

    It's hardly going to impact voting intentions - the average member of the public is not getting involved in complex tax avoidance schemes.

    And anyone rich enough to be doing so is likely to be voting Con anyway!
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    MarkHopkins said:

    HurstLlama said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    HurstLlama said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    HurstLlama said:

    taffys said:

    FPT
    The tories are doing badly partly because George Osborne is idiotically allowing the mao-ist leadership of HMRC to dictate his fiscal agenda. People are horrified that HMRC will soon be able to steal their deposits and make them pay inheritance tax before even dying.

    Osborne, incredibly for a conservative chancellor, has the voters thinking they would pay lower taxes under labour.

    I'm a thatcherite, but one consolation about the tories losing is that we can get rid of these big government corporatists masquerading as conservatives.

    I do sometimes wonder if Cameron and Osborne are doing it deliberately, pissing off ever group of the electorate likely to vote Conservative that is.

    "George, I am a bit concerned our polling figures seem to holding up, we are only a percent or two down on 2010"

    "Not a problem, the group most likely to vote for us are pensioners and they are the most likely to die. So how about I suggest we make them pay their inheritance tax before they are dead. That should piss 'em off"
    It's seems to be a request/suggestion from HMRC directly, rather than the government particularly.
    Is Osborne in charge of the Treasury or is the Treasury in charge of Osborne? Too often in seems like the later. He has already pushed for the treasury to be able to seize taxpayers assets without due process of law but merely on some clerk's say so and despite the Revenue's appalling record of making mistakes. Now we have the idea that the Revenue can demand 40% of a persons estate while they are still alive. All this from a supposedly Conservative chancellor.

    That some people think he might make a good leader of the Party is astonishing.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer sets the high-level objectives, but HMRC is separate managed from the Treasury.

    Who is in charge of HMRC? Which politician is responsible for it?
    HMRC is a non-ministerial department; this makes it different from most other government departments, which work under the direct day-to-day control of a minister.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-revenue-customs/groups/hmrc-commissioners
    So George Osborne is the chap who tells the Revenue what he wants them to do and not to do. He can allow them to set the rules and he can stop them. Anything requiring legislation has to come from/through him. He is in fact in charge, though, correctly, may not meddle in day to day cases.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,983
    JackW said:

    FINAL Scottish Referendum McARSE Projection Countdown

    12 hours

    Ed Milliband will never be Scottish FM?
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    HurstLlama said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    HurstLlama said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    HurstLlama said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    HurstLlama said:

    taffys said:

    FPT
    [edited...] because George Osborne is idiotically allowing the mao-ist leadership of HMRC to dictate his fiscal agenda. People are horrified that HMRC will soon be able to steal their deposits and make them pay inheritance tax before even dying.

    Osborne, incredibly for a conservative chancellor, has the voters thinking they would pay lower taxes under labour.

    I'm a thatcherite, but one consolation about the tories losing is that we can get rid of these big government corporatists masquerading as conservatives.

    I do sometimes wonder if Cameron and Osborne are doing it deliberately, pissing off ever group of the electorate likely to vote Conservative that is.

    "George, I am a bit concerned our polling figures seem to holding up, we are only a percent or two down on 2010"

    "Not a problem, the group most likely to vote for us are pensioners and they are the most likely to die. So how about I suggest we make them pay their inheritance tax before they are dead. That should piss 'em off"
    It's seems to be a request/suggestion from HMRC directly, rather than the government particularly.
    Is Osborne in charge of the Treasury or is the Treasury in charge of Osborne? Too often in seems like the later. He has already pushed for the treasury to be able to seize taxpayers assets without due process of law but merely on some clerk's say so and despite the Revenue's appalling record of making mistakes. Now we have the idea that the Revenue can demand 40% of a persons estate while they are still alive. All this from a supposedly Conservative chancellor.

    That some people think he might make a good leader of the Party is astonishing.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer sets the high-level objectives, but HMRC is separate managed from the Treasury.

    Who is in charge of HMRC? Which politician is responsible for it?
    HMRC is a non-ministerial department; this makes it different from most other government departments, which work under the direct day-to-day control of a minister.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-revenue-customs/groups/hmrc-commissioners
    So George Osborne is the chap who tells the Revenue what he wants them to do and not to do. He can allow them to set the rules and he can stop them. Anything requiring legislation has to come from/through him. He is in fact in charge, though, correctly, may not meddle in day to day cases.
    Eh??? Are you claiming to have never watched either Yes, Minister or The Thick of It in this post????
  • HughHugh Posts: 955
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-gY20Xjrws
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,114
    If Con/Lab score the same, the lower the matched score the better for Labour I think
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,086
    david_herdson said:

    Good poll for Labour on the face of it. I still remain to be convinced that their vote isn't built on sand though.

    As opposed to the Tory vote that's built on concrete?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    bigjohnowls said:

    JackW said:

    FINAL Scottish Referendum McARSE Projection Countdown

    12 hours

    Ed Milliband will never be Scottish FM?
    Ed who ?

  • HughHugh Posts: 955
    murali_s said:

    david_herdson said:

    Good poll for Labour on the face of it. I still remain to be convinced that their vote isn't built on sand though.

    As opposed to the Tory vote that's built on concrete?
    Rock solid and will only increase as Crossbackswing happens, like it always does.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,769
    edited August 2014
    MikeL said:

    It's hardly going to impact voting intentions - the average member of the public is not getting involved in complex tax avoidance schemes.

    At this point any short-term (pre-2015) VI impact is going to come from how it's reported not what's actually happening.

    But as fair as the long-term impact goes, extensions of arbitrary power nearly always starts out as targeted at [small, unpopular group], before gradually being expanded to cover more and more people. We'd need to look at the specific text of what's being allowed and think about what it would permit if stretched to the limit, rather than what the people proposing it say they'll use it for.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    @MikeL

    "And anyone rich enough to be doing so is likely to be voting Con anyway"

    Anyone rich enough to be affected by inheritance tax will include quite a lot of pensioners in the South East who own relatively modest houses. They might normally be expected to vote Conservative but that is not an excuse for a Conservative chancellor to introduce yet another measure that will annoy his core vote.

    Cameron and Osborne seem to have made a habit of doing just that.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Did we have a chorus from PBTories all singing in unison "ICM is the Gold Standard" ?
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    surbiton said:

    Did we have a chorus from PBTories all singing in unison "ICM is the Gold Standard" ?

    That would be the new new gold standard.

    I'm all Blazered up ready for my fag (cigarette) runs.
  • perdixperdix Posts: 1,806
    MikeL said:

    HurstLlama said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    HurstLlama said:

    taffys said:

    FPT
    The tories are doing badly partly because George Osborne is idiotically allowing the mao-ist leadership of HMRC to dictate his fiscal agenda. People are horrified that HMRC will soon be able to steal their deposits and make them pay inheritance tax before even dying.

    Osborne, incredibly for a conservative chancellor, has the voters thinking they would pay lower taxes under labour.

    I'm a thatcherite, but one consolation about the tories losing is that we can get rid of these big government corporatists masquerading as conservatives.

    I do sometimes wonder if Cameron and Osborne are doing it deliberately, pissing off ever group of the electorate likely to vote Conservative that is.

    "George, I am a bit concerned our polling figures seem to holding up, we are only a percent or two down on 2010"

    "Not a problem, the group most likely to vote for us are pensioners and they are the most likely to die. So how about I suggest we make them pay their inheritance tax before they are dead. That should piss 'em off"
    It's seems to be a request/suggestion from HMRC directly, rather than the government particularly.
    Now we have the idea that the Revenue can demand 40% of a persons estate while they are still alive.
    I certainly don't recall seeing anything about a proposal to charge inheritance tax prior to death.

    Please could you supply a link to this proposal.
    Basically conjecture from the Daily Telgraph.

  • HughHugh Posts: 955
    surbiton said:

    Did we have a chorus from PBTories all singing in unison "ICM is the Gold Standard" ?

    No the PBTories kind of coughed sheepishly and changed the subject.

    It'll be Gold Standard again next time it shows Crossbacklegover. IF it does.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    Definition of "Gold Standard"
    Good Omens (for) Labour Decline
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    Smarmeron said:

    Definition of "Gold Standard"
    Good Omens (for) Labour Decline

    That will be you fucked then?

  • HarryLimeHarryLime Posts: 11
    "The real problem for Cameron is that time is running out for the Tories".

    For that to be true, it would have to be very unusual to see a big swing in the polls in the last nine months before a general election. But it's not unusual at all. There were swings of over 10% in the last nine months ahead of GE2010, 1992 and 1987. Those swings always went in the direction of the governing party.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    Not really, as a Pragmatic Communist, I see the rest of you as right wing nut jobs. (though perfectly normal otherwise)
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    That's quite a label to live up to Smarmy...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,895
    Good evening, everyone.

    Decided to stop watching The 100. Nice premise, not engaging enough.

    On-topic, fairly substantial move, but we've seen the cross-over hokey-cokey before.

    Just a month and a week until the Scots go to the polls.
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    [Just a month and a week until the Scots go to the polls.]

    Yahoza! Honestly, thanks for the reminder (I'm not even being sarcastic) - Don't all us PB Scots just know it??
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,715
    One for TSE:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11026023/Aaron-Rush-Graduate-leaves-letter-for-douchebag-thief-who-stole-his-bicycle.html

    Particularly enjoyed the threat of a visit from "Her Majesty's finest"!
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    OT.
    By the time GE2015 comes around ICM's reputation will be in tatters.

    From gold to rust in 10 months.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @JBriskin
    It isn't that hard to grasp. Communism doesn't work because of human nature, Capitalism doesn't work because of human nature.
    Both systems fail at the same point, so until we come up with a solution, we should try not to make ourselves extinct.
  • HughHugh Posts: 955
    HarryLime said:

    "The real problem for Cameron is that time is running out for the Tories".

    For that to be true, it would have to be very unusual to see a big swing in the polls in the last nine months before a general election. But it's not unusual at all. There were swings of over 10% in the last nine months ahead of GE2010, 1992 and 1987. Those swings always went in the direction of the governing party.

    lol

    Switchoverback! Always happens!
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    edited August 2014
    Smarmeron said:

    @JBriskin
    It isn't that hard to grasp. Communism doesn't work because of human nature, Capitalism doesn't work because of human nature.
    Both systems fail at the same point, so until we come up with a solution, we should try not to make ourselves extinct.

    In our time together here (how sweet!) - the Zereoth rule of Robotics has been referenced.



  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,114
    HurstLlama said:

    @MikeL

    "And anyone rich enough to be doing so is likely to be voting Con anyway"

    Anyone rich enough to be affected by inheritance tax will include quite a lot of pensioners in the South East who own relatively modest houses. They might normally be expected to vote Conservative but that is not an excuse for a Conservative chancellor to introduce yet another measure that will annoy his core vote.

    Cameron and Osborne seem to have made a habit of doing just that.

    Isn't he going to scrap IHT on primary residence in the November statement or pre-election budget ?

    That would get ALOT of votes.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,895
    Mr. Smarmeron, capitalism doesn't work?

    It's not a perfect system because of the boom and bust cycle, but saying something's imperfect is only useful if it leads to a better alternative.

    I'm not sure there is one. In much the same way Churchill remarked democracy was a bad system that happened to be better than the rest [or words to that effect] so is capitalism the least worst economic approach.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Pulpstar said:

    HurstLlama said:

    @MikeL

    "And anyone rich enough to be doing so is likely to be voting Con anyway"

    Anyone rich enough to be affected by inheritance tax will include quite a lot of pensioners in the South East who own relatively modest houses. They might normally be expected to vote Conservative but that is not an excuse for a Conservative chancellor to introduce yet another measure that will annoy his core vote.

    Cameron and Osborne seem to have made a habit of doing just that.

    Isn't he going to scrap IHT on primary residence in the November statement or pre-election budget ?

    That would get ALOT of votes.
    I agree that would be terrifically popular. If he does it.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,114
    Pulpstar said:

    HurstLlama said:

    @MikeL

    "And anyone rich enough to be doing so is likely to be voting Con anyway"

    Anyone rich enough to be affected by inheritance tax will include quite a lot of pensioners in the South East who own relatively modest houses. They might normally be expected to vote Conservative but that is not an excuse for a Conservative chancellor to introduce yet another measure that will annoy his core vote.

    Cameron and Osborne seem to have made a habit of doing just that.

    Isn't he going to scrap IHT on primary residence in the November statement or pre-election budget ?

    That would get ALOT of votes.
    Not only would it win alot of votes, it'd also get them precisely where CON is already strongest thus making the switch vote more likely to be a winner ^_~
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,895
    Incidentally, trying to make people pay inheritance tax while they're still alive is bloody ridiculous.

    Are we to pay income tax before we earn it? Will businesses pay corporation tax before they make a profit?
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Morris_Dancer
    The problem with capitalism is that while it has many upsides, it has no moral compass.
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    HurstLlama said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HurstLlama said:

    @MikeL

    "And anyone rich enough to be doing so is likely to be voting Con anyway"

    Anyone rich enough to be affected by inheritance tax will include quite a lot of pensioners in the South East who own relatively modest houses. They might normally be expected to vote Conservative but that is not an excuse for a Conservative chancellor to introduce yet another measure that will annoy his core vote.

    Cameron and Osborne seem to have made a habit of doing just that.

    Isn't he going to scrap IHT on primary residence in the November statement or pre-election budget ?

    That would get ALOT of votes.
    I agree that would be terrifically popular. If he does it.
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HurstLlama said:

    @MikeL

    "And anyone rich enough to be doing so is likely to be voting Con anyway"

    Anyone rich enough to be affected by inheritance tax will include quite a lot of pensioners in the South East who own relatively modest houses. They might normally be expected to vote Conservative but that is not an excuse for a Conservative chancellor to introduce yet another measure that will annoy his core vote.

    Cameron and Osborne seem to have made a habit of doing just that.

    Isn't he going to scrap IHT on primary residence in the November statement or pre-election budget ?

    That would get ALOT of votes.
    Not only would it win alot of votes, it'd also get them precisely where CON is already strongest thus making the switch vote more likely to be a winner ^_~
    Well that's not going to happen bitches, Coalitionistas FTW

  • Edin_RokzEdin_Rokz Posts: 516
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Incidentally, trying to make people pay inheritance tax while they're still alive is bloody ridiculous.

    Are we to pay income tax before we earn it? Will businesses pay corporation tax before they make a profit?

    Will some companies actually pay tax on their UK earnings?
  • HughHugh Posts: 955
    No-one breathlessly jumping in with tonight's YouGov?



  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,715
    SeanT said:

    Perhaps a Miliband government is the price we have to pay for keeping the UK together.

    If so, it is a price worth paying. Losing Scotland, dividing the nation, would be a tragedy for the ages.

    Electing Labour in 2015 would, by contrast, be merely a disaster. We would recover.

    I'd rather have a EICIPM and a United Kingdom, than Cameron and a rumpUK.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,715
    Hugh said:

    No-one breathlessly jumping in with tonight's YouGov?



    Has it been published? If so, what are the figures like?
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    SeanT said:

    Perhaps a Miliband government is the price we have to pay for keeping the UK together.

    If so, it is a price worth paying. Losing Scotland, dividing the nation, would be a tragedy for the ages.

    Electing Labour in 2015 would, by contrast, be merely a disaster. We would recover.

    [like]
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Good evening, everyone.

    Decided to stop watching The 100. Nice premise, not engaging enough.

    I'd give it another go, though I was the opposite - I thought the premise was silly and stupid, but it proved a lot more engaging than I thought it would. Surprised me on several occasions, I thought it was setting up various cliches and then it went in another direction.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,810
    edited August 2014
    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead by four points: CON 33%, LAB 37%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%

    Rock solid yet again.
  • HughHugh Posts: 955
    RobD said:

    Hugh said:

    No-one breathlessly jumping in with tonight's YouGov?



    Has it been published? If so, what are the figures like?
    Dunno. Guessing "we don't have" Backswingover if the PBTories haven't bothered.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @Sun_Politics: YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead by four points: CON 33%, LAB 37%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    wildly off topic, but you have to love the headline.

    "Spain’s first bondage hotel tied up by red tape"

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/spain/11025877/Spains-first-bondage-hotel-tied-up-by-red-tape.html
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    RobD said:

    SeanT said:

    Perhaps a Miliband government is the price we have to pay for keeping the UK together.

    If so, it is a price worth paying. Losing Scotland, dividing the nation, would be a tragedy for the ages.

    Electing Labour in 2015 would, by contrast, be merely a disaster. We would recover.

    I'd rather have a EICIPM and a United Kingdom, than Cameron and a rumpUK.
    While I'd probably prefer a Cameron and original recipe UK, if possible, despite thinking Miliband will probably do fine, if underwhelming, if those are the two options we have, EICIPM or Cameron in a rUK, then I'm in agreement on preferring the former.

    That was probably a long winded way of saying 'I agree'.
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Evening all, in deep shock at the double crossover and the fact ICM has shown such a large Labour lead. I'll get over it :)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    Floater said:

    wildly off topic, but you have to love the headline.

    "Spain’s first bondage hotel tied up by red tape"

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/spain/11025877/Spains-first-bondage-hotel-tied-up-by-red-tape.html

    The sort of thing headline writers dream of cropping up.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,983
    Tonights You Gov LAB 347 CON 259 LD 18 ~(UKPR)

    EICIPM

    Best polling for Ed since Ilkley PB meeting.

    When is Manchester one?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,895
    Mr. kle4, just about to leave for the night but before I do, have you seen the whole thing? I'm on episode 6 or something like that.
  • hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758
    I don't believe polls showing the Tories ahead, because I don't think they are likely to get to that stage until after the 2015 budget. No doubt GO will offer some incentives to their target voters and challenge Labour to say whether they will commit to keeping them.

    It is quite possible that the Tories may win about 2% more of the vote than Labour, but I think Labour will do very well in the marginals they need to win and end up 30 or 40 seats ahead of the Tories. It would then be quite funny if Labour decided to do a deal with the unionist parties and tell Nick Clegg to get lost It is quite possible that DUP, PC and SNP would be interested in taking part in government, when further powers to the devolved assemblies will be under discussion.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. kle4, just about to leave for the night but before I do, have you seen the whole thing?

    Yes - Well worth a second season, after a bit of an uneven start.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,895
    Mr. kle4. Bah. Right, I shall persevere then (although I missed the latter half of episode 6).
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 10,032
    hucks67 said:

    I don't believe polls showing the Tories ahead, because I don't think they are likely to get to that stage until after the 2015 budget. No doubt GO will offer some incentives to their target voters and challenge Labour to say whether they will commit to keeping them.

    It is quite possible that the Tories may win about 2% more of the vote than Labour, but I think Labour will do very well in the marginals they need to win and end up 30 or 40 seats ahead of the Tories. It would then be quite funny if Labour decided to do a deal with the unionist parties and tell Nick Clegg to get lost It is quite possible that DUP, PC and SNP would be interested in taking part in government, when further powers to the devolved assemblies will be under discussion.

    If Labour are just short of a majority you have the NI parties and the Nats who could help out. The trouble is at what price? Presumably for special treatment at the expense of the English? It would at least be preferable to deal with all the NI parties rather than just one. The Tories' deals with the Ulster Unionists were bad enough, but the DUP?

  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Good evening, everyone.

    Decided to stop watching The 100. Nice premise, not engaging enough.

    On-topic, fairly substantial move, but we've seen the cross-over hokey-cokey before.

    Just a month and a week until the Scots go to the polls.

    Its not the greatest series.

    Mind you, nowhere near as poor as "True Detective" <<shudder>
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,392
    Ouch. There is doing the decent thing for Unionists fighting for the cause in Scotland and then this. Really bad poll from the gold standard. It will have a pretty significant impact on the next Fisher projection on its own.

    Went to see William McIlvaney (of Laidlaw fame) at the Edinburgh Book Festival tonight. He is voting yes he told us. You cannot get away from this in Scotland at the moment. He got some claps from the audience for this but not many. Of course Edinburgh culture vultures are a tough crowd for Yes.

    He has a brilliant use of language. More in sorrow he said that Labour were like politics with Alzheimer's. Every few years they had to ask the electorate where they had come from because they had forgotten.

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Incidentally, trying to make people pay inheritance tax while they're still alive is bloody ridiculous.

    Are we to pay income tax before we earn it? Will businesses pay corporation tax before they make a profit?

    Yes I think that policy must have been designed by a UKIP mole inside CCHQ.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    SeanT said:

    Back on topic - Iraq - where the F is Germany? How does the richest and most powerful country in Europe get away with doing the cube root of f*ck all when it comes to foreign policy?


    80 million people. Serious industrial power. A cultural aversion to "genocide". Yet absolute silence on Iraq and ISIS??

    Germany's pacifism needs to end, they need to help the UK and France is leading Europe, instead of hiding away like a bunch of pussies. Especially as America now shrinks from anything resembling intervention.

    They even seem to dislike being reminded of how much they dominate Europe, given their strong economy among all their other positives, preferring to believe we are all one big equal family, but it isn't helpful. They are more important, Merkel's word and her internal party and coalition politics force Europe to pivot to their tune, and they need to accept their power if it is to be harnessed properly for them and everyone else in Europe, if they wish to contribute in all matters for the benefit of the Union as they would I am sure wish.
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,832
    If you've not seen it - why Nick Clegg is in trouble (apparantly, although I'm not convinced!)

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/seth-alexander-thevoz/nick-clegg-is-in-trouble_b_5667836.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,320
    The Raid: straightforward plot, amazing violence.
    The Raid 2: more confusing plot, amazing violence.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025