politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why positive poll ratings on economic competence might not

Can I admit to feeling sorry for the Conservatives? Yes, they are efficient is some ways, far more so than Labour who can be incompetent on a massive scale, but the "fairness" aspect will always go against them.

Unfortunately, many people compare their situation only with others who may well be better off. If the rich get richer faster than you do - it's unfair. If they get poorer faster than you do, you feel better. The famous parable of the vineyard writ large. A one percent increase when everyone else gets nothing is better than you getting 5% when others get 10%.

The 50p tax was a case in point. It didn't affect those who earned "normal" wages at all but it rankled with many. The economic arguments were iffy, but the political arguments against were clear-cut. Even a seven-year-old could have told them.

But Labour, for the same reason, is vulnerable when people see others they regard as "skivers" being rewarded.

@volcanopete
Compulsory voting with the addition of NOTA on the ballot paper would be my preferred solution.

CD13 said:

The 50p tax was a case in point. It didn't affect those who earned "normal" wages at all but it rankled with many. The economic arguments were iffy, but the political arguments against were clear-cut. Even a seven-year-old could have told them.

But that is the whole point of politics.

Can you reform public opinion from the point where 'tax cuts for millionaires' is bad to the point where "adjusting tax rates to maximise the income" is good

dr_spyn said:

volcanopete said:

The biggest potential change to public perception of the Tory brand could have taken place if the Tory party had followed through Osborne's "We are all in it together" as if they meant it.The 2012 Budget which gave away the"tax cuts for millionaires" ended this possibility and through it into reverse,largely through Duncan Smith's actions with the bedroom tax,closure of the ILF,20% cuts in the switch from DLA to PIP ,deaths which have occurred following a WCA assessment finding they were fit for work.
I said at the time Osborne cutting the 50% rate was political suicide as it completely destroyed

continued on page 94.

whatever credibility he had in his "We are all in this together" mantra.

@Neil
It's kind of difficult to do a poll of them, so we will have to leave that question hanging.

Scott_P said:

Can you reform public opinion from the point where 'tax cuts for millionaires' is bad to the point where "adjusting tax rates to maximise the income" is good

They didnt do it to maximise the income though - their own analysis concluded it would lose them money. Let's not rewrite history.

@smarmy

All I can say is that I'm prepared to die to stand up to your odious idea of forcing me to vote against my will.

In defence of people who don't vote - it may be wrong to say they just don't care or are disrespectful to those who died for the right to vote. It's hard for those of us on here with strong opinions to accept, but quite a lot of people just don't have strong feelings towards any party. They might see good and bad in each but struggle for a preference, particularly when they always fight over the centre ground whatever their personal instincts might be. I didn't vote as an 18y/o not because I didn't care (I stayed up to watch the results), I just struggled to decide who I should back.

Scott,

"Can you reform public opinion from the point where 'tax cuts for millionaires' is bad to the point where "adjusting tax rates to maximise the income" is good."

Tony and Ali Campbell could have done it. They persuaded MPs that invading a foreign country with a secular government was a good idea - but it took time.

You'd need to spend two years beforehand softening up people before you finally went ahead.

The Europhiles have spent forty years pretending that the EC was always going to be a political union, and that's what we voted for. Had they asked if we wanted a political union in 1975, we wouldn't have stayed in.

Smarmeron said:

@Neil
Compulsory voting is not perfect, however I would couple it with an extra state holiday, and a rationalization of the different ballots to coincide, instead of them being at different times.

Thankfully it wont ever happen.

Neil said:

They didnt do it to maximise the income though - their own analysis concluded it would lose them money. Let's not rewrite history.

No it didn't. The analysis on static assumptions showed it might lose a small amount of revenue. But, as any fule no, static assumptions, ignoring behavioural changes, are not likely to be borne out by reality. Because those behavioural changes are hard to quantify, the OBR originally declined to take them into account in its forecasts. That doesn't mean that the behavioural changes aren't real.

This is an absolutely superb example of Labour spin-is-everything vs Conservative good-government. Everyone agrees that 50p is too high and is counter productive both in terms of tax revenue and and more importantly on the message it sends out to entrepreneurs. (That's why Labour didn't bring it in when they were in government until the last few weeks, and why Darling emphasised even then that it should be temporary). Labour's argument is entirely that the substance doesn't matter, because it's all about being able to say that the Tories favour the rich.

Cynical spin vs substance. You get what you vote for.

@MonikerDiCanio
Democracy should be all of our business.
A growing detachment of people from politics is never a good thing, as it usually ends with a percentage of people trying alternatives to democracy.

JosiasJessop said:

O/T:
Sad news: Ferguson's shipyard on the Lower Clyde has gone into administration. Eighty jobs are under threat.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-28803561

Sadly bowing to the inevitable.

Another Better Together benefit

Richard_Nabavi said:

Neil said:

They didnt do it to maximise the income though - their own analysis concluded it would lose them money. Let's not rewrite history.

No it didn't. The analysis on static assumptions showed it might lose a small amount of revenue.

No, Richard, re-read the Red Book. A static analysis would have showed it lost billions. The Red Book figures take behavioural effects into account. Even using heroic behavioural assumptions the Red Book still showed it lost money. We have to stop rewriting history on this.

isam said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

isam said:

Ukip will scrap hospital parking charges

http://www.ukip.org/ukip_backs_daily_express_crusade_against_rip_off_hospital_parking_charges

There are two large general hospitals within 10 miles of me. Both have charges for their parking. Both car parks are usually almost full. The parking cost is unwelcome but it does improve chances of getting a space. Free will lead to abuse. Lower charges would be the best way to go to test their effects on a case by case basis.

Seems to me the best way is to give free tickets at reception to genuine visitors/patients and charge big for peopl using the car park for shopping/commuting

And how exactly would you make that work? Any system, such as you suggest, would be open to abuse, would require all sorts of additional staff to implement.

How do you stop someone from being a visitor and then using the car park for 6 hours afterwards so they can go off and do other things?

How can someone check to see if a car is parked by a legitimate user or not?

And where is the money going to come from to pay for all the extra staff as well as having to make up the shortfall in income? Oh yes - clamping down on 'Health Tourism' - and what new measures do you actually propose to collect all of this extra money? Details are needed if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise it is just a cheap bit of populism - right out of the New Labour spin book.

rcs1000 said:

Re UK GDP

Where's @BenM when you need him?

Charles bet him £10 last year at evens that UK GDP would be greater than 2%
I offered BenM 3/2 to try and entice him into another bet, but no joy :-(

To be fair to @BenM he conceeded a few weeks ago & agreed to settle up by giving a tenner to his local Anglican church, which I assume he's done

Smarmeron said:

@MonikerDiCanio
Democracy should be all of our business.
A growing detachment of people from politics is never a good thing, as it usually ends with a percentage of people trying alternatives to democracy.

The Totalitarian Principle states: "Everything not forbidden is compulsory." No thanks.

Neil said:

No, Richard, re-read the Red Book. A static analysis would have showed it lost billions. The Red Book figures take behavioural effects into account. Even using heroic behavioural assumptions the Red Book still showed it lost money. We have to stop rewriting history on this.

Their central forecast taking behavioural effects into account (hardly 'heroic assumptions') was that it was neutral in simple revenue terms (to be precise, a net cost of £100 million, but the margin of error was much greater than that). That did not take into account the effect on the economy of the message being set to business.

Neil said:

oxfordsimon said:

Otherwise it is just a cheap bit of populism - right out of the New Labour spin book.

They are a political party - what do you want? If their populism comes cheap then that's better than most. Look what Tory populism on immigration might cost us!

The populism might be cheap - but the real costs are not. The money has to be found somewhere - and the vagueness of the announcement shows that they haven't actually worked on the details.

If UKIP want to be taken seriously as a party that aspires to actually running things (rather than just sniping from the sidelines) then it needs to have policy detail.

@RN

I'll take that as you accepting that it was not a static analysis!

I look forward to peer-reviewing the PhD on the real economic impact of secret messages to business

Compulsory voting?

If you watch 'Pointless', you'll discover that a proportion of the population don't even know that Cameron is Conservative or that Boris is not a leftie. And as for Ed, they wouldn't even have heard of him. Why add about 30% of random votes to the mix?

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Smarmeron said:

@DavidL
Many of those people you mention need help from the state to survive, despite being in full time work. As for the part timers, those on zero hours contracts, and the newly self employed?
The majority of the latter two are even more heavily dependent. (there were always positive benefits of them for certain sections)

Are they better off? Yes they are. The combination of earning and generous (compared to the alternative) in work benefits makes sure they are. 2 million of them. It is a remarkable achievement.

I'm old enough to remember a time when people on the left thought that reducing unemployment was a good thing.

That was probably when jobs were not generally some pathetically low paid offering without any actual contracted hours as offered by the capitalists of today.

Neil said:

@RN

I'll take that as you accepting that it was not a static analysis!

I look forward to peer-reviewing the PhD on the real economic impact of secret messages to business

Irrespective of any actual loss/gain, there's a large difference between choosing a rate to maximise revenue and choosing a rate that's fair and reasonble.

Or does the concept of fairness only apply to the less well-off?

Neil said:

oxfordsimon said:

If UKIP want to be taken seriously as a party that aspires to actually running things (rather than just sniping from the sidelines) then it needs to have policy detail.

The last thing it needs is policy detail. And the last people it needs to take advice from are supporters of other parties.

So UKIP don't actually want to do policy detail? How are they going to stand up to scrutiny - or do they just want to be a haven for protest votes?

I thought UKIP wanted to be taken seriously - but clearly not. They apparently just want to make noise.

This is a great thread!!

Anorak said:

Neil said:

@RN

I'll take that as you accepting that it was not a static analysis!

I look forward to peer-reviewing the PhD on the real economic impact of secret messages to business

Irrespective of any actual loss/gain, there's a large difference between choosing a rate to maximise revenue and choosing a rate that's fair and reasonble.

Or does the concept of fairness only apply to the less well-off?

I wasnt discussing fairness - I was disagreeing with the assertion that it was done to maximise revenue. It wasnt.

@CD13
NOTA on the ballot paper should cover most of those who are not sure.
30% of the population not knowing is a sign that something is going badly wrong with our system.

DavidL said:

Smarmeron said:

@DavidL
Many of those people you mention need help from the state to survive, despite being in full time work. As for the part timers, those on zero hours contracts, and the newly self employed?
The majority of the latter two are even more heavily dependent. (there were always positive benefits of them for certain sections)

Are they better off? Yes they are. The combination of earning and generous (compared to the alternative) in work benefits makes sure they are. 2 million of them. It is a remarkable achievement.

I'm old enough to remember a time when people on the left thought that reducing unemployment was a good thing.



That was probably when jobs were not generally some pathetically low paid offering without any actual contracted hours as offered by the capitalists of today.

Fortunately, that's not an accurate description of most peoples' conditions of work. And, even poorly-paid work is better than unemployment.

bigjohnowls said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@PopulusPolls: Latest Populus VI: Lab 35 (-2), Con 32 (-1), LD 9 (=), UKIP 14 (+2), Oth 9 (=). Tables here: http://t.co/E1d151pZBr

Is this the best Friday Populus for Lab for weeks?

Yep, the best Friday poll for Labour since 12th June.

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

This is the problem for the Tories - Just as it looks like they are making progress, out comes another poll that takes them backwards again.

One step forward, two steps back, means that in the end they are going nowhere fast. And the clock is ticking down now...

I think we all know that after yesterday 0% tie, Sunday's YouGov poll will have the Labour lead back to 4-5% again.

As for getting On Topic, maybe the Tories would get more credit for their economic achievements if they hadn't got a Chancellor who appears to be utterly toxic with most voters?

malcolmg said:

JosiasJessop said:

O/T:
Sad news: Ferguson's shipyard on the Lower Clyde has gone into administration. Eighty jobs are under threat.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-28803561

Sadly bowing to the inevitable.

Another Better Together benefit

Considering Ferguson's main (and virtually only) customer was CalMac, I doubt it's got anything to do with Better Together.

And in the meantime, the remaining Clydeside yard(s) can be thankful for the union and the Type 26 Frigate. That'll keep them going for a few years...

isam said:

Ukip will scrap hospital parking charges

http://www.ukip.org/ukip_backs_daily_express_crusade_against_rip_off_hospital_parking_charges

How will you replace th lost income for hospitals? A higher deficit, higher taxes or spending cuts elsewhere? If the last, what is less important than asking people to make a contribution to the cost of the NHS owning parking facilities?

@rcs1000‌

(With your tech guru hat on)

For some reason PB's servers think I am still in California... Left last week & have been in 3 time zones since so getting really confused by the time stamps on posts... How can I reset?

Mr. Observer, that's as silly as the decision by the Roman army to acclaim Jovian emperor after Julian the Apostate's untimely death.

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

Smarmeron said:

@DavidL
Many of those people you mention need help from the state to survive, despite being in full time work. As for the part timers, those on zero hours contracts, and the newly self employed?
The majority of the latter two are even more heavily dependent. (there were always positive benefits of them for certain sections)

Are they better off? Yes they are. The combination of earning and generous (compared to the alternative) in work benefits makes sure they are. 2 million of them. It is a remarkable achievement.

LOL, if only everybody could see the world from the viewpoint of the wealthy, next you will be saying they can eat cake.

I'm sure Waitrose will give you some old brioche if you ask nicely

SouthamObserver said:

This is a great thread!!

Devon weather update: warm, broken cloud, occasional threats of spotty rain....

GIN1138 said:

I think we all know that after yesterday 0% tie, Sunday's YouGov poll will have the Labour lead back to 4-5% again.

We don't know that at all. As @JackW said pull yourself together young man !

Neil said:

Scott_P said:

Can you reform public opinion from the point where 'tax cuts for millionaires' is bad to the point where "adjusting tax rates to maximise the income" is good

They didnt do it to maximise the income though - their own analysis concluded it would lose them money. Let's not rewrite history.

But a marginal amount (£400m I think) which they offset with increased property taxes.

Think of it as a targeted marketing campaign that "Britain is open for business"

Scrapheap_as_was said:

SouthamObserver said:

This is a great thread!!

SO - just how nailed on is 6th position for us once again with a possible 7th on the downside and 6th on the upside!

5th to 8th is our band. We need to focus on the UEFA Cup. And we need a minimum of another CB, left-sided MF player and a striker.

oxfordsimon said:

isam said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

isam said:

Ukip will scrap hospital parking charges

http://www.ukip.org/ukip_backs_daily_express_crusade_against_rip_off_hospital_parking_charges

There are two large general hospitals within 10 miles of me. Both have charges for their parking. Both car parks are usually almost full. The parking cost is unwelcome but it does improve chances of getting a space. Free will lead to abuse. Lower charges would be the best way to go to test their effects on a case by case basis.

Seems to me the best way is to give free tickets at reception to genuine visitors/patients and charge big for peopl using the car park for shopping/commuting

And how exactly would you make that work? Any system, such as you suggest, would be open to abuse, would require all sorts of additional staff to implement.

How do you stop someone from being a visitor and then using the car park for 6 hours afterwards so they can go off and do other things?

How can someone check to see if a car is parked by a legitimate user or not?

And where is the money going to come from to pay for all the extra staff as well as having to make up the shortfall in income? Oh yes - clamping down on 'Health Tourism' - and what new measures do you actually propose to collect all of this extra money? Details are needed if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise it is just a cheap bit of populism - right out of the New Labour spin book.

Ok lets just charge people to visit their family & friends in hospital as we do now

SouthamObserver said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, that's as silly as the decision by the Roman army to acclaim Jovian emperor after Julian the Apostate's untimely death.

Agreed. Asserting that the wealthiest need tax cuts to make them perform better, or that tax cuts will make them perform better, is utterly absurd.

In that case Spurs should introduce a wage cap of £ 10,000 a year and they'd still be competing with West Ham, Palace and QPR for a place in London's top five.

isam said:

oxfordsimon said:

isam said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

isam said:

Ukip will scrap hospital parking charges

http://www.ukip.org/ukip_backs_daily_express_crusade_against_rip_off_hospital_parking_charges

There are two large general hospitals within 10 miles of me. Both have charges for their parking. Both car parks are usually almost full. The parking cost is unwelcome but it does improve chances of getting a space. Free will lead to abuse. Lower charges would be the best way to go to test their effects on a case by case basis.

Seems to me the best way is to give free tickets at reception to genuine visitors/patients and charge big for peopl using the car park for shopping/commuting

And how exactly would you make that work? Any system, such as you suggest, would be open to abuse, would require all sorts of additional staff to implement.

How do you stop someone from being a visitor and then using the car park for 6 hours afterwards so they can go off and do other things?

How can someone check to see if a car is parked by a legitimate user or not?

And where is the money going to come from to pay for all the extra staff as well as having to make up the shortfall in income? Oh yes - clamping down on 'Health Tourism' - and what new measures do you actually propose to collect all of this extra money? Details are needed if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise it is just a cheap bit of populism - right out of the New Labour spin book.

Ok lets just charge people to visit their family & friends in hospital as we do now

Or find £250m for Acute Trusts alone from the UKIP magic money tree.

frpenkridge said:

he should resist the temptation to rip off his shirt in the home straight.

You just made me a little sick.

Neil said:

Anorak said:

Neil said:

@RN

I'll take that as you accepting that it was not a static analysis!

I look forward to peer-reviewing the PhD on the real economic impact of secret messages to business

Irrespective of any actual loss/gain, there's a large difference between choosing a rate to maximise revenue and choosing a rate that's fair and reasonble.

Or does the concept of fairness only apply to the less well-off?

I wasnt discussing fairness - I was disagreeing with the assertion that it was done to maximise revenue. It wasnt.

You're just looking at income tax in isolation.

I remember someone suggesting the revenue maximising share of income in tax was c 47% (which, incidentally, appeals to my sense of fairness in that the state taking more than half of your marginal income feels greedy).

If you take the 45% rate and add the 2% of uncapped NICs you end up with... Wait for it... 47%

Charles said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

Smarmeron said:

@DavidL
Many of those people you mention need help from the state to survive, despite being in full time work. As for the part timers, those on zero hours contracts, and the newly self employed?
The majority of the latter two are even more heavily dependent. (there were always positive benefits of them for certain sections)

Are they better off? Yes they are. The combination of earning and generous (compared to the alternative) in work benefits makes sure they are. 2 million of them. It is a remarkable achievement.

LOL, if only everybody could see the world from the viewpoint of the wealthy, next you will be saying they can eat cake.

I'm sure Waitrose will give you some old brioche if you ask nicely

Luckily I am not one of the unfortunate ones and can afford to buy the brioche fresh , no sell by bargains necessary. There are many many not so lucky , all that pooling and sharing does not seem to be working too well. Seems to be we do lots of pooling and some others share more like.

bigjohnowls said:

Politically damaging though.

Quite possibly so, and of course Osborne was aware of that. That is the point: this is a government which does the right thing, not whatever the spin doctors say will make the best headline.

Maybe voters prefer spin over substance. Blair and Campbell, with their deep and corrosive cynicism, might have been right on that. We shall see.

malcolmg said:

Charles said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

Smarmeron said:

@DavidL
Many of those people you mention need help from the state to survive, despite being in full time work. As for the part timers, those on zero hours contracts, and the newly self employed?
The majority of the latter two are even more heavily dependent. (there were always positive benefits of them for certain sections)

Are they better off? Yes they are. The combination of earning and generous (compared to the alternative) in work benefits makes sure they are. 2 million of them. It is a remarkable achievement.

LOL, if only everybody could see the world from the viewpoint of the wealthy, next you will be saying they can eat cake.

I'm sure Waitrose will give you some old brioche if you ask nicely

Luckily I am not one of the unfortunate ones and can afford to buy the brioche fresh , no sell by bargains necessary. There are many many not so lucky , all that pooling and sharing does not seem to be working too well. Seems to be we do lots of pooling and some others share more like.

The explosion of food banks in Scotland under the SNP must make your heart bleed.

Charles said:

isam said:

Ukip will scrap hospital parking charges

http://www.ukip.org/ukip_backs_daily_express_crusade_against_rip_off_hospital_parking_charges

How will you replace th lost income for hospitals? A higher deficit, higher taxes or spending cuts elsewhere? If the last, what is less important than asking people to make a contribution to the cost of the NHS owning parking facilities?

Charging immigrants to use the NHS is their proposal, as outlined in the link I provided

Why don't you read that, written by ukip, instead of asking me, who isn't a ukip policy maker?

Neil said:

Charles said:

Neil said:

Anorak said:

Neil said:

@RN

I'll take that as you accepting that it was not a static analysis!

I look forward to peer-reviewing the PhD on the real economic impact of secret messages to business

Irrespective of any actual loss/gain, there's a large difference between choosing a rate to maximise revenue and choosing a rate that's fair and reasonble.

Or does the concept of fairness only apply to the less well-off?

I wasnt discussing fairness - I was disagreeing with the assertion that it was done to maximise revenue. It wasnt.

You're just looking at income tax in isolation.

I was responding to the original assertion which looked at income tax in isolation.

But you've argued this point before, so now try looking at the real world ;-)

Charles said:

Neil said:

Charles said:

Neil said:

Anorak said:

Neil said:

@RN

I'll take that as you accepting that it was not a static analysis!

I look forward to peer-reviewing the PhD on the real economic impact of secret messages to business

Irrespective of any actual loss/gain, there's a large difference between choosing a rate to maximise revenue and choosing a rate that's fair and reasonble.

Or does the concept of fairness only apply to the less well-off?

I wasnt discussing fairness - I was disagreeing with the assertion that it was done to maximise revenue. It wasnt.

You're just looking at income tax in isolation.

I was responding to the original assertion which looked at income tax in isolation.

But you've argued this point before, so now try looking at the real world ;-)

The fact that I set people straight on this before didnt stop people wrongly asserting that the additional income tax rate was lowered to 45p to maximise revenue again. So I selflessly took the time to correct the point once more. I expect my reward will come in another life.