politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why I am betting that the Conservatives have a better than

tim said:

David Burrowes MP now on the Daily Politics calling for a referendum on gay marriage.
God told him to do it no doubt.

Or they've got a bet on about the most ridiculous thing they can make Cameron agree to.

Let us hope and pray that Borussia Dortmund do NOT win the Champions league final at Wembley in 11 days time.

Just imagine how totally insufferable SeanT would be were his 22/1 footy tip last October to actually deliver.

sam said:

SouthamObserver said:

Alanbrooke said:

SouthamObserver said:

'I think we have to realise that the entry of migrants to the labour market is hard for people who are finding it very difficult to get jobs, or to keep jobs' is plain and simple language and very damaging. It confirms fears in a single sentence.

Have to say I am struggling to see how that is very different to anything that Ed Miliband or other members of the Labour front bench have said.

http://news.sky.com/story/1060665/miliband-low-skill-immigration-is-too-high

I think you'll find the issue's the timing, they weren't saying that 7 or 8 years ago and were questioning the motives of anyone who raised the question.

Yes, I agree. As I have said many times before on here I think Labour got it very wrong on immigration. What I do not buy into is that it was all some kind of conspiracy. It was much more that an urban elite which had little idea of the real world and an ideological sympathy with internaitonalism was so isolated from reality it did not foresee the trouble that loosening restrictions on people coming into the country would create. Now Labour has to prove that it does get it.

Blimey! I more or less agree!



Well there you go. I am much more anti-Tory than pro-Labour. And as UKIP is the Tory Party with nobs on, I guess I am anti-UKIP as well. I swill vote for the party in my constituency best placed to keep the Tories (and UKIP) out.

From the Times

Labour is facing a new financial crisis after it emerged that the party depends on a massive overdraft from the troubled Co-operative Bank.

The party relies on a £3.9 million lifeline from the ailing lender, which could be cut as part of the overhaul or sale of the bank.

The party has been kept afloat by a series of overdrafts on unusually generous terms from the bank, which has strong links to the party dating back to 1927.

Some of the financing used today relies on loan facilities agreed in 1999, which are so advantageous to the party that they would not be available elsewhere. The overdraft facilities have routinely been expanded in the run-up to an election.

These deals struck between the Co-operative Group and the Labour Government at the height of Tony Blair’s premiership are likely now to come under particular scrutiny and could be ended in the event that Co-op bank is sold or changes its lending criteria.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Labour is facing a new financial crisis after it emerged that the party depends on a massive overdraft from the troubled Co-operative Bank.

I do wish journlists wouldn't write so badly. This information hasn't 'emerged' at all, it's been very well known to everyone with even a passing interest in politics for yonks.

It's equally annoying to see 'The BBC has learned..' which usually means 'Someone sent the BBC a press release'.

It's rather simplistic to blame low wages just on mass immigration, in my view.

Globalisation is as much to blame. If wages rise too quickly in a given country, that country's firms have to pass the higher costs on.

GuidoFawkes Data shows that Guido is more in touch with Labour voters than union lobbyist @OwenJones84 >> guyfawk.es/16wA2sW

OwenJones84 @GuidoFawkes Always been realistic about attitudes. Argument will be won by telling truths. Hence you were so humiliated when we were on TV

GuidoFawkes @OwenJones84 Was I? Pretty sure I wasn't the one who left in a huff.

OwenJones84 @GuidoFawkes You're more delusional than I thought!

GuidoFawkes @OwenJones84 Only one of us has the delusion that he can "mobilise the millions".

These two should really get a room lol

DPJHodges David Cameron offered Ed Miliband the keys to Downing Street. Ed's response? "No thanks. You hang on to them for another 6 or 7 years".

sam said:

Just watching the innocent until proven guilty Bill Roache (Ken Barlow) walking into court,half smile on face, avoiding questions....

Can anyone remember a recent case of a person accused of an offence breaking down and crying and saying "I admit it, I am an awful person, I am so sorry, I deserve what I get...."

??

or words to that effect!

Cherie Blair, housing fiasco. Give that woman a BAFTA.

F1: tyres to be changed for Canada:
http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/motorsport/story/108038.html

Next race is Monaco, and Canada's right after that. I hope this doesn't prove a decisive advantage for Red Bull, but we'll have to wait and see how things go.

tim said:

sam said:

tim said:

Pong said:

"Take in a lodger to avoid bedroom tax, says Stoke-on-Trent City Council"

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/lodger-avoid-bedroom-tax-says-Stoke-Trent-City/story-18979834-detail/story.html#axzz2TGZUSDeo

Isn't subletting council houses illegal? Why should those lucky enough to receive subsidised housing be allowed to generate a tax-free income out of it?

IDS has some questions to answer.

The govt were going to make it illegal last year, then they decided to encourage it and make it tax free this year in response to the bedroom tax proposals which took them by surprise

Surely they can only sub let to people waiting for a council property so the council pay/reduce their rent? They cant make it an earner?!!

A tax free earner according to the reports last month.

They haven't really got a clue what they are doing though

Ministers at the DCLG had been looking at a plan to criminalise council tenant subletting as late as July 2012 – months after the ‘bedroom tax’ was passed into law with the Welfare Reform Act.

In January 2012, then DCLG Housing minister Grant Shapps, now Conservative party Chairman, told the BBC that sub-letting in council properties was a “scandal” which caused people to “languish on waiting lists”.



But official guidance from Department for Work and Pensions encourages tenants to sub-let their extra rooms to avoid a reduction in housing benefit that came into force this month, branded the ‘bedroom tax’ by campaigners.

I await Richard Nabavi's attempt to spin this as a brilliant example of joined-up policymaking.

Go Richard!

Plato said:

"We have just had one of the UK’s leading pollsters, Andrew Hawkins from ComRes, in for a briefing on what the polls are showing us for 2015.

What came across was how stark it is that Labour, with a bit of tweaking, have a better chance than ever of being the largest party in a coalition in 2015, if not getting an outright majority.

The ComRes rationale for this is:

1) The current distribution of votes in terms of boundaries favours Labour.

2) A 2% swing from Conservative to Labour will bring Ed Miliband into Downing Street, and a 5% swing would mean Labour have a majority.

3) A 5% swing from the Lib Dems to Labour sees Labour as the largest party.

4) (This is the stunning statistic in light of the local elections) – even if there is no swing to Labour if UKIP get 8% then Labour get into government.

It is interesting to see this in the context of the current debate in the party on whether Ed Miliband should drop Ed Balls. Without Balls, it is said, Labour looks much stronger on the economy, which remains the key issue for voters (who remain sceptical that the coalition is making a difference to the economy and our national debt).

So one of the main tweaks Miliband could (and some in the party say should) make is to reshuffle Ed Balls out of the brief. With a Labour frontbench reshuffle due this summer, watch this space.

http://www.westminsteradvisers.co.uk/blogs/article/254/public-affairs/2013/05/2015-labourinwithachanceevenmoresowithoutballs

both main parties are fronted by obnoxious eejits as CoE. It's a standoff as to which party has the courage to move first and gain some points with the voters.

Pong said:

Go Richard!

I was already on the case, but, yes, the left hand didn't quite seem to realise that the right hand was dealing with the 'scandal' already.

GeoffM said:

Pong said:

I await Richard Nabavi's attempt to spin this as a brilliant example of joined-up policymaking.

If we got rid of the rather socialist concept of council houses then this problem would disappear nicely.

where are you proposing people live ?

GeoffM said:

Pong said:

I await Richard Nabavi's attempt to spin this as a brilliant example of joined-up policymaking.

If we got rid of the rather socialist concept of council houses then this problem would disappear nicely.

Bring back the workhouse!! Bring back the feudal system - it worked well for a thousand years!!!

GeoffM said:

Alanbrooke said:

where are you proposing people live ?

Rent privately

for which the taxpayer picks up the tab so our taxes go up unless you have a heavily regulated housing market. So far the private sector has been pretty poor at responding to the rise in population. The response has not been to build decent housing but to make more units out of the existing stock. Even the housing trusts have been no great shakes.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anorak said:

GeoffM said:

Pong said:

I await Richard Nabavi's attempt to spin this as a brilliant example of joined-up policymaking.

If we got rid of the rather socialist concept of council houses then this problem would disappear nicely.

Bring back the workhouse!! Bring back the feudal system - it worked well for a thousand years!!!

Anorak said:

GeoffM said:

Pong said:

I await Richard Nabavi's attempt to spin this as a brilliant example of joined-up policymaking.

If we got rid of the rather socialist concept of council houses then this problem would disappear nicely.

Bring back the workhouse!! Bring back the feudal system - it worked well for a thousand years!!!

I support bringing back the Feudal system, so long as we have Droit du seigneur

But Eagles, you're a peasant, is this some kind of voyeuristic fetish ?

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Corporeal, isn't there agreement on a £50k limit but Labour want an exception for the unions? What's the bit the Conservatives disagree with?

No Mr Dancer.

The £50k limit is the Conservative proposal, who also want an opt-in for Union political levies and Union donations to count as single large donations rather than lots of small ones.

Labour want a much lower limit (about £10k), but for the Union donations to be counted as lots of small donations by each contributing member and to keep the opt out system.

This is essentially dictated by their finances. Labour funded by the hundreds of thousands of Union £££ (whether you see them as individual member donations or not). Conservatives tend to get funding in chunks of tens of thousands (so a £50k cap wouldn't affect them that much, while a £10k one would) while a £50k cap and counting Union donations as single large ones would hit them very hard.

So each party's plan coincidentally harms the other while leaving themselves unaffected, and there's little drive for compromise because it also gives both of them a large advantage over the smaller parties and they don't want to give that up.

As a side note, the Coalition's ruled out any increase in state funding for parties (essentially on grounds of PR suicide to propose it).

That's the stalemate as it has been for years, the Lib Dems want the reform because among other reasons (I'm keeping my cynical hat on here) it'd bring the other two closer to them in funding terms. But there's no real impetus for change amongst the big two, so while it's included in Clegg's territory there aren't the votes to get anything through.

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anorak said:

GeoffM said:

Pong said:

I await Richard Nabavi's attempt to spin this as a brilliant example of joined-up policymaking.

If we got rid of the rather socialist concept of council houses then this problem would disappear nicely.

Bring back the workhouse!! Bring back the feudal system - it worked well for a thousand years!!!

Anorak said:

GeoffM said:

Pong said:

I await Richard Nabavi's attempt to spin this as a brilliant example of joined-up policymaking.

If we got rid of the rather socialist concept of council houses then this problem would disappear nicely.

Bring back the workhouse!! Bring back the feudal system - it worked well for a thousand years!!!

I support bringing back the Feudal system, so long as we have Droit du seigneur

But Eagles, you're a peasant, is this some kind of voyeuristic fetish ?

I'm a toff, I was privately educated.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anorak said:

GeoffM said:

Pong said:

I await Richard Nabavi's attempt to spin this as a brilliant example of joined-up policymaking.

If we got rid of the rather socialist concept of council houses then this problem would disappear nicely.

Bring back the workhouse!! Bring back the feudal system - it worked well for a thousand years!!!

Anorak said:

GeoffM said:

Pong said:

I await Richard Nabavi's attempt to spin this as a brilliant example of joined-up policymaking.

If we got rid of the rather socialist concept of council houses then this problem would disappear nicely.

Bring back the workhouse!! Bring back the feudal system - it worked well for a thousand years!!!

I support bringing back the Feudal system, so long as we have Droit du seigneur

But Eagles, you're a peasant, is this some kind of voyeuristic fetish ?

I'm a toff, I was privately educated.

Nonsense that just means you're cleric with a loose cassock. True nobility scorned education and went horse riding and wenching.

GeoffM said:

Polruan said:

... and how are you proposing they pay the rent?

Pay the same way they are now if they are on low incomes - from, that cat's cradle of housing benefits and other payments. You could combine them all. Call it Universal Credit, perhaps? Sounds catchy.

And when rent levels exceed the total value of universal credit due to ongoing housing shortage, what happens?

To be fair, I have no idea whether it's all round cheaper for the state to own houses or pay private landlords to provide them - just a hunch that in a shortage situation as we currently have, it's likely that being an owner rather than a tenant is a cheaper place for the state to be. And I assume we all like the idea of keeping public spending down.

I guess it depends whether the ultimate aim is to ensure that there is a safety net such that all citizens are housed, or to replace that with a descent into homelessness/slum living whilst not having direct responsibility for it.

New thread

According to the ONS today between 2005 and 2011 the UK fell from 5th to 12th in terms of household income. Really a remarkable fall: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_310463.pdf

It also fell 12 places in respect of unemployment.

The chart on p18 of the report in respect of public sector debt is equally depressing. At the end of the period we were still below the EU average but catching up very fast with all our previous advantage (largely the outcome of North Sea tax revenues) lost.

And more than 30% of our population want to trust the party responsible for this with our governance once again? Bah!