politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Well done to the main phone pollsters for now reporting Eng

I cannot access PB via main site, currently posting via vanilla forums.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Is everyone able to access PB via the main site or is it not working for just me?

I'm posting via the vanilla forums.

edmundintokyo said:

I guess the point here is that everyone should have expected unexpected ramifications.

The problems were not unexpected. The government should have listened to the people who were telling them that they way they were setting up the project by splitting it between four big providers was lunacy. ISTR Labour even recognised this in (2009?), and started to move to more local-based procurement.

Instead, they listened to the big business providers, including Fujitsu. That ended well; after Labour cancelled Fujitsu's contract, Fujitsu sued the current government for what could be £700 million. (1)

He said it had been obvious to experts from an early stage that the NHS IT programme, launched by Tony Blair's government, would be a "train wreck" because the contracts lacked clarity, were signed "in an enormous hurry" and contained confidentiality clauses preventing contractors from speaking to the press.

For people who have not been following it, Computer Weekly's coverage has been excellent from the beginning.
http://www.computerweekly.com/news/1280095902/Future-of-NHS-National-Programme-for-IT-in-critical-condition-following-NAO-report

(1): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28464002

@MichaelLCrick: Ukip: Given "unfortunate publicity ... it has been mutually agreed to bring Mr Bird’s fixed term contract of... to... earlier conclusion."

Edit

The UK Independence Party's general secretary Roger Bird has been cleared of wrong-doing over his relations with former party candidate Natasha Bolter.
But Mr Bird has agreed to leave his post early by mutual consent, the party said.

Never poke the payroll.

It usually ends with an unhappy finish.

''They won't like its undertones, I shouldn't wonder.''

They use music from the Undertones...???

It will not be that difficult for the Tories to win most seats in England if they hold most of the seats they won off Labour and gain some from the LDs to make up for those they do lose

Afternoon all

I don't normally read the Hodges articles but give this a go. I suppose given that Hague, IDS and Howard couldn't win from "the Right" (whatever that means and wherever that is), a Conservative leader not in the Cameron mould can't win either.

My first thought is that it didn't stop either Margaret Thatcher or (in his day) Edward Heath who won on a very radical manifesto in 1970. I doubt any Conservative could have beaten Tony Blair - a Cameron-Blair battle in 2010 is a fascinating counterfactual to consider.

IF the Conservatives end up with 250 MPs and out of office facing a Labour majority Government who steps up to be LOTO for five years ?

Main site is back up.

stodge said:

Afternoon all


IF the Conservatives end up with 250 MPs and out of office facing a Labour majority Government who steps up to be LOTO for five years ?

Questions to which the answer is Priti Patel!

Any idea why North Korea / GCHQ / CIA took down PB this afternoon?

Every move you make, every breath you take...Polis in Scotland monitor twitter for 'offensive tweets'.

I read that offensive tweet yesterday, shrugged my shoulders and wondered why someone would want to be to be so crass. Hard to decide which is worse the attitude of self styled Twitter Police, or the actual Scottish Police.

However, some families will be trying to cope with the difficulties associated with the loss of loved ones. My thoughts are with them.

stodge said:

Afternoon all

I don't normally read the Hodges articles but give this a go. I suppose given that Hague, IDS and Howard couldn't win from "the Right" (whatever that means and wherever that is), a Conservative leader not in the Cameron mould can't win either.

My first thought is that it didn't stop either Margaret Thatcher or (in his day) Edward Heath who won on a very radical manifesto in 1970. I doubt any Conservative could have beaten Tony Blair - a Cameron-Blair battle in 2010 is a fascinating counterfactual to consider.

IF the Conservatives end up with 250 MPs and out of office facing a Labour majority Government who steps up to be LOTO for five years ?

Sounds as if Hodges has been on the pre-christmas drinks. He's spent 99.9% of the year telling us, with good reason, that Labour are stuffed and Ed is a complete loser. Now he wants us to worry about next Tory leader. It will be Cameron for many more years.

SandyRentool said:

stodge said:

Afternoon all


IF the Conservatives end up with 250 MPs and out of office facing a Labour majority Government who steps up to be LOTO for five years ?

Questions to which the answer is Priti Patel!

Who comes across as less sympathetic to the plight of the less fortunate than either Osborne or Duncan Smith.

SandyRentool said:

OldKingCole said:

SandyRentool said:

stodge said:

Afternoon all


IF the Conservatives end up with 250 MPs and out of office facing a Labour majority Government who steps up to be LOTO for five years ?

Questions to which the answer is Priti Patel!

Who comes across as less sympathetic to the plight of the less fortunate than either Osborne or Duncan Smith.

And that is a bad thing in a Conservative leader trying to win voters back from UKIP?

Who do you consider 'the less fortunate' ?

SandyRentool said:

Any idea why North Korea / GCHQ / CIA took down PB this afternoon?

The PB server was tired and emotional this afternoon but Robert has fixed it now.

The main bar to voting Conservative is being seen as only interested in rich people.

Despite 'running from the right' I can't remember Mrs Thatcher ever being accused of being only interested in rich people.

And this is the mistake many make, that 'rich' and 'right' are the same thing. They are not, as Mrs Thatcher understood perfectly.

NickPalmer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

S

So the earliest anyone could 'fess up to the sin of owning a house which has risen in value beyond some arbitrary figure would be in their income tax return, presumably for the year 2015-2016, due by January 2017. If it's like income tax they'd then have to pay the tax in January 2017, with the option of deferring it (at what interest rate?) if they're not higher-rate taxpayers.

And yet:

“I would like to see that revenue coming in in the first year of a Labour government, before the end of the financial year."

Has he thought this through?

Have you thought it through? Why not ask for the information in the 2014-2015 return, due next autumn and payable in Jan 2016? That would explain why there are urgent discussions going on with the Treasury officials.

It's not as though it was a secret potential tax that nobody had heard about, so it can't really be described as retrospective. People (a) with £multi-X million houses who (b) fret about paying a few thousand and (c) don't have a conscience and (d) had nonetheless planned to vote Labour have plenty of time to consider voting Tory instead. I'm sure it's a key swing group.

Can you explain why you believe someone who doesn't want to pay more tax "does[n't] have a conscience"?

JosiasJessop said:

taffys said:

But a lot more people own houses which they'll have to prove are below £2m in value.

Given that prices move down as well as up, could there be lawsuits? Quite a number of them, in fact.

It's all a mess, and the honest way of doing it - more tax bands on the top of the eight current council tax bands, plus a nationwide revaluation - is political suicide.

But it's the honest way of doing it. Another reason Labour are not proposing it is that they want central government to get the money, not the councils. In which case, make it so half the money from the top bands goes to the council, the other half to central government (or is offset against central government grants). That way the council gets money, and so does central government.

Labour's proposal just makes a broken system more broken, although I'm not against the concept per se.

As always, simple is best.

They should just put a % tax on all residential property, based on price at last transfer of ownership, and then uprated by inflation each year. Then no worrying about valuations or revaluations, a wider tax base and a clearly progressive system (no bands, but someone with a £100m house in Kensington is paying a lot more each year than someone with a £260K house somewhere outside of London)

Is the downgrading of growth today a secret plan by Osbo to reduce that EU bill just a little more?

Charles said:

NickPalmer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

S

So the earliest anyone could 'fess up to the sin of owning a house which has risen in value beyond some arbitrary figure would be in their income tax return, presumably for the year 2015-2016, due by January 2017. If it's like income tax they'd then have to pay the tax in January 2017, with the option of deferring it (at what interest rate?) if they're not higher-rate taxpayers.

And yet:

“I would like to see that revenue coming in in the first year of a Labour government, before the end of the financial year."

Has he thought this through?

Have you thought it through? Why not ask for the information in the 2014-2015 return, due next autumn and payable in Jan 2016? That would explain why there are urgent discussions going on with the Treasury officials.

It's not as though it was a secret potential tax that nobody had heard about, so it can't really be described as retrospective. People (a) with £multi-X million houses who (b) fret about paying a few thousand and (c) don't have a conscience and (d) had nonetheless planned to vote Labour have plenty of time to consider voting Tory instead. I'm sure it's a key swing group.

Can you explain why you believe someone who doesn't want to pay more tax "does[n't] have a conscience"?

Snap! (See my post just before yours.)

I look forward to seeing NP's answer - assuming he will give us one.

The truth catches up with Osborne. Sack him

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11309903/Pound-drops-as-figures-reveal-unsustainable-current-account-deficit.html

DavidL said:

Is the downgrading of growth today a secret plan by Osbo to reduce that EU bill just a little more?

cough....

DavidL said:

Really disappointing balance of payments figures today. We simply cannot go on boosting internal demand by the government borrowing at the current rate, it sucks in too many imports.

We have now got ourselves in the very unhappy position that what foreigners own in this country earns significantly more than we earn from all UK investments overseas. This means that even strong economic growth benefits others more than ourselves and makes the BoP problem structural.

The balance of payments is, in some ways, a more important problem than the deficit although the two are closely linked. Some progress was made in the early years of the Coalition but we are now broadly back where we started. If foreigners lose their taste for buying cubes of London airspace we could be in serious trouble and suffer a significant reduction in our standard of living.

Never mind, at least we have an opposition who really cares, is aware of the problem, has some understanding of business, damn.

Where does govt borrowing 'suck in imports'?
A good chunk of govt spending is interest payments.
I suppose if we had negative growth and falling employment then we would be in a comfortable situation.

Flightpath said:

DavidL said:

Really disappointing balance of payments figures today. We simply cannot go on boosting internal demand by the government borrowing at the current rate, it sucks in too many imports.

We have now got ourselves in the very unhappy position that what foreigners own in this country earns significantly more than we earn from all UK investments overseas. This means that even strong economic growth benefits others more than ourselves and makes the BoP problem structural.

The balance of payments is, in some ways, a more important problem than the deficit although the two are closely linked. Some progress was made in the early years of the Coalition but we are now broadly back where we started. If foreigners lose their taste for buying cubes of London airspace we could be in serious trouble and suffer a significant reduction in our standard of living.

Never mind, at least we have an opposition who really cares, is aware of the problem, has some understanding of business, damn.

Where does govt borrowing 'suck in imports'?
A good chunk of govt spending is interest payments.
I suppose if we had negative growth and falling employment then we would be in a comfortable situation.

Economic idiocy hits a new low. You should join the SNP.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Alanbrooke said:

The truth catches up with Osborne. Sack him

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11309903/Pound-drops-as-figures-reveal-unsustainable-current-account-deficit.html

Obviously not Osborne's fault, but it is true that my strategy of moving investments out of dependence on the UK in advance of the election is looking pretty good. Things are going to get worse next year, almost irrespective of the election result, and on some plausible scenarios very significantly worse.

Fk Richard what is GO's fault ? He's runs the economy. If he's happy to claim the kudos for the good things he should own up to the crap of the bad. Facts is as I've been saying for 4 years he's just not up to the job. He's the man most likely to lose the election for Cameron.

JosiasJessop said:

Charles said:

As always, simple is best.

They should just put a % tax on all residential property, based on price at last transfer of ownership, and then uprated by inflation each year. Then no worrying about valuations or revaluations, a wider tax base and a clearly progressive system (no bands, but someone with a £100m house in Kensington is paying a lot more each year than someone with a £260K house somewhere outside of London)

Are you saying that would replace the current council banding system? If so, yes, that might be better. But if you mean in addition to the current system, then it's not simpler: it's surely another layer?

What happens if a house has not been sold for thirty years? Surely house price inflation has outstripped CPI and RPI.

Yes, I would reduce council tax + stamp duty, and then use the surplus to reduce the deficit.

This report (Nov) puts the value of UK private residential stock at £5 trillion. A 1% tax on that would generate £50bn per year.

http://www.propertywire.com/news/europe/uk-house-value-research-201411249848.html

IFS study puts council tax at £28bn. I would fund all the central government mandated expenses (a guess, but let's say £15bn) from this new tax. Council tax would then be funds raised locally for local programmes, and should be at c. half current levels. Stamp duty is another £13bn.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDMQFjAC&url=http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn09.pdf&ei=YZ6ZVMWLFMfaoASY1IL4Dg&usg=AFQjCNGVoDnqPeNrzXEbmcyh9UoWupJVyg&bvm=bv.82001339,d.cGU

That would leave a net £22bn of additional income from residential property. I'd probably use about £15bn of this to reduce the deficit and the remainder to reduce some economically damaging taxes (e.g. employer NICs)

The purpose of the "not sold for 30 years" is to protect the stereotypical pensioner in the big house. The logic of using RPI not house price inflation is that the government's income should rise in line with a reasonable level of costs: it shouldn't get a windfall just because house prices increase more rapidly.

Indigo said:

Charles said:

The purpose of the "not sold for 30 years" is to protect the stereotypical pensioner in the big house. The logic of using RPI not house price inflation is that the government's income should rise in line with a reasonable level of costs: it shouldn't get a windfall just because house prices increase more rapidly.

Sounds good to me. There could always be the option for the owner to provide a valuation from a source acceptable to HMG to reset their valuation if they believe it is getting out of line with the current market.

In SoCal the local government applies that automatically... (as a temporary reduction of the base value used for tax calculation). Although I've just had my rebate removed after 3 years of enjoying lower tax, which was a bit of a shock!

So, the idea economic growth would continue to at least look ok until the election, allowing the government to campaign on the economy credibly, is pretty much no longer an option right? Arguing they've still done a very good job is going to be very hard to argue when the news is full of talk of slowing down and revisions downwards, and systemic problems.

Fair or not, fighting on the economy looks like it will be a losing prospect ("The other guy will do worse" doesn't seem like it will work when it seems like present lot are doing poorly), and they have nothing else to campaign on that is not controversial and as like to put people off as attract them.

Alanbrooke said:

The truth catches up with Osborne. Sack him

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11309903/Pound-drops-as-figures-reveal-unsustainable-current-account-deficit.html

The trade deficit actually narrowed. ''the widening of the current account deficit was mainly due to a widening in the deficit on the primary income account from £8.2 billion in Quarter 2 2014 to £12.6 billion in Quarter 3 2014. This reflects receipts from foreign direct investment falling and payments to foreign direct investors rising.''
lets repeat - receipts from Britain’s foreign direct investment abroad has fallen while receipts on foreign direct investment into the UK had risen.
So you are blaming Osborne for success in the UK and lack of success by and in overseas economies.

Cyclefree said:

taffys said:

The main bar to voting Conservative is being seen as only interested in rich people.

Despite 'running from the right' I can't remember Mrs Thatcher ever being accused of being only interested in rich people.

And this is the mistake many make, that 'rich' and 'right' are the same thing. They are not, as Mrs Thatcher understood perfectly.

Indeed - and by the same token a mistake many on the Left make is to assume that "Left" and "caring" are the same thing. They are not.

Or - as I put in response to NPalmer below:-

"I really resent Labour people like you stating that people who object to a tax or paying more tax are without a conscience. Having a moral conscience is not linked to a party political view of the world. Nor does any one party have a monopoly on morality or conscience.

I could just as easily say that those who outsource their concern for others to the state by paying tax rather than actually doing anything themselves (writing a cheque is so much easier than spending time with a lady with dementia) are lacking in conscience or morality ("by their deeds shall you be known"). But I don't because I don't assume that having a conscience can only result in one particular political view being taken. There are people of morality on all parts of the political spectrum and for Labour to arrogate morality to itself is the worst kind of arrogance.

You've been on PB long enough to recognise a deliberate tease! But to respond with the gravity that you seem to have given it: I wouldn't suggest that any particular political party has a monopoly on conscience. I know plenty of Conservatives and indeed some Kippers who I'd see as decent people who might express it differently from the rest of us but who are just as compassionate and caring.

But yes, I think that people who own multi-million pound houses and expostulate about paying a few thousand in tax are showing a lack of conscience in that respect. How they vote is actually a separate issue (as is whether they spend time looking after people with dementia).The central point is that they are unwilling to share even a tiny part of their wealth with the society around them. Sure, they may have worked to buy it (or they may have just inherited it), and they may have paid tax in other ways, but basically, if they felt part of the society around them, they wouldn't fuss about it.

We'll have to agree to disagree, eh?

Cheers for the update, Mr. Smithson.

Checked Twitter and it seems the second Greek presidential vote failed. The third and final attempt will be on the 29th. If it fails, it seems we'll have a Greek General Election.

calum said:

Alanbrooke said:

Flightpath said:

DavidL said:

Really disappointing balance of payments figures today. We simply cannot go on boosting internal demand by the government borrowing at the current rate, it sucks in too many imports.

We have now got ourselves in the very unhappy position that what foreigners own in this country earns significantly more than we earn from all UK investments overseas. This means that even strong economic growth benefits others more than ourselves and makes the BoP problem structural.

The balance of payments is, in some ways, a more important problem than the deficit although the two are closely linked. Some progress was made in the early years of the Coalition but we are now broadly back where we started. If foreigners lose their taste for buying cubes of London airspace we could be in serious trouble and suffer a significant reduction in our standard of living.

Never mind, at least we have an opposition who really cares, is aware of the problem, has some understanding of business, damn.

Where does govt borrowing 'suck in imports'?
A good chunk of govt spending is interest payments.
I suppose if we had negative growth and falling employment then we would be in a comfortable situation.

Economic idiocy hits a new low. You should join the SNP.

The unionist/BT refusal to acknowledge that an iScoland’s economy would have been viable, was one of the major failings of their campaign, I see the same mantra being repeated daily on this site. Most of us in favour of an iScotland were very realistic that in the short term iScotland would have faced economic challenges. However, in the medium term iScotland, would have succeeded. Whether iScotland would have been better or worse off than rUK, nobody knows.

One interesting interview I did see shortly before the referendum was with Martin Sorrel on Bloomberg, in which he indicated that although he was in favour of the Union, in his view an iScotland would have become the Singapore of Europe. He based this assessment on iScotland’s well educated workforce, scalable infrastructure in the Central Belt, attractiveness to new businesses and it’s diverse economy.

The unionist/BT refusal to acknowledge that an iScoland’s economy would have been viable, was one of the major failings of their campaign

I was under the impression they had won. But feel free to rewrite history..

Alanbrooke said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Alanbrooke said:

Fk Richard what is GO's fault ? He's runs the economy. If he's happy to claim the kudos for the good things he should own up to the crap of the bad. Facts is as I've been saying for 4 years he's just not up to the job. He's the man most likely to lose the election for Cameron.

He's run the economy amazingly well, as the results spectacularly demonstrate. Feel free to suggest another Finance Minister anywhere in the world who has done anything like as well. Of course in doing you will remember to adjust for the starting position, dependence on the Eurozone, shale oil, etc etc.

I put your defence down to lack of ambition and low standards.

His lack of ambition is clearly not as great as yours.

No political party that put Alistair Campbell effectively in charge of the civil service could have any conscience what so ever.

The Interview will be released after all:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-30589472

SeanT said:

Carnyx said:

dr_spyn said:

Every move you make, every breath you take...Polis in Scotland monitor twitter for 'offensive tweets'.

I read that offensive tweet yesterday, shrugged my shoulders and wondered why someone would want to be to be so crass. Hard to decide which is worse the attitude of self styled Twitter Police, or the actual Scottish Police.

However, some families will be trying to cope with the difficulties associated with the loss of loved ones. My thoughts are with them.

My understanding is that the tweet produced a number of complaints to the police, if it is the same one that we have in mind. The police were not reported as actually monitoring the ether.

Then your understanding is wrong.

'A Police Scotland spokeswoman said "Police Scotland will continue to monitor social media and anyone found to be posting inappropriate comments will be investigated."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/teenager-arrested-after-offensive-tweet-about-george-square-tragedy.1419340248

Hm, my reading was that they are continuing to monitor etc etc AFTER complaints, e.g. to make sure no further problems arise.

NickPalmer said:

kle4 said:

A shame that more on both sides do not share that view, or at least do not refrain from rhetoric deliberately crafted to give the impression they are suggesting just that.

Hmm, yes, I accept your delicately-phrased reproof!

Not a personal reproof I assure you - I do not doubt your sincerity on such a thing at all and I resolve to give my elected representatives more benefit of the doubt as I find many, like you, to be very reasonable and fair minded even if their politics are not those I agree with, it is just in the rough and tumble of the leaderships having to attack each other, like a Hollywood Blockbuster designed to appeal to the maximum number of people worldwide, subtlety and complexity goes out the window in favour of the good old basic attacks that are more easily understood and taken in. It's simpler and more effective is all.

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Charles said:

NickPalmer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

S

So the earliest anyone could 'fess up to the sin of owning a house which has risen in value beyond some arbitrary figure would be in their income tax return, presumably for the year 2015-2016, due by January 2017. If it's like income tax they'd then have to pay the tax in January 2017, with the option of deferring it (at what interest rate?) if they're not higher-rate taxpayers.

And yet:

“I would like to see that revenue coming in in the first year of a Labour government, before the end of the financial year."

Has he thought this through?

Have you thought it through? Why not ask for the information in the 2014-2015 return, due next autumn and payable in Jan 2016? That would explain why there are urgent discussions going on with the Treasury officials.

It's not as though it was a secret potential tax that nobody had heard about, so it can't really be described as retrospective. People (a) with £multi-X million houses who (b) fret about paying a few thousand and (c) don't have a conscience and (d) had nonetheless planned to vote Labour have plenty of time to consider voting Tory instead. I'm sure it's a key swing group.

Can you explain why you believe someone who doesn't want to pay more tax "does[n't] have a conscience"?

Perhaps MP's who have already trousered and accrued gold-plated pension benefits might have the conscience not to build up any more than say 10 years worth of service and thus save the taxpayer any more largesse on them?

Yes;high time Denis Skinner retired.

I meant 12.5% return.

Morris_Dancer said:

The Interview will be released after all:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-30589472

Wonder how much Sony paid North Korea for the publicity

surbiton said:

fitalass said:

Dan Hodges in the Telegraph - After David Cameron, the Conservative Party is stuffed

I see he has moved on from David Miliband to David Cameron. He likes David's , period !

This is very bad news for Ed Miliband.

Coming up on PB tomorrow - a special guest slot from ex-ICM boss Nick Sparrow

Provocative.

NickPalmer said:

But yes, I think that people who own multi-million pound houses and expostulate about paying a few thousand in tax are showing a lack of conscience in that respect. How they vote is actually a separate issue (as is whether they spend time looking after people with dementia).The central point is that they are unwilling to share even a tiny part of their wealth with the society around them. Sure, they may have worked to buy it (or they may have just inherited it), and they may have paid tax in other ways, but basically, if they felt part of the society around them, they wouldn't fuss about it.

We'll have to agree to disagree, eh?

Thank you for responding. This line struck me - "The central point is that they are unwilling to share even a tiny part of their wealth with the society around them."

Again you are making the assumption that the only way someone can share a part of their wealth with the society around them is through tax - a very statist assumption - and a very wrong one.

For all you know, people may be giving away a significant part of their wealth. Just because it does not go through the state does not mean that it does not happen. You have to get away from the assumption that the only collective way in which people can do good for their fellow man or woman is by handing over their income or wealth to a bureaucrat who then takes a portion and hands what remains to someone else.

I am not in the slightest bit affected by the mansion tax as currently proposed and have very little sympathy for very rich people moaning about being poor. I give a fair amount to charity but I do not think, for instance, that giving money to doctors - who are not, frankly, poor - a better use of my money (assuming I had to pay the tax) than, say, to refugees from Zimbabwe (a cause I have supported) or to the RNLI, for instance. Or to homeless teenagers thrown out of the house for being gay, another cause close to my heart.

You accept that others are as compassionate and caring as Labour people - but your default assumption is that to be Labour is to be compassionate and caring or perhaps the other way around. You are wrong in that. Plenty of Labour people may be, indeed are - but there is nothing automatic about the link and the self-righteous (I am not accusing you of this BTW) assertion that there is such a link is nauseating. Nor, frankly, is it true from my observation that compassion, care or, even, conscience are correlated with money, political affiliation or place in society. If anything the strongest link is religion.

And on that teasing note I shall leave it.