politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » UKIP drop into single figures, LDs 6% as LAB move to 36% in

I thought this was interesting from the BBC at the time of the Jimmy Carr expose. I think Using the Cyclefree moral compass just from this one article Cameron has questions to answer and Alexander isn't fit to hold public office..........

"Comedian Jimmy Carr has apologised for using a legal tax avoidance scheme...............

Criticism of the morality of his actions has come from the top. Prime Minister David Cameron intoned that "some of these schemes we have seen are quite frankly morally wrong", and Danny Alexander, chief secretary to the Treasury, maintained tax avoiders are the moral equivalent of benefit cheats.

Acccording to the Times (which revealed Carr's tax arrangements), the comedian responded at a gig to his critics: "I've not broken the law. I've not done anything illegal. But morally, morally...".

Pulpstar said:

JackW said:

Pulpstar said:

JackW said:

One of the weaknesses of PB within a political institution that is of course a naughty indulgence for us all is that OGH's mighty organ has a tendency to go all weak at the knees over a single opinion poll that it must be said has been shamelessly hyped and is frankly drearily within the margin of error.

For the want of doubt let PB be clear and being mindful of PBers bank balances, Swiss or not, that :

Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister

What was your prediction for the referendum, Yes @ 41%+/-1.5% with a certainty of 90-95% was it ?

The result was an outlier.

For over 2 years I was advising PB that YES would not win and the scale of the defeat was the only matter in question. I also advised early on that turnout would exceed 80% and my final projection, one month out, was 85%.

If I had stayed on PB to polling day the projection would have moved to around 56/44 - not too shabby but still 2 points out.

My success at GE's here and in the US is unparalleled in the history of mankind - I am of course TOTY and have been since 2010.

You'll need some good tips to retain that title this year.

Got any ?

@Antifrank and @Peterthepunter are in a clear lead right now.

My ground game will ensure my continuance as TOTY as PtP will testify.

Dair said:

Cyclefree said:

Dair said:

Then you will know that the HMRC will appeal where it loses, will persist to the end and all your costs are likely to be unrecoverable even if you are one of the lucky ones that win. Perhaps the stringency of your argument is based more on personal slight at being pursued by HMRC rather than any genuine analysis of Tax Avoidance.

Not me personally. I am involved in this in a professional capacity.

Still nice to see that your response was to level an ad hominem insult without knowing the facts.

Personal slight or personal interest, it's the same effect. Your interest blinds you to the reality. Tax Avoidance is not anything like Tax Efficiency as while both are legal, one can have quite significant consequences.

Give it up. I have no personal interest in the matter whatsoever.

All you've said is that taxpayers involved in litigation with the HMRC may end up incurring significant costs even if they win. This is usually the case in most litigation - and not just in HMRC cases.

Smarmeron said:

@JackW
When you post the results of your arse, have you ever considered using a pie chart to illustrate them?

Roger said:

I thought this was interesting from the BBC at the time of the Jimmy Carr expose. I think Using the Cyclefree moral compass just from this one article Cameron has questions to answer and Alexander isn't fit to hold public office..........

"Comedian Jimmy Carr has apologised for using a legal tax avoidance scheme...............

Criticism of the morality of his actions has come from the top. Prime Minister David Cameron intoned that "some of these schemes we have seen are quite frankly morally wrong", and Danny Alexander, chief secretary to the Treasury, maintained tax avoiders are the moral equivalent of benefit cheats.

Acccording to the Times (which revealed Carr's tax arrangements), the comedian responded at a gig to his critics: "I've not broken the law. I've not done anything illegal. But morally, morally...".

I attended an otherwise tedious awards ceremony which was enlivened by Jimmy Carr as the host talking about his tax affairs. In his own words: "you realise that you're in really deep shit when the Prime Minister breaks away from the G20 summit to criticise you".

Tissue_Price said:

If the UKIP fade is confirmed by some other pollsters in the next week or so, it might be worth revisiting marginals where they are currently in the range 7/1 - 12/1 i.e. seat #s 33-84 for them. If they're not going to be winning these then there may well be some value about on another party.

Seats like:

Plymouth Moor View
Crawley
Telford
Redditch
St Ives
Harlow

Counter-argument to this would be the debates. What's the latest on them?

Tissue_Price said:

Tissue_Price said:

If the UKIP fade is confirmed by some other pollsters in the next week or so, it might be worth revisiting marginals where they are currently in the range 7/1 - 12/1 i.e. seat #s 33-84 for them. If they're not going to be winning these then there may well be some value about on another party.

Seats like:

Plymouth Moor View
Crawley
Telford
Redditch
St Ives
Harlow

Counter-argument to this would be the debates. What's the latest on them?

Not happening unless the DUP, Mebyon Kernow and Disabled Black Welsh Lesbians Communist Party are also invited.

Tissue_Price said:

Tissue_Price said:

If the UKIP fade is confirmed by some other pollsters in the next week or so, it might be worth revisiting marginals where they are currently in the range 7/1 - 12/1 i.e. seat #s 33-84 for them. If they're not going to be winning these then there may well be some value about on another party.

Seats like:

Plymouth Moor View
Crawley
Telford
Redditch
St Ives
Harlow

Counter-argument to this would be the debates. What's the latest on them?

Dunno,

Who needs them most at this point ?

Who needs them least ?

Ed Miliband probably doesn't, be interesting to see how long he can keep this tax rumpus going on for.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tissue_Price said:

Tissue_Price said:

If the UKIP fade is confirmed by some other pollsters in the next week or so, it might be worth revisiting marginals where they are currently in the range 7/1 - 12/1 i.e. seat #s 33-84 for them. If they're not going to be winning these then there may well be some value about on another party.

Seats like:

Plymouth Moor View
Crawley
Telford
Redditch
St Ives
Harlow

Counter-argument to this would be the debates. What's the latest on them?

Not happening unless the DUP, Mebyon Kernow and Disabled Black Welsh Lesbians Communist Party are also invited.

Surely it's worth the gamble for Cameron now - if Labour are within 1% in England, he's lost.

Cathy Newman of C4 news is the latest to crash and burn.

Why did the apology take so long?

There has been a minor explosion of new pollsters from this site. Sunil as the new kid on the block has understanably been giving his poll plenty of exposure . The lead up to Jack's ARSE is now days with almost hourly updates and audreyanne's new piece of research IAACTTWGAOM (I Am Absolutely Certain The Tories Will Get An Overall Majority) though in for recalibration had become a regular morning feature.

Can I just say May the best person win

If Labour do form the next government it will be interesting to see what action they do take to close down tax loopholes and whether they will be more successful than the current government.

Does anyone know what specific measures they have actually proposed? Have they actually identified some specific action that should be taken by the British government which the current government has refused to enact?

Roger? Dair? Perhaps you know?

Roger said:

There has been a minor explosion of new pollsters from this site. Sunil as the new kid on the block has understanably been giving his poll plenty of exposure . The lead up to Jack's ARSE is now days with almost hourly updates and audreyanne's new piece of research IAACTTWGAOM (I Am Absolutely Certain The Tories Will Get An Overall Majority) though in for recalibration had become a regular morning feature.

Can I just say May the best person win

You may and I will.

JackW - PB TOTY Since 2010.

It seems almost paradoxical that Douglas Alexander is in grave danger of losing his seat and Labour are on course to form the next Gov't - but that's the truth.

It seems wrong that UKIP are just 2 points ahead of the Greens. YouGov are putting the purples on 15% in most polls.

A betting non tip if I may - do not whatever you do lay Labour majority at 19.0.

Pulpstar said:

It seems almost paradoxical that Douglas Alexander is in grave danger of losing his seat and Labour are on course to form the next Gov't - but that's the truth.

Chris Patten again?

Peter_the_Punter said:

JackW said:

Pulpstar said:

JackW said:

Pulpstar said:

JackW said:

One of the weaknesses of PB within a political institution that is of course a naughty indulgence for us all is that OGH's mighty organ has a tendency to go all weak at the knees over a single opinion poll that it must be said has been shamelessly hyped and is frankly drearily within the margin of error.

For the want of doubt let PB be clear and being mindful of PBers bank balances, Swiss or not, that :

Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister

What was your prediction for the referendum, Yes @ 41%+/-1.5% with a certainty of 90-95% was it ?

The result was an outlier.

For over 2 years I was advising PB that YES would not win and the scale of the defeat was the only matter in question. I also advised early on that turnout would exceed 80% and my final projection, one month out, was 85%.

If I had stayed on PB to polling day the projection would have moved to around 56/44 - not too shabby but still 2 points out.

My success at GE's here and in the US is unparalleled in the history of mankind - I am of course TOTY and have been since 2010.

You'll need some good tips to retain that title this year.

Got any ?

@Antifrank and @Peterthepunter are in a clear lead right now.

My ground game will ensure my continuance as TOTY as PtP will testify.

Nobody performs quite like you on the ground, Jack.

Sigh.

You have your moments too ... although I understand as age creeps upon you that you prefer the ground to be good to firm but occasionally with soft patches.

Cyclefree said:

If Labour do form the next government it will be interesting to see what action they do take to close down tax loopholes and whether they will be more successful than the current government.

Does anyone know what specific measures they have actually proposed? Have they actually identified some specific action that should be taken by the British government which the current government has refused to enact?

Roger? Dair? Perhaps you know?

"Labour supports tough penalties on tax evasion and relentless action to close down loopholes that allow people and businesses to unfairly avoid tax. The current government is failing to tackle tax avoidance and evasion, with the value of the tax gap now £35 billion."

(http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/agenda-2015/policy-commissions/stability-and-prosperity-policy-commission/stability-and-prosperity-policy-consultation-1)

Precious detail, but then again you don't want to tell all the tax avoiders too far in advance how you are going to stop them as they'll just move the money to another scheme.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tissue_Price said:

Tissue_Price said:

If the UKIP fade is confirmed by some other pollsters in the next week or so, it might be worth revisiting marginals where they are currently in the range 7/1 - 12/1 i.e. seat #s 33-84 for them. If they're not going to be winning these then there may well be some value about on another party.

Seats like:

Plymouth Moor View
Crawley
Telford
Redditch
St Ives
Harlow

Counter-argument to this would be the debates. What's the latest on them?

Not happening unless the DUP, Mebyon Kernow and Disabled Black Welsh Lesbians Communist Party are also invited.

Rumour is he's angling for Mumsnet, but they're playing hard to get.

JackW said:

Roger said:

There has been a minor explosion of new pollsters from this site. Sunil as the new kid on the block has understanably been giving his poll plenty of exposure . The lead up to Jack's ARSE is now days with almost hourly updates and audreyanne's new piece of research IAACTTWGAOM (I Am Absolutely Certain The Tories Will Get An Overall Majority) though in for recalibration had become a regular morning feature.

Can I just say May the best person win

You may and I will.

JackW - PB TOTY Since 2010.

That's like Jeffrey Archer boasting that he's the reigning 100 yards record holder at Oxford University. They switched to 100 metres shortly after his record which has remained.

marktheowl said:

As for Hansard, it's fairly clear what he said - why hasn't the PM asked questions about Lord Fink's tax status, followed by his next question about Tory 'dodgy donors',

Sorry, but you really can't get away with that piece of ludicrous re-writing of what Ed said. There were not two separate questions on different topics, there was a follow on. The exact words of the beginning of the next question were:

The Prime Minister cannot get away from it: he is a dodgy Prime Minister surrounded by dodgy donors.

The phrase 'The Prime Minister cannot get away from it' cannot, in any possible interpetation, mean anything other than referring to what Miliband had just said, i.e referring to Lord Fink at least.

It's just smearing, under cover of parliamentary privilege. Pure, simple, and disgusting, and Labour supporters should be ashamed that their party is, once again, reduced to it.

TheWatcher said:

Pong said:

Dair said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Smarmeron said:

You pays your money, you takes your choice.

"Miliband is likely to be very specific in what he repeats. In the Commons he referred to tax avoidance, not evasion, and did not describe Lord Fink directly as a dodgy donor. Tax avoidance is legal but deprives the Treasury of income."

Let's hope some journalist asks: "So, Mr. Miliband, for the avoidance of doubt, would you care to confirm that you were not in any way suggesting that Lord Fink is a 'dodgy donor? "

and a follow-up question:

"In that case, Mr Miliband, why did you mention Lord Fink at all?"

[It also beggars belief that anyone is defending Ed. He is showing himself unfit to be an MP, let alone PM]

What if the Miliband tax issue (eek, nearly wrote "dodge" wouldn't want Eddie suing) really blows up and dominates the press?

Imagine it became so big that Miliband was forced to resign and Labour somehow came up with a credible leader. I mean, surely they have one somewhere in their ranks.

Having a rich tory donor trying to sue EdM during the campaign would do wonders for his poll ratings.

Not going to happen, since Miliband won't repeat his exact comments outside the HoC.

Also, whether or not there's a case, I expect CCHQ would be doing everything possible to put off any legal action until after the election.

Btw, when do candidate registrations close for the GE?

Specifically, i'm trying to figure out how late an MP could defect to another party and still appear on the ballot paper.

Pong said:

TheWatcher said:

Pong said:

Dair said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Smarmeron said:

You pays your money, you takes your choice.

"Miliband is likely to be very specific in what he repeats. In the Commons he referred to tax avoidance, not evasion, and did not describe Lord Fink directly as a dodgy donor. Tax avoidance is legal but deprives the Treasury of income."

Let's hope some journalist asks: "So, Mr. Miliband, for the avoidance of doubt, would you care to confirm that you were not in any way suggesting that Lord Fink is a 'dodgy donor? "

and a follow-up question:

"In that case, Mr Miliband, why did you mention Lord Fink at all?"

[It also beggars belief that anyone is defending Ed. He is showing himself unfit to be an MP, let alone PM]

What if the Miliband tax issue (eek, nearly wrote "dodge" wouldn't want Eddie suing) really blows up and dominates the press?

Imagine it became so big that Miliband was forced to resign and Labour somehow came up with a credible leader. I mean, surely they have one somewhere in their ranks.

Having a rich tory donor trying to sue EdM during the campaign would do wonders for his poll ratings.

Not going to happen, since Miliband won't repeat his exact comments outside the HoC.

Also, whether or not there's a case, I expect CCHQ would be doing everything possible to put off any legal action until after the election.

I'm not a lawyer, but suing for defamation is generally a precarious business. There's all sorts of stuff about 'public interest', fair reporting of allegations already in public domain etc etc. Much fun for lawyers and also time consuming.

SimonStC.

Did you read the article you posted? Does this sound like Ed's already backed down?

"Ed Miliband has accused Lord Fink of an "extraordinary U-turn" after the Tory donor appeared to drop his threat of legal action over tax avoidance claims.

Lord Fink had accused the Labour leader of making defamatory comments in the Commons about his tax affairs.

But the peer told the Evening Standard he did not want to sue Mr Miliband and the definition of tax avoidance was so broad that "everyone does it".

Mr Miliband challenged David Cameron to say whether he agreed with that view."

I'm at this predicting the 2015GE conference and have actually just heard a corker of a 'nowcast' constituency forecast from the British Election Study, by Ed Fieldhouse at the University of Manchester.

One to watch: Nigel Farage's satisfaction rating is now only a gnat's cock ahead of the Government. Given that he embodies the public perception of UKIP, he - and by extension they - are looking like UKIP may be a less attractive option than continuing with this Govt....

Greens ahead of UKIP on the "all giving a voting intention" indicator is startling.

Casino_Royale said:

I'm at this predicting the 2015GE conference and have actually just heard a corker of a 'nowcast' constituency forecast from the British Election Study, by Ed Fieldhouse at the University of Manchester.

Well the nowcast is with polls, the forecast was always with past elections.
If you use the polls as there are now, Labour are about 20 seats from a majority.

antifrank said:

Not my idea of a corker of a poll. Maybe I'm just too demanding (maybe I'm just like my father, too bold).

...in my pants

Cyclefree

"Does anyone know what specific measures they have actually proposed? Have they actually identified some specific action that should be taken by the British government which the current government has refused to enact?"

They don't need specific measures just a change of culture. It happened with MP's expenses to such an extent that unfortunate MPs who have Northern or Scottish seats have to travel 2nd class. The public are now asking questions and if the bosses of our public companies wish to keep their tax affairs private people will want to know why. All we need is to know that there isn't one law for the rich and another for everyone else. Cameron and the Tories were never the people to do it

O/T:

Andy Murray in action against Vasek Pospisil in Rotterdam:

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/tennis/event?id=27367263

BES 2015 GE constituency forecast - median forecast:

Con - 296
Lab - 282
LD - 1
UKIP - 3
SNP - 47
PC - 1

Casino_Royale said:

BES 2015 GE constituency forecast - median forecast:

Con - 296
Lab - 282
LD - 1
UKIP - 3
SNP - 47
PC - 1

Really?
In order to push the Tories in having the most seats they reduced the LD seat number to 1?
BES is trash if that is their forecast.

Fair does, this is indeed a corker.

Richard_Nabavi said:

marktheowl said:

As for Hansard, it's fairly clear what he said - why hasn't the PM asked questions about Lord Fink's tax status, followed by his next question about Tory 'dodgy donors',

Sorry, but you really can't get away with that piece of ludicrous re-writing of what Ed said. There were not two separate questions on different topics, there was a follow on. The exact words of the beginning of the next question were:

The Prime Minister cannot get away from it: he is a dodgy Prime Minister surrounded by dodgy donors.

The phrase 'The Prime Minister cannot get away from it' cannot, in any possible interpetation, mean anything other than referring to what Miliband had just said, i.e referring to Lord Fink at least.

It's just smearing, under cover of parliamentary privilege. Pure, simple, and disgusting, and Labour supporters should be ashamed that their party is, once again, reduced to it.

If Labour supporters had any sense of shame, they wouldn't be Labour supporters in the first place, Richard. So you're on a bit of a loser there.

TheWatcher said:

Dair said:

Would any politician risk a Libel suit where they might win yet still find the judge deem their reputation so worthless that they are awarded a mere £1 in damages?

Dunno. But it's irrelevant - Fink isn't a politician.

So there's no reputational damage from being Treasurer of the Conservative Party.

Shurely Shome Mishtake.

Con Minority... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31066643

PinkVanGate: Harriet Harman denies telling Karen Danczuk to join Girls Aloud

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2015/02/pinkvangate-karen-danczuk-vs-harriet-harman/

This is funny,twitter fight going on ;-)

http://order-order.com/2015/02/12/mrs-danczuk-harman-categorically-did-say-those-words/

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/565885875457097728/photo/1

Wow. Just heard an ever more corking one.

Richard_Nabavi said:

marktheowl said:

As for Hansard, it's fairly clear what he said - why hasn't the PM asked questions about Lord Fink's tax status, followed by his next question about Tory 'dodgy donors',

Sorry, but you really can't get away with that piece of ludicrous re-writing of what Ed said. There were not two separate questions on different topics, there was a follow on. The exact words of the beginning of the next question were:

The Prime Minister cannot get away from it: he is a dodgy Prime Minister surrounded by dodgy donors.

The phrase 'The Prime Minister cannot get away from it' cannot, in any possible interpetation, mean anything other than referring to what Miliband had just said, i.e referring to Lord Fink at least.

It's just smearing, under cover of parliamentary privilege. Pure, simple, and disgusting, and Labour supporters should be ashamed that their party is, once again, reduced to it.

No, it's a standard piece of political rhetoric of the form Cameron often uses, for example on the unions, or by taking an out of context quote and claiming it shows some horrific general truth about the Labour Party. Take an individual issue of possible embarrassment on which you can tie your opponent to specifics, then make a wider but more aggressive point which is thematically if not causally linked.

Clearly it's an over simplification - party funding and the possible soft peddling of influence isn't historically unique to David Cameron's Tory party, and there's a reason that politicians haven't solved party funding despite it being 20 years since sleaze became a defining political issue. However that's politics - worse is almost certainly destined to be flung at Ed M between now and May and CCHQ will no doubt jump on any media storm no matter how confected it is, as is their right.

Ed M used the general knock-about tactics of PMQs, which probably would've passed off how it initially was reported - as Miliband missing a bit of an open goal in failing to pin Cameron down, if Lord Fink hadn't decided to say he'd sue Ed Miliband. He did when he didn't really have a leg to stand on, and helpfully booted the ball into the net for Ed by turning it into a major story.

Whether it's a defining moment, or eventually rebounds on the Labour leader will largely depend on the positive side of things - what does he plan to do about the problem of party political funding and tax avoidance? Especially the former which is far more complex to solve than the latter given that almost every option is unpalatable to one party who you'd need to agree.

AndyJS said:

Lord Fink says everyone does tax avoidance. He's completely wrong: a lot of people don't have the energy, time or expertise to do it.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/12/tax-avoidance-lord-fink-ed-miliband-labour-conservative

AndyJS said:

Lord Fink says everyone does tax avoidance. He's completely wrong: a lot of people don't have the energy, time or expertise to do it.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/12/tax-avoidance-lord-fink-ed-miliband-labour-conservative

Really.. If you put money into an ISa you are avoiding tax, if you put money into a pension scheme you are avoiding tax. If you make sure you don't trip a tax threshoild, you are avoiding tax, if you earn less than the single p;ersons tax threshold you are avoiding tax.

If you pay someone cash in hand, you are avoiding tax.. possibly illegally.
If you pay someone who does not need to be registered for VAT, you are avoiding tax..


the list is endless and everyone does it.

Casino_Royale said:

Wow. Just heard an ever more corking one.

Academics giving academia a bad name again? No wonder people look at the bookies (who are far from infallible!)

Dair said:

Casino_Royale said:

BES 2015 GE constituency forecast - median forecast:

Con - 296
Lab - 282
LD - 1
UKIP - 3
SNP - 47
PC - 1

This makes no sense. Of the 53 seats the SNP do not hold in Scotland, if they were to fail in 12 seats on UNS, then there would be 3 Liberals left in Scotland.

Obviously the SNP are taking everything bar Orkney off the LDs, but not cleaning out Labour. Tories are presumably picking up BR&S (and possibly Aberdeenshire West etc.)

SquareRoot said:

AndyJS said:

Lord Fink says everyone does tax avoidance. He's completely wrong: a lot of people don't have the energy, time or expertise to do it.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/12/tax-avoidance-lord-fink-ed-miliband-labour-conservative

AndyJS said:

Lord Fink says everyone does tax avoidance. He's completely wrong: a lot of people don't have the energy, time or expertise to do it.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/12/tax-avoidance-lord-fink-ed-miliband-labour-conservative

Really.. If you put money into an ISa you are avoiding tax, if you put money into a pension scheme you are avoiding tax. If you make sure you don't trip a tax threshoild, you are avoiding tax, if you earn less than the single p;ersons tax threshold you are avoiding tax.

If you pay someone cash in hand, you are avoiding tax.. possibly illegally.
If you pay someone who does not need to be registered for VAT, you are avoiding tax..


the list is endless and everyone does it.

Absolute rubbish. Do you think the bottom 30% of the population have the know-how to engage in tax avoidance?

Matt Lebo of Stony Brook University "Victory without Power: A Forecast of the 2015 British Election"

Uses dynamic forecasting. Very strong historical correlation between positive PM ratings, electoral fatigue and electoral cycles. Cameron doing well historically and after one term historically Britain has generally supported party in power for 2 terms, rather than one.

He's back fitted the model to 1945. Predicts 18 of 18 results accurately - seat model 96% accuracy since 1945.

Prediction:

Con - 322
Lab - 254

1 million Monte Carlo simulations: 9.76% vote lead for Con. Uncertainty in model: 40.26% chance of Con majority and 98.68% chance of Con largest party.