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

AndyJS said:

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

Of course. They had the know-how to buy duty-free booze when it was available. That's tax avoidance, or sensible tax planning if you prefer. I wouldn't be surprised if amongst the 30% there's not a smidgen of outright illegal tax evasion as well, for example buying contraband fags and booze.

rottenborough said:

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.

And to repeat - outside of Miliband did not say Fink was 'dodgy'. This clearly is something which would have been defamatory (although they have to date not sued anybody over the dodgy dossier allegation).
All he said was that Fink avoids tax by some measure or other. He has not even accused him of aggressive tax avoidance which is what the Tories are trying to clamp down on.
This is the usual Labour nasty stuff - straight out of the 'Jennifer's Ear' playbook.

Pong said:

Casino_Royale said:

BES 2015 GE constituency forecast - median forecast:

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

Alistair Carmichael for LD leader!

Are you sure it's even Carmichael holding his seat there ?!

Farron ?

Richard_Nabavi said:

Casino_Royale said:

BES 2015 GE constituency forecast - median forecast:

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

LOL, I had a bit of a double-take on that, thinking the Labour figure looked too high given the Con and SNP figures. Then I realised where the explanation lay...

Labour minority on those figures.

If it's a minority and a coalition with the SNP, is it double payout time ?

Pulpstar said:

Pong said:

Casino_Royale said:

BES 2015 GE constituency forecast - median forecast:

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

Alistair Carmichael for LD leader!

Are you sure it's even Carmichael holding his seat there ?!

Farron ?

I'm guessing so.

Fancy a bet on the Farron vs Carmichael LD majority?

Tykejohnno said:

Swiss government proposes draft law to curb immigration from EU


http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/11/us-swiss-immigration-idUSKBN0LF1Q320150211

Nice that the Swiss people get a say in such matters.

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.

Really????

Cannock chase Ukip tipped at 150/1 now 11/4
Thurrock Ukip (nap) 16/1 now 8/13

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Casino_Royale said:

BES 2015 GE constituency forecast - median forecast:

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

LOL, I had a bit of a double-take on that, thinking the Labour figure looked too high given the Con and SNP figures. Then I realised where the explanation lay...

Labour minority on those figures.

If it's a minority and a coalition with the SNP, is it double payout time ?

Could be Con minority with UKIP and DUP grudging support, but either way it would be yucky.

As I've counselled before, try to arrange your affairs accordingly, if you can.

TheWatcher said:

AndyJS said:

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?

Most certainly. Black Economy. Dodgy fags at the back of the pub, cash in hand jobs, all manner of schemes and scams.

Exactly - 'Tax Avoidance' covers a vast array of activity, not all of which involves highly paid accountants or tax havens - 'cash in hand' to avoid VAT has been around a very long time and everyone who indulges, know exactly why they do it.

isam 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.

Really????

Cannock chase Ukip tipped at 150/1 now 11/4
Thurrock Ukip (nap) 16/1 now 8/13

Those tips weren't this year

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

ISAs and duty free shopping are two incredibly common forms of tax avoidance that literally millions, if not tens of millions of British people have used. Cash "discounts" is a very, very common form of tax evasion that regular people use for building and other trade work they need done, as well as buying goods/services from independent shops.

To characterise tax avoidance as anything other than very, very common is false.

The thing is, most people don't consider any of the above to be immoral (or illegal in the case of paying cash to evade VAT). If people have the means to avoid tax then they should do so. It is up to the government to close loopholes and reform the tax code. Tax avoidance is not illegal.

Pulpstar said:

How

DUP = 9, Con = 296, UKIP = 3.

SNP won't abstain. That can't command a majority in the house.

Such a government doesn't actually need to command a majority as such, it just needs not to have a majority against it in a vote of confidence for a while. Whether there is a majority against it, at a particular time, depends on the partisan calculations the other parties are making.

It would be messy, though, and would eventually collapse in an undignified heap.

Rob Ford (Britain) ‏@robfordmancs

@jon_mellon Who's the one LD left in your model? I think they will do rather better, but shows how important local retention will be

Jon Mellon ‏@jon_mellon

@robfordmancs Varies by run through. North Norfolk, Bath, Yeovil and Westmorland and Lonsdale are the most common survivors

Pong said:

Flightpath said:

Roger said:

Antifrank

"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". "

LOL. I've always liked jimmy Carr.

Cyclefree take note.The classier tax avoider says 'fair cop' NOT 'it's no different from an ISA'

If you like the sneering hypocrite Jimmy Carr then the state of your mind is even weirder than Nigel Farage's.

I find Jimmy Carr fascinating.

He had an incredibly repressed upbringing, desperately trying to be the *perfect child* - then hit his mid 20's and had a kind of breakdown. Apparently he thought of becoming a counsellor at one point.

He's emotionally astute and utterly shameless.

Good on him.

He was a proper Catholic and Virgin until he was 26.

I've seen him live many times.

Even I wince at some of his jokes and feel guilty for laughing.

They may want to think about getting a new URL ready: http://www.libdems.org.uk/mps

Casino_Royale said:

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.

I'm liking this Matt Lebo.

But have he and Dan Hodges ever been seen in the same room together?

I've just realised Carmichael 40/1 as next Lib Dem leader.

As Mike accurately forecast after going all Malleus Nattorum in the Indyref he might be the next Lib Leader.

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've just realised Carmichael 40/1 as next Lib Dem leader.

As Mike accurately forecast after going all Malleus Nattorum in the Indyref he might be the next Lib Leader.

If they're reduced to 1 MP, it's Farron in my opinion.

Mr. Royale, great minds think alike.

Pulpstar said:

If Labour had all the SNP seats would it make a difference ?

Yes, a huge difference.

What you have to remember is that the SNP are not on Labour's side, in fact Labour are their principal and only significant enemy. The SNP will be doing whatever is in their power to damage Labour, and they'll make their calculations on that basis and that basis alone.

FalseFlag said:

Tykejohnno said:

Swiss government proposes draft law to curb immigration from EU


http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/11/us-swiss-immigration-idUSKBN0LF1Q320150211

Nice that the Swiss people get a say in such matters.

''...but said it was seeking talks with the EU in order not to violate other treaties including on the free movement of people.''

'Swiss industry lobby Swissmem linked the move to the Swiss National Bank's release of a franc cap last month, which sent the Swiss currency surging against the euro.
The bilateral treaties between Switzerland and the EU are increasingly at risk, Swissmem said, jeopardizing EU access for Swiss firms at a time when they are struggling with a far stronger franc.'

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

If Labour had all the SNP seats would it make a difference ?

Yes, a huge difference.

What you have to remember is that the SNP are not on Labour's side, in fact Labour are their principal and only significant enemy. The SNP will be doing whatever is in their power to damage Labour, and they'll make their calculations on that basis and that basis alone.

I can't believe for a second they wouldn't vote that arrangement down. Scotland ruled by the DUP ?

There'd be riots.

Perhaps Shadsy should put a market.

After May, what will the Lib Dems have the fewest of? MEPs or MPs?

@lindayueh: #ECB has extended the total amount of Emergency Liquidity Assistance (ELA) that can be given to Greek banks by 5 billion euros: Handelsblatt

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

If Labour had all the SNP seats would it make a difference ?

Yes, a huge difference.

What you have to remember is that the SNP are not on Labour's side, in fact Labour are their principal and only significant enemy. The SNP will be doing whatever is in their power to damage Labour, and they'll make their calculations on that basis and that basis alone.

I can't believe for a second they wouldn't vote that arrangement down. Scotland ruled by the DUP ?

There'd be riots.

If the Conservatives were on 296 seats, the other parties would only vote them down if they thought a viable alternative government could be formed.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Perhaps Shadsy should put a market.

After May, what will the Lib Dems have the fewest of? MEPs or MPs?

Amjad Bashir could put a spoke in that particular wheel.

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

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.

I'm liking this Matt Lebo.

But have he and Dan Hodges ever been seen in the same room together?

He's American. But what he was saying chimed remarkably with what Rod Crosby has been saying for months.

After last time I'd be very cautious about betting against Rod.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

If Labour had all the SNP seats would it make a difference ?

Yes, a huge difference.

What you have to remember is that the SNP are not on Labour's side, in fact Labour are their principal and only significant enemy. The SNP will be doing whatever is in their power to damage Labour, and they'll make their calculations on that basis and that basis alone.

I can't believe for a second they wouldn't vote that arrangement down. Scotland ruled by the DUP ?

There'd be riots.

They'd vote against it when Labour abstained, or find some other fig-leaf. Don't underestimate the suppleness of wee Nicola, and also don't forget that Labour may not see it as in their interests to strike immediately - they might be in the process of changing leader, for example.

Can't see it myself. I'm green on a Conservative minority but if those are the (almost unbelievable) final figures then that is a SNP-Labour minority.

UKIP's slow decline?

http://goo.gl/9RfFdf

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pong said:

But Richard, the dynamic changes if the SNP sweeps the board. On May 8th, Labour could pretty much cease to exist north of the border - they would no longer be the enemy.

True, but I think they'd want to put a stake through the heart, encase the body in concrete, and throw it into the Clyde just to be certain it didn't rise again from the dead.

It rises from the dead if the line "Vote SNP, get Tories" is shown to be the case.

It rises from the dead and the SNP are CRUSHED.

Swingback ?

Labour would get an outright majority in Holyrood !

Capita is the sort of company that makes writing Private Eye easy, so how do they manage to keep winning government contracts like this?

The problem with all forecast models is that they are right until they are not. I'm reminded of several during the 2012 U.S. presidential campaign that predicted a Romney victory and which claimed to have been 99% accurate since World War II or whenever.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/revealed-scots-want-labour-govern-5001611

Thirty-five per cent of voters back a post-general election deal between the two old enemies which would be certain to cause alarm in England.

I reckon one thing though, Ed Balls next chancellor could well end up a loser if this comes to pass.

Back to fiscal basics...

Ed will then be asked if he supports or condemns that tax avoidance.

Danczuk, the Barrow MP and about 8 others would quit the party imo if a deal was done with the SNP. Ed Balls could well not take a ministerial post either.

But I think they'd do a deal.

OblitusSumMe said:

Casino_Royale said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

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.

I'm liking this Matt Lebo.

But have he and Dan Hodges ever been seen in the same room together?

He's American. But what he was saying chimed remarkably with what Rod Crosby has been saying for months.

After last time I'd be very cautious about betting against Rod.

That's because Rod has been very fond of the Lebo & Norporth model since the last general election.

A-ha, the penny drops! That's what L&N stands for! Makes sense then :-)

New Thread

JSpring said:

The problem with all forecast models is that they are right until they are not. I'm reminded of several during the 2012 U.S. presidential campaign that predicted a Romney victory and which claimed to have been 99% accurate since World War II or whenever.

If the model has a decent theoretical basis then you can hope to identify ahead of time when its assumptions may no longer apply.

Take the forecast by Matt Lebo referred to below. It's prediction is made in part by looking at the PM approval rating. Thus the assumption here is that the essential question the electorate are answering at the election is whether they want a change, or are happy with the status quo.

This is then modified by making the observation that since 1945 British politics has swung back and forth between two parties. Obviously, it will take some time after turfing a party out of power for the electorate to forgive (or forget) the defects of their record. We can see how this applies by the blame still attached to the previous Labour government for the cuts.

Does the rise of UKIP break this pendulum? Well, the pendulum survived the Alliance in 1983, and so I think that FPTP will largely preserve the pendulum.

It's interesting that the model now has Cameron falling just short of an outright majority. That's a bit down, I think, on some of the figures Rod calculated with earlier PM approval ratings (the model uses the ratings from three months before the election I believe).

Cyclefree said:

Dair said:

Cyclefree said:

Stereotomy said:

Cyclefree said:

Tax efficiency is just another way of describing legal tax avoidance.

Tax avoidence is complying technically with the law while going against its intention. Obviously that's not a legal distinction (by its nature), .

You've undermined your own argument right there.

Under the rule of the law (yes that old thing again) certainty is needed. If the government wants to change the law to eliminate loopholes I'm all in favour. But while they exist and subject to any other relevant laws, taxpayers using them are acting lawfully.

Have you never heard of First Tier Tribunals?

The exact reason they exist is to deal with Tax Avoidance and only Tax Avoidance. Because Tax Efficiency is never questioned and Tax Evasion is dealt with as a Crime.

That's why the distinction is important. If you practise Tax Avoidance, you accept that because you are not using intended legistlative protocols to reduce your tax you are at risk of the structure being closed by legislation (which might eat up most of the costs you've paid out in Tax Advice) or the loophole not only being closed by being successfully challenged at the Tribunal by HMRC and you being handed a substantial bill for back tax, penalties and interest.

Put simple, under the law in the UK you can perfectly legally avoid tax and STILL end up with a big bill.

Since I'm currently dealing with exactly such a case I suspect I know rather more about this than you do.

For once Cyclefree you are in the wrong , you have been going on about it for a while yet now agree with above which is not what you were saying earlier. Everybody knows that lots of tax avoidance is really more than that and is always practiced by rich greedy shysters trying to pay less than was intended by legislation. It is wrong that rich people only can "avoid" tax.

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.

Bollocks