politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Lord Ashcroft finds Clegg in trouble in Sheffield Hallam bu

Has this thread changed, I thought OGH had a tweet saying this was comfort polling as it didn't name the candidates?

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

BenM said:

TheWatcher said:

Roger said:

Johathan

"The Martin Freeman ad was great. He is at least as successful as the 100, if not more so. "

I agree. It at least gives Labour supporters the confidence that their advertisers and researchers are up to the task.

Except he turns out to be another hypocrite, with a child at private school, £6500 maps on his wall, and no problems with private healthcare.

I wonder if he's on PAYE like the little people?

Why do things listed make Freeman a hypocrite? Has he come out and demanded abolition of them?

No? So he isn't a hpocrite. Rightwing hate is so ugly.

When the leader of the party he is advertising for says that private healthcare is unnecessary then it is hypocritical.

Why?

Dancing on the head of a pin again SO? Of course it is hypocritical. Just like his £120k tax avoidance.

No, it's not hypocritical. You want it to be. But that is not the same thing. And Freeman has not had any tax issues, has he?

Getting his wife to declare bankruptcy is avoidance. Legal, and I would have done it in his place, but still he is advocating for a party that just made a massive fuss over tax avoidance. I am not.

Having private healthcare and advocating for the party of nationalisation and public services is hypocritical. He doesn't use the services like normal people, how can he know what the NHS is like? How can he advocate for the party that may increase taxes on normal people to pay for an NHS he doesn't use? Or education systems his kids won't use. It is very hypocritical and you Labourites trying to defend it know Labour has made an error in using frontman, but there is no other way of hiding Ed away

.

He is not married, but if you mean his partner - what evidence do you have that he had anything to do with her decision? One which she quickly realised was a mistake and which she has now corrected by paying back all those affected. And what evidence do you have that he does not use the NHS or, for that matter, that his kids will not use the state education system?

Of course, you would love Freeman to be a hypocrite. But you may want to learn what the word actually means. Right now, you are throwing around baseless (and libellous) accusations and making yourself look ever so slightly silly.

isam said:

John_N said:

Is there a page where someone has connected UKIP's vote share with their predicted number of seats? E.g. 10% ~ 5 seats, 15% ~ 20 seats, or whatever it is. I'm wondering at what % the graph starts going up steeper. Second derivative in other words.

I think the consensus on here is 5-20% 1-2 seats

If I had to pick a number right now I'd still go for three.

I thought it was only tories who were frit?

Paul Waugh‏@paulwaugh·14s14 seconds ago
LibDems are hearing Ed Balls has turned down TV debate with Danny Alexander. Not confirmed yet tho.

John_N said:

Is there a page where someone has connected UKIP's vote share with their predicted number of seats? E.g. 10% ~ 5 seats, 15% ~ 20 seats, or whatever it is. I'm wondering at what % the graph starts going up steeper. Second derivative in other words.

The problem is it depends on the state of the other parties. If the LibDems stay marooned in the single digits, and the green surge abates, then UKIP doesn't really start picking up lots of seats until the early 20s (perhaps 22/23%) when they start picking up 5 per percent or so, rising to 10 per percent in the late 20s.

However, if the LibDems recover to the low teens and the Greens stay at 5%, then UKIP can start picking up quite a lot of seats in the high teens.

Longer term, the question is whether UKIP will attract or repel tactical voters. In France, the Front National has done a terrible job of getting tactical votes. Out of 577 members of the French National Assembly, just two are from the FN.

@MrHarryCole: Full Fact: 'The statistics do not and cannot show an “epidemic” in zero hours contracts.' https://t.co/PU9AZl6KW8

@dizzy_thinks: https://t.co/pb9x7lS4XX << If I'm reading this right its that @Ed_Miliband is talking bollocks on zero hour contracts.

MarkHopkins said:

SouthamObserver said:

MarkHopkins said:

SouthamObserver said:

MarkHopkins said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

TheWatcher said:

Roger said:

Johathan

"The Martin Freeman ad was great. He is at least as successful as the 100, if not more so. "

I agree. It at least gives Labour supporters the confidence that their advertisers and researchers are up to the task.

Except he turns out to be another hypocrite, with a child at private school, £6500 maps on his wall, and no problems with private healthcare.

I wonder if he's on PAYE like the little people?

The power of the Freeman ad is evident when the right try so very, very hard to discredit it.

Not sure where the idea he is a hypocrite comes from. Is it Labour policy to stop people sending their children to private school, owning maps or using private healthcare?

Yes. Wherever possible without direct banning.

Nope, you are just making that up.

It's a fair opinion based on their attitude and policies.

It's an opinion, I guess.

What policies does Labour espouse that lead you to think it wants to ban the ownership of maps?

By increasing tax on the middle classes - how will they afford £6,500 maps? Only the super-rich luvvies will be allowed to purchase them.

(Can't see the point of spending £6,500 on a map myself, but maybe it's seen as an investment).

What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?

Scott_P said:

@MrHarryCole: Full Fact: 'The statistics do not and cannot show an “epidemic” in zero hours contracts.' https://t.co/PU9AZl6KW8

@dizzy_thinks: https://t.co/pb9x7lS4XX << If I'm reading this right its that @Ed_Miliband is talking bollocks on zero hour contracts.</p>

LMAO. Go to the many young people (and their parents) who are stuck in ZHCs and try telling them they're imagining it and there's some tractor stats to prove it.

Tissue_Price said:

Pulpstar said:

isam said:

John_N said:

Is there a page where someone has connected UKIP's vote share with their predicted number of seats? E.g. 10% ~ 5 seats, 15% ~ 20 seats, or whatever it is. I'm wondering at what % the graph starts going up steeper. Second derivative in other words.

I think the consensus on here is 5-20% 1-2 seats

If I had to pick a number right now I'd still go for three.

The single most likely outcome looks like 1 to me. But that's not the same thing as the O/U line or the spread.

I'm not selling UKIP on the spreads for good reason either.

Definitely one to avoid unless you have a particularly big risk appetite imo.

What policies does Labour espouse that lead you to think it wants to ban the ownership of maps?



Judging by the make-it-up-as-we-go approach to ZHC, I think it would be wise to wait till the end of the day before answering this question.

Surely it would be possible to devise a Google Maps tax policy, thus covering all bases of being anti-predator-business and anti-tax avoidance and anti-maps, without actually effecting a ban?

Lennon said:

Pulpstar said:

isam said:

John_N said:

Is there a page where someone has connected UKIP's vote share with their predicted number of seats? E.g. 10% ~ 5 seats, 15% ~ 20 seats, or whatever it is. I'm wondering at what % the graph starts going up steeper. Second derivative in other words.

I think the consensus on here is 5-20% 1-2 seats

If I had to pick a number right now I'd still go for three.

Personally I would say that anywhere in the 7%-12% range and they should pick up 3 seats. 12%-17% they should get another 3-5 or so - and then it starts going up more sharply at the high teens onwards (although this is dependent on what the other parties are doing of course.)

The great irony is that UKIP should be praying for a LibDem resurgence. The two fish in different pools for their voters, and anything which lowers the aggregate Conservative/Labour vote shares is good for UKIP.

Scott_P said:

SouthamObserver said:

Why debate with someone who is not going to be an MP in a few weeks time?

Someone like Nicola Sturgeon you mean?

Indeed. Balls has a choice. There is no choice in the leaders get together.

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

BenM said:

TheWatcher said:

Roger said:

Johathan

"

When the leader of the party he is advertising for says that private healthcare is unnecessary then it is hypocritical.

Why?

Dancing on the head of a pin again SO? Of course it is hypocritical. Just like his £120k tax avoidance.

No, it's not hypocritical. You want it to be. But that is not the same thing. And Freeman has not had any tax issues, has he?

Getting his wife to declare bankruptcy is avoidance. Legal, and I would have done it in his place, but still he is advocating for a party that just made a massive fuss over tax avoidance. I am not.

Having private healthcare and advocating for the party of nationalisation and public services is hypocritical. He doesn't use the services like normal people, how can he know what the NHS is like? How can he advocate for the party that may increase taxes on normal people to pay for an NHS he doesn't use? Or education systems his kids won't use. It is very hypocritical and you Labourites trying to defend it know Labour has made an error in using frontman, but there is no other way of hiding Ed away

.

He is not married, but if you mean his partner - what evidence do you have that he had anything to do with her decision? One which she quickly realised was a mistake and which she has now corrected by paying back all those affected. And what evidence do you have that he does not use the NHS or, for that matter, that his kids will not use the state education system?

Of course, you would love Freeman to be a hypocrite. But you may want to learn what the word actually means. Right now, you are throwing around baseless (and libellous) accusations and making yourself look ever so slightly silly.

SO: I haven't seen the ad and don't care one way or the other. But I thought it had been established that Freeman sent his son to a £12K p.a. private school in Potter's Bar, which might be some evidence that his children are not using state education. I don't know whether he's said anything about it and, frankly, actors' views on politics are no more interesting than anyone else's. In the past, for what it's worth, Freeman has said he has voted for Arthur Scargill's Socialist Party.

On the whole I tend to think that parties are best not getting celebrity endorsements. They tend not to mean much and the risk of being tarred with whatever skeleton the celebrity has in their cupboard probably outweighs any advantages.

SouthamObserver said:

Scott_P said:

@janemerrick23: "man up" klaxon MT @peterdominiczak Danny Alexander claims Ed Balls refusing a three-way debate with him and Osborne."He should man up."

Why debate with someone who is not going to be an MP in a few weeks time?

You really are souring on Labour if you think they are going to lose Morley & Outwood.

SouthamObserver said:

MarkHopkins said:

SouthamObserver said:

MarkHopkins said:

SouthamObserver said:

MarkHopkins said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

TheWatcher said:

Roger said:

Johathan

"The Martin Freeman ad was great. He is at least as successful as the 100, if not more so. "

I agree. It at least gives Labour supporters the confidence that their advertisers and researchers are up to the task.

Except he turns out to be another hypocrite, with a child at private school, £6500 maps on his wall, and no problems with private healthcare.

I wonder if he's on PAYE like the little people?

The power of the Freeman ad is evident when the right try so very, very hard to discredit it.

Not sure where the idea he is a hypocrite comes from. Is it Labour policy to stop people sending their children to private school, owning maps or using private healthcare?

Yes. Wherever possible without direct banning.

Nope, you are just making that up.

It's a fair opinion based on their attitude and policies.

It's an opinion, I guess.

What policies does Labour espouse that lead you to think it wants to ban the ownership of maps?

By increasing tax on the middle classes - how will they afford £6,500 maps? Only the super-rich luvvies will be allowed to purchase them.

(Can't see the point of spending £6,500 on a map myself, but maybe it's seen as an investment).

What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?

Ed Balls has said, at least according to today's Evening Standard, that he can't promise people currntly not paying the 40% tax rate won't be dragged into it by him not raising thresholds. That is an effective tax increase.

TGOHF said:

Roger said:

TGOHF

"Call me old fashioned but like Ed, the fact that he is quite happy to spawn offspring but not up to getting married which would provide security and certainty for the family says a lot about the chap"

Not like a Tory to be judgemental about people's lifestyles. I bet you don't like poofter's either?

A bit of a leap Roger - on the contrary Cameron legalising same sex marriage has been a long overdue move - why didn't it happen under Labour ?

It happened thanks to Labour. A majority of Conservative MPs voted against.

SouthamObserver said:

MarkHopkins said:

SouthamObserver said:

MarkHopkins said:

SouthamObserver said:

MarkHopkins said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

TheWatcher said:

Roger said:

Johathan

"The Martin Freeman ad was great. He is at least as successful as the 100, if not more so. "

I agree. It at least gives Labour supporters the confidence that their advertisers and researchers are up to the task.

Except he turns out to be another hypocrite, with a child at private school, £6500 maps on his wall, and no problems with private healthcare.

I wonder if he's on PAYE like the little people?

The power of the Freeman ad is evident when the right try so very, very hard to discredit it.

Not sure where the idea he is a hypocrite comes from. Is it Labour policy to stop people sending their children to private school, owning maps or using private healthcare?

Yes. Wherever possible without direct banning.

Nope, you are just making that up.

It's a fair opinion based on their attitude and policies.

It's an opinion, I guess.

What policies does Labour espouse that lead you to think it wants to ban the ownership of maps?

By increasing tax on the middle classes - how will they afford £6,500 maps? Only the super-rich luvvies will be allowed to purchase them.

(Can't see the point of spending £6,500 on a map myself, but maybe it's seen as an investment).

What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?

Perhaps you could let us know - Balls is being deliberately vague about the specific taxes.

@Cyclefree - My guess is that using someone like Freeman will mean a lot more views of the broadcast, something that Labour wants presumably. It's more of an issue for the celebrity, I'd have thought: whether he minds having his private life all over the newspapers as a result of doing it. But most of the Freeman "dirt" was already in the public domain, so water of a duck's back.

rcs1000 said:

Lennon said:

Pulpstar said:

isam said:

John_N said:

Is there a page where someone has connected UKIP's vote share with their predicted number of seats? E.g. 10% ~ 5 seats, 15% ~ 20 seats, or whatever it is. I'm wondering at what % the graph starts going up steeper. Second derivative in other words.

I think the consensus on here is 5-20% 1-2 seats

If I had to pick a number right now I'd still go for three.

Personally I would say that anywhere in the 7%-12% range and they should pick up 3 seats. 12%-17% they should get another 3-5 or so - and then it starts going up more sharply at the high teens onwards (although this is dependent on what the other parties are doing of course.)

The great irony is that UKIP should be praying for a LibDem resurgence. The two fish in different pools for their voters, and anything which lowers the aggregate Conservative/Labour vote shares is good for UKIP.

Indeed. Also (albeit to a lesser extent) - a #GreenSurge is good for UKIP under the same logic.

Carnyx said:

The Labour Party had to withdraw its most recent video (in Scotland only perhaps?) when STV complained, apparently.

That was a commissioned documentary, not news footage

Presented almost without further comment, from the NUS women conference in Solihull, 24-26 March.

Motion 512: Dear White Gay Men: Stop Appropriating Black Women
Submitted by: NUS LGBT Committee
Speech for: NUS LGBT Committee
Speech against: Free
Summation: NUS LGBT Committee

Conference Believes:
1. The appropriation of Black women by white gay men is prevalent within the LGBT scene and community.
2. This may be manifested in the emulation of the mannerisms, language (particularly AAVE - African American Vernacular English) and phrases that can be attributed to Black women. White gay men may often assert that they are “strong black women” or have an “inner black woman”.
3. White gay men are the dominant demographic within the LGBT community, and they benefit from both white privilege and male privilege.
4. The appropriation of Black women by white gay men has been written about extensively. This quote is taken from Sierra Mannie’s TIME piece entitled: “Dear white gays, stop stealing Black Female culture":

“You are not a black woman, and you do not get to claim either blackness or womanhood. There is a clear line between appreciation and appropriation. I need some of you to cut it the hell out. Maybe, for some of you, it’s a presumed mutual appreciation for Beyoncé and weaves that has you thinking that I’m going to be amused by you approaching me in your best “Shanequa from around the way” voice. I don’t know. What I do know is that I don’t care how well you can quote Madea, who told you that your booty was getting bigger than hers, how cute you think it is to call yourself a strong black woman, who taught you to twerk, how funny you think it is to call yourself Quita or Keisha or for which black male you’ve been bottoming — you are not a black woman, and you do not get to claim either blackness or womanhood. It is not yours. It is not for you.”

Conference Further Believes:
1. This type of appropriation is unacceptable and must be addressed.
2. Low numbers of Black LGBT women delegates attend NUS LGBT conference. This can be attributed to many factors, one of which may be the prevalent appropriation by white gay men, which may mean that delegates do not feel comfortable or safe attending conference.

Conference Resolves:
1. To work to eradicate the appropriation of black women by white gay men.
2. To work in conjunction with NUS LGBT campaign to raise awareness of the issue, to call it out as unacceptable behaviour and, where appropriate, to educate those who perpetuate this behaviour.

Just nice to see student politics is still going strong really, isn't it?

I wonder if Nick Clegg stays in touch with the student politics scene at all. Does he stay up at night sometimes, wondering "did I sacrifice my seat for this?"

Scott_P said:

Carnyx said:

The Labour Party had to withdraw its most recent video (in Scotland only perhaps?) when STV complained, apparently.

That was a commissioned documentary, not news footage

Are we talking about the same video? The one I read about - and which had to be cut before it was reissued - was a spoof news footage of the day after a SNP victory.

MyBurningEars said:

Just nice to see student politics is still going strong really, isn't it?

I wonder if Nick Clegg stays in touch with the student politics scene at all. Does he stay up at night sometimes, wondering "did I sacrifice my seat for this?"

I'm sure that motion got a hearty round of applause show of jazz hands.

#nuswomen15 on Twitter is tremendous.

@MyBurningEars

That is a classic

DavidL said:

Surely maps are incompatible with Labour's preference for blank pieces of paper?

LOL, excellent.

rcs1000 said:

Lennon said:

Pulpstar said:

isam said:

John_N said:

Is there a page where someone has connected UKIP's vote share with their predicted number of seats? E.g. 10% ~ 5 seats, 15% ~ 20 seats, or whatever it is. I'm wondering at what % the graph starts going up steeper. Second derivative in other words.

I think the consensus on here is 5-20% 1-2 seats

If I had to pick a number right now I'd still go for three.

Personally I would say that anywhere in the 7%-12% range and they should pick up 3 seats. 12%-17% they should get another 3-5 or so - and then it starts going up more sharply at the high teens onwards (although this is dependent on what the other parties are doing of course.)

The great irony is that UKIP should be praying for a LibDem resurgence. The two fish in different pools for their voters, and anything which lowers the aggregate Conservative/Labour vote shares is good for UKIP.

This is an excellent point. Similarly UKIP would benefit from the Green surge actually turning up. In the long run, anything which further fragments the vote is good for them, and will be so long as no alternative anti-Europe populist party arrives on the scene.

Pulpstar said:

Torbay looks like a classic case of will Sanders be able to squeeze the Greens/Reds more than Foster can squeeze the purples.

Presumably the Reds were squeezed down to the solid core last time at 7%, so there's probably not too much scope there - the difference between the 7% and Ashcroft's 11% is probably accounted for by a hard core of 'disgusted of Torbay' voters who won't forgive the LibDems for doing what they said they would do last time round. He can probably grab some of the Greens, but the purples look like an easier squeeze.

BurningEars

"Presented almost without further comment, from the NUS women conference in Solihull,"

Nice to see white gay men keeping in touch with their black feminine side

SouthamObserver said:

@Cyclefree - My guess is that using someone like Freeman will mean a lot more views of the broadcast, something that Labour wants presumably. It's more of an issue for the celebrity, I'd have thought: whether he minds having his private life all over the newspapers as a result of doing it. But most of the Freeman "dirt" was already in the public domain, so water of a duck's back.

It might have been in the public domain, but it hadn't really been brought to the public's attention.

I suspect he's the loser in the whole episode.

SouthamObserver said:

Cyclefree said:

SouthamObserver said:

MarkHopkins said:

SouthamObserver said:

MarkHopkins said:

SouthamObserver said:

MarkHopkins said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

TheWatcher said:

Roger said:

Johathan

"The Martin Freeman ad was great. He is at least as successful as the 100, if not more so. "

I agree. It at least gives Labour supporters the confidence that their advertisers and researchers are up to the task.

Except he turns out to be another hypocrite, with a child at private school, £6500 maps on his wall, and no problems with private healthcare.

I wonder if he's on PAYE like the little people?

The power of the Freeman ad is evident when the right try so very, very hard to discredit it.

Not sure where the idea he is a hypocrite comes from. Is it Labour policy to stop people sending their children to private school, owning maps or using private healthcare?

Yes. Wherever possible without direct banning.

Nope, you are just making that up.

It's a fair opinion based on their attitude and policies.

It's an opinion, I guess.

What policies does Labour espouse that lead you to think it wants to ban the ownership of maps?

By increasing tax on the middle classes - how will they afford £6,500 maps? Only the super-rich luvvies will be allowed to purchase them.

(Can't see the point of spending £6,500 on a map myself, but maybe it's seen as an investment).

What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?

Ed Balls has said, at least according to today's Evening Standard, that he can't promise people currntly not paying the 40% tax rate won't be dragged into it by him not raising thresholds. That is an effective tax increase.

It's happened most years under the Tories, hasn't it?

Yes it has - and will likely continue happening. It's probably the least noticeable way of increasing taxes.

As I've said numerous times, whoever forms the next Government, I expect taxes will rise. But I think they will rise much more under Labour and I also expect them to impose more new taxes as well.

Tissue_Price said:

MyBurningEars said:

Just nice to see student politics is still going strong really, isn't it?

I wonder if Nick Clegg stays in touch with the student politics scene at all. Does he stay up at night sometimes, wondering "did I sacrifice my seat for this?"

I'm sure that motion got a hearty round of applause show of jazz hands.

#nuswomen15 on Twitter is tremendous.

It's the sheer earnestness that gets me about student politics, every time.

The scars of Actually Having Some Bloody Responsibilty For Once seem to have rubbed off on the Lib Dems, and one consequence has been a draining of their previous earnestness. Not half as smug as they used to be either, and I like them a lot more for it. I used to vote Lib Dem pretty regularly, and that was the one aspect about them that gave me a minor sense of self-loathing at the poling station - that it was giving me one more thing in common with all those trendy-lefty young naive studenty types who'd been filing up in line before me.

I'm tempted to vote for them again, now, as a very minor reward for doing a bit of growing up. I think they need a little encouragement, lest when they disappear to the Opposition benches again they decide another phase of being inconsequential dreamers sounds a whole lot more fun than being useful and hated. In the constituency I'm in at the moment, that might just help them avoid finishing fifth.

Pulpstar said:

Torbay looks like a classic case of will Sanders be able to squeeze the Greens/Reds more than Foster can squeeze the purples.

Very close.

A pity we haven't got the Torbay data because Ashcroft methodology helping Tories in all other polls here.

HortenceWithering said:

TGOHF said:

Roger said:

TGOHF

"Call me old fashioned but like Ed, the fact that he is quite happy to spawn offspring but not up to getting married which would provide security and certainty for the family says a lot about the chap"

Not like a Tory to be judgemental about people's lifestyles. I bet you don't like poofter's either?

A bit of a leap Roger - on the contrary Cameron legalising same sex marriage has been a long overdue move - why didn't it happen under Labour ?

It happened thanks to Labour. A majority of Conservative MPs voted against.

So why didn't they bring it in when they were in government? When there were even more Labour MPs?

Cyclefree said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?

We don't know, but clearly very substantial ones given what they've said about spending. At a guess I would say:

- Restrictions on ISAs and perhaps an outright raid
- Pension raid plus restriction or abolition of higher-rate tax relief
- Lower threshold for higher-rate tax
- Big increases in national insurance, disguised by labelling them as 'employers' contributions
- Big increases in council tax, perhaps new bands (although the mechanics of this are difficult)
- Increased stamp duty
- Extended scope of CGT

Admittedly all that is nowhere near enough, so it's anyone's guess where the rest is coming from. Perhaps some Labour supporters, more in tune than I am with Labour thinking, could enlighten us?

Others are:-

- Bankers' bonus tax
- Mansion tax
- Lowering the threshold for IHT and abolishing or limiting reliefs.
- Possibly higher VAT on "luxury" items.

Porsches, Mansions and bankers bonuses. If this is what the Lib Dems currently describe as middle class taxes, no wonder they are in such a catastrophic position.

CarlottaVance said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?

We don't know, but clearly very substantial ones given what they've said about spending.

Lucy Car Crash Powell was wittering about expanding the tax base - given record employment, I guess that means bringing more people into tax......lowering personal allowances?

Now, now, Ms Vance, that is very naughty of you. As has been pointed out many times, including on here, what Luck Powell meant was that Labour will make sure lots more people are paid more and so will be included in the tax paying sector of the population. Her promise was thus one of improving people wages.

Quite how Labour are going to do this one can only wonder. My own feeling is that Miliband would really like to have a Prices and Incomes policy.

MikeSmithson said:

NickPalmer said:

SquareRoot said:

AAAH there you are Mr Palmer, unless you are clucking like a wet hen. what about this bet that you offered me and that I revised with winner donations to respective charities.

Missed your reply, sorry. I proposed a £20 bet on Broxtowe. Did you say yes but proposed that the winner specifies a charity rather than pockets the money? That'd be fine with me. In other words, if Labour wins Broxtowe, you donate £20 to the charity of my choice, and if sopmeone else does, then I donate £20 to one specified by you? Personal details to be registered with Peter the Punter (who will not pass yours on), to avoid the disappearance issue that I've had with one or two other posters. OK?

I can vouch for Square Root. He's not a particularly strong Labour man

given twitter has the blue tick, perhaps OGH could bring in a 'verified by the main man' symbol for those posters he can vouch for and those he'd rank as a bit UKIP?

But what should the symbol be?

OT

I've just bought a bottle of Rose from the Miraval Vinyard. I'm assured Angelina personally rolled around naked to get the very best out of the grapes. For £25 a bottle I would have expected nothing less.

In 5 hours 24 minutes and 18 seconds I'll be submitting my review of it

As someone who has spent and spends a lot of time with gay men, what in the name of all that is holy are the NUS smoking.

Is nearly as bad when some Swedish Leftist Feminists wanted to ban porn but only for white males.

http://bit.ly/1BQi0NB

MikeL said:

Cyclefree said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?

We don't know, but clearly very substantial ones given what they've said about spending. At a guess I would say:

- Restrictions on ISAs and perhaps an outright raid
- Pension raid plus restriction or abolition of higher-rate tax relief
- Lower threshold for higher-rate tax
- Big increases in national insurance, disguised by labelling them as 'employers' contributions
- Big increases in council tax, perhaps new bands (although the mechanics of this are difficult)
- Increased stamp duty
- Extended scope of CGT

Admittedly all that is nowhere near enough, so it's anyone's guess where the rest is coming from. Perhaps some Labour supporters, more in tune than I am with Labour thinking, could enlighten us?

Others are:-

- Bankers' bonus tax
- Mansion tax
- Lowering the threshold for IHT and abolishing or limiting reliefs.
- Possibly higher VAT on "luxury" items.

The LDs have already officially proposed:

- Scrapping IHT and moving to a beneficiaries tax - ie the recipient gets taxed on everything as income - which amounts to an IHT threshold of £NIL. Plus of course it's all income in one year so anything over £150k will be taxed at 50%.

- Reducing the CGT allowance to £1,500 (currently £11,000).

Charming.

Mind you I can see Labour and the SNP jumping at this stuff too

#Bestvotetory

Cyclefree said:

HortenceWithering said:

TGOHF said:

Roger said:

TGOHF

"Call me old fashioned but like Ed, the fact that he is quite happy to spawn offspring but not up to getting married which would provide security and certainty for the family says a lot about the chap"

Not like a Tory to be judgemental about people's lifestyles. I bet you don't like poofter's either?

A bit of a leap Roger - on the contrary Cameron legalising same sex marriage has been a long overdue move - why didn't it happen under Labour ?

It happened thanks to Labour. A majority of Conservative MPs voted against.

So why didn't they bring it in when they were in government? When there were even more Labour MPs?

Exactly.

A bit like EdM at PMQs with a straight face criticising Cam on hedgies and SDRT.

Absolutely shameless.

MikeL said:

Cyclefree said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?

We don't know, but clearly very substantial ones given what they've said about spending. At a guess I would say:

- Restrictions on ISAs and perhaps an outright raid
- Pension raid plus restriction or abolition of higher-rate tax relief
- Lower threshold for higher-rate tax
- Big increases in national insurance, disguised by labelling them as 'employers' contributions
- Big increases in council tax, perhaps new bands (although the mechanics of this are difficult)
- Increased stamp duty
- Extended scope of CGT

Admittedly all that is nowhere near enough, so it's anyone's guess where the rest is coming from. Perhaps some Labour supporters, more in tune than I am with Labour thinking, could enlighten us?

Others are:-

- Bankers' bonus tax
- Mansion tax
- Lowering the threshold for IHT and abolishing or limiting reliefs.
- Possibly higher VAT on "luxury" items.

The LDs have already officially proposed:

- Scrapping IHT and moving to a beneficiaries tax - ie the recipient gets taxed on everything as income - which amounts to an IHT threshold of £NIL. Plus of course it's all income in one year so anything over £150k will be taxed at 50%.

You'd have to make sure you got the receipts at weddings, birthdays and Christmasses.

SouthamObserver said:

Scott_P said:

@janemerrick23: "man up" klaxon MT @peterdominiczak Danny Alexander claims Ed Balls refusing a three-way debate with him and Osborne."He should man up."

Why debate with someone who is not going to be an MP in a few weeks time?

Ed Miliband is debating with Nick Clegg.

TheScreamingEagles said:

As someone who has spent and spends a lot of time with gay, what the in the name of all that is holy are the NUS smoking.

Is nearly as bad when some Swedish Leftist Feminists wanted to ban porn but only for white males.

http://bit.ly/1BQi0NB

Gay men are clearly part of the oppressor class.

It's a kind of a PC version of Monty Python's Grim Up North sketch. "I were brought up a black lesbian." "Bloody luxury. I were a disabled trans person."

from the bbc: "UKIP has argued against 16 and 17-year-olds being allowed to vote in any future referendum on the EU because they are "brainwashed" in schools with pro-Brussels propaganda"

By way of riposte, I'd argue against those aged 59 and above being allowed to vote in any future referendum on the EU because they were brainwashed in schools with pre-Brussels propaganda.

JackW said:

SouthamObserver said:

Scott_P said:

@janemerrick23: "man up" klaxon MT @peterdominiczak Danny Alexander claims Ed Balls refusing a three-way debate with him and Osborne."He should man up."

Why debate with someone who is not going to be an MP in a few weeks time?

You think Danny Alexander shouldn't have offered to debate with Ed Balls ?

Are you honestly predicting a Danny Hold ?

I'd have thought Thurso would have more chance personally.

Floater said:

HurstLlama said:

O/T The Telegraph site has a little quiz this morning designed to say which party most matches your views. A little amusement as it asks about how important you think a proposal is as well as whether you agree with it or do not care. Apparently I match most closely with UKIP, which is hardly a surprise.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11471048/who-should-I-vote-for.html

I came out UKIP too - not going to vote for them though

I was 71% Conservative. There seems to be a Doppler effect at work.