politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Lord Ashcroft finds Clegg in trouble in Sheffield Hallam bu
Comments
-
With pictures of Angelina?Roger said: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 it0 -
At least it's not a Redshift.antifrank said:
I was 71% Conservative. There seems to be a Doppler effect at work.Floater said:
I came out UKIP too - not going to vote for them thoughHurstLlama 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.html0 -
You mean like a wholly-owned limited company for him to siphon money through and reduce his tax bill? Yep he's got one of those (Geoffrey Joseph Ltd)CarlottaVance said:
Yes, it certainly is going to get interesting for Mr Freeman. I expect people are trawling Company Check as we speak to see what directorships (if any) he holds......I wonder what they'll find?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.
0 -
Wow, just wow.TheScreamingEagles said: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
The groupthink of a community of people who see the world in binary.
ISIS, UKIP and Radical Swedish feminists really are peas in a pod.0 -
Moving to a benificiary tax is eminently sensible. However, it would clearly make sense to allow you to spread your proceeds over a period, say five to ten years, otherwise you have the ridiculous possible situation of parents die when you're 60 and retired, no tax. But if they kick the bucket when you are 59, then it's 50% for you.antifrank said:
You'd have to make sure you got the receipts at weddings, birthdays and Christmasses.MikeL said:
The LDs have already officially proposed:Cyclefree said:
Others are:-Richard_Nabavi said:
We don't know, but clearly very substantial ones given what they've said about spending. At a guess I would say:SouthamObserver said:What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?
- 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?
- Bankers' bonus tax
- Mansion tax
- Lowering the threshold for IHT and abolishing or limiting reliefs.
- Possibly higher VAT on "luxury" items.
- 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%.
0 -
Probably pressed in Brad's pits for a unique salty aftertaste.Richard_Nabavi said:
With pictures of Angelina?Roger said: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 it0 -
The Conservative Party's record on defence is indeed dire and Cameron's so called Strategic Defence Review of 2010 was particularly ill-thought out. However, Labour has absolutely nothing to boast about in this area and a great deal to be ashamed of.Jonathan said:
Would be hard to have a worse record on Defence than the Tories.Danny565 said:
I think Labour have said they would spend more on Defence than the Tories.Casino_Royale said:
- Corporation taxCyclefree said:
Others are:-Richard_Nabavi said:
We don't know, but clearly very substantial ones given what they've said about spending. At a guess I would say:SouthamObserver said:What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?
- 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?
- Bankers' bonus tax
- Mansion tax
- Lowering the threshold for IHT and abolishing or limiting reliefs.
- Possibly higher VAT on "luxury" items.
- Fiscal drag
They'd also probably target free pensioner benefits for the middle classes (which I think is fair game to be honest, the Tories only keep them because they need the votes)
I'd also expect big cuts in defence, and cancellations in transport. For the rest, they've made it pretty clear they're happen to hold borrowing at £30-£40bn pa ad infinitum, rather than balance the books.
Considering defence is already down to the bone, and Labour are committed to keeping Trident (or so they say), it's hard to see that there's much scope for more cuts anyway.0 -
Iraq.Jonathan said:
Would be hard to have a worse record on Defence than the Tories.Danny565 said:
I think Labour have said they would spend more on Defence than the Tories.Casino_Royale said:
- Corporation taxCyclefree said:
Others are:-Richard_Nabavi said:
We don't know, but clearly very substantial ones given what they've said about spending. At a guess I would say:SouthamObserver said:What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?
- 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?
- Bankers' bonus tax
- Mansion tax
- Lowering the threshold for IHT and abolishing or limiting reliefs.
- Possibly higher VAT on "luxury" items.
- Fiscal drag
They'd also probably target free pensioner benefits for the middle classes (which I think is fair game to be honest, the Tories only keep them because they need the votes)
I'd also expect big cuts in defence, and cancellations in transport. For the rest, they've made it pretty clear they're happen to hold borrowing at £30-£40bn pa ad infinitum, rather than balance the books.
Considering defence is already down to the bone, and Labour are committed to keeping Trident (or so they say), it's hard to see that there's much scope for more cuts anyway.0 -
I'm shocked I tell you! Shocked!Millsy said:
You mean like a wholly-owned limited company for him to siphon money through and reduce his tax bill? Yep he's got one of those (Geoffrey Joseph Ltd)CarlottaVance said:
Yes, it certainly is going to get interesting for Mr Freeman. I expect people are trawling Company Check as we speak to see what directorships (if any) he holds......I wonder what they'll find?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.
Now what would Ed call him if he was a Tory?0 -
Mr. Pong, I posted a tweet here yesterday from a mad feminist who claimed any feminism that was liked by men wasn't 'right'.
Mr. Llama, alas, I must agree on Defence.
Congrats on your drawn victory in Diplomacy V.0 -
As I don't know you at all, I had no reason for special confidence in you - you might be famous for your unambiguous identity, or you might be, say, Grant Shapps. My disappearing bet with Audrey (unless she is lurking and cares to get in touch) has made me cautious. However, Mike vouches for you, and that's good enough for me.SquareRoot said:
You've got a blooming cheek suggesting I might welch.. Since you are so damned confident, if you had read my revised post I said 40 to 20. If I win you pay LUPUS UK 40 if you win I'll pay 20 to any charity you might like to mention. There is no need for PTP.
If its not 40/20 you can stick your bet offer where the sun don't shine.
Your bet is fine with me. I nominate Oxfam to receive £20 from you if I win, and will pay £40 to Lupus if I lose.If it's a tie, let's both donate :-).
0 -
Sackville-Baggins.CarlottaVance said:
I'm shocked I tell you! Shocked!Millsy said:
You mean like a wholly-owned limited company for him to siphon money through and reduce his tax bill? Yep he's got one of those (Geoffrey Joseph Ltd)CarlottaVance said:
Yes, it certainly is going to get interesting for Mr Freeman. I expect people are trawling Company Check as we speak to see what directorships (if any) he holds......I wonder what they'll find?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.
Now what would Ed call him if he was a Tory?0 -
87% Con, 63% UKIP, 57% LD, 52% Labour, 27% Greenantifrank said:
I was 71% Conservative. There seems to be a Doppler effect at work.Floater said:
I came out UKIP too - not going to vote for them thoughHurstLlama 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
Other than being pro-Con I find the other breakdowns a bit odd. I'd sooner vote LD than UKIP and Labour to me are no better than Greens. If we'd ended up with AV I'd vote Con 1, LD 2, UKIP 30 -
Fascinating polling data from Ashcroft.
But devastating for those of us who still harbour feint distant hopes of the Tories retaining power.
These polls provide yet more evidence, as if we needed any more, that it just ain't gonna happen.
Remove UKIP from the picture though, and the Tories would probably get a thin majority given with what's happening in Scotland to Labour.
"Fruitcakes and loonies" could well be Cameron's epitaph. It sunk his hopes of a second term.0 -
I got 75% Kipper 45% Labour 33% the rest.
It's Lynton's fault I'm telling you, precisely the same thing happened to me in 2005.
His methods might be effective but I can't stand them !0 -
Ken Livingston.....CarlottaVance said:
I'm shocked I tell you! Shocked!Millsy said:
You mean like a wholly-owned limited company for him to siphon money through and reduce his tax bill? Yep he's got one of those (Geoffrey Joseph Ltd)CarlottaVance said:
Yes, it certainly is going to get interesting for Mr Freeman. I expect people are trawling Company Check as we speak to see what directorships (if any) he holds......I wonder what they'll find?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.
Now what would Ed call him if he was a Tory?0 -
The last Labour government abolished Section 28, removed the ban on gays serving in the armed forces, made it legal for gay couples to adopt children, introduced civil partnerships, introduced equality in next of kin and pension rights, equalised the age of gay consent and so on. Each measure was vociferously opposed by the vast majority of the parliamentary Conservative Party one of whose favourite argument was ""Why is the government spending all this time on minority issues". Then there was the House of Lords that opposed each and every bill of this nature that came before it - no surprises for guessing which party's peers led that - needlessly consuming long amounts of parliamentary and legislative time. Only on PB could we then be lectured by Conservatives about shortcomings in Labour's legislative record on gay rights.TOPPING said:
Exactly.Cyclefree said:
So why didn't they bring it in when they were in government? When there were even more Labour MPs?HortenceWithering said:
It happened thanks to Labour. A majority of Conservative MPs voted against.TGOHF said:
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 ?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 like EdM at PMQs with a straight face criticising Cam on hedgies and SDRT.
Absolutely shameless.
0 -
68% Labour
65% Green
53% UKIP
45% Lib Dems
32% Conservative0 -
It seemed rather encouraging for the Tories, to me. Overall, a swing of 4.8% from Lib Dem to Con in the six Con/Lib Dem marginals that were surveyed.Bob__Sykes said:Fascinating polling data from Ashcroft.
But devastating for those of us who still harbour feint distant hopes of the Tories retaining power.
These polls provide yet more evidence, as if we needed any more, that it just ain't gonna happen.
Remove UKIP from the picture though, and the Tories would probably get a thin majority given with what's happening in Scotland to Labour.
"Fruitcakes and loonies" could well be Cameron's epitaph. It sunk his hopes of a second term.
0 -
Balbo BigginsAlanbrooke said:
Sackville-Baggins.CarlottaVance said:
I'm shocked I tell you! Shocked!Millsy said:
You mean like a wholly-owned limited company for him to siphon money through and reduce his tax bill? Yep he's got one of those (Geoffrey Joseph Ltd)CarlottaVance said:
Yes, it certainly is going to get interesting for Mr Freeman. I expect people are trawling Company Check as we speak to see what directorships (if any) he holds......I wonder what they'll find?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.
Now what would Ed call him if he was a Tory?
0 -
Are we looking at the same set of polls? UKIP are sliding and the Cons are up. If the same is replicated in Con/Lab and Lab/Con marginals then Dave is in with a chance of at least being the largest party.Bob__Sykes said:Fascinating polling data from Ashcroft.
But devastating for those of us who still harbour feint distant hopes of the Tories retaining power.
These polls provide yet more evidence, as if we needed any more, that it just ain't gonna happen.
Remove UKIP from the picture though, and the Tories would probably get a thin majority given with what's happening in Scotland to Labour.
"Fruitcakes and loonies" could well be Cameron's epitaph. It sunk his hopes of a second term.0 -
Not sure I agree. There has basically long been room for a "none of the above" second-tier party. In the past it was Liberals/SDP/Lib-Dems. The LD's going into the government broke them being the escape valve for "others" and UKIP stepped into the void. I doubt Cameron could have done anything to prevent it.Bob__Sykes said:Fascinating polling data from Ashcroft.
But devastating for those of us who still harbour feint distant hopes of the Tories retaining power.
These polls provide yet more evidence, as if we needed any more, that it just ain't gonna happen.
Remove UKIP from the picture though, and the Tories would probably get a thin majority given with what's happening in Scotland to Labour.
"Fruitcakes and loonies" could well be Cameron's epitaph. It sunk his hopes of a second term.
Its quite possible that the rise of UKIP could counter-intuitively help Cameron. If UKIP were only getting "core UKIP" voters (right wingers) while all "others" went to the opposition Labour would be in a much stronger position.0 -
Lack of incumbency just murders the Lib Dem vote even if was strong before.Sean_F said:
It seemed rather encouraging for the Tories, to me. Overall, a swing of 4.8% from Lib Dem to Con in the six Con/Lib Dem marginals that were surveyed.Bob__Sykes said:Fascinating polling data from Ashcroft.
But devastating for those of us who still harbour feint distant hopes of the Tories retaining power.
These polls provide yet more evidence, as if we needed any more, that it just ain't gonna happen.
Remove UKIP from the picture though, and the Tories would probably get a thin majority given with what's happening in Scotland to Labour.
"Fruitcakes and loonies" could well be Cameron's epitaph. It sunk his hopes of a second term.
Truro and Falmouth looks like a 25% return on investment to me, though I'll be holding remaining capital back for moves against my position.
But it looks like an easy romp home for the Tories and 1-4 is a very nice price.0 -
I remember Julie Bindel published a piece on Comment is Free entitled "Why I hate Men."Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Pong, I posted a tweet here yesterday from a mad feminist who claimed any feminism that was liked by men wasn't 'right'.
Fortunately, in the article itself, she made clear that she only hates those men who aren't radical feminists.
0 -
A beneficiary tax sounds sensible until one thinks about it for a few minutes. As with IHT the really wealthy will have trusts set up so that the beneficiaries don't actually benefit for tax purposes. The only people that will end up paying are the unlucky and the non-rich.rcs1000 said:
Moving to a benificiary tax is eminently sensible. However, it would clearly make sense to allow you to spread your proceeds over a period, say five to ten years, otherwise you have the ridiculous possible situation of parents die when you're 60 and retired, no tax. But if they kick the bucket when you are 59, then it's 50% for you.antifrank said:
You'd have to make sure you got the receipts at weddings, birthdays and Christmasses.MikeL said:
The LDs have already officially proposed:Cyclefree said:
Others are:-Richard_Nabavi said:
We don't know, but clearly very substantial ones given what they've said about spending. At a guess I would say:SouthamObserver said:What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?
- 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?
- Bankers' bonus tax
- Mansion tax
- Lowering the threshold for IHT and abolishing or limiting reliefs.
- Possibly higher VAT on "luxury" items.
- 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%.
It will be a tax on the middle income home owning class, especially in the South East. It will also be easy to avoid, expensive to collect, and will encourage unpredictable and unwanted behaviours. In short it would be a most awful measure and a bloody stupid tax.0 -
ooh, that's a brand of feminism that appeals to my (deeply repressed) masochist tendencies.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Pong, I posted a tweet here yesterday from a mad feminist who claimed any feminism that was liked by men wasn't 'right'.
I'm off to follow her on twitter.0 -
You're talking real senseHurstLlama said:
A beneficiary tax sounds sensible until one thinks about it for a few minutes. As with IHT the really wealthy will have trusts set up so that the beneficiaries don't actually benefit for tax purposes. The only people that will end up paying are the unlucky and the non-rich.rcs1000 said:
Moving to a benificiary tax is eminently sensible. However, it would clearly make sense to allow you to spread your proceeds over a period, say five to ten years, otherwise you have the ridiculous possible situation of parents die when you're 60 and retired, no tax. But if they kick the bucket when you are 59, then it's 50% for you.antifrank said:
You'd have to make sure you got the receipts at weddings, birthdays and Christmasses.MikeL said:
The LDs have already officially proposed:Cyclefree said:
Others are:-Richard_Nabavi said:
We don't know, but clearly very substantial ones given what they've said about spending. At a guess I would say:SouthamObserver said:What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?
- 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?
- Bankers' bonus tax
- Mansion tax
- Lowering the threshold for IHT and abolishing or limiting reliefs.
- Possibly higher VAT on "luxury" items.
- 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%.
It will be a tax on the middle income home owning class, especially in the South East. It will also be easy to avoid, expensive to collect, and will encourage unpredictable and unwanted behaviours. In short it would be a most awful measure and a bloody stupid tax. 0 -
Surely not...on a political leaflet...all that is missing is the dodgy bar charts...
http://order-order.com/2015/04/01/miliband-fakes-supporters-on-own-leaflet0 -
Mr. Pong, you fallopian-deprived ape!
Mr. F, I think we should judge people by the content of their character, rather than the contents of their trousers.0 -
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/01/hazel-grove/ :EDanny565 said:
Yup, and that makes 5/2 on a Con gain in Hazel Grove (with no Lib Dem incumbent standing) an excellent bet.Pulpstar said:
Lack of incumbency just murders the Lib Dem vote even if was strong before.0 -
For all we laugh at the NUS Wimmins' Conference, the frightening thing is that these people could be our rulers in 25 years time.0
-
But would people answering that poll have even been aware that Andrew Stunnell was standing down?Pulpstar said:
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/01/hazel-grove/ :EDanny565 said:
Yup, and that makes 5/2 on a Con gain in Hazel Grove (with no Lib Dem incumbent standing) an excellent bet.Pulpstar said:
Lack of incumbency just murders the Lib Dem vote even if was strong before.0 -
Most voter like their politicians to be truthful. Therefore Cammo's comments did no net harm.Bob__Sykes said:Fascinating polling data from Ashcroft.
But devastating for those of us who still harbour feint distant hopes of the Tories retaining power.
These polls provide yet more evidence, as if we needed any more, that it just ain't gonna happen.
Remove UKIP from the picture though, and the Tories would probably get a thin majority given with what's happening in Scotland to Labour.
"Fruitcakes and loonies" could well be Cameron's epitaph. It sunk his hopes of a second term.
0 -
Funnily enough, the Guardian profile of Martin Freeman makes no mention of Geoffrey Joseph Ltd:
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/shortcuts/2015/apr/01/martin-freeman-good-advert-for-labour
Perhaps they think its 'vanilla tax avoidance and everybody does it'?0 -
I suspect Labour could post dog mess through the letter box in Doncaster North and still hose up.FrancisUrquhart said:Surely not...on a political leaflet...all that is missing is the dodgy bar charts...
http://order-order.com/2015/04/01/miliband-fakes-supporters-on-own-leaflet0 -
The Grexident still could be a black swan. Greece's interior minister has said they will default on their IMF loan if they don't get a bailout extension. Germany seems in no mood to compromise. Merkel seems to have sensed the danger. AfD will poll well enough in Bavaria to oust the CSU from the Bundestag if Greece gets bailout money. The vice-president of the CSU resigned to head off the danger and give Merkel a warning shot, she seems to have realised that a fifth of their coalition may go into the ether if they buckle to Greek demands for debt relief.0
-
The Lib Dems can get a sort of phantom incumbency effect in places I reckon !Danny565 said:
But would people answering that poll have even been aware that Andrew Stunnell was standing down?Pulpstar said:
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/01/hazel-grove/ :EDanny565 said:
Yup, and that makes 5/2 on a Con gain in Hazel Grove (with no Lib Dem incumbent standing) an excellent bet.Pulpstar said:
Lack of incumbency just murders the Lib Dem vote even if was strong before.
My point was more about when they start in 2nd place in an apparently tight race - Ashfield, Truro, Montyshire
? they will end up nowhere. 0 -
It is precisely because of Labour's record that some of us (and I am not a Conservative btw) have asked why Labour failed - when they had the time and a huge majority - to do what a Conservative Prime Minister insisted on, in the teeth of opposition from his own party.HortenceWithering said:
The last Labour government abolished Section 28, removed the ban on gays serving in the armed forces, made it legal for gay couples to adopt children, introduced civil partnerships, introduced equality in next of kin and pension rights, equalised the age of gay consent and so on. Each measure was vociferously opposed by the vast majority of the parliamentary Conservative Party one of whose favourite argument was ""Why is the government spending all this time on minority issues". Then there was the House of Lords that opposed each and every bill of this nature that came before it - no surprises for guessing which party's peers led that - needlessly consuming long amounts of parliamentary and legislative time. Only on PB could we then be lectured by Conservatives about shortcomings in Labour's legislative record on gay rights.TOPPING said:
Exactly.Cyclefree said:
So why didn't they bring it in when they were in government? When there were even more Labour MPs?HortenceWithering said:
It happened thanks to Labour. A majority of Conservative MPs voted against.TGOHF said:
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 ?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 like EdM at PMQs with a straight face criticising Cam on hedgies and SDRT.
Absolutely shameless.
Either they did not think it important enough or they did not have the courage. It does not reflect well on them. It does reflect well on Cameron, as even Ed Milliband has accepted.
0 -
I suppose people can shift from one end of the political spectrum to the other as they get older.JohnO said:
Or still more frightening they may evolve into kipper sluts.Sean_F said:For all we laugh at the NUS Wimmins' Conference, the frightening thing is that these people could be our rulers in 25 years time.
0 -
Indeed, the odds in Lib Dem targets are farcical once you begin considering what kind of night would have to happen for them to take more than one of them. The Lib Dems are odds on to win no new seats, but 1/5 or better can be made in Ashfield, Truro, OW & Ab, Montgomeryshire. Bet on all of those and you'll break even if they win one of them and only lose if the win two! A particularly safe bet given that doesn't even include their best chance: Watford.Pulpstar said:
Lack of incumbency just murders the Lib Dem vote even if was strong before.Sean_F said:
It seemed rather encouraging for the Tories, to me. Overall, a swing of 4.8% from Lib Dem to Con in the six Con/Lib Dem marginals that were surveyed.Bob__Sykes said:Fascinating polling data from Ashcroft.
But devastating for those of us who still harbour feint distant hopes of the Tories retaining power.
These polls provide yet more evidence, as if we needed any more, that it just ain't gonna happen.
Remove UKIP from the picture though, and the Tories would probably get a thin majority given with what's happening in Scotland to Labour.
"Fruitcakes and loonies" could well be Cameron's epitaph. It sunk his hopes of a second term.
Truro and Falmouth looks like a 25% return on investment to me, though I'll be holding remaining capital back for moves against my position.
But it looks like an easy romp home for the Tories and 1-4 is a very nice price.0 -
My my it's good - I went through this and came out as supporting the new Conservative but not obsessed with Europe or Gays party.Floater said:
I came out UKIP too - not going to vote for them thoughHurstLlama 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.html0 -
What business is the Company in?CarlottaVance said:Funnily enough, the Guardian profile of Martin Freeman makes no mention of Geoffrey Joseph Ltd:
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/shortcuts/2015/apr/01/martin-freeman-good-advert-for-labour
Perhaps they think its 'vanilla tax avoidance and everybody does it'?
It seems to have a lot of cash assets.0 -
There is also some short-odds value in certain LD losses. Labour at 1/10 in Brent Central is the best. Imagine a night where the LDs lose 20+ seats (a best case scenario) but hold Brent Central? I know, you can't. There isn't a 91% chance of Labour winning there, but a 99% chance or better.0
-
the tension is mounting in scrap towers... just who will Dan H having winning today....0
-
Mr. Max, what's the potential time frame for such an event?0
-
HurstLlama/rcs1000 Of course trusts are also liable for IHT when assets are transferred into and out of them. There is no enthusiasm for a beneficiary tax or higher IHT, indeed it is more likely the threshold will be raised or the main residence exempt as the Tories are proposing. IHT is one of the most unpopular taxes in any poll on the issue, a Mansion Tax, higher income tax for the rich, taxes on alcohol and cigarettes are all far more popular0
-
Other business support service activities n.e.c. (82990)foxinsoxuk said:
What business is the Company in?CarlottaVance said:Funnily enough, the Guardian profile of Martin Freeman makes no mention of Geoffrey Joseph Ltd:
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/shortcuts/2015/apr/01/martin-freeman-good-advert-for-labour
Perhaps they think its 'vanilla tax avoidance and everybody does it'?
It seems to have a lot of cash assets.
http://www.endole.co.uk/company/06473454/geoffrey-joseph-limited0 -
I think that we have to accept that it takes time for attitudes to change. Gay marriage is now part of life, and increasingly so around the developed world.Cyclefree said:
It is precisely because of Labour's record that some of us (and I am not a Conservative btw) have asked why Labour failed - when they had the time and a huge majority - to do what a Conservative Prime Minister insisted on, in the teeth of opposition from his own party.HortenceWithering said:
The last Labour government abolished Section 28, removed the ban on gays serving in the armed forces, made it legal for gay couples to adopt children, introduced civil partnerships, introduced equality in next of kin and pension rights, equalised the age of gay consent and so on. Each measure was vociferously opposed by the vast majority of the parliamentary Conservative Party one of whose favourite argument was ""Why is the government spending all this time on minority issues". Then there was the House of Lords that opposed each and every bill of this nature that came before it - no surprises for guessing which party's peers led that - needlessly consuming long amounts of parliamentary and legislative time. Only on PB could we then be lectured by Conservatives about shortcomings in Labour's legislative record on gay rights.TOPPING said:
Exactly.Cyclefree said:
So why didn't they bring it in when they were in government? When there were even more Labour MPs?HortenceWithering said:
It happened thanks to Labour. A majority of Conservative MPs voted against.TGOHF said:
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 ?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 like EdM at PMQs with a straight face criticising Cam on hedgies and SDRT.
Absolutely shameless.
Either they did not think it important enough or they did not have the courage. It does not reflect well on them. It does reflect well on Cameron, as even Ed Milliband has accepted.
You should not pick fruit until they are ready.
0 -
I am not sure that clarifies things much!CarlottaVance said:
Other business support service activities n.e.c. (82990)foxinsoxuk said:
What business is the Company in?CarlottaVance said:Funnily enough, the Guardian profile of Martin Freeman makes no mention of Geoffrey Joseph Ltd:
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/shortcuts/2015/apr/01/martin-freeman-good-advert-for-labour
Perhaps they think its 'vanilla tax avoidance and everybody does it'?
It seems to have a lot of cash assets.
http://www.endole.co.uk/company/06473454/geoffrey-joseph-limited0 -
They'll be deciding what shade of Farrow and Ball paint to put on their kitchen islands by then, as they plot their next career move.Sean_F said:For all we laugh at the NUS Wimmins' Conference, the frightening thing is that these people could be our rulers in 25 years time.
0 -
TimT The Hillary email affair is basically a beltway affair and as recent polls have showed has had little impact on her poll ratings, she still leads all Republicans in Ohio according to yesterday's swing state polls and all but Jeb Bush in Florida and Paul in Pennsylvania0
-
I experienced my first genuine fire evacuation today:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/11509473/Holborn-fire-live.html
Hoping for an extra day off work tomorrow!0 -
Anyone know where Ed Miliband's website is?
This one:
http://www.edmilibandmp.com
Has nowt - possibly because he's no longer an MP?
And this one:
http://www.edmiliband.com
Doesn't look like it's his......0 -
Without using hindsight, what were the major problems in your mind with the 2010 SDR?HurstLlama said:
The Conservative Party's record on defence is indeed dire and Cameron's so called Strategic Defence Review of 2010 was particularly ill-thought out. However, Labour has absolutely nothing to boast about in this area and a great deal to be ashamed of.Jonathan said:
Would be hard to have a worse record on Defence than the Tories.Danny565 said:
I think Labour have said they would spend more on Defence than the Tories.Casino_Royale said:
- Corporation taxCyclefree said:
Others are:-Richard_Nabavi said:
We don't know, but clearly very substantial ones given what they've said about spending. At a guess I would say:SouthamObserver said:What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?
- 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?
- Bankers' bonus tax
- Mansion tax
- Lowering the threshold for IHT and abolishing or limiting reliefs.
- Possibly higher VAT on "luxury" items.
- Fiscal drag
They'd also probably target free pensioner benefits for the middle classes (which I think is fair game to be honest, the Tories only keep them because they need the votes)
I'd also expect big cuts in defence, and cancellations in transport. For the rest, they've made it pretty clear they're happen to hold borrowing at £30-£40bn pa ad infinitum, rather than balance the books.
Considering defence is already down to the bone, and Labour are committed to keeping Trident (or so they say), it's hard to see that there's much scope for more cuts anyway.0 -
Imagine my surprise to find on a leaflet that the ordinary restaurant owner who backs Labour's Bristol West candidate, is the wife of a Labour Councillor & past Lord Mayor.Pulpstar said:
I suspect Labour could post dog mess through the letter box in Doncaster North and still hose up.FrancisUrquhart said:Surely not...on a political leaflet...all that is missing is the dodgy bar charts...
http://order-order.com/2015/04/01/miliband-fakes-supporters-on-own-leaflet
Though I noticed that one of Stephen Williams' happy constituents on one of his leaflets, just happens to be standing for election as a LD councillor.0 -
Here's a link to a site detailing some of Labour's ground activity:
https://lab3seats.wordpress.com/
The Scottish seats chosen for today and tomorrow are of interest.0 -
Medium risk. Depends on how much the Germans want to avoid Greece leaving the Euro. I have always been of the opinion that they will do whatever is necessary to ensure the survival of the European project, but with the danger to Merkel's parters in the Bundestag that may change in favour of political expediency. The CSU will get smashed to pieces by AfD if there is any debt relief for Greece.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Max, what's the potential time frame for such an event?
0 -
I don't care about the politics, and I would be a clear loser under any move to a beneficiary tax.HYUFD said:HurstLlama/rcs1000 Of course trusts are also liable for IHT when assets are transferred into and out of them. There is no enthusiasm for a beneficiary tax or higher IHT, indeed it is more likely the threshold will be raised or the main residence exempt as the Tories are proposing. IHT is one of the most unpopular taxes in any poll on the issue, a Mansion Tax, higher income tax for the rich, taxes on alcohol and cigarettes are all far more popular
However, from a straight economics rationale, an inheritance is an income, and an unearned one at that. It should be treated as income - albeit with a smoothing effect.0 -
About as representative as a Question Time audience then.dr_spyn said:
Imagine my surprise to find on a leaflet that the ordinary restaurant owner who backs Labour's Bristol West candidate, is the wife of a Labour Councillor & past Lord Mayor.Pulpstar said:
I suspect Labour could post dog mess through the letter box in Doncaster North and still hose up.FrancisUrquhart said:Surely not...on a political leaflet...all that is missing is the dodgy bar charts...
http://order-order.com/2015/04/01/miliband-fakes-supporters-on-own-leaflet
Though I noticed that one of Stephen Williams' happy constituents on one of his leaflets, just happens to be standing for election as a LD councillor.0 -
Ken Livingstone's company Silveta Limited is:foxinsoxuk said:
I am not sure that clarifies things much!CarlottaVance said:
Other business support service activities n.e.c. (82990)foxinsoxuk said:
What business is the Company in?CarlottaVance said:Funnily enough, the Guardian profile of Martin Freeman makes no mention of Geoffrey Joseph Ltd:
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/shortcuts/2015/apr/01/martin-freeman-good-advert-for-labour
Perhaps they think its 'vanilla tax avoidance and everybody does it'?
It seems to have a lot of cash assets.
http://www.endole.co.uk/company/06473454/geoffrey-joseph-limited
Other service activities n.e.c. (96090)
http://www.endole.co.uk/company/06574918/silveta-limited0 -
Mm, interesting. Margaret Curran doesn't get any help, after all, despite the arguments of late. Does it imply a prioritization?antifrank said:Here's a link to a site detailing some of Labour's ground activity:
https://lab3seats.wordpress.com/
The Scottish seats chosen for today and tomorrow are of interest.
0 -
Matin Freeman seems to be getting rather a hard time I notice. I wasn't too keen on what I saw of the PPB, it seemed designed to make Tories feel bad rather than an encouragement to vote Labour, but the Tories need to ask themselves something. It sounds like Freeman has an interesting political history of his own. But why is it that millionaire luvvies who use private education can despise them so much? I myself was at school with the son of a prominent Labour supporter. There may be a degree of hypocrisy amongst some champagne socialists but I suspect many wouldn't dream of using the 'S'' word to describe themselves. Perhaps in a earlier era they might have voted for the Tory party of McMillan, even if fairly quietly if they were in certain social circles. But they wouldn't dream of voting for the party of Cameron and I don't get the feeling the Tories are in the business of changing minds.
The party has to ask itself though. In a time of declining home ownership and job security, can they really afford to be alienating a significant element of the privileged?0 -
rcs1000 Rubbish, inheritance comes from income which will already have had income tax etc paid on it, no political party with any hope of leading a government is going to introduce a beneficiary tax, it is a complete non-starter and rightly so!0
-
Cumbernauld in amongst them.antifrank said:Here's a link to a site detailing some of Labour's ground activity:
https://lab3seats.wordpress.com/
The Scottish seats chosen for today and tomorrow are of interest.0 -
FrankBooth said:
Matin Freeman seems to be getting rather a hard time I notice. I wasn't too keen on what I saw of the PPB, it seemed designed to make Tories feel bad rather than an encouragement to vote Labour, but the Tories need to ask themselves something. It sounds like Freeman has an interesting political history of his own. But why is it that millionaire luvvies who use private education can despise them so much? I myself was at school with the son of a prominent Labour supporter. There may be a degree of hypocrisy amongst some champagne socialists but I suspect many wouldn't dream of using the 'S'' word to describe themselves. Perhaps in a earlier era they might have voted for the Tory party of McMillan, even if fairly quietly if they were in certain social circles. But they wouldn't dream of voting for the party of Cameron and I don't get the feeling the Tories are in the business of changing minds.
The party has to ask itself though. In a time of declining home ownership and job security, can they really afford to be alienating a significant element of the privileged?
I believe Freeman is further Left-wing than the Labour party.
0 -
For all her woes, surely she's a better shot than Cumbernauld though ?Carnyx said:
Mm, interesting. Margaret Curran doesn't get any help, after all, despite the arguments of late. Does it imply a prioritization?antifrank said:Here's a link to a site detailing some of Labour's ground activity:
https://lab3seats.wordpress.com/
The Scottish seats chosen for today and tomorrow are of interest.0 -
I wouldn't like to make negative inferences. We can, however, make positive inferences that Labour thinks that these seats are worth fighting for. To me that suggests a lack of focus, because a couple of these already look decisively lost to me.Carnyx said:
Mm, interesting. Margaret Curran doesn't get any help, after all, despite the arguments of late. Does it imply a prioritization?antifrank said:Here's a link to a site detailing some of Labour's ground activity:
https://lab3seats.wordpress.com/
The Scottish seats chosen for today and tomorrow are of interest.0 -
applause, all stand, cheers, ovation...er jazz hands...Pulpstar said:
About as representative as a Question Time audience then.dr_spyn said:
Imagine my surprise to find on a leaflet that the ordinary restaurant owner who backs Labour's Bristol West candidate, is the wife of a Labour Councillor & past Lord Mayor.Pulpstar said:
I suspect Labour could post dog mess through the letter box in Doncaster North and still hose up.FrancisUrquhart said:Surely not...on a political leaflet...all that is missing is the dodgy bar charts...
http://order-order.com/2015/04/01/miliband-fakes-supporters-on-own-leaflet
Though I noticed that one of Stephen Williams' happy constituents on one of his leaflets, just happens to be standing for election as a LD councillor.0 -
Edinburgh East !
Best of luck holding that one...0 -
Mr. Max, interesting, although I actually was wondering if there was a risk it could either happen or flare up (but not quite occur) prior to the election.0
-
The Greeks are actually particularly dumb in this instance. They are threatening to default on an IMF loan, not a EFSF or ECB one. In either of those cases, the EU could - possibly - fudge issue by deciding to not put Greece in default.MaxPB said:The Grexident still could be a black swan. Greece's interior minister has said they will default on their IMF loan if they don't get a bailout extension. Germany seems in no mood to compromise. Merkel seems to have sensed the danger. AfD will poll well enough in Bavaria to oust the CSU from the Bundestag if Greece gets bailout money. The vice-president of the CSU resigned to head off the danger and give Merkel a warning shot, she seems to have realised that a fifth of their coalition may go into the ether if they buckle to Greek demands for debt relief.
In the case of the IMF, they go straight into full default mode (it won't be regarded as a 'technical default') and the ECB will insist that Greek bonds are no longer acceptable collateral. Given there will be inevitable capital flight, this will mean that the Greek banks becoming almost instantly insolvent, and in all probability presages capital controls and the government printing Drachma and doing a forced conversion of all loans.
At this point the real pain for Greece begins.
Greek companies will still have Euro denominated obligations to their partners but will only have plummeting Drachma assets to settle them.
The cost of basic imports such as oil, and many foodstuffs would soar.
And then IMF would begin the recovery process, that could involve the confiscation of Greek assets abroad. (Given that Ecuador and Venezuela will likely default this year, the IMF - which doesn't really care about the Eurozone's problems - will need to make an example of Greece.)
It is inevitable that there would be riots in Greece, which would be enormously damaging for Greece's sole meaningful export, tourism.
Greece would become Europe's Venezeula.0 -
Well, that is a rather Conservative view i.e. wait for attitudes to change and then change the law (a view which was ostentatiously and in some cases rather nastily rejected by those who felt that it was too slow) rather than change the law in order to change attitudes - which is more of a Labour view. (I realise I'm taking a very broad brush view.)foxinsoxuk said:
I think that we have to accept that it takes time for attitudes to change. Gay marriage is now part of life, and increasingly so around the developed world.Cyclefree said:
It is precisely because of Labour's record that some of us (and I am not a Conservative btw) have asked why Labour failed - when they had the time and a huge majority - to do what a Conservative Prime Minister insisted on, in the teeth of opposition from his own party.HortenceWithering said:
The last Labour government abolished Section 28, removed the ban on gays serving in the armed forces, made it legal for gay couples to adopt children, introduced civil partnerships, introduced equality in next of kin and pension rights, equalised the age of gay consent and so on. Each measure was vociferously opposed by the vast majority of the parliamentary Conservative Party one of whose favourite argument was ""Why is the government spending all this time on minority issues". Then there was the House of Lords that opposed each and every bill of this nature that came before it - no surprises for guessing which party's peers led that - needlessly consuming long amounts of parliamentary and legislative time. Only on PB could we then be lectured by Conservatives about shortcomings in Labour's legislative record on gay rights.TOPPING said:
Exactly.Cyclefree said:
A bit like EdM at PMQs with a straight face criticising Cam on hedgies and SDRT.
Absolutely shameless.
Either they did not think it important enough or they did not have the courage. It does not reflect well on them. It does reflect well on Cameron, as even Ed Milliband has accepted.
You should not pick fruit until they are ready.
But given that Labour did very obviously seek to change attitudes by using legislation it is legitimate to ask why in 13 years they did not take this step. If you are prone to trumpet your progressive credentials by pointing out all the legislation you enacted, then you should not be surprised to find that others point out what you have failed to do.
0 -
Thanks. That is precisely the assessment I was hoping you would make (not the actual answer so much as the underlying logic).antifrank said:
I wouldn't like to make negative inferences. We can, however, make positive inferences that Labour thinks that these seats are worth fighting for. To me that suggests a lack of focus, because a couple of these already look decisively lost to me.Carnyx said:
Mm, interesting. Margaret Curran doesn't get any help, after all, despite the arguments of late. Does it imply a prioritization?antifrank said:Here's a link to a site detailing some of Labour's ground activity:
https://lab3seats.wordpress.com/
The Scottish seats chosen for today and tomorrow are of interest.
0 -
I see that you've identified the ones I think are decisively lost.Pulpstar said:Edinburgh East !
Best of luck holding that one...0 -
We'll know SLAB is in full scale civil war if Paisley and Renfrewshire North, but not South is visitedCarnyx said:
Thanks. That is precisely the assessment I was hoping you would make (not the actual answer so much as the underlying logic).antifrank said:
I wouldn't like to make negative inferences. We can, however, make positive inferences that Labour thinks that these seats are worth fighting for. To me that suggests a lack of focus, because a couple of these already look decisively lost to me.Carnyx said:
Mm, interesting. Margaret Curran doesn't get any help, after all, despite the arguments of late. Does it imply a prioritization?antifrank said:Here's a link to a site detailing some of Labour's ground activity:
https://lab3seats.wordpress.com/
The Scottish seats chosen for today and tomorrow are of interest.
To choose Cumbernauld over Glasgow East suggests they aren't happy with Curran...0 -
Apparently Yvette Cooper has said the sight of Ed Balls' stomach coming out of his football shirt has helped him connect with middle class men0
-
@MaxPB
While Grexident would be pretty traumatic for Europe, I think it is the very epitome of the "non Black Swan". We all know that a Grexident has a fairly high probability (IIRC UBS estimated that - based on where three year Greek bonds were trading - the market was pricing in a 49% chance of Grexit.)
I'd also remember that the sums involved are fairly small. The Greeks owe about €90bn to private sector lenders, against around €400bn for Venezuela and €100bn for Ecuador. And almost all the private sector debt is in the Greek banks themselves. The effects on the European banking system (outside Greece) would be somewhat less than the fines imposed by the US government on European banks, for example.0 -
I don't disagree with any of that. I still think Greece should have left ages ago, renegotiate with the IMF for longer terms and lower yields and told the EU/ECB to do one and not expect any repayment since most of those loans were just indirect bank bailouts.rcs1000 said:
The Greeks are actually particularly dumb in this instance. They are threatening to default on an IMF loan, not a EFSF or ECB one. In either of those cases, the EU could - possibly - fudge issue by deciding to not put Greece in default.MaxPB said:The Grexident still could be a black swan. Greece's interior minister has said they will default on their IMF loan if they don't get a bailout extension. Germany seems in no mood to compromise. Merkel seems to have sensed the danger. AfD will poll well enough in Bavaria to oust the CSU from the Bundestag if Greece gets bailout money. The vice-president of the CSU resigned to head off the danger and give Merkel a warning shot, she seems to have realised that a fifth of their coalition may go into the ether if they buckle to Greek demands for debt relief.
In the case of the IMF, they go straight into full default mode (it won't be regarded as a 'technical default') and the ECB will insist that Greek bonds are no longer acceptable collateral. Given there will be inevitable capital flight, this will mean that the Greek banks becoming almost instantly insolvent, and in all probability presages capital controls and the government printing Drachma and doing a forced conversion of all loans.
At this point the real pain for Greece begins.
Greek companies will still have Euro denominated obligations to their partners but will only have plummeting Drachma assets to settle them.
The cost of basic imports such as oil, and many foodstuffs would soar.
And then IMF would begin the recovery process, that could involve the confiscation of Greek assets abroad. (Given that Ecuador and Venezuela will likely default this year, the IMF - which doesn't really care about the Eurozone's problems - will need to make an example of Greece.)
It is inevitable that there would be riots in Greece, which would be enormously damaging for Greece's sole meaningful export, tourism.
Greece would become Europe's Venezeula.0 -
Mr. 1000, the psychological impact could be more severe than the economic one, though.
The unshakeable notion of ever greater union, ever expanding single currency etc etc would've been shattered.0 -
0
-
Which is going to be the most entertaining count of the night ?
Contenders must be:
Hallam
Thanet South
Portsmouth South
Paisley & Renfrewshire South.0 -
Mphm. (To those not familiar with Scottish politics, there was a story in the Sunday Herald that some were not happy with certain MPs being given additional support and resources over others -Pulpstar said:
We'll know SLAB is in full scale civil war if Paisley and Renfrewshire North, but not South is visitedCarnyx said:
Thanks. That is precisely the assessment I was hoping you would make (not the actual answer so much as the underlying logic).antifrank said:
I wouldn't like to make negative inferences. We can, however, make positive inferences that Labour thinks that these seats are worth fighting for. To me that suggests a lack of focus, because a couple of these already look decisively lost to me.Carnyx said:
Mm, interesting. Margaret Curran doesn't get any help, after all, despite the arguments of late. Does it imply a prioritization?antifrank said:Here's a link to a site detailing some of Labour's ground activity:
https://lab3seats.wordpress.com/
The Scottish seats chosen for today and tomorrow are of interest.
To choose Cumbernauld over Glasgow East suggests they aren't happy with Curran...
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/scottish-labour-accused-of-giving-up-in-key-election-marginals.121872445 )
0 -
I think politically the Tories could make a lot of capital out of it though. Show what leftist government leads to, what not paying our way could lead to. Even though it will all be technical bullshit they may convert enough centrist voters that austerity is still necessary and that lurching left like Greece is not a good idea.rcs1000 said:@MaxPB
While Grexident would be pretty traumatic for Europe, I think it is the very epitome of the "non Black Swan". We all know that a Grexident has a fairly high probability (IIRC UBS estimated that - based on where three year Greek bonds were trading - the market was pricing in a 49% chance of Grexit.)
I'd also remember that the sums involved are fairly small. The Greeks owe about €90bn to private sector lenders, against around €400bn for Venezuela and €100bn for Ecuador. And almost all the private sector debt is in the Greek banks themselves. The effects on the European banking system (outside Greece) would be somewhat less than the fines imposed by the US government on European banks, for example.0 -
Guardian live blog :-
"Wouter den Haan, professor of economics at the LSE and a co-director of the Centre for Macroeconomics, told BBC News this afternoon that it was “rare” for macroeconomics to agree as much as they did on the proposition that the coalition’s austerity policies had been bad for growth and jobs. (See 9.18am and 10.03am.)
We asked our panel members whether they agree that the austerity plans of the coalition government had a positive effect on the economy in the UK. And the result is that most people disagreed with that statement. If you leave out the people who neither agreed or disagreed, 81% disagreed or strongly disagreed. It is rare that macroeconomists are that unanimous about something."
0 -
An orderly Grexit, with the country governed by a party with sensible economic plans, would clearly have been the best option for Greece.MaxPB said:I don't disagree with any of that. I still think Greece should have left ages ago, renegotiate with the IMF for longer terms and lower yields and told the EU/ECB to do one and not expect any repayment since most of those loans were just indirect bank bailouts.
Unfortunately, they have managed to pi55 off the IMF (who described them as the worst country they've had to deal with in the 70 years of the institution), and to have a government committed to Chavez-ian policies.
The second best option for Greece (after sensible Grexit) was to negotiate hard, and take the - incredibly generous - offer that was on the table: i.e. continued reforms and privatisations in return for lowered interest payment, increased maturities, an interest holiday, and bonds where repayment was linked to GDP growth. This was an - effective - 35-40% write off in the value of Greece's debt.
The worst option is to fall out of the Euro having pissed everyone off and attempt to follow Communist economic policies.0 -
Chris Giles @ChrisGiles_ · 10m10 minutes agoSmarmeron said:Guardian live blog :-
"Wouter den Haan, professor of economics at the LSE and a co-director of the Centre for Macroeconomics, told BBC News this afternoon that it was “rare” for macroeconomics to agree as much as they did on the proposition that the coalition’s austerity policies had been bad for growth and jobs. (See 9.18am and 10.03am.)
We asked our panel members whether they agree that the austerity plans of the coalition government had a positive effect on the economy in the UK. And the result is that most people disagreed with that statement. If you leave out the people who neither agreed or disagreed, 81% disagreed or strongly disagreed. It is rare that macroeconomists are that unanimous about something."
Why the survey asking economists about austerity was... well... stupid. Spot on by @MrRBourne http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/austerity-and-silly-surveys …0 -
I'm lost. People who retire at 60 don't for that reason stop paying income tax. Even if they did, so what? That will only make the first £10,600 of the inheritance tax-free.rcs1000 said:
Moving to a benificiary tax is eminently sensible. However, it would clearly make sense to allow you to spread your proceeds over a period, say five to ten years, otherwise you have the ridiculous possible situation of parents die when you're 60 and retired, no tax. But if they kick the bucket when you are 59, then it's 50% for you.antifrank said:
You'd have to make sure you got the receipts at weddings, birthdays and Christmasses.MikeL said:
The LDs have already officially proposed:Cyclefree said:
Others are:-Richard_Nabavi said:
We don't know, but clearly very substantial ones given what they've said about spending. At a guess I would say:SouthamObserver said:What tax rises are Labour going to impose on the middle classes?
- 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?
- Bankers' bonus tax
- Mansion tax
- Lowering the threshold for IHT and abolishing or limiting reliefs.
- Possibly higher VAT on "luxury" items.
- 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%.0 -
Indeed, the last one I can remember was this one:Smarmeron said:It is rare that macroeconomists are that unanimous about something."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3623669/How-364-economists-got-it-totally-wrong.html
Edit: Of course, in this case the question is spectacularly stupid too, as antifrank's link points out. Every man and his dog, even economists, understand that austerity lowers GDP in the short-term.0 -
Sounds like the same as when I worked for Cardiff council in 2005 in the care industry. AIUI more than half of all ZHC jobs are in the public sector.CarlottaVance said:Doncaster Council on zero hours contracts:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBhJNzpU0AABeDd.jpg0 -
YouGov's NowCast
Labour 285, Conservatives 261, SNP 52, Lib Dems 28 and UKIP 5.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/04/01/what-does-yougov-nowcast-mean-parties/0 -
I'd have thought SLAB may have a better chance gaining Swinson's seat rather than holding Cumbernauld actually. More ABC demographic, only a slightly smaller majority over the Nats and the Yes % quite a bit lower too.0
-
It's full headless chicken mode.antifrank said:
I wouldn't like to make negative inferences. We can, however, make positive inferences that Labour thinks that these seats are worth fighting for. To me that suggests a lack of focus, because a couple of these already look decisively lost to me.Carnyx said:
Mm, interesting. Margaret Curran doesn't get any help, after all, despite the arguments of late. Does it imply a prioritization?antifrank said:Here's a link to a site detailing some of Labour's ground activity:
https://lab3seats.wordpress.com/
The Scottish seats chosen for today and tomorrow are of interest.
Of those seven seats the only ones where they have even the remotest chance of holding on are Airdrie and Shotts and Edinburgh South. The other 5 are a completely wasted trip, you would think they would have been better going to East Ren or Paisley South.0 -
@antifrank
"Free market" think tank rubbishes economists and hails business leaders!
Shock, horror.........
ohhhhh the utter humanity of it all.
*weeps"0 -
I was disappointed that Google translate didn't quite cope with:Pong said:
Wow, just wow.TheScreamingEagles said: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
The groupthink of a community of people who see the world in binary.
ISIS, UKIP and Radical Swedish feminists really are peas in a pod.
The taxpayer-funded porn films showed up several sex scenes between white women and black men. One of them is directed by Joanna Rytel, previously declared that she "never going to give birth to a white man" and call themselves "ni**erlovingfetischistkärring". In the film goes Rytel around town and exposes himself in places where children are present.0 -
What makes for an entertaining count? A big name biting their nails (preferably humbled), a big swing, lots of different parties interested, some proper joke candidates and (ideally) a minor scuffle. The best chance of all of those things looks to be Thanet South.0
-
Mike has assured me that Gerald Vernon Jackson can walk on water.Sean_F said:
Portsmouth South. Mike Hancock re-elected on 21% of the vote.Pulpstar said:Which is going to be the most entertaining count of the night ?
Contenders must be:
Hallam
Thanet South
Portsmouth South
Paisley & Renfrewshire South.0
