politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » There’s still a huge gap facing the Tories in England and W
Comments
-
Meanwhile Greece seems to be joining the Warsaw Pact.
0 -
Right, having popped offline for a bit, I've had a go at this on the Tory v. Labour battleground - see my massive assumption filled forecast below:
https://royaleleseaux.wordpress.com/2015/04/08/the-primary-battleground-labour-v-conservative/
Off out again now. Catch you later.0 -
If it's salvage which it may well be that doesn't make it their property, it gives them the right to a proportion of its value to be determined by the Admiralty Court (or by an arbitrator if they've agreed Lloyd's Open Form). RNLI probably have a specific policy as to whether they claim salvage.Plato said:OT Just been watching a TV prog where the RNLI decided to rescue a Dutch yacht in difficulty rather than let it sink. By boarding it with the stranded crews permission, and towing it back, does that mean the vessel is salvage and their property now?
0 -
Thanx for that - the RNLI towed the boat back for 5hrs and did two manual jumps to get their crew onboard in a F10 storm.
It seemed like their determination to salvage rather than abandon the Dutch vessel [on hire] looked like a good financial bet for them. Otherwise why bother with such a dangerous/lengthy rescue. I presume the costs were covered by the hirer's insurance which is good news for the RNLI.Carnyx said:
I was reading about this recently - normally the RNLI and HM Coastguard, where involved, waive the claim. On checking, though, this is interesting: [google RNLI Salvage Claim and pick the 'Modern Admiralty Law' book by A. Mandaraka-Sheppard]Plato said:OT Just been watching a TV prog where the RNLI decided to rescue a Dutch yacht in difficulty rather than let it sink. By boarding it with the stranded crews permission, and towing it back, does that mean the vessel is salvage and their property now?
0 -
They can have 'em, if we get Crete and Rhodes to settle the debt. Also that cool monastery on a cliff from For Your Eyes Only.TGOHF said:Meanwhile Greece seems to be joining the Warsaw Pact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monastery_of_the_Holy_Trinity,_Meteora0 -
Good afternoon, everyone.
Welcome to pb.com, Mr. Romford.0 -
Just Looking at Wales and Scotland for the moment and seats 2010 and projection to 2015:
Wales:
2010-> 2015:
Cons: 8->7
LAB: 26-> 29
LD: 3-> 1
PC: 3->3
Scotland:
Cons: 1->1
LD: 11-> 1
LAB: 41-> 11
SNP: 6-> 46
It is the final LAB total in Scotland that presents a difficulty. It could be as low as 5 but do not really see it. Any with genuine firmer views?0 -
When is salvage *salvage* ?
The last big case about this was a container ship that went down near us and the beaches were covered in all sorts of cargo. BMW motorbikes being much sought after!
IIRC it was the Receiver of Wrecks who arbitrated there. bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/archaeology/marine_receive_01.shtmlIshmael_X said:
If it's salvage which it may well be that doesn't make it their property, it gives them the right to a proportion of its value to be determined by the Admiralty Court (or by an arbitrator if they've agreed Lloyd's Open Form). RNLI probably have a specific policy as to whether they claim salvage.Plato said:OT Just been watching a TV prog where the RNLI decided to rescue a Dutch yacht in difficulty rather than let it sink. By boarding it with the stranded crews permission, and towing it back, does that mean the vessel is salvage and their property now?
0 -
Worcester – 6/4 on the Conservatives with William Hill. The Ashcroft poll last month showed a clear 6% Conservative lead here. This price seems a bit out of kilter here.Casino_Royale said:Right, having popped offline for a bit, I've had a go at this on the Tory v. Labour battleground - see my massive assumption filled forecast below:
https://royaleleseaux.wordpress.com/2015/04/08/the-primary-battleground-labour-v-conservative/
Off out again now. Catch you later.
I had a look as that indeed did seem wrong, but the 6-4 is with Labour.0 -
Removing a potential hazard to other shipping?Plato said:Thanx for that - the RNLI towed the boat back for 5hrs and did two manual jumps to get their crew onboard in a F10 storm.
It seemed like their determination to salvage rather than abandon the Dutch vessel [on hire] looked like a good financial bet for them. Otherwise why bother with such a dangerous/lengthy rescue. I presume the costs were covered by the hirer's insurance which is good news for the RNLI.Carnyx said:
I was reading about this recently - normally the RNLI and HM Coastguard, where involved, waive the claim. On checking, though, this is interesting: [google RNLI Salvage Claim and pick the 'Modern Admiralty Law' book by A. Mandaraka-Sheppard]Plato said:OT Just been watching a TV prog where the RNLI decided to rescue a Dutch yacht in difficulty rather than let it sink. By boarding it with the stranded crews permission, and towing it back, does that mean the vessel is salvage and their property now?
0 -
No idea if it applies in this case, but I would have thought it is sometimes safer to tow a yacht than to take off the yacht crew - for instance if the transfer is dangerous or a yachtie is incapacitated by injury or seasickness/exhaustion. It also avoids leaving a derelict/collision risk.Plato said:Thanx for that - the RNLI towed the boat back for 5hrs and did two manual jumps to get their crew onboard in a F10 storm.
It seemed like their determination to salvage rather than abandon the Dutch vessel [on hire] looked like a good financial bet for them. Otherwise why bother with such a dangerous/lengthy rescue. I presume the costs were covered by the hirer's insurance which is good news for the RNLI.Carnyx said:
I was reading about this recently - normally the RNLI and HM Coastguard, where involved, waive the claim. On checking, though, this is interesting: [google RNLI Salvage Claim and pick the 'Modern Admiralty Law' book by A. Mandaraka-Sheppard]Plato said:OT Just been watching a TV prog where the RNLI decided to rescue a Dutch yacht in difficulty rather than let it sink. By boarding it with the stranded crews permission, and towing it back, does that mean the vessel is salvage and their property now?
There may also be more numinous psychological issues such as yachties being more willing t ocooperate if the RNLI doesn't have a summary policy if abandoning the yacht, plus the natural sympathy of the RNLI crew for a fellow seafarer.
0 -
The love fest isn't going that well.TGOHF said:Meanwhile Greece seems to be joining the Warsaw Pact.
'Putin: Russia will not lift ban on Greek food imports'0 -
Lord Ashcrofts latest polling out at 4pm..0
-
@LordAshcroft: Coming up shortly - ten polls in marginal seats on the Con-Lab battleground. See @ConHome at 4pm.0
-
So thats why you got rid of your car - you are the Chapter leader of the Angels of Eastbourne, but with a pair of modified BMWs (can outrun the cops) instead of a Harley. How many tattoos do you have?Plato said:When is salvage *salvage* ?
The last big case about this was a container ship that went down near us and the beaches were covered in all sorts of cargo. BMW motorbikes being much sought after!
IIRC it was the Receiver of Wrecks who arbitrated there. bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/archaeology/marine_receive_01.shtmlIshmael_X said:
If it's salvage which it may well be that doesn't make it their property, it gives them the right to a proportion of its value to be determined by the Admiralty Court (or by an arbitrator if they've agreed Lloyd's Open Form). RNLI probably have a specific policy as to whether they claim salvage.Plato said:OT Just been watching a TV prog where the RNLI decided to rescue a Dutch yacht in difficulty rather than let it sink. By boarding it with the stranded crews permission, and towing it back, does that mean the vessel is salvage and their property now?
0 -
A bad tea time for the Conservatives...TheScreamingEagles said:@LordAshcroft: Coming up shortly - ten polls in marginal seats on the Con-Lab battleground. See @ConHome at 4pm.
0 -
Interesting stuff - one crew member was too ill from sea-sickness/the rest exhausted after 17hrs of battling.
The yacht was taking on loads of water and riding very low in heavy seas. TBH, it looked like it'd sink without more hands on deck and a pump.
So it looks like a combination of several factors just to get them back and any financial upside was a bonus.Carnyx said:
No idea if it applies in this case, but I would have thought it is sometimes safer to tow a yacht than to take off the yacht crew - for instance if the transfer is dangerous or a yachtie is incapacitated by injury or seasickness/exhaustion. It also avoids leaving a derelict/collision risk.Plato said:Thanx for that - the RNLI towed the boat back for 5hrs and did two manual jumps to get their crew onboard in a F10 storm.
It seemed like their determination to salvage rather than abandon the Dutch vessel [on hire] looked like a good financial bet for them. Otherwise why bother with such a dangerous/lengthy rescue. I presume the costs were covered by the hirer's insurance which is good news for the RNLI.Carnyx said:
I was reading about this recently - normally the RNLI and HM Coastguard, where involved, waive the claim. On checking, though, this is interesting: [google RNLI Salvage Claim and pick the 'Modern Admiralty Law' book by A. Mandaraka-Sheppard]Plato said:OT Just been watching a TV prog where the RNLI decided to rescue a Dutch yacht in difficulty rather than let it sink. By boarding it with the stranded crews permission, and towing it back, does that mean the vessel is salvage and their property now?
There may also be more numinous psychological issues such as yachties being more willing t ocooperate if the RNLI doesn't have a summary policy if abandoning the yacht, plus the natural sympathy of the RNLI crew for a fellow seafarer.0 -
This is Labour's "expert"
@JolyonMaugham: Feeling a bit like today's Gillian Duffy.
Already been on BBC news explaining that the policy is a bad idea0 -
When something is rescued from maritime dangers and the rescuer isn't doing it under a pre-existing duty like a towage contract. I was being excessively cautious in this case - no reason to think it isn't salvage.Plato said:When is salvage *salvage* ?
The last big case about this was a container ship that went down near us and the beaches were covered in all sorts of cargo. BMW motorbikes being much sought after!
IIRC it was the Receiver of Wrecks who arbitrated there. bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/archaeology/marine_receive_01.shtmlIshmael_X said:
If it's salvage which it may well be that doesn't make it their property, it gives them the right to a proportion of its value to be determined by the Admiralty Court (or by an arbitrator if they've agreed Lloyd's Open Form). RNLI probably have a specific policy as to whether they claim salvage.Plato said:OT Just been watching a TV prog where the RNLI decided to rescue a Dutch yacht in difficulty rather than let it sink. By boarding it with the stranded crews permission, and towing it back, does that mean the vessel is salvage and their property now?
0 -
Top!!
That got a well deserved belly laugh from me
Financier said:
So thats why you got rid of your car - you are the Chapter leader of the Angels of Eastbourne, but with a pair of modified BMWs (can outrun the cops) instead of a Harley. How many tattoos do you have?Plato said:When is salvage *salvage* ?
The last big case about this was a container ship that went down near us and the beaches were covered in all sorts of cargo. BMW motorbikes being much sought after!
IIRC it was the Receiver of Wrecks who arbitrated there. bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/archaeology/marine_receive_01.shtmlIshmael_X said:
If it's salvage which it may well be that doesn't make it their property, it gives them the right to a proportion of its value to be determined by the Admiralty Court (or by an arbitrator if they've agreed Lloyd's Open Form). RNLI probably have a specific policy as to whether they claim salvage.Plato said:OT Just been watching a TV prog where the RNLI decided to rescue a Dutch yacht in difficulty rather than let it sink. By boarding it with the stranded crews permission, and towing it back, does that mean the vessel is salvage and their property now?
0 -
Poor bugger.Scott_P said:
This is Labour's "expert"
@JolyonMaugham: Feeling a bit like today's Gillian Duffy.
Already been on BBC news explaining that the policy is a bad idea0 -
The short answer to your question wrt RNLI ‘salvage’ is Yes.
However, RNLI Lifeboat crew are not supposed to render services to save property if other vessels are on the spot. If no other vessel is standing by, then the crew may accept salvage engagement whereupon they become hirers of the lifeboat and if they succeed, they must pay to the RNLI expenses incurred in respect of the boat in accordance with the RNLI’s regulations.
RNLI crew members are rewarded for saving lives on a scale basis provided they make no claim for salvage.Plato said:Interesting stuff - one crew member was too ill from sea-sickness/the rest exhausted after 17hrs of battling.
The yacht was taking on loads of water and riding very low in heavy seas. TBH, it looked like it'd sink without more hands on deck and a pump.
So it looks like a combination of several factors just to get them back and any financial upside was a bonus.Carnyx said:
No idea if it applies in this case, but I would have thought it is sometimes safer to tow a yacht than to take off the yacht crew - for instance if the transfer is dangerous or a yachtie is incapacitated by injury or seasickness/exhaustion. It also avoids leaving a derelict/collision risk.Plato said:Thanx for that - the RNLI towed the boat back for 5hrs and did two manual jumps to get their crew onboard in a F10 storm.
It seemed like their determination to salvage rather than abandon the Dutch vessel [on hire] looked like a good financial bet for them. Otherwise why bother with such a dangerous/lengthy rescue. I presume the costs were covered by the hirer's insurance which is good news for the RNLI.Carnyx said:
I was reading about this recently - normally the RNLI and HM Coastguard, where involved, waive the claim. On checking, though, this is interesting: [google RNLI Salvage Claim and pick the 'Modern Admiralty Law' book by A. Mandaraka-Sheppard]Plato said:OT Just been watching a TV prog where the RNLI decided to rescue a Dutch yacht in difficulty rather than let it sink. By boarding it with the stranded crews permission, and towing it back, does that mean the vessel is salvage and their property now?
There may also be more numinous psychological issues such as yachties being more willing t ocooperate if the RNLI doesn't have a summary policy if abandoning the yacht, plus the natural sympathy of the RNLI crew for a fellow seafarer.0 -
A new revolutionary concept that because non doms are rich and pay more tax than the poor they should be given additional tax breaks..........
For those who spend their days rehashing other peoples tweets it might be worth reading a bit of background so that they can at least give the impression of being informed.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/07/ed-miliband-non-dom-tax-status-labour0 -
The betting market has Labour as favourites in 13 seats. My modelling is giving them 7 (and that's on an outturn of SNP 43% Lab 31%). I have something for regional discrepancies in SNP vote; what I don't have is tactical voting.Financier said:Just Looking at Wales and Scotland for the moment and seats 2010 and projection to 2015:
Wales:
2010-> 2015:
Cons: 8->7
LAB: 26-> 29
LD: 3-> 1
PC: 3->3
Scotland:
Cons: 1->1
LD: 11-> 1
LAB: 41-> 11
SNP: 6-> 46
It is the final LAB total in Scotland that presents a difficulty. It could be as low as 5 but do not really see it. Any with genuine firmer views?0 -
Never trust the Guardian - can you link to the original Labour press release please?Roger said:A new revolutionary concept that because non doms are rich and pay more tax than the poor they should be given additional tax breaks..........
For those who spend their days rehashing other peoples tweets it might be worth reading a bit of background so that they can at least give the impression of being informed.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/07/ed-miliband-non-dom-tax-status-labour0 -
When hell freezes over.Tabman said:Question for the great PB cognoscenti - under what conditions would we get a Con/Lab coalition?
If Labour have fewer seats than the Tories, Ed won't settle for deputy PM if he can get into number 10 with a SNP/ Lib Dem/ UKIP coalition/ C&S.
If he can't get into power that way then it is odds on that the Conservatives + LibDems + UKIP/ DUP (if needed) will have a working majority.
For simplicity we assume that the LDs have 30 seats, the SNP 45, the DUP 8 and UKIP 5
Ed (258 at the moment) can become PM on 245 (+80 - LDs SNP, UKIP)
Cameron (304 at the moment) can remain PM on 280 + 30 + 8 + 5
Because the LDs can be kingmaker there is no need for a grand coalition - UNLESS BOTH sides lose 10 or 15 seats to UKIP - and I cannot see that happening - AND neither side enters a deal with UKIP (both have ruled this out by their actions and words).
If neither side can get a Queen's speech through then there will be another election. Cameron will campaign on the basis of how difficult the Government is when no one party has power and Ed will be willing on the basis that he has 'the big mo', having gained seats in May.
(If there is another election then presumably Labour will be the (temporary) Government since Mr Cameron will have told the Queen he can't form one and recommend she ask Mr Miliband to do so.)0 -
Casino.
"Right, having popped offline for a bit, I've had a go at this on the Tory v. Labour battleground - see my massive assumption filled forecast below:"
Well done. Very interesting. Optimistic but interesting0 -
Lord Ashcrofts latest polling out at 4pm..
Potential big market mover, right there...0 -
Argh. Thanks Pulpstar, typo. Will correct.Pulpstar said:
Worcester – 6/4 on the Conservatives with William Hill. The Ashcroft poll last month showed a clear 6% Conservative lead here. This price seems a bit out of kilter here.Casino_Royale said:Right, having popped offline for a bit, I've had a go at this on the Tory v. Labour battleground - see my massive assumption filled forecast below:
https://royaleleseaux.wordpress.com/2015/04/08/the-primary-battleground-labour-v-conservative/
Off out again now. Catch you later.
I had a look as that indeed did seem wrong, but the 6-4 is with Labour.
0 -
Thanks Roger.Roger said:Casino.
"Right, having popped offline for a bit, I've had a go at this on the Tory v. Labour battleground - see my massive assumption filled forecast below:"
Well done. Very interesting. Optimistic but interesting0 -
I fear he's going to blow all my analysis straight out the water inside an hour.TheScreamingEagles said:@LordAshcroft: Coming up shortly - ten polls in marginal seats on the Con-Lab battleground. See @ConHome at 4pm.
0 -
We have to have the heavy tax payers so the poorer don't have to pay as much. You don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Not sure how much 1p on income tax earns/ loses, but the country isn't really in a position yet to experiment.Sandpit said:
Or cut the 20p rate to 16p or 15p - people would notice that!weejonnie said:
It wouldn't be 10 million - the 10 million quoted are the lowest paying 10 million - the next 10 million will be paying much more. So it would probably be 'only' 2 million or so.Sandpit said:
Like! Imagine how much we could cut the basic rate of income tax if we could only attract a few thousand more rich entrepreneurs!TGOHF said:
Can we have 115k more NDs and then take 10m more workers out of tax all together ?Scott_P said:@Mr_Eugenides: BBC: 115,000 non-doms pay as much in tax as 10 million low-income workers http://t.co/Kj6GB5GsBg
0 -
He does it to me all the time.Casino_Royale said:
I fear he's going to blow all my analysis straight out the water inside an hour.TheScreamingEagles said:@LordAshcroft: Coming up shortly - ten polls in marginal seats on the Con-Lab battleground. See @ConHome at 4pm.
0 -
Have you checked your Hills bet on Worcester - Labour were 6-4 there, not the Cons.Casino_Royale said:
I fear he's going to blow all my analysis straight out the water inside an hour.TheScreamingEagles said:@LordAshcroft: Coming up shortly - ten polls in marginal seats on the Con-Lab battleground. See @ConHome at 4pm.
Edit: 8-11 may still be OK.0 -
“There are a number of people who have said [the non-dom ban] could raise hundreds of millions,” Labour’s Shadow Exchequer Secretary Shabana Mahmood told the Daily Politics. Asked to name just one, she could not. Funnily enough, Guido had the same problem with the Labour press office as well:
Two hours later and no reply. The only ‘expert’ making such a claim is a Labour member and even he has admitted he got it wrong
-------------
Call for Bill Somebody...Bill Somebody....Bill Somebody please call Labour HQ immediately.0 -
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-for-the-new-parliament/the-public-finances/structure-of-taxation/weejonnie said:
We have to have the heavy tax payers so the poorer don't have to pay as much. You don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Not sure how much 1p on income tax earns/ loses, but the country isn't really in a position yet to experiment.Sandpit said:
Or cut the 20p rate to 16p or 15p - people would notice that!weejonnie said:
It wouldn't be 10 million - the 10 million quoted are the lowest paying 10 million - the next 10 million will be paying much more. So it would probably be 'only' 2 million or so.Sandpit said:
Like! Imagine how much we could cut the basic rate of income tax if we could only attract a few thousand more rich entrepreneurs!TGOHF said:
Can we have 115k more NDs and then take 10m more workers out of tax all together ?Scott_P said:@Mr_Eugenides: BBC: 115,000 non-doms pay as much in tax as 10 million low-income workers http://t.co/Kj6GB5GsBg
1p on basic rate: £4.75bn
1p on higher rate: £0.78bn
And there's the rub. There isn't enough higher rate tax payers to pay the amounts of money really needed.0 -
Dave Can't Win Here as usual?
You said it
Ashcroft was very scornful of Dave's recent 'come back to us' appeal to bitter kippers.
Dunno if that's a clue.0 -
HMRC's topical note on residence, domicile and remittances.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/416578/RDR1.doc0 -
Yes, luckily I hadn't placed my bet on that one yet. I (hope) I'd have noticed if I had! I manually copied across all the odds from oddschecker last night at 11pm, and finished them off at 6.30am this morning. I must have been tired.Pulpstar said:
Have you checked your Hills bet on Worcester - Labour were 6-4 there, not the Cons.Casino_Royale said:
I fear he's going to blow all my analysis straight out the water inside an hour.TheScreamingEagles said:@LordAshcroft: Coming up shortly - ten polls in marginal seats on the Con-Lab battleground. See @ConHome at 4pm.
Thanks for pointing it out.0 -
8-11 may still be value by the way, it's an underround with 6-4 at any rate.Casino_Royale said:
Yes, luckily I hadn't placed my bet on that one yet. I (hope) I'd have noticed if I had! I manually copied across all the odds from oddschecker last night at 11pm, and finished them off at 6.30am this morning. I must have been tired.Pulpstar said:
Have you checked your Hills bet on Worcester - Labour were 6-4 there, not the Cons.Casino_Royale said:
I fear he's going to blow all my analysis straight out the water inside an hour.TheScreamingEagles said:@LordAshcroft: Coming up shortly - ten polls in marginal seats on the Con-Lab battleground. See @ConHome at 4pm.
Thanks for pointing it out.
They could BOTH be value in fact
0 -
Did you know that this was coming out? Think you should waited for this first...Casino_Royale said:
I fear he's going to blow all my analysis straight out the water inside an hour.TheScreamingEagles said:@LordAshcroft: Coming up shortly - ten polls in marginal seats on the Con-Lab battleground. See @ConHome at 4pm.
0 -
If a second election were inconclusive with largely similar seat positions, perhaps with UKIP making a bigger breakthrough because of the credibility factor of winning some seats, and a further LD retrenchment, would not Ed in No10 and Gorgeous George in No 11 not look quite an attractive prospect? Sort of having your cake and eating it.weejonnie said:
When hell freezes over.Tabman said:Question for the great PB cognoscenti - under what conditions would we get a Con/Lab coalition?
If Labour have fewer seats than the Tories, Ed won't settle for deputy PM if he can get into number 10 with a SNP/ Lib Dem/ UKIP coalition/ C&S.
If he can't get into power that way then it is odds on that the Conservatives + LibDems + UKIP/ DUP (if needed) will have a working majority.
For simplicity we assume that the LDs have 30 seats, the SNP 45, the DUP 8 and UKIP 5
Ed (258 at the moment) can become PM on 245 (+80 - LDs SNP, UKIP)
Cameron (304 at the moment) can remain PM on 280 + 30 + 8 + 5
Because the LDs can be kingmaker there is no need for a grand coalition - UNLESS BOTH sides lose 10 or 15 seats to UKIP - and I cannot see that happening - AND neither side enters a deal with UKIP (both have ruled this out by their actions and words).
If neither side can get a Queen's speech through then there will be another election. Cameron will campaign on the basis of how difficult the Government is when no one party has power and Ed will be willing on the basis that he has 'the big mo', having gained seats in May.
(If there is another election then presumably Labour will be the (temporary) Government since Mr Cameron will have told the Queen he can't form one and recommend she ask Mr Miliband to do so.)
0 -
I like the Con tips you have picked out. Some bookmakers are quite a bit shorter on several of them.Casino_Royale said:Right, having popped offline for a bit, I've had a go at this on the Tory v. Labour battleground - see my massive assumption filled forecast below:
https://royaleleseaux.wordpress.com/2015/04/08/the-primary-battleground-labour-v-conservative/
Off out again now. Catch you later.0 -
What's the point of waiting ?murali_s said:
Did you know that this was coming out? Think you should waited for this first...Casino_Royale said:
I fear he's going to blow all my analysis straight out the water inside an hour.TheScreamingEagles said:@LordAshcroft: Coming up shortly - ten polls in marginal seats on the Con-Lab battleground. See @ConHome at 4pm.
Ashcroft polls aren't perfect and his analysis looks pretty good - though I'd have lD-UKIP switchers lower and Con-UKIP switchers a bit higher than Royale.0 -
It was poorly judged. Dave can win from the centre. A poll recently had them on 37%, there are enough votes for them in the centre to get them the most seats. Appealing to UKIP will turn these people away from the Tories. The way to win back wavering UKIP voters is to hammer the vote purple get Red Ed message, not make direct any direct appeal to UKIP voters.taffys said:Dave Can't Win Here as usual?
You said it
Ashcroft was very scornful of Dave's recent 'come back to us' appeal to bitter kippers.
Dunno if that's a clue.0 -
Depends. He hasn't really said or done anything to put off the centre. Yet.MaxPB said:
It was poorly judged. Dave can win from the centre. A poll recently had them on 37%, there are enough votes for them in the centre to get them the most seats. Appealing to UKIP will turn these people away from the Tories. The way to win back wavering UKIP voters is to hammer the vote purple get Red Ed message, not make direct any direct appeal to UKIP voters.taffys said:Dave Can't Win Here as usual?
You said it
Ashcroft was very scornful of Dave's recent 'come back to us' appeal to bitter kippers.
Dunno if that's a clue.0 -
But Dave moving to the centre would involve a significant move leftwards on economics. All the voters of the non-Tory parties are heavily against more cuts (including UKIP, actually UKIP moreso than the Lib Dems funnily enough).MaxPB said:
It was poorly judged. Dave can win from the centre. A poll recently had them on 37%, there are enough votes for them in the centre to get them the most seats. Appealing to UKIP will turn these people away from the Tories. The way to win back wavering UKIP voters is to hammer the vote purple get Red Ed message, not make direct any direct appeal to UKIP voters.taffys said:Dave Can't Win Here as usual?
You said it
Ashcroft was very scornful of Dave's recent 'come back to us' appeal to bitter kippers.
Dunno if that's a clue.
In absence of a move to anti-austerity, Dave's best chance is to play up an anti-immigration, anti-EU, and pro-"toughness" on foreign policy where he actually would have majority backing.0 -
I've just thought of silver lining for Nicola if she gets the Tory government of her dreams..... A non dom tax break for Sir Sean Connery and perhaps he can be persuaded to buy himself a nice new home in Pollokshields0
-
They are out early, Lord A I mean.0
-
The Tories doing better in seats they where ahead in October, but Labour also doing better in seats they lead in October plus they are now ahead in Harrow East.
Bad poll for the Tories.0 -
Yes, that is because Dave has successfully captured most of the pro-austerity vote it has left other parties even more anti-austerity than before.Danny565 said:
But Dave moving to the centre would involve a significant move leftwards on economics. All the voters of the non-Tory parties are heavily against more cuts (including UKIP, actually UKIP moreso than the Lib Dems funnily enough).MaxPB said:
It was poorly judged. Dave can win from the centre. A poll recently had them on 37%, there are enough votes for them in the centre to get them the most seats. Appealing to UKIP will turn these people away from the Tories. The way to win back wavering UKIP voters is to hammer the vote purple get Red Ed message, not make direct any direct appeal to UKIP voters.taffys said:Dave Can't Win Here as usual?
You said it
Ashcroft was very scornful of Dave's recent 'come back to us' appeal to bitter kippers.
Dunno if that's a clue.
Also, the wording of austerity has changed as well, notice that the Tories don't talk about billions or even millions. The line I have heard is that they want to save just one out of hundred pounds the government spends for three years. Put that way it doesn't really sound like massive cuts so to moderate voters people opposing it sound stupid. Again, appealing to UKIP voters and getting off message will not help.0 -
Interesting - swings between 0.5% and 5.5%. Con>Lab
This is way too close to call.
https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/585818780204408832/photo/10 -
PB posters seem to just add in the smaller parties in order to get their sums to add up.Tabman said:
If a second election were inconclusive with largely similar seat positions, perhaps with UKIP making a bigger breakthrough because of the credibility factor of winning some seats, and a further LD retrenchment, would not Ed in No10 and Gorgeous George in No 11 not look quite an attractive prospect? Sort of having your cake and eating it.weejonnie said:
When hell freezes over.Tabman said:Question for the great PB cognoscenti - under what conditions would we get a Con/Lab coalition?
If Labour have fewer seats than the Tories, Ed won't settle for deputy PM if he can get into number 10 with a SNP/ Lib Dem/ UKIP coalition/ C&S.
If he can't get into power that way then it is odds on that the Conservatives + LibDems + UKIP/ DUP (if needed) will have a working majority.
For simplicity we assume that the LDs have 30 seats, the SNP 45, the DUP 8 and UKIP 5
Ed (258 at the moment) can become PM on 245 (+80 - LDs SNP, UKIP)
Cameron (304 at the moment) can remain PM on 280 + 30 + 8 + 5
Because the LDs can be kingmaker there is no need for a grand coalition - UNLESS BOTH sides lose 10 or 15 seats to UKIP - and I cannot see that happening - AND neither side enters a deal with UKIP (both have ruled this out by their actions and words).
If neither side can get a Queen's speech through then there will be another election. Cameron will campaign on the basis of how difficult the Government is when no one party has power and Ed will be willing on the basis that he has 'the big mo', having gained seats in May.
(If there is another election then presumably Labour will be the (temporary) Government since Mr Cameron will have told the Queen he can't form one and recommend she ask Mr Miliband to do so.)
In order to actually entice the smaller parties the larger ones would have to offer them something substantial, which in turn may turn off their supporters. For example Labour would have to offer the SNP (who have just beaten them to a pulp) maybe Trident. The Lib Dems would need to be in a similar situation to 2010 in order to enter a coalition, there would be nothing in it for them to be part of a rag-tag coalition containing a dozen Ulstermen and 5 UKIP.
Under those circumstances a Grand Coalition might look possible.0 -
The UKIP deflation has benefited the Tories in seats that they lead a few months ago and has benefited Labour in seats they where ahead too, but Labour gain an extra seat since the last time he polled them.Sandpit said:Interesting - swings between 0.5% and 5.5%. Con>Lab
This is way too close to call.
https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/585818780204408832/photo/1
So it's bad for the Tories because the UKIP deflation has not aided them in regaining the lead in seats they where behind plus it gives Labour an extra seat from last time.0 -
I just can't see it. We'd be more likely to have a Belgian Situation.logical_song said:
PB posters seem to just add in the smaller parties in order to get their sums to add up.Tabman said:
If a second election were inconclusive with largely similar seat positions, perhaps with UKIP making a bigger breakthrough because of the credibility factor of winning some seats, and a further LD retrenchment, would not Ed in No10 and Gorgeous George in No 11 not look quite an attractive prospect? Sort of having your cake and eating it.weejonnie said:
When hell freezes over.Tabman said:Question for the great PB cognoscenti - under what conditions would we get a Con/Lab coalition?
If Labour have fewer seats than the Tories, Ed won't settle for deputy PM if he can get into number 10 with a SNP/ Lib Dem/ UKIP coalition/ C&S.
If he can't get into power that way then it is odds on that the Conservatives + LibDems + UKIP/ DUP (if needed) will have a working majority.
For simplicity we assume that the LDs have 30 seats, the SNP 45, the DUP 8 and UKIP 5
Ed (258 at the moment) can become PM on 245 (+80 - LDs SNP, UKIP)
Cameron (304 at the moment) can remain PM on 280 + 30 + 8 + 5
Because the LDs can be kingmaker there is no need for a grand coalition - UNLESS BOTH sides lose 10 or 15 seats to UKIP - and I cannot see that happening - AND neither side enters a deal with UKIP (both have ruled this out by their actions and words).
If neither side can get a Queen's speech through then there will be another election. Cameron will campaign on the basis of how difficult the Government is when no one party has power and Ed will be willing on the basis that he has 'the big mo', having gained seats in May.
(If there is another election then presumably Labour will be the (temporary) Government since Mr Cameron will have told the Queen he can't form one and recommend she ask Mr Miliband to do so.)
In order to actually entice the smaller parties the larger ones would have to offer them something substantial, which in turn may turn off their supporters. For example Labour would have to offer the SNP (who have just beaten them to a pulp) maybe Trident. The Lib Dems would need to be in a similar situation to 2010 in order to enter a coalition, there would be nothing in it for them to be part of a rag-tag coalition containing a dozen Ulstermen and 5 UKIP.
Under those circumstances a Grand Coalition might look possible.0 -
these new Ashcroft marginal polls aren't good news for Labour are they? On the assumption the SNP are going to take most of their Scottish seats, they need all these and more to end up with most seats.0
-
Big improvement for the Tories in Midlands seats.0
-
Interesting that UKIP values are quite high in Con holds, compared to Lab Gains.Sandpit said:Interesting - swings between 0.5% and 5.5%. Con>Lab
This is way too close to call.
https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/585818780204408832/photo/10 -
Energy Price freeze, non dom tax crackdown, 50p rate of income tax
No wonder the Tories are thrashing about, Dave's same old line of keep it steady Ed's a bit of a drip is looking painfully exposed.
Labour are causing some serious ruptions which will appeal to everyday people in those grass root wards Labour need to win and the Tories know it.
S Thanet, Thurrock, Ilford N, Ipswich, Dudley's, Norwich
Cut away the Tory jeers and these are real policies for real people.0 -
Rather good for the Tories, I'd say. That's an average swing from Conservative to Labour of 2.45% in these marginal seats, compared to 2010. That would be equivalent to a lead of 5% in England and Wales.Speedy said:The Tories doing better in seats they where ahead in October, but Labour also doing better in seats they lead in October plus they are now ahead in Harrow East.
Bad poll for the Tories.0 -
Especially if the tories can gain Lib Dem seats in the south.LordLucan said:these new Ashcroft marginal polls aren't good news for Labour are they? On the assumption the SNP are going to take most of their Scottish seats, they need all these and more to end up with most seats.
0 -
The October Harrow East poll was presumably a rogue. It did seem oddly out of line with all other London polls.
Otherwise, a decent set of polls for the Tories.0 -
Did you copy that from a Labour press release?DennisBets said:
Energy Price freeze, non dom tax crackdown, 50p rate of income tax
No wonder the Tories are thrashing about, Dave's same old line of keep it steady Ed's a bit of a drip is looking painfully exposed.
Labour are causing some serious ruptions which will appeal to everyday people in those grass root wards Labour need to win and the Tories know it.
S Thanet, Thurrock, Ilford N, Ipswich, Dudley's, Norwich
Cut away the Tory jeers and these are real policies for real people.0 -
If UKIP support is falling dramatically in seats they are not campaigning in, but they remain at 14% nationally can we infer their challenge must be strong in a number of targeted seats?
Would be interesting to see a Thurrock or Boston poll.0 -
How will real people benefit by the Treasury losing money from this Non Dom change?DennisBets said:Energy Price freeze, non dom tax crackdown, 50p rate of income tax
No wonder the Tories are thrashing about, Dave's same old line of keep it steady Ed's a bit of a drip is looking painfully exposed.
Labour are causing some serious ruptions which will appeal to everyday people in those grass root wards Labour need to win and the Tories know it.
S Thanet, Thurrock, Ilford N, Ipswich, Dudley's, Norwich
Cut away the Tory jeers and these are real policies for real people.
Its student union politics of making noise based on buzzwords without trying to be serious whatsoever.
0 -
All of these policies will raise real costs for 'real people'DennisBets said:Cut away the Tory jeers and these are real policies for real people.
Ed is an economical vandal0 -
Have to be honest, very mediocre poll for Labour.LordLucan said:these new Ashcroft marginal polls aren't good news for Labour are they? On the assumption the SNP are going to take most of their Scottish seats, they need all these and more to end up with most seats.
Rump UKIP vote hurting Labour...0 -
It's a London seat.Speedy said:The UKIP deflation has benefited the Tories in seats that they lead a few months ago and has benefited Labour in seats they where ahead too, but Labour gain an extra seat since the last time he polled them.
So it's bad for the Tories because the UKIP deflation has not aided them in regaining the lead in seats they where behind plus it gives Labour an extra seat from last time.
Target seats 39, 42, 44 and 52 showing growing Tory leads.
0 -
Better for the Tories the further out from London you go. Bit of an incumbency bonus showing through here for first time?Sandpit said:Interesting - swings between 0.5% and 5.5%. Con>Lab
This is way too close to call.
https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/585818780204408832/photo/10 -
Disappointing poll for Loughborough. Looks like I might be denied my Portillo moment.
Better news in Stockton South, however.0 -
Mr. Bets, the freezing of commodity prices was known to be foolishness which could lead to shortages or even famine in the 4th century AD (Ammianus Marcellinus lambasted Julian the Apostate, of whom he was generally in favour, for just such a policy).0
-
Bet they are actually quite glad the OBR isn't allowed to cost themScott_P said:
All of these policies will raise real costs for 'real people'DennisBets said:Cut away the Tory jeers and these are real policies for real people.
Ed is an economical vandal
0 -
They are all utter bollocks, all three of them.DennisBets said:Energy Price freeze, non dom tax crackdown, 50p rate of income tax
No wonder the Tories are thrashing about, Dave's same old line of keep it steady Ed's a bit of a drip is looking painfully exposed.
Labour are causing some serious ruptions which will appeal to everyday people in those grass root wards Labour need to win and the Tories know it.
S Thanet, Thurrock, Ilford N, Ipswich, Dudley's, Norwich
Cut away the Tory jeers and these are real policies for real people.
The Energy Price freeze is the quickest way to higher prices, the non dom thing has proved to be a fiasco within 24 hours and combined with the 50p tax hike will reduce the tax take, thus making less available for Labour to waste on the NHS.
If you want to punish people for getting on in life then vote for Ed, if you don't want to reduce the tax take then vote for anyone else.0 -
I see we are getting an amazing amount of "new" posters appearing all with tiny post counts who all seem to post the same narrative.0
-
No. I've been putting it off for weeks, it's a lot of work. I don't think it changes too much of my analysis to be honest.murali_s said:
Did you know that this was coming out? Think you should waited for this first...Casino_Royale said:
I fear he's going to blow all my analysis straight out the water inside an hour.TheScreamingEagles said:@LordAshcroft: Coming up shortly - ten polls in marginal seats on the Con-Lab battleground. See @ConHome at 4pm.
0 -
I agree!Pulpstar said:
8-11 may still be value by the way, it's an underround with 6-4 at any rate.Casino_Royale said:
Yes, luckily I hadn't placed my bet on that one yet. I (hope) I'd have noticed if I had! I manually copied across all the odds from oddschecker last night at 11pm, and finished them off at 6.30am this morning. I must have been tired.Pulpstar said:
Have you checked your Hills bet on Worcester - Labour were 6-4 there, not the Cons.Casino_Royale said:
I fear he's going to blow all my analysis straight out the water inside an hour.TheScreamingEagles said:@LordAshcroft: Coming up shortly - ten polls in marginal seats on the Con-Lab battleground. See @ConHome at 4pm.
Thanks for pointing it out.
They could BOTH be value in fact
0 -
That Kingswood poll makes the 8-15 in Bristol NW look nice. I've taken £20.0
-
Yes not bad for the Cons those polls - difficult to see Labour making those 50+ blue gains they need.BenM said:
Better for the Tories the further out from London you go. Bit of an incumbency bonus showing through here for first time?Sandpit said:Interesting - swings between 0.5% and 5.5%. Con>Lab
This is way too close to call.
https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/585818780204408832/photo/1
0 -
If you haven't had fun with this
I got 70% in the 'How Tory are you?' quiz. Take it here: t.co/BMshjFh8fK#SunNation via @SunNation
0 -
And Target seats 29, 14 and 7 also showing growing Labour leads, if you discount target 53 because its in London.chestnut said:
It's a London seat.Speedy said:The UKIP deflation has benefited the Tories in seats that they lead a few months ago and has benefited Labour in seats they where ahead too, but Labour gain an extra seat since the last time he polled them.
So it's bad for the Tories because the UKIP deflation has not aided them in regaining the lead in seats they where behind plus it gives Labour an extra seat from last time.
Target seats 39, 42, 44 and 52 showing growing Tory leads.0 -
Rump UKIP vote hurting Labour...
The UKIP vote in those seats is fascinating. Double digit in some cases. I wonder how many of those votes are solid UKIP - and how many 'in play'0 -
The Blackpool, Pendle and Pudsey polls are awful for Labour. Along with London, they were really depending on an excellent performance in the northern marginals to see them home, but it doesn't look like it's happening.0
-
I know ... shocking isn't it. Next I'll be acting like I've been around off and on since 2004.FrancisUrquhart said:I see we are getting an amazing amount of "new" posters appearing all with tiny post counts who all seem to post the same narrative.
0 -
The first one is an illiterate policy which may well harm "ordinary voters" the other two won't affect them directly in any way at all. Depending on if labour can come up with a coherent non-Dom policy that may also not affect them at all, it could just as easily lead to a large drop in tax revenue.DennisBets said:Energy Price freeze, non dom tax crackdown, 50p rate of income tax
.
50p rate unlikely to make much difference at all.
So the only way that Labour can benefit from these policies is if the MOOD of them attracts voters. It may well do, but that is a sad state of affairs
0 -
An out of date one, too; it is of course an energy price *cap*. Fail.Plato said:Did you copy that from a Labour press release?
DennisBets said:Energy Price freeze, non dom tax crackdown, 50p rate of income tax
No wonder the Tories are thrashing about, Dave's same old line of keep it steady Ed's a bit of a drip is looking painfully exposed.
Labour are causing some serious ruptions which will appeal to everyday people in those grass root wards Labour need to win and the Tories know it.
S Thanet, Thurrock, Ilford N, Ipswich, Dudley's, Norwich
Cut away the Tory jeers and these are real policies for real people.
0 -
Interesting stuff, Casino! Thanks!Casino_Royale said:Right, having popped offline for a bit, I've had a go at this on the Tory v. Labour battleground - see my massive assumption filled forecast below:
https://royaleleseaux.wordpress.com/2015/04/08/the-primary-battleground-labour-v-conservative/
Off out again now. Catch you later.0 -
Hove looks odd with the double-digit (+10) jump in Labour vote. A bit fishy and out of kilter with the rest.
Either way, the Tories are getting out ground-gamed by Labour at the moment. They should be flooding their 30 most vulnerable marginals seats with 10-20 additional activists every day from now until the election, IMHO. Bus them in, if necessary.
Right, must leave. Late.0 -
This might sound a bit like aftertiming but I'm not surprised to see Morecambe and Lunesdale go back Labour - the NW is a strong area for them, think I'm on Blackpool and Stockton here but idk...
I'm avoiding Morecambe personally.0 -
Mr. Tabman, I'm sure you weren't one of those he was thinking of. Besides which, people do remember you've been here for a while.0
-
DennisBets said:
Energy Price freeze, non dom tax crackdown, 50p rate of income tax
No wonder the Tories are thrashing about, Dave's same old line of keep it steady Ed's a bit of a drip is looking painfully exposed.
Labour are causing some serious ruptions which will appeal to everyday people in those grass root wards Labour need to win and the Tories know it.
S Thanet, Thurrock, Ilford N, Ipswich, Dudley's, Norwich
Cut away the Tory jeers and these are real policies for real people.
No, they are really easy slogans masquerading as policy which will have negative unintended consequences that are greater than the benefit.
Energy Price freeze,
non dom tax crackdown,
50p rate of income tax
All three are plain stupid in the real world, excellent and sound in the political arena of capturing popular acclaim. Governing is about what is right, what works and benefits society, not about what is popular.
Do you really think Brown would have eschewed all of these if they were ways to easily raise revenue and reduce inequality? I didn't think I would ever say this, but maybe Brown wasn't too bad after all.0 -
The Energy Prize Freeze has already raised real costs for 'real people'.Scott_P said:
All of these policies will raise real costs for 'real people'DennisBets said:Cut away the Tory jeers and these are real policies for real people.
Ed is an economical vandal0 -
I got 70% too!Plato said:If you haven't had fun with this
I got 70% in the 'How Tory are you?' quiz. Take it here: t.co/BMshjFh8fK#SunNation via @SunNation
Sunil means "blue"
0 -
Nothing will lock in higher energy prices than lashing ourselves to fossil fuels, the policy of UKIP.nigel4england said:
They are all utter bollocks, all three of them.DennisBets said:Energy Price freeze, non dom tax crackdown, 50p rate of income tax
No wonder the Tories are thrashing about, Dave's same old line of keep it steady Ed's a bit of a drip is looking painfully exposed.
Labour are causing some serious ruptions which will appeal to everyday people in those grass root wards Labour need to win and the Tories know it.
S Thanet, Thurrock, Ilford N, Ipswich, Dudley's, Norwich
Cut away the Tory jeers and these are real policies for real people.
The Energy Price freeze is the quickest way to higher prices, the non dom thing has proved to be a fiasco within 24 hours and combined with the 50p tax hike will reduce the tax take, thus making less available for Labour to waste on the NHS.
If you want to punish people for getting on in life then vote for Ed, if you don't want to reduce the tax take then vote for anyone else.
Outside the tiny Guido clique the non dom policy is a universal hit.
And the 50p rate will certainly raise revenues, when it is given a chance to do so rather than having its abolition conveniently pre-announced.
So that's 0/3 there - good going.0 -
Aren't there any other proper polls rather than this marginal stuff?
: 0 -
Mea culpa, a swing of 1.85% to Labour, compared to 2010.
That would net Labour c. 28 gains from the Conservatives.0 -
Dr. Prasannan, but what does 'Prasannan' mean?0
-
So potentially Labour could have net less seats gained from Tories than they lose to the SNP?Sean_F said:Mea culpa, a swing of 1.85% to Labour, compared to 2010.
That would net Labour c. 28 gains from the Conservatives.
0 -
I would be careful about drawing such inferences from these seats, because of the way they were selected. His Lordship says: "I have returned to ten Conservative-held seats where Labour are the main challengers, and in which I found very close races when I polled them last year"Sean_F said:
Rather good for the Tories, I'd say. That's an average swing from Conservative to Labour of 2.45% in these marginal seats, compared to 2010. That would be equivalent to a lead of 5% in England and Wales.Speedy said:The Tories doing better in seats they where ahead in October, but Labour also doing better in seats they lead in October plus they are now ahead in Harrow East.
Bad poll for the Tories.
He hasn't chosen these seats randomly from the set of Tory/Labour marginals, but has selected those which were close in previous rounds of polling. Thus they may not be representative of the wider set of Tory/Labour marginals.
One of the interesting results I pick to highlight is this. In all of the seats where the Tories have a lead, UKIP are on 10+%. In all of the seats where UKIP are <10% Labour have a lead or are level. The rise of UKIP is not obviously hurting the Tories in these marginals.0 -
Very well chosen seats by Lord A for this poll.Speedy said:
And Target seats 29, 14 and 7 also showing growing Labour leads, if you discount target 53 because its in London.chestnut said:
It's a London seat.Speedy said:The UKIP deflation has benefited the Tories in seats that they lead a few months ago and has benefited Labour in seats they where ahead too, but Labour gain an extra seat since the last time he polled them.
So it's bad for the Tories because the UKIP deflation has not aided them in regaining the lead in seats they where behind plus it gives Labour an extra seat from last time.
Target seats 39, 42, 44 and 52 showing growing Tory leads.
I'm thinking from these polling numbers 30-35 Lab gains from Con in England, 275-280 seats each in total?
Looks like it's all down to the last few weeks of the campaign!0
