politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This afternoon’s batch of Ashcroft marginals polling has th
Comments
-
Just popped to Waitrose as they have 3 for £3 almond milk! Bought 6 cartons!
The house opposite has a big UKIP board in the garden, the first of any party I have seen in the constituency, along with the UKIP billboard at Upminster Bridge being the only one I have seen from any party
Standing in the queue for the till I looked up and realised I can see the back of my house v clearly from there.. that's where my Kipper board is going! Prime viewing for a mass audience0 -
And the FT reckons Nicola dropped a clanger last night
http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2015/04/labour-has-the-snp-where-it-wants/
In fact, there is an argument that Labour is in an even stronger short-term position because of the SNP rise, because it has damaged not only Labour but also the Lib Dems. Whereas the Lib Dems have said they would join either party in government, that is not the case with the SNP. In effect Labour has secured a few more sure-fire votes to help form a post-2015 government.0 -
Maybe I didn't express my view clearly enough.kieran said:
It's seems to me that the points you raise in your first two sentences are contradicted by the points you make in your last two sentences. You are of course right that there is likely to be random sampling variation affecting each of these individual polls. However, you are also correct that this is likely to cancel itself out across a sample of 10 seats.
So we have 10 seats which were previously showing a below-average swing to Labour in aggregate, still showing a below-average swing to Labour. It seems unlikely to me that this has much to do with sample variation.
The last set of Ashcroft polls had a 5% swing and that was just a few weeks ago. It seems unlikely that there has been a dramatic change in the last few weeks given other polling.
What is much more likely, in my view, is that there is something systemic about these seats which is resulting in a below average swing. You say its hard to see why they would behave differently but there are lots of reasons other than geography which alters the level of swing between seats - demographic change, incumbent popularity and campaign activity to name just a few.
My point is that in my view there is unlikely to be anything systemic about these seats as a group - because they are a large enough group.
What I'm saying is that from all the other evidence we had at the time when these seats were polled previously I suspect they only got a below average swing due to sample variation.
This time they have got a low swing again. It might be luck again but it might not be. But this time we don't have a pool of other up to date equivalent evidence.
ie This time, at this point, these results are a bigger component of the evidence we have.
It's a bit like tossing 3 coins getting 3 heads but at the same time another 3 coins were tossed and got 3 tails.
This time we've just tossed 3 coins and got 3 heads. That's all the evidence we have this time - it could be random but might not be.
In order to conclude Ashcroft must go back to 10 seats where he got a higher than average swing last time - and he will have to get a higher than average swing again. Until he does that we don't know.0 -
INTP0
-
It's fascinating stuff how we all manifest ourselves. BTW - thanks for the recommendation re that chemistry show on BBC2 - have watched it now and jolly good it was too.Verulamius said:
INTP
0 -
I've not looked at the non-doms #LabourEnvy fiasco since this morning, but the story now appears to be that their independent tax expert isn't independent, isn't a tax expert, hasn't considered double taxation treaties and is, generally, a hopelessly hairy ruin.
So that went well for Mr Intellectually Self Confident then! Just the grasp of detail we expect from an aspiring Prime Minister!
0 -
-
Incidentally, what are the chances of UKIP reissuing their splendid "UKIP Calypso" now that the election's underway?0
-
Your interpretation is possible, I just don't think it's likely to be true.MikeL said:
Maybe I didn't express my view clearly enough.kieran said:
So we have 10 seats which were previously showing a below-average swing to Labour in aggregate, still showing a below-average swing to Labour. It seems unlikely to me that this has much to do with sample variation.
The last set of Ashcroft polls had a 5% swing and that was just a few weeks ago. It seems unlikely that there has been a dramatic change in the last few weeks given other polling.
What is much more likely, in my view, is that there is something systemic about these seats which is resulting in a below average swing. You say its hard to see why they would behave differently but there are lots of reasons other than geography which alters the level of swing between seats - demographic change, incumbent popularity and campaign activity to name just a few.
My point is that in my view there is unlikely to be anything systemic about these seats as a group - because they are a large enough group.
What I'm saying is that from all the other evidence we had at the time when these seats were polled previously I suspect they only got a below average swing due to sample variation.
This time they have got a low swing again. It might be luck again but it might not be. But this time we don't have a pool of other up to date equivalent evidence.
ie This time, at this point, these results are a bigger component of the evidence we have.
It's a bit like tossing 3 coins getting 3 heads but at the same time another 3 coins were tossed and got 3 tails.
This time we've just tossed 3 coins and got 3 heads. That's all the evidence we have this time - it could be random but might not be.
In order to conclude Ashcroft must go back to 10 seats where he got a higher than average swing last time - and he will have to get a higher than average swing again. Until he does that we don't know.
It is based on all of the seats having a low previous swing due to sample variation, rather than something systemic. While this might be true for 1 or 2 (Harrow East for instance) it seems unlikely to be true for all of them.
To use your analogy - if we were to toss 10 coins and got 10 heads and we tossed the same 10 coins a few weeks later and got another 10 heads I would think there was something different about the coins which were being used!
But the good thing about Ashcroft is that he looks like he will be doing more polling so we will soon see which interpretation is correct.0 -
Interesting point made about another flaw in Labour's banning of non-doms.
Apparently a lot of the Arabs that own in London and come for 3-4 months a year pay the non-dom levy for the privilege. The 2-3 year temporary period of course is no use to them, as they come every summer as their summer home.
Now, some might say that is great. Cheaper property prices, no super-cars whizzing around the streets all summer. But obviously if they have to pay 50% on their worldwide incomes, they wont be coming, and Labour obviously have mansion tax + all the spending power of the Arabs.
Cracking bit of BBC Newsnight smeary stuff...just had Newsnight "fact checker" on R5 and he basically smeared a load of non-doms as people with dodgy backgrounds, who got their money by dodgy means and are only here to launder their money. Of course, Mr Fact Checker can't back that up with any hard facts.0 -
OT I've just been sent a brilliant game on my phone Marvel Champions - my thumbs are killing but I'm addicted already!0
-
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/CHarrow-EastZ-Full-tables-April-2015.pdfTGOHF said:
Can you expand ?chestnut said:
There has been some extreme re-weighting in the Harrow East constituency poll.Pulpstar said:
I remember the Euros - it was a bad start for Labour but I distinctly remember Chuka mentioning Redbridge and at the end of the night the results were a fair bit better than expected when the London chunk came in.antifrank said:The first Harrow East poll was always suspect. It was quite at variance with the swings being found in other London constituencies.
Page 6 - look at the unweighted 2010 and 2015 numbers.
It looks like they had a real struggle finding 2010 Labour voters0 -
You may have missed Ed Balls rewriting of his comments last January – apparently he was referring to short term guests such as er.. students!Bond_James_Bond said:I've not looked at the non-doms #LabourEnvy fiasco since this morning, but the story now appears to be that their independent tax expert isn't independent, isn't a tax expert, hasn't considered double taxation treaties and is, generally, a hopelessly hairy ruin.
So that went well for Mr Intellectually Self Confident then! Just the grasp of detail we expect from an aspiring Prime Minister!
I wonder if Ed Balls can tell us how many overseas students studying in the UK, also applied for Nom-Dom status when applying for a student visa. #BS
0 -
Labour argument seems to be as well, well not many left after the levy came in, so why would many leave now. Huge difference between paying £30k a year, to 50% tax of worldwide income. Of course BBC interviewer too thick to be able to work that out.0
-
I don't think you find many potential Kippers in Waitrose.isam said:Just popped to Waitrose ... Prime viewing for a mass audience
Can your house not be seen from the till queue in Budgens at all?
0 -
Morecambe looks wrong, probably level pegging thus likely Con hold.
Unless there is some reason it has swung Labour in the past few months.0 -
I have received leaflets from Wes twice now, and from Lee twice also (the latter sent two different leaflets on the same day!) - but this was a few weeks back.Pulpstar said:
Have you received the "Good News" from Wes yetSunil_Prasannan said:
The Tories won (in aggregate) the wards comprising Ilford North in the Redbridge Council elections on the same day as the Euros.Pulpstar said:
I remember the Euros - it was a bad start for Labour but I distinctly remember Chuka mentioning Redbridge and at the end of the night the results were a fair bit better than expected when the London chunk came in.antifrank said:The first Harrow East poll was always suspect. It was quite at variance with the swings being found in other London constituencies.
?0 -
Not the first time Labour try to claim "independent" people back their position e.g. loads of charities who just by chance are run by people who worked for the last Labour government agree with Ed.Bond_James_Bond said:I've not looked at the non-doms #LabourEnvy fiasco since this morning, but the story now appears to be that their independent tax expert isn't independent, isn't a tax expert, hasn't considered double taxation treaties and is, generally, a hopelessly hairy ruin.
So that went well for Mr Intellectually Self Confident then! Just the grasp of detail we expect from an aspiring Prime Minister!0 -
Has Labour thought of having children under 5 chant "hate, hate, hate" at a picture of Fatcha every morning at school for 2 minutes?
Good core vote stuff, the BBC would run with it, plus they'll be able to find an independent expert from, say, Unite to stand up and bray that it's a good thing.
Winner all round!0 -
Apparently record number of cars sold since split of numbers plates being twice yearly, but also record amount being bought on credit.0
-
FalseFlag said:
Morecambe looks wrong, probably level pegging thus likely Con hold.
Unless there is some reason it has swung Labour in the past few months.
I found the initial poll surprising in Morecambe actually given NW Labour strength.FalseFlag said:Morecambe looks wrong, probably level pegging thus likely Con hold.
Unless there is some reason it has swung Labour in the past few months.0 -
Let me put it this way.kieran said:
Your interpretation is possible, I just don't think it's likely to be true.
It is based on all of the seats having a low previous swing due to sample variation, rather than something systemic. While this might be true for 1 or 2 (Harrow East for instance) it seems unlikely to be true for all of them.
To use your analogy - if we were to toss 10 coins and got 10 heads and we tossed the same 10 coins a few weeks later and got another 10 heads I would think there was something different about the coins which were being used!
But the good thing about Ashcroft is that he looks like he will be doing more polling so we will soon see which interpretation is correct.
20 seats - all really have a swing of 5%. Poll all 20. 10 you get a lower swing than 5%. 10 seats you get higher than 5%. But that's all random - they all really have a swing of 5%.
Now poll 10 again. The fact you choose the 10 which got lower than 5% first time is irrelevant if there is no systemic variation.
Ultimately comes down to whether you believe there is systemic variation or not.0 -
I dunno, I haven't even decided if I'm going to vote for the Blues or not!murali_s said:
What do you predict? It'll be very close for sure.Sunil_Prasannan said:
The Tories won (in aggregate) the wards comprising Ilford North in the Redbridge Council elections on the same day as the Euros.Pulpstar said:
I remember the Euros - it was a bad start for Labour but I distinctly remember Chuka mentioning Redbridge and at the end of the night the results were a fair bit better than expected when the London chunk came in.antifrank said:The first Harrow East poll was always suspect. It was quite at variance with the swings being found in other London constituencies.
0 -
How big are the good Lord's samples?MikeL said:
Let me put it this way.kieran said:
Your interpretation is possible, I just don't think it's likely to be true.
It is based on all of the seats having a low previous swing due to sample variation, rather than something systemic. While this might be true for 1 or 2 (Harrow East for instance) it seems unlikely to be true for all of them.
To use your analogy - if we were to toss 10 coins and got 10 heads and we tossed the same 10 coins a few weeks later and got another 10 heads I would think there was something different about the coins which were being used!
But the good thing about Ashcroft is that he looks like he will be doing more polling so we will soon see which interpretation is correct.
20 seats - all really have a swing of 5%. Poll all 20. 10 you get a lower swing than 5%. 10 seats you get higher than 5%. But that's all random - they all really have a swing of 5%.
Now poll 10 again. The fact you choose the 10 which got lower than 5% first time is irrelevant if there is no systemic variation.
Ultimately comes down to whether you believe there is systemic variation or not.0 -
Yes I agree. My point is that it is highly unlikely that all of the variation is random, because swing is never exactly the same across all the seats. The balance between systemic / random is of course open to interpretation, but arguing that it is all random is a bit of a push IMO.MikeL said:
Let me put it this way.kieran said:
Your interpretation is possible, I just don't think it's likely to be true.
It is based on all of the seats having a low previous swing due to sample variation, rather than something systemic. While this might be true for 1 or 2 (Harrow East for instance) it seems unlikely to be true for all of them.
To use your analogy - if we were to toss 10 coins and got 10 heads and we tossed the same 10 coins a few weeks later and got another 10 heads I would think there was something different about the coins which were being used!
But the good thing about Ashcroft is that he looks like he will be doing more polling so we will soon see which interpretation is correct.
20 seats - all really have a swing of 5%. Poll all 20. 10 you get a lower swing than 5%. 10 seats you get higher than 5%. But that's all random - they all really have a swing of 5%.
Now poll 10 again. The fact you choose the 10 which got lower than 5% first time is irrelevant if there is no systemic variation.
Ultimately comes down to whether you believe there is systemic variation or not.0 -
Zac Goldsmith is a non dom. You really couldn't make it up!
I'm sure we're all terrified in case he moves abroad!
0 -
You might want to be careful there my old son...He isn't a non-dom, he was born into that status, but isn't now.Roger said:Zac Goldsmith is a non dom. You really couldn't make it up!
I'm sure we're all terrified in case he moves abroad!
Now if Ed Miliband was talking about addressing this situation of people just inheriting this status, I think that would be very sensible. But of course, like ZHC, rather than talk about reform, he just as the QC on the radio said not so much baby out with the bath water, more all the toys out of the pram.0 -
He will pay £90000. What a bargain ! Presumably Abrahamovic is also a non-dom. Can't prove it but I wouldn't be surprised. Most recent Russians are.Roger said:Zac Goldsmith is a non dom. You really couldn't make it up!
I'm sure we're all terrified in case he moves abroad!0 -
Born a non-dom always a non-dom, isn't that how the saying goes?FrancisUrquhart said:
You might want to be careful there my old son...He isn't a non-dom, he was born into that status, but isn't now.Roger said:Zac Goldsmith is a non dom. You really couldn't make it up!
I'm sure we're all terrified in case he moves abroad!
0 -
You do realise people pay £90000 because alternatively they would have to pay more !Bond_James_Bond said:I've not looked at the non-doms #LabourEnvy fiasco since this morning, but the story now appears to be that their independent tax expert isn't independent, isn't a tax expert, hasn't considered double taxation treaties and is, generally, a hopelessly hairy ruin.
So that went well for Mr Intellectually Self Confident then! Just the grasp of detail we expect from an aspiring Prime Minister!0 -
Quite a lot of my colleagues (none of them earning great money) are swanning around in new cars. All have got them on one of the variety of lease deals.FrancisUrquhart said:Apparently record number of cars sold since split of numbers plates being twice yearly, but also record amount being bought on credit.
I run around in a 13 year old Fiesta which suits me perfectly for the 5k miles I do a year.
0 -
Alternatively they can leave.surbiton said:
You do realise people pay £90000 because alternatively they would have to pay more !Bond_James_Bond said:I've not looked at the non-doms #LabourEnvy fiasco since this morning, but the story now appears to be that their independent tax expert isn't independent, isn't a tax expert, hasn't considered double taxation treaties and is, generally, a hopelessly hairy ruin.
So that went well for Mr Intellectually Self Confident then! Just the grasp of detail we expect from an aspiring Prime Minister!0 -
Cameron looks as slippery as an eel. People aren't interested whether it raises extra money. If there was a poll asking whether we should risk Zac Goldsmith and other non doms leaving the country if they lose their non dom status the result would be overwhelming.
Labour should bang away at this one. Even Tom Bradbury sounded disgusted. It's Labour's first guaranteed vote winner0 -
New cars always struck me as the most stupid "investment". Why buy something that is worth a fraction of its value as soon as you put the keys in the ignition, when instead you can buy a perfectly good one that is only a year or two old. With modern cars, a 2 year old car that hasn't been flogged to death has only really just been broken in.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
Quite a lot of my colleagues (none of them earning great money) are swanning around in new cars. All have got them on one of the variety of lease deals.FrancisUrquhart said:Apparently record number of cars sold since split of numbers plates being twice yearly, but also record amount being bought on credit.
I run around in a 13 year old Fiesta which suits me perfectly for the 5k miles I do a year.
Apparently it is the loan with option to buy / upgrade that have been driving a lot of new interest.0 -
If there was a UNS that was underreported in the first survey, due to sample error, then there may well be a larger than usual swing in the second sample as the sampling variation would be centered on the population mean rather than the sample mean.kieran said:
Yes I agree. My point is that it is highly unlikely that all of the variation is random, because swing is never exactly the same across all the seats. The balance between systemic / random is of course open to interpretation, but arguing that it is all random is a bit of a push IMO.MikeL said:
Let me put it this way.kieran said:
Your interpretation is possible, I just don't think it's likely to be true.
It is based on all of the seats having a low previous swing due to sample variation, rather than something systemic. While this might be true for 1 or 2 (Harrow East for instance) it seems unlikely to be true for all of them.
To use your analogy - if we were to toss 10 coins and got 10 heads and we tossed the same 10 coins a few weeks later and got another 10 heads I would think there was something different about the coins which were being used!
But the good thing about Ashcroft is that he looks like he will be doing more polling so we will soon see which interpretation is correct.
20 seats - all really have a swing of 5%. Poll all 20. 10 you get a lower swing than 5%. 10 seats you get higher than 5%. But that's all random - they all really have a swing of 5%.
Now poll 10 again. The fact you choose the 10 which got lower than 5% first time is irrelevant if there is no systemic variation.
Ultimately comes down to whether you believe there is systemic variation or not.
In other words I would expect some regression to the mean.0 -
I wonder how much tax Abramovich has paid since he moved to this country, not the non dom stuff but things like stamp duty, VAT on luxury goods, all the building work he has had done etcsurbiton said:
He will pay £90000. What a bargain ! Presumably Abrahamovic is also a non-dom. Can't prove it but I wouldn't be surprised. Most recent Russians are.Roger said:Zac Goldsmith is a non dom. You really couldn't make it up!
I'm sure we're all terrified in case he moves abroad!0 -
You just keep repeating the misinformation about Zac Goldsmith. I mean he never likes to sue anybody.Roger said:Cameron looks as slippery as an eel. People aren't interested whether it raises extra money. If there was a poll asking whether we should risk Zac Goldsmith and other non doms leaving the country if they lose their non dom status the result would be overwhelming.
Labour should bang away at this one. Even Tom Bradbury sounded disgusted. It's Labour's first guaranteed vote winner0 -
They might well be interested in what Labour has to cut or tax to make up the money that Balls says will be lost if the non-doms leave.Roger said:Cameron looks as slippery as an eel. People aren't interested whether it raises extra money. If there was a poll asking whether we should risk Zac Goldsmith and other non doms leaving the country if they lose their non dom status the result would be overwhelming.
Labour should bang away at this one. Even Tom Bradbury sounded disgusted. It's Labour's first guaranteed vote winner0 -
Poll Swings to Lab since 2010
London Harrow East 5.5
S East Hove 5.0
N West Morecambe 4.0
N East Stockton Sth 3.0
Y+H Pudsey 2.0
N West Blackpool N 0.5
S West Gloucester 0.5
E Mids Loughborough -0.5
W Mids Kingswood -2.0
0 -
Where to ? There they have to pay the tax too ! Please understand just because suddenly they have to pay 50% additionally. As per double taxation treaties, the tax paid locally can be deducted. So it the difference only that will be payable.RobD said:
Alternatively they can leave.surbiton said:
You do realise people pay £90000 because alternatively they would have to pay more !Bond_James_Bond said:I've not looked at the non-doms #LabourEnvy fiasco since this morning, but the story now appears to be that their independent tax expert isn't independent, isn't a tax expert, hasn't considered double taxation treaties and is, generally, a hopelessly hairy ruin.
So that went well for Mr Intellectually Self Confident then! Just the grasp of detail we expect from an aspiring Prime Minister!
Presumably, for these 6000 or so, that "difference" will be greatly more than £90000.0 -
People will be interested when there is insufficient to run the NHSRoger said:Cameron looks as slippery as an eel. People aren't interested whether it raises extra money. If there was a poll asking whether we should risk Zac Goldsmith and other non doms leaving the country if they lose their non dom status the result would be overwhelming.
Labour should bang away at this one. Even Tom Bradbury sounded disgusted. It's Labour's first guaranteed vote winner0 -
Lawyers fees properly top the lot :-)nigel4england said:
I wonder how much tax Abramovich has paid since he moved to this country, not the non dom stuff but things like stamp duty, VAT on luxury goods, all the building work he has had done etcsurbiton said:
He will pay £90000. What a bargain ! Presumably Abrahamovic is also a non-dom. Can't prove it but I wouldn't be surprised. Most recent Russians are.Roger said:Zac Goldsmith is a non dom. You really couldn't make it up!
I'm sure we're all terrified in case he moves abroad!
He always seems constantly in one legal battle or another, be it personal, business or football related, and all through the British courts.0 -
Quite. The notion of *inheriting* non-domism is ludicrous. Why wasn't this resolved decades ago? I don't recall it ever being mentioned until now which shows how few use this route.
If that's all he'd suggested, fine by me - it's the kitchen sink absolutism of *abolishing* that made it a firestorm. And the language was crap if he didn't actually mean it either.FrancisUrquhart said:
You might want to be careful there my old son...He isn't a non-dom, he was born into that status, but isn't now.Roger said:Zac Goldsmith is a non dom. You really couldn't make it up!
I'm sure we're all terrified in case he moves abroad!
Now if Ed Miliband was talking about addressing this situation of people just inheriting this status, I think that would be very sensible. But of course, like ZHC, rather than talk about reform, he just as the QC on the radio said not so much baby out with the bath water, more all the toys out of the pram.0 -
Roger's minted. He can afford to lose a house, paying legal bills.FrancisUrquhart said:
You just keep repeating the misinformation about Zac Goldsmith. I mean he never likes to sue anybody.Roger said:Cameron looks as slippery as an eel. People aren't interested whether it raises extra money. If there was a poll asking whether we should risk Zac Goldsmith and other non doms leaving the country if they lose their non dom status the result would be overwhelming.
Labour should bang away at this one. Even Tom Bradbury sounded disgusted. It's Labour's first guaranteed vote winner0 -
They'll move somewhere with a lower tax rate, obviously.surbiton said:
Where to ? There they have to pay the tax too ! Please understand just because suddenly they have to pay 50% additionally. As per double taxation treaties, the tax paid locally can be deducted. So it the difference only that will be payable.RobD said:
Alternatively they can leave.surbiton said:
You do realise people pay £90000 because alternatively they would have to pay more !Bond_James_Bond said:I've not looked at the non-doms #LabourEnvy fiasco since this morning, but the story now appears to be that their independent tax expert isn't independent, isn't a tax expert, hasn't considered double taxation treaties and is, generally, a hopelessly hairy ruin.
So that went well for Mr Intellectually Self Confident then! Just the grasp of detail we expect from an aspiring Prime Minister!
Presumably, for these 6000 or so, that "difference" will be greatly more than £90000.0 -
Scott_P Posts: 7,869
5:57PM
And the FT reckons Nicola dropped a clanger last night
Yes masterly from Labour in Scotland. They lose almost all of their seats to the NATS but still get into power with SNP support. Thus the Labs in Scotland become redundant and the SNP are in power at local, Scots and Westminster level.
Magnificent strategy from Milliband using the obnxious Murphy as his foil. Putting in someone so disliked that he can't move Labour in the polls at all after 4 months and has 4 weeks to go.
This is truly a masterstroke discovered by the FT who are sull of such clever people with such great knowledge of Scotland - just like the BBC. .0 -
Miss Plato, kitchen sinks*, surely?
0 -
Lots of money to be made if you believe that.Scott_P said:@bbclaurak: interesting day in Dundee West - no question SNP have whip hand but ground situation more fluid in Scotland than 1st appears
0 -
Ireland ? No tax on external earnings there. Switzerland, none there either and the skiing is good. Singapore, nope, none there either, and a top rate of tax of 20%. Even here, no tax on external earnings and top rate of 10%.surbiton said:
Where to ? There they have to pay the tax too ! Please understand just because suddenly they have to pay 50% additionally. As per double taxation treaties, the tax paid locally can be deducted. So it the difference only that will be payable.RobD said:
Alternatively they can leave.surbiton said:
You do realise people pay £90000 because alternatively they would have to pay more !Bond_James_Bond said:I've not looked at the non-doms #LabourEnvy fiasco since this morning, but the story now appears to be that their independent tax expert isn't independent, isn't a tax expert, hasn't considered double taxation treaties and is, generally, a hopelessly hairy ruin.
So that went well for Mr Intellectually Self Confident then! Just the grasp of detail we expect from an aspiring Prime Minister!
Presumably, for these 6000 or so, that "difference" will be greatly more than £90000.0 -
LOL - I took a second to catch up with you thereMorris_Dancer said:
Miss Plato, kitchen sinks*, surely?
0 -
Money pumped into football must be largest chunk.FrancisUrquhart said:
Lawyers fees properly top the lot :-)nigel4england said:
I wonder how much tax Abramovich has paid since he moved to this country, not the non dom stuff but things like stamp duty, VAT on luxury goods, all the building work he has had done etcsurbiton said:
He will pay £90000. What a bargain ! Presumably Abrahamovic is also a non-dom. Can't prove it but I wouldn't be surprised. Most recent Russians are.Roger said:Zac Goldsmith is a non dom. You really couldn't make it up!
I'm sure we're all terrified in case he moves abroad!
He always seems constantly in one legal battle or another, be it personal, business or football related, and all through the British courts.
0 -
Maybe that's Ed problem...when somebody tells him to throw the kitchen sink at it, he asks which one?Morris_Dancer said:Miss Plato, kitchen sinks*, surely?
0 -
You can always buy yourself a new citizenship as well. Bulgaria will sell you one. Can save a fortune on sending the kids to uni then.Indigo said:
Ireland ? No tax on external earnings there. Switzerland, none there either and the skiing is good. Singapore, nope, none there either, and a top rate of tax of 20%surbiton said:
Where to ? There they have to pay the tax too ! Please understand just because suddenly they have to pay 50% additionally. As per double taxation treaties, the tax paid locally can be deducted. So it the difference only that will be payable.RobD said:
Alternatively they can leave.surbiton said:
You do realise people pay £90000 because alternatively they would have to pay more !Bond_James_Bond said:I've not looked at the non-doms #LabourEnvy fiasco since this morning, but the story now appears to be that their independent tax expert isn't independent, isn't a tax expert, hasn't considered double taxation treaties and is, generally, a hopelessly hairy ruin.
So that went well for Mr Intellectually Self Confident then! Just the grasp of detail we expect from an aspiring Prime Minister!
Presumably, for these 6000 or so, that "difference" will be greatly more than £90000.0 -
Then again a few seem to have swung to Labour in the past few months despite the national trend. Can't all be outliers.felix said:
I'm surprised by the different swings in Blackpool and Morecambe. They're practically next door, aren't they?FalseFlag said:Morecambe looks wrong, probably level pegging thus likely Con hold.
Unless there is some reason it has swung Labour in the past few months.
I won't over think it.0 -
Nigel
"People will be interested when there is insufficient to run the NHS "
Perhaps we could prevail on the Queen to genuflect infront of Goldsmith and Abramovich to see if she can persuade them to remain resident here
0 -
So he did make it up...?FrancisUrquhart said:
You might want to be careful there my old son...He isn't a non-dom, he was born into that status, but isn't now.Roger said:Zac Goldsmith is a non dom. You really couldn't make it up!
I'm sure we're all terrified in case he moves abroad!
Now if Ed Miliband was talking about addressing this situation of people just inheriting this status, I think that would be very sensible. But of course, like ZHC, rather than talk about reform, he just as the QC on the radio said not so much baby out with the bath water, more all the toys out of the pram.
The BBC news was peddling a recent interview with Ed Balls where is confidently said that removing non dom status would cost the economy money. This was presumably in the context of 'would labour scrap it'?
Did Ed speak to Ed before this announcement?
When questioned today Ed M dodged the issue and said they had 'found a way'. Ha.
I saw a headline in The Guardian which said labour were going to 'take on' the non doms.
'Take on'? Whats all that about? Running the country is not a boxing match. You cannot round up and herd don doms like taking sheep to the abattoir. The non doms will be taking themselves and their businesses and their local tax and their spending power on the first flight out. The overseas earnings will stay where they are.
Some people will remember Dennis Healey promising to make the pips squeak for the rich. We all know how that ended.
Meantime even as I type we see a shocking Labour PPB weaponising the NHS. Anyone would think the Lying Labour Party created the NHS.0 -
Didn't the Ruskies give Gerard Depardieu very favourable terms too?FrancisUrquhart said:
You can always buy yourself a new citizenship as well. Bulgaria will sell you one. Can save a fortune on sending the kids to uni then.Indigo said:
Ireland ? No tax on external earnings there. Switzerland, none there either and the skiing is good. Singapore, nope, none there either, and a top rate of tax of 20%surbiton said:
Where to ? There they have to pay the tax too ! Please understand just because suddenly they have to pay 50% additionally. As per double taxation treaties, the tax paid locally can be deducted. So it the difference only that will be payable.RobD said:
Alternatively they can leave.surbiton said:
You do realise people pay £90000 because alternatively they would have to pay more !Bond_James_Bond said:I've not looked at the non-doms #LabourEnvy fiasco since this morning, but the story now appears to be that their independent tax expert isn't independent, isn't a tax expert, hasn't considered double taxation treaties and is, generally, a hopelessly hairy ruin.
So that went well for Mr Intellectually Self Confident then! Just the grasp of detail we expect from an aspiring Prime Minister!
Presumably, for these 6000 or so, that "difference" will be greatly more than £90000.0 -
Yep, and after 3 years they hand the car back and sign up to another one. They seem just to be renting the car at £199 a month or whatever.FrancisUrquhart said:
New cars always struck me as the most stupid "investment". Why buy something that is worth a fraction of its value as soon as you put the keys in the ignition, when instead you can buy a perfectly good one that is only a year or two old. With modern cars, a 2 year old car that hasn't been flogged to death has only really just been broken in.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
Quite a lot of my colleagues (none of them earning great money) are swanning around in new cars. All have got them on one of the variety of lease deals.FrancisUrquhart said:Apparently record number of cars sold since split of numbers plates being twice yearly, but also record amount being bought on credit.
I run around in a 13 year old Fiesta which suits me perfectly for the 5k miles I do a year.
Apparently it is the loan with option to buy / upgrade that have been driving a lot of new interest.
0 -
Why would Goldsmith want to leave?Roger said:Nigel
"People will be interested when there is insufficient to run the NHS "
Perhaps we could prevail on the Queen to genuflect infront of Goldsmith and Abramovich to see if she can persuade them to remain resident here0 -
So another lie from Labour?FrancisUrquhart said:
Not the first time Labour try to claim "independent" people back their position e.g. loads of charities who just by chance are run by people who worked for the last Labour government agree with Ed.Bond_James_Bond said:I've not looked at the non-doms #LabourEnvy fiasco since this morning, but the story now appears to be that their independent tax expert isn't independent, isn't a tax expert, hasn't considered double taxation treaties and is, generally, a hopelessly hairy ruin.
So that went well for Mr Intellectually Self Confident then! Just the grasp of detail we expect from an aspiring Prime Minister!
0 -
Francis
"You just keep repeating the misinformation about Zac Goldsmith. I mean he never likes to sue anybody."
Francis. It has been on ITV News in the last ten minutes. It's their job to fact check not mine. Where do you get your information?0 -
It was a slick broadcast but the message was all wrong, doing nothing to address the Greens' central problem - credibility. Even if you think it's a good idea you know that the Greens can't 'end' austerity - because their ceiling, even being wildly optimistic is about 5 MPs. Anyone can walk around saying they'd end austerity when they haven't got a cat in hell's chance of forming a government. It's frankly ridiculous to have a pop at coalitions when your best hope is to be in one.Plato said:TBH it was the slickness and high production values that made me wonder who made it. If I didn't know better - I'd never ever guess the Greenies. Their hair-shirtness doesn't fit with glossy.
It's like getting a council newspaper on Country Life paper stock and full colour. It doesn't feel right with the brand.isam said:Maybe its me but I cant help finding targeting the fact that the four main leaders are white men and drawing the conclusion from they are therefore all the same, is the same thought process as thinking all black men from south London are wronguns who deserve to be stopped and searched
I am sympathetic to a lot of green mindset; I worry about the environment, I rarely eat meat, I don't drive when I could get the train etc, but how would I know what they thought from their PEB?
All I get from it is they think if you share skin colour and gender you are categorised as "all the same"
They could garner far better coverage by putting forward a list of 5 affordable and popular policies any party can put in place to gain their vote for a Queen's Speech, and challenge the other parties to explain why they're not a good idea.
Actually that goes for UKIP too, if they came out and said 'Here are our 5 demands for backing a QS', hacks would then wander around asking every Labour and Tory spokesperson to rule out agreeing to them. If they don't you gain credibility, if they do they're opposing a popular policy. Even if they nick your policy you can claim it as an achievement and say 'vote us to ensure they stick to it'.
0 -
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/zac-goldsmith-drops-nondom-status-after-attacks-over-tax-6763577.htmlRoger said:Francis
"You just keep repeating the misinformation about Zac Goldsmith. I mean he never likes to sue anybody."
Francis. It has been on ITV News in the last ten minutes. It's their job to fact check not mine. Where do you get your information?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/nondoms-who-they-are-and-why-labour-wants-to-scrap-their-tax-privileges-10161739.html
want any more?
You know this thing you are using called the interweb, there is a site called google, its amazing, it lets you fact check things yourself.
It was a big story 6 years ago, when Labour were again going on [selectively] bash the non-doms at the time like Goldsmith and Ashcroft, just don't mention the Labour ones.
Are you sure they didn't say "USED TO" and you got all over excited?0 -
If people did not buy new cars then how would the rest of us buy second hand ones? All cars however do depreciate and eventually need maintenance. A car that depreciates relatively slowly can be a good buy, and there are leasing plans that make sense.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
Yep, and after 3 years they hand the car back and sign up to another one. They seem just to be renting the car at £199 a month or whatever.FrancisUrquhart said:
New cars always struck me as the most stupid "investment". Why buy something that is worth a fraction of its value as soon as you put the keys in the ignition, when instead you can buy a perfectly good one that is only a year or two old. With modern cars, a 2 year old car that hasn't been flogged to death has only really just been broken in.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
Quite a lot of my colleagues (none of them earning great money) are swanning around in new cars. All have got them on one of the variety of lease deals.FrancisUrquhart said:Apparently record number of cars sold since split of numbers plates being twice yearly, but also record amount being bought on credit.
I run around in a 13 year old Fiesta which suits me perfectly for the 5k miles I do a year.
Apparently it is the loan with option to buy / upgrade that have been driving a lot of new interest.
Lets not rubbish new car buying. We make a lot of good new cars.0 -
OT I've been talking giant animals on another forum and can anyone beat this for an incredible sight?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r9Laslf4hc0 -
guardian thinks he dropped it in 2010Roger said:Francis
"You just keep repeating the misinformation about Zac Goldsmith. I mean he never likes to sue anybody."
Francis. It has been on ITV News in the last ten minutes. It's their job to fact check not mine. Where do you get your information?
http://tinyurl.com/kckkedj0 -
http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2015/04/labour-has-the-snp-where-it-wants/Scott_P said:And the FT reckons Nicola dropped a clanger last night
In fact, there is an argument that Labour is in an even stronger short-term position because of the SNP rise, because it has damaged not only Labour but also the Lib Dems. Whereas the Lib Dems have said they would join either party in government, that is not the case with the SNP. In effect Labour has secured a few more sure-fire votes to help form a post-2015 government.
The Lib Dems are an irrelvance in Scotland, soon to be consigned to the dustbin of history.
Meanwhile 48% of Scots want another referendum within five years.0 -
I couldn't agree more - when a pressure group decides to become a political party - the lack of depth shows really quickly - and then they end up a cul-de-sac.
Of course any group of people can form a party - I notice that the Christian People's Alliance and the Christian Party [very Life of Brian] are fighting on two different platforms but are planning to merge AFTER the GE. I'm lost re the logic here.
They've got about 200 followers on Twitter put together, but fielding about 20 candidates.marktheowl said:
It was a slick broadcast but the message was all wrong, doing nothing to address the Greens' central problem - credibility. Even if you think it's a good idea you know that the Greens can't 'end' austerity - because their ceiling, even being wildly optimistic is about 5 MPs. Anyone can walk around saying they'd end austerity when they haven't got a cat in hell's chance of forming a government. It's frankly ridiculous to have a pop at coalitions when your best hope is to be in one.Plato said:TBH it was the slickness and high production values that made me wonder who made it. If I didn't know better - I'd never ever guess the Greenies. Their hair-shirtness doesn't fit with glossy.
It's like getting a council newspaper on Country Life paper stock and full colour. It doesn't feel right with the brand.isam said:Maybe its me but I cant help finding targeting the fact that the four main leaders are white men and drawing the conclusion from they are therefore all the same, is the same thought process as thinking all black men from south London are wronguns who deserve to be stopped and searched
I am sympathetic to a lot of green mindset; I worry about the environment, I rarely eat meat, I don't drive when I could get the train etc, but how would I know what they thought from their PEB?
All I get from it is they think if you share skin colour and gender you are categorised as "all the same"
They could garner far better coverage by putting forward a list of 5 affordable and popular policies any party can put in place to gain their vote for a Queen's Speech, and challenge the other parties to explain why they're not a good idea.
Actually that goes for UKIP too, if they came out and said 'Here are our 5 demands for backing a QS', hacks would then wander around asking every Labour and Tory spokesperson to rule out agreeing to them. If they don't you gain credibility, if they do they're opposing a popular policy. Even if they nick your policy you can claim it as an achievement and say 'vote us to ensure they stick to it'.0 -
Just seen the new Ashcroft polls. On the surface looks dreadful for Labour. Average swing can't be more than 2% I'd have thought. Not sure why OGH has not put a favourable slant on it for the blues. It's so out of line though with the national polls showing a 5% swing in England and Wales I'd be cautious though.0
-
Dair But with only 47% going to vote Yes that would kill of independence for good0
-
As I observed yesterday, I would rather bet on Labour majority than on Labour in Fylde, whose last non-Tory MP was the 8th Duke of Devonshire in 1865, yet these are available at the same odds!Pulpstar said:Anyone else have a comedy green on Labour Majority at the moment by the way
?0 -
Well, that was an interesting day.
Ed1 opens his mouth and the collective right wing noise machine stamps its feet and goes waaaaaaaahhhhhhhh.
Ed2 is a complete knob and has to be sent elsewhere if EMWNBPM becomes PM.
Reform of this 200 year old law makes great sense to wage slaves like me. Good call. If the Americans can manage without so can we; London will still be the city where wealthy people want to live.0 -
Well I'll conclude by agreeing with you.kieran said:
Yes I agree. My point is that it is highly unlikely that all of the variation is random, because swing is never exactly the same across all the seats. The balance between systemic / random is of course open to interpretation, but arguing that it is all random is a bit of a push IMO.MikeL said:
Let me put it this way.kieran said:
Your interpretation is possible, I just don't think it's likely to be true.
It is based on all of the seats having a low previous swing due to sample variation, rather than something systemic. While this might be true for 1 or 2 (Harrow East for instance) it seems unlikely to be true for all of them.
To use your analogy - if we were to toss 10 coins and got 10 heads and we tossed the same 10 coins a few weeks later and got another 10 heads I would think there was something different about the coins which were being used!
But the good thing about Ashcroft is that he looks like he will be doing more polling so we will soon see which interpretation is correct.
20 seats - all really have a swing of 5%. Poll all 20. 10 you get a lower swing than 5%. 10 seats you get higher than 5%. But that's all random - they all really have a swing of 5%.
Now poll 10 again. The fact you choose the 10 which got lower than 5% first time is irrelevant if there is no systemic variation.
Ultimately comes down to whether you believe there is systemic variation or not.
I agree it won't all be random. But I personally don't think it'll be entirely systemic either.
How much of each? Who knows!0 -
Seems that swing to Labour highest in London and the S East, worst in the midlands0
-
These were chosen because they are the closest marginals, and so they are not intended to be representative of the election as a whole, or even marginals as a subsection of the whole. For instance, Erewash is nominally a more distant Labour target than Blackpool North and Cleveleys, yet because of its healthy swing to Labour, it hasn't been included.FrankBooth said:Just seen the new Ashcroft polls. On the surface looks dreadful for Labour. Average swing can't be more than 2% I'd have thought. Not sure why OGH has not put a favourable slant on it for the blues. It's so out of line though with the national polls showing a 5% swing in England and Wales I'd be cautious though.
0 -
Perplexing, innit?FrankBooth said:Not sure why OGH has not put a favourable slant on it for the blues.
0 -
Kingswood is near Bristol so S Westchestnut said:Poll Swings to Lab since 2010
London Harrow East 5.5
S East Hove 5.0
N West Morecambe 4.0
N East Stockton Sth 3.0
Y+H Pudsey 2.0
N West Blackpool N 0.5
S West Gloucester 0.5
E Mids Loughborough -0.5
W Mids Kingswood -2.00 -
It's a mixed bag isn't it.. Looking good for Ed in London and increasingly boho places like Hove; probably OK in the East Mids but not so good in Worcester Woman type places. Still plenty to play for.FrankBooth said:Just seen the new Ashcroft polls. On the surface looks dreadful for Labour. Average swing can't be more than 2% I'd have thought. Not sure why OGH has not put a favourable slant on it for the blues. It's so out of line though with the national polls showing a 5% swing in England and Wales I'd be cautious though.
0 -
SPIN difference down to 13.0
-
The only thing that will "kill off independence" is a fall in support. While support remains around 50% there will always be a demand for a vote to get it.HYUFD said:Dair But with only 47% going to vote Yes that would kill of independence for good
Doesn't matter how many votes it takes.0 -
FrankBooth Using UK polling report the UK wide swing to Labour is about 3%0
-
Dair If the SNP call a vote now and lose it, even if they get 49%, it will be dead as an issue, as in Quebec, which is why Gordon Wilson, former SNP leader, today said another referendum must not be held until Yes was certain of victory0
-
What could go wrong? I have never understood the now now now culture which appears to have seized most of society. Instead of saving for a car they take out loans on a depreciating asset.FrancisUrquhart said:Apparently record number of cars sold since split of numbers plates being twice yearly, but also record amount being bought on credit.
0 -
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 14m14 minutes ago
Lord Noon is on the BBC, part of a piece on non-doms. Is that the same Lord Noon who gave nearly £116k to Lab under EdMiliband?0 -
Guido flags up a TV interview where Labours shadow Exchequer Secretary Shabana Mahmood could not name a single expert who had said that abolishing non doms would raise hundreds of millions. This despite claiming there were a 'number' of them.FrancisUrquhart said:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/zac-goldsmith-drops-nondom-status-after-attacks-over-tax-6763577.htmlRoger said:Francis
"You just keep repeating the misinformation about Zac Goldsmith. I mean he never likes to sue anybody."
Francis. It has been on ITV News in the last ten minutes. It's their job to fact check not mine. Where do you get your information?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/nondoms-who-they-are-and-why-labour-wants-to-scrap-their-tax-privileges-10161739.html
want any more?
You know this thing you are using called the interweb, there is a site called google, its amazing, it lets you fact check things yourself.
It was a big story 6 years ago, when Labour were again going on [selectively] bash the non-doms at the time like Goldsmith and Ashcroft, just don't mention the Labour ones.
Are you sure they didn't say "USED TO" and you got all over excited?
Labour press office likewise.
Ed said there were 'experts'. Where are they? Only one, a Labour supporter in fact who has been forced to admit “I accept DTCs could have some impact. There’s plainly some uncertainty about the numbers.”
Bit of an omnishambles from labour. Or as the BBC have said 'its all gone pear shaped' !! I recommend looking up Ed M's response to the question about Balls' comment at the press conference. It gives a clear indication of what he looks like when he stands upright and tells barefaced lies. Useful to know.
Think of a 'number' and double it seems to be Labour's main campaign promise.
0 -
Are they still goin on about how he is an "independent" peer....we don't like to go into why that is the case...dr_spyn said:Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 14m14 minutes ago
Lord Noon is on the BBC, part of a piece on non-doms. Is that the same Lord Noon who gave nearly £116k to Lab under EdMiliband?0 -
Just wait until interest rates go up....the now now now generation will be the bastard government screwed up.....MP_SE said:
What could go wrong? I have never understood the now now now culture which appears to have seized most of society. Instead of saving for a car they take out loans on a depreciating asset.FrancisUrquhart said:Apparently record number of cars sold since split of numbers plates being twice yearly, but also record amount being bought on credit.
0 -
Erewash will be close again, a stone cold certainty. I would slightly favour Labour but it could go either way. Conservatives look competitive in every single East Midlands marginal, Sherwood and Lincoln look the hardest to hold but they have a decent chance even in those.EPG said:
These were chosen because they are the closest marginals, and so they are not intended to be representative of the election as a whole, or even marginals as a subsection of the whole. For instance, Erewash is nominally a more distant Labour target than Blackpool North and Cleveleys, yet because of its healthy swing to Labour, it hasn't been included.FrankBooth said:Just seen the new Ashcroft polls. On the surface looks dreadful for Labour. Average swing can't be more than 2% I'd have thought. Not sure why OGH has not put a favourable slant on it for the blues. It's so out of line though with the national polls showing a 5% swing in England and Wales I'd be cautious though.
0 -
When the CP and the CPA did a joint Party Election Broadcast (for the London election, I think (or possibly the European election)), their leaders described the CP as a "conservative" party and the CPA as a "christian democrat" party, which sort-of implies that they have differences but fit under a broad umbrella - a bit like the FPTP idea of having a broad-based party which aggregates a range of views within one party, rather than the continental-PR idea of having a coalition of several small parties.Plato said:I couldn't agree more - when a pressure group decides to become a political party - the lack of depth shows really quickly - and then they end up a cul-de-sac.
Of course any group of people can form a party - I notice that the Christian People's Alliance and the Christian Party [very Life of Brian] are fighting on two different platforms but are planning to merge AFTER the GE. I'm lost re the logic here.
They've got about 200 followers on Twitter put together, but fielding about 20 candidates.0 -
It doesn't matter how badly you want something to be true, there is nothing you can do to stop Refendum after Referendum after Referendum.HYUFD said:Dair If the SNP call a vote now and lose it, even if they get 49%, it will be dead as an issue, as in Quebec, which is why Gordon Wilson, former SNP leader, today said another referendum must not be held until Yes was certain of victory
The only way to stop any further Referendum is to vote Yes.0 -
I cannot wait. There is going to be a lot of bargains.FrancisUrquhart said:
Just wait until interest rates go up....the now now now generation will be the bastard government screwed up.....MP_SE said:
What could go wrong? I have never understood the now now now culture which appears to have seized most of society. Instead of saving for a car they take out loans on a depreciating asset.FrancisUrquhart said:Apparently record number of cars sold since split of numbers plates being twice yearly, but also record amount being bought on credit.
0 -
BBC Scotland seem to be doing the second debate as "edited highlights". Utterly loathsome behaviour from Scottish Labour's official broadcaster.0
-
I'm shocked. How many votes will this shift and in which direction?Flightpath said:
Guido flags up a TV interview where Labours shadow Exchequer Secretary Shabana Mahmood could not name a single expert who had said that abolishing non doms would raise hundreds of millions. This despite claiming there were a 'number' of them.FrancisUrquhart said:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/zac-goldsmith-drops-nondom-status-after-attacks-over-tax-6763577.htmlRoger said:Francis
"You just keep repeating the misinformation about Zac Goldsmith. I mean he never likes to sue anybody."
Francis. It has been on ITV News in the last ten minutes. It's their job to fact check not mine. Where do you get your information?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/nondoms-who-they-are-and-why-labour-wants-to-scrap-their-tax-privileges-10161739.html
want any more?
You know this thing you are using called the interweb, there is a site called google, its amazing, it lets you fact check things yourself.
It was a big story 6 years ago, when Labour were again going on [selectively] bash the non-doms at the time like Goldsmith and Ashcroft, just don't mention the Labour ones.
Are you sure they didn't say "USED TO" and you got all over excited?
Labour press office likewise.
Ed said there were 'experts'. Where are they? Only one, a Labour supporter in fact who has been forced to admit “I accept DTCs could have some impact. There’s plainly some uncertainty about the numbers.”
Bit of an omnishambles from labour. Or as the BBC have said 'its all gone pear shaped' !! I recommend looking up Ed M's response to the question about Balls' comment at the press conference. It gives a clear indication of what he looks like when he stands upright and tells barefaced lies. Useful to know.
Think of a 'number' and double it seems to be Labour's main campaign promise.0 -
Interesting insight into mind set - basically fascist.Dair said:
It doesn't matter how badly you want something to be true, there is nothing you can do to stop Refendum after Referendum after Referendum.HYUFD said:Dair If the SNP call a vote now and lose it, even if they get 49%, it will be dead as an issue, as in Quebec, which is why Gordon Wilson, former SNP leader, today said another referendum must not be held until Yes was certain of victory
The only way to stop any further Referendum is to vote Yes.0 -
It's not ludicrous, unless you consider the whole concept of domicile ludicrous. It is part of English Common Law that everyone must have a domicile of origin. That is their domicile at the point of birth.Plato said:Quite. The notion of *inheriting* non-domism is ludicrous. Why wasn't this resolved decades ago? I don't recall it ever being mentioned until now which shows how few use this route.
i) If legitimate (and born in the father's lifetime) that will be the domicile of the father
ii) If illegitimate (or born after the father's death) that will be the domicile of the mother
iii) If a foundling, the place determines the domicile0 -
The real problem for Labour with their key announcements is the internal communications.
They give the impression that these policies were scribbled onto a blank sheet of paper and not discussed fully before announcements were made.
ZHC and Non Doms are the most obvious.
Then the party spokesmen can't support them with facts that are believable.0 -
Or to have no public desire for a referendum?Dair said:
It doesn't matter how badly you want something to be true, there is nothing you can do to stop Refendum after Referendum after Referendum.HYUFD said:Dair If the SNP call a vote now and lose it, even if they get 49%, it will be dead as an issue, as in Quebec, which is why Gordon Wilson, former SNP leader, today said another referendum must not be held until Yes was certain of victory
The only way to stop any further Referendum is to vote Yes.0 -
So wanting elections is fascist now. Guess that's why Hitler abolished elections after he got into power - same motivation and behaviour from the British Nationalists now.felix said:
Interesting insight into mind set - basically fascist.Dair said:
It doesn't matter how badly you want something to be true, there is nothing you can do to stop Refendum after Referendum after Referendum.HYUFD said:Dair If the SNP call a vote now and lose it, even if they get 49%, it will be dead as an issue, as in Quebec, which is why Gordon Wilson, former SNP leader, today said another referendum must not be held until Yes was certain of victory
The only way to stop any further Referendum is to vote Yes.0 -
Jesus, poor people. I'd imagine there's a very good book in following our countries collection of eccentric parties. I can kind of understand that mindset though, if you've got a pet issue you feel everyone is ignoring it can give you a bit of coverage and the excuse to raise it with people.Plato said:I couldn't agree more - when a pressure group decides to become a political party - the lack of depth shows really quickly - and then they end up a cul-de-sac.
Of course any group of people can form a party - I notice that the Christian People's Alliance and the Christian Party [very Life of Brian] are fighting on two different platforms but are planning to merge AFTER the GE. I'm lost re the logic here.
They've got about 200 followers on Twitter put together, but fielding about 20 candidates.marktheowl said:Plato said:TBH it was the slickness and high production values that made me wonder who made it. If I didn't know better - I'd never ever guess the Greenies. Their hair-shirtness doesn't fit with glossy.
It's like getting a council newspaper on Country Life paper stock and full colour. It doesn't feel right with the brand.isam said:Maybe its me but I cant help finding targeting the fact that the four main leaders are white men and drawing the conclusion from they are therefore all the same, is the same thought process as thinking all black men from south London are wronguns who deserve to be stopped and searched
I am sympathetic to a lot of green mindset; I worry about the environment, I rarely eat meat, I don't drive when I could get the train etc, but how would I know what they thought from their PEB?
All I get from it is they think if you share skin colour and gender you are categorised as "all the same"
What I struggle to understand is the motivation of the Greens in that they've been seduced by the ultra-left protest vote who'd vote for anyone who slags off Labour from the left for actually trying to govern a real country rather than an abstraction from an A-Level politics lesson. It's totally distracted from what should be their core message about the environment, which if you believe the scientists should be a fairly popular one. While it may put on a percentage point or two on election day or gain you a few members, in the long-term it will destroy the party as those who sign up demand it stays on the hard-left even if that means it's impossible to have an ounce of credibility about the vaguely sensible important things you'd like to achieve. If every Green interview started with a question on a plausible policy rather than 'you've got hundreds of billions of pounds unaccounted for', they might not always resemble an M6 pile-up.
0
