Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Policies not leadership will win this election

SystemSystem Posts: 12,858
edited April 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Policies not leadership will win this election

Last night saw the the emergence of a major policy announcement by both the Tories and Labour, these can be seen as the appetising hors-d’oeuvre before the main course that is the manifesto launches in the early part of this coming week.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    First ..... again!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 62,732
    edited April 2015
    If you think our pollsters are showing an inconsistent picture, go check out Spain.

    The last two opinion polls for the election this year show dramatically different pictures.

    Metroscopia has: 
    PP		20.8
    Socialists	21.9
    Citizen's 	19.4
    Podemos		22.1
    Whle NC-Report has: 
    PP		29.7
    Socialists	23.5
    Citizen's 	10.5
    Podemos		14.1
    Someone is going to end up with egg on their face in November...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 62,732
    rcs1000 said:

    If you think our pollsters are showing an inconsistent picture, go check out Spain.

    The last two opinion polls for the election this year show dramatically different pictures.

    Metroscopia has:

    PP		20.8
    Socialists	21.9
    Citizen's 	19.4
    Podemos		22.1
    Whle NC-Report has: 
    PP		29.7
    Socialists	23.5
    Citizen's 	10.5
    Podemos		14.1
    Someone is going to end up with egg on their face in November...
    It is worth remembering that Spain has proportional representation (using multi-member constituencies), and therefore almost irrespective of the result, there will need to be a coalition post election. Unless Podemos were to be 5-10% ahead of the number two party (which seems unlikely), then they would likely be shut out of government.
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,211
    Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls. Click to enlarge...

    Simple, Free Image and File Hosting at MediaFire
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,817
    Is there any evidence the voters care about the policies either? None of what's coming out is very substantive, just symbolic stuff to shore up the existing brands.
  • PurseybearPurseybear Posts: 766
    edited April 2015
    Tory IHT is a big winner even tho it doesn't affect that many. They'll also be v happy with front page coverage: 3.2 million (MoS, ST, SunTel, Sun Exp) vs Labours 325,000 (Obs, I)

    We always need to be careful when taking at face value what people say in polls. If asked whether they are more interested in policies than leaders people will say policies. That doesn't mean they are. At least subliminally. Come election day like it or not people vote not just for a local MP but for who they most trust to run the country.

    Anyhow will be interesting to see what happens next week with post easter shakedown. Someone made a point yday that if policies like IHT had been in the budget it would now be law whereas in the manifesto it means people need to vote for it to happen. I'm still unconvinced the budget was good for the tories but I'm getting the feeling things are moving their way.
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    A very scary picture of EdM on the front page of the so-called Independent on Sunday - I wouldn't want to bump into him in a dark alley way!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    @RCS - in the Andalusian election last month - a real vote - PP did much worse than the polls suggested and lost a third of their seats. They govern alone nationally at the moment. They won't after November, if they govern at all. That may mean Spain is closer to a resolution of the Catalonia independence issue than currently seems possible. The emergence of the Citizens Party is a very positive development. Podemos - which took votes from the Communists rather than the Sicialists in Andalucia - reflects the fact the a significant number of Spaniards feel (and are) completely locked out of mainstream society. They are almost literally hopeless. It's tragic and has to be addressed. What's notable about the Spanish political scene is that despite the economic horrors of the last few years, no populist right wing party has emerged. I guess because the Spanish know what rule from the nationalist right really entails.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    Purseybear said:

    Tory IHT is a big winner even tho it doesn't affect that many. They'll also be v happy with front page coverage: 3.2 million (MoS, ST, SunTel, Sun Exp) vs Labours 325,000 (Obs, I)

    We always need to be careful when taking at face value what people say in polls. If asked whether they are more interested in policies than leaders people will say policies. That doesn't mean they are. At least subliminally. Come election day like it or not people vote not just for a local MP but for who they most trust to run the country.

    Anyhow will be interesting to see what happens next week with post easter shakedown. Someone made a point yday that if policies like IHT had been in the budget it would now be law whereas in the manifesto it means people need to vote for it to happen. I'm still unconvinced the budget was good for the tories but I'm getting the feeling things are moving their way.

    The Tory IHT move is an interesting one. It is clearly another policy aimed at UKIPers and may well appeal to them. But it also plays into the Tories are for the rich meme. That will galvanise anti- Tory voters and so will help Labour (and perhaps LDs in Tory/LD marginals). What it also does, of course, is frees up Labour to use upper rate pension relief as a no comeback source of funding. With all the recent Tory policy announcements and Ed is a traitor claims you have to assume they have been focus-grouped to death. But have they been completely thought-through, I wonder?

  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    edited April 2015
    FAO Mike Smithson - When you announced a few weeks ago Sporting's sponsorship of PB.com during the run-up to the GE, you also indicated that the accompanying "Guess the Seats" competition would be followed by other(s).
    With the election now less than four weeks away and receipt of postal voting papers due to hit the doormats imminently, wouldn't now be an ideal opportunity to test the political temperature again to determine whether PB.com's effective Wisdom Index has moved to any significant extent over the intervening period?
    This might not only be of interest but also prove to be a valuable betting tool for those of us so inclined.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Tax avoidance promises are easy to make but difficult to implement - the coalition's record is better than Labour's - not that that will count for much as clearly Labour's big idea is "we'll take money off others to spend on you"
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    On the "presidential" question, it would be interesting to see splits by party -- for example, would we be surprised if Labour VI now count leadership as less important than they did in 2010?
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    SouthamObserver said:

    @RCS - in the Andalusian election last month - a real vote - PP did much worse than the polls suggested and lost a third of their seats. They govern alone nationally at the moment. They won't after November, if they govern at all. That may mean Spain is closer to a resolution of the Catalonia independence issue than currently seems possible. The emergence of the Citizens Party is a very positive development. Podemos - which took votes from the Communists rather than the Sicialists in Andalucia - reflects the fact the a significant number of Spaniards feel (and are) completely locked out of mainstream society. They are almost literally hopeless. It's tragic and has to be addressed. What's notable about the Spanish political scene is that despite the economic horrors of the last few years, no populist right wing party has emerged. I guess because the Spanish know what rule from the nationalist right really entails.

    The overwhelming issue in Spanish politics - and I live here so see it all the time at all levels - is the corruption which envelops both the PP & PSOE. The big winners have been Podemos, on the extreme left but now, more recently, Ciudanos for the Centre right. The latter could just price to be the saviours of the country this year.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    CarlottaVance said:

    Tax avoidance promises are easy to make but difficult to implement - the coalition's record is better than Labour's - not that that will count for much as clearly Labour's big idea is "we'll take money off others to spend on you"

    For me the problem is that this is essentially a very negative message with its roots in envy. The IROn the other hand, paid for in this proposal by very high earners, links to family and aspiration, especially in areas where property even for average earners is very expensive.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Is IHT the Tory gamechanger Dan Hodges warned us about?
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    SouthamObserver said:

    Purseybear said:

    Tory IHT is a big winner even tho it doesn't affect that many. They'll also be v happy with front page coverage: 3.2 million (MoS, ST, SunTel, Sun Exp) vs Labours 325,000 (Obs, I)

    We always need to be careful when taking at face value what people say in polls. If asked whether they are more interested in policies than leaders people will say policies. That doesn't mean they are. At least subliminally. Come election day like it or not people vote not just for a local MP but for who they most trust to run the country.

    Anyhow will be interesting to see what happens next week with post easter shakedown. Someone made a point yday that if policies like IHT had been in the budget it would now be law whereas in the manifesto it means people need to vote for it to happen. I'm still unconvinced the budget was good for the tories but I'm getting the feeling things are moving their way.

    The Tory IHT move is an interesting one. It is clearly another policy aimed at UKIPers and may well appeal to them. But it also plays into the Tories are for the rich meme. That will galvanise anti- Tory voters and so will help Labour (and perhaps LDs in Tory/LD marginals). What it also does, of course, is frees up Labour to use upper rate pension relief as a no comeback source of funding. With all the recent Tory policy announcements and Ed is a traitor claims you have to assume they have been focus-grouped to death. But have they been completely thought-through, I wonder?

    I think its more about motivating the ordinary middle classes to get out and vote. Many of those will have estates worth more than the current IHT threshold but wont feel rich because of the part of the country they live in, this is a reason for them to be bothered to go down to the polling station which they might otherwise not have found.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 62,732
    @SO

    I'm not sure your interpretation of Andulacia is correct. Andulacia in the far south of Spain is one of the poorest and most negatively affected by the Eurozone crisis. It has been a PSOE stronghold for a very, very long time, with them regularly polling more than 50% of the vote.

    The 2012 local elections there saw the PP creep above the PSOE for the first time. Their drop in support in 2015 was - to a large extent - just a return to normality. Also, I didn't see any polls for the Andulacia local elections, so I'm not sure where your contention that the PP did much worse than forecast came from.

    Really, the big surprise in Andulacia was that Podemos, which should have done really well in a region with unemployment of 42%, got just 15% of the vote.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    While Ed continues to edge up, although still best rated, Farage has taken a hit in the "doing well" ratings (net)

    Cameron -3 (-4)
    Miliband -25 (+3)
    Clegg -37 (-4)
    Farage +6 (-12)

    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/oqslggwc4a/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-110415.pdf
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    SouthamObserver said:

    Purseybear said:

    Tory IHT is a big winner even tho it doesn't affect that many. They'll also be v happy with front page coverage: 3.2 million (MoS, ST, SunTel, Sun Exp) vs Labours 325,000 (Obs, I)

    We always need to be careful when taking at face value what people say in polls. If asked whether they are more interested in policies than leaders people will say policies. That doesn't mean they are. At least subliminally. Come election day like it or not people vote not just for a local MP but for who they most trust to run the country.

    Anyhow will be interesting to see what happens next week with post easter shakedown. Someone made a point yday that if policies like IHT had been in the budget it would now be law whereas in the manifesto it means people need to vote for it to happen. I'm still unconvinced the budget was good for the tories but I'm getting the feeling things are moving their way.

    The Tory IHT move is an interesting one. It is clearly another policy aimed at UKIPers and may well appeal to them. But it also plays into the Tories are for the rich meme. That will galvanise anti- Tory voters and so will help Labour (and perhaps LDs in Tory/LD marginals). What it also does, of course, is frees up Labour to use upper rate pension relief as a no comeback source of funding. With all the recent Tory policy announcements and Ed is a traitor claims you have to assume they have been focus-grouped to death. But have they been completely thought-through, I wonder?

    We need to see the detail. It depends on whether the pensions relief is limited to 20% for everyone (already LD policy) or if it only is above £150 000.

    Ending higher rate relief for everybody is quite a large tax rise. It would make pensions a poor savings scheme for all above the 40% rate. Punishment of the thrifty again.

    Which also brings the thought. Fewer investors in private pensions combined with the pensions freedoms of last week means far fewer purchasers of government gilts. Are governments about to kill off their own source of borrowing?
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    rcs1000 said:

    @SO

    I'm not sure your interpretation of Andulacia is correct. Andulacia in the far south of Spain is one of the poorest and most negatively affected by the Eurozone crisis. It has been a PSOE stronghold for a very, very long time, with them regularly polling more than 50% of the vote.

    The 2012 local elections there saw the PP creep above the PSOE for the first time. Their drop in support in 2015 was - to a large extent - just a return to normality. Also, I didn't see any polls for the Andulacia local elections, so I'm not sure where your contention that the PP did much worse than forecast came from.

    Really, the big surprise in Andulacia was that Podemos, which should have done really well in a region with unemployment of 42%, got just 15% of the vote.

    Also PSOE was down in votes and failed to win an overall majority. The big gainers were Ciudanos. There's a huge corruption scandal in Andalucia around PSOE.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,319
    edited April 2015
    CarlottaVance said:

    While Ed continues to edge up, although still best rated, Farage has taken a hit in the "doing well" ratings (net)

    Cameron -3 (-4)
    Miliband -25 (+3)
    Clegg -37 (-4)
    Farage +6 (-12)

    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/oqslggwc4a/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-110415.pdf

    Ed is net +1 from last week - the number saying he's doing well fell by 1.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    CarlottaVance said:

    While Ed continues to edge up, although still best rated, Farage has taken a hit in the "doing well" ratings (net)

    Cameron -3 (-4)
    Miliband -25 (+3)
    Clegg -37 (-4)
    Farage +6 (-12)

    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/oqslggwc4a/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-110415.pdf

    Farage does not seem to have benefited from appearing in the debates. His campaign does seem to consist of a pub crawl with press pack. The launch of the UKIP womens manifesto was a farce with collapsing posters and a room full of empty chairs. All it did was repeat the quote of UKIP as "the rugby club on tour". David Coburn was appalling in the Scottish debate.

    I am increasingly confident that UKIP will flop on May 7th. The UKIP manifesto launch may well be the decider. It is likely to be a mess.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    CarlottaVance said:

    Tax avoidance promises are easy to make but difficult to implement - the coalition's record is better than Labour's - not that that will count for much as clearly Labour's big idea is "we'll take money off others to spend on you"

    And self-limiting surely? If you harvest 7.5bn in year 1 the avoiders stop avoiding and you get nothing in year 2. Unless I suppose you keep creating further tax loopholes to tempt them to have another go.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    JohnO said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    While Ed continues to edge up, although still best rated, Farage has taken a hit in the "doing well" ratings (net)

    Cameron -3 (-4)
    Miliband -25 (+3)
    Clegg -37 (-4)
    Farage +6 (-12)

    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/oqslggwc4a/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-110415.pdf

    Ed is net +1 from last week - the number saying he's doing well fell by 1.
    Sorry - my mistake -- it should read:

    Cameron -3 (-4)
    Miliband -25 (+1)
    Clegg -37 (-4)
    Farage +6 (-12)
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,329
    Purseybear said:

    Tory IHT is a big winner even tho it doesn't affect that many. They'll also be v happy with front page coverage: 3.2 million (MoS, ST, SunTel, Sun Exp) vs Labours 325,000 (Obs, I)

    We always need to be careful when taking at face value what people say in polls. If asked whether they are more interested in policies than leaders people will say policies. That doesn't mean they are. At least subliminally. Come election day like it or not people vote not just for a local MP but for who they most trust to run the country.

    Anyhow will be interesting to see what happens next week with post easter shakedown. Someone made a point yday that if policies like IHT had been in the budget it would now be law whereas in the manifesto it means people need to vote for it to happen. I'm still unconvinced the budget was good for the tories but I'm getting the feeling things are moving their way.

    Unsurprisingly on the BBC News the independent headline was front and centre with the others skimmed over. Prior to a theatre awards promo with the Billy Elliot song about solidarity. I don't think they could be any clearer about their allegiances. The BBC News has a more significant reach than the papers.

    IHT was blocked by lib dems which allowed them to differentiate over election, but I think Labour are in the lead on crazy envy policies.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 21,694
    edited April 2015
    Fox

    "Ending higher rate relief for everybody is quite a large tax rise. It would make pensions a poor savings scheme for all above the 40% rate. Punishment of the thrifty again."

    It's always been unfair to give more relief to higher earners than to lower ones but more importantly now that pension limitations don't exist I wonder whether any tax relief is appropriate?

    As it stands people can save money tax free at their marginal rate with the only proviso that they cant draw it till they're 50.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,394
    No surprise that Ukip are being squeezed as the big two take centre stage. They need a Labour/SNP coalition for a few months to rejuvenate. Not so sure the UK needs it but that's democracy.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,920
    On policies, YG has huge majorities for all Labour's controversial tax proposals (64-24 for raising top rate tax, 64-23 for the mansion tax [56-29 in London], 50-25 on non-doms) and supports the tuition fee change and rejects the suggestion that it will damage universites by 30-point margins. There's a slightly odd question on Trident, offering what appears to be a land-based nuclear missile alternative: this gains the most support (38%) but I've not seen it seriously suggested by anyone. Have I missed something?
    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/oqslggwc4a/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-110415.pdf
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,394
    Surely getting money from tax avoidance is an aspiration rather than a policy. Making a legal activity a cash cow suggests a legal remedy, or am I being naive? Is my ISA safe?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    edited April 2015
    NickPalmer said:

    There's a slightly odd question on Trident, offering what appears to be a land-based nuclear missile alternative: this gains the most support (38%) but I've not seen it seriously suggested by anyone. Have I missed something?
    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/oqslggwc4a/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-110415.pdf

    The question is: Britain should retain a nuclear missile system, but it should be less powerful and cost less than replacing Tridentmissile system,

    So either of the "3 vs 4" subs, or "sub launched cruise missiles" would fit that bill. Land based systems are vulnerable to first strike.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 21,694
    NP

    "On policies, YG has huge majorities for all Labour's controversial tax proposals (64-24 for raising top rate tax, 64-23 for the mansion tax [56-29 in London], 50-25 on non-doms) and "

    The only surprising one is non doms because that is clearly the least equitable of all of them. Perhaps it wasn't explained well enough? Anyway plenty of time to explain and re explain and then find a few outrageous csses of abuse of the status
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited April 2015
    NickPalmer said:

    On policies, YG has huge majorities for all Labour's controversial tax proposals (64-24 for raising top rate tax, 64-23 for the mansion tax [56-29 in London], 50-25 on non-doms) and supports the tuition fee change and rejects the suggestion that it will damage universites by 30-point margins. There's a slightly odd question on Trident, offering what appears to be a land-based nuclear missile alternative: this gains the most support (38%) but I've not seen it seriously suggested by anyone. Have I missed something?
    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/oqslggwc4a/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-110415.pdf

    Voters agree other people should pay more tax, so they can get more handouts... shocker!
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited April 2015
    CD13 said:

    Surely getting money from tax avoidance is an aspiration rather than a policy. Making a legal activity a cash cow suggests a legal remedy, or am I being naive? Is my ISA safe?

    Not just that, but the intention is to make the money from fines. Ergo if people stop avoiding, they stop making money. It also slightly glosses over the huge legal bill the government will run up trying to prove that rich people owe them money, not to mention the risks of losing some of those cases and setting the wrong sort of precedent.

    At the margin it is also all part of the calculation of rich people deciding of the UK is worth the hassle, if our economy turns down at the end of the year that could be a decisive no, and the tax take will crater.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I completely disagree with the idea that the public are much swayed by policy announcements. Which is fortunate, because all the ones unveiled so far are dire.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 21,694
    Indigo

    "Voters agree other people should pay more tax, so they can get more handouts... shocker!"

    Like a lot of Tories I think you underestimate peoples desire for fairness
  • Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    CarlottaVance said:

    Tax avoidance promises are easy to make but difficult to implement - the coalition's record is better than Labour's - not that that will count for much as clearly Labour's big idea is "we'll take money off others to spend on you"

    The coalition's "record" has been to pass legislation, viz. Part 5 of the Finance Act 2013, the like of which has long been understood to be unconstitutional.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Life_ina_market_town said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Tax avoidance promises are easy to make but difficult to implement - the coalition's record is better than Labour's - not that that will count for much as clearly Labour's big idea is "we'll take money off others to spend on you"

    The coalition's "record" has been to pass legislation, viz. Part 5 of the Finance Act 2013, the like of which has long been understood to be unconstitutional.
    And shut down the LVCR business in the Channel Islands, among others......
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Good morning all and I see overnight the polls have returned to something close to normal.

    Surely the most inappropriately named newspaper must be "The Independent"? There is nothing independent about it. It is an unashamed socialist republican rag. However for most people now it seems the nearest they get to reading newspapers (me included) is the likes of the paper review on SKY. I buy my local paper on a Friday. It is overpriced garbage but the only way I can find out who has died across the county.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,280
    I really don’t see what is wrong with IHT. The main component of most middle class people-s estates in their house, and the “value" of the houses I have lived in has only marginally been affected by any action I have taken. That value has, however, been significantly affacted by the general economic conditions both in this country and the world in general.
    I would take the point that the sale of my home after my death might enable my grandchildren to have a better chance of getting on the property ladder, but it’s not as if either IHT is at a confiscatory level or anuyonde like me is likely to have so many grandchildren that what they got after my death will be negligible.
    Assuming my wife & I don’t spend 20 years in a Care Home, of course!
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited April 2015
    Roger said:

    Indigo

    "Voters agree other people should pay more tax, so they can get more handouts... shocker!"

    Like a lot of Tories I think you underestimate peoples desire for fairness

    Like a lot of Labour people you underestimate the tendency of people to talk about fairness whilst lining the own nest, how many Labour Peers and MPs involved in Cash for Influence, how many ended up in jail over expenses ? People are people, the lefties are just sanctimonious about it.

    Anyway "fair" means everyone is treated the same, you clearly don't mean that, you mean "progressive" which is one of those moveable feasts that can mean all things to all people.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Roger said:

    Fox

    "Ending higher rate relief for everybody is quite a large tax rise. It would make pensions a poor savings scheme for all above the 40% rate. Punishment of the thrifty again."

    It's always been unfair to give more relief to higher earners than to lower ones but more importantly now that pension limitations don't exist I wonder whether any tax relief is appropriate?

    As it stands people can save money tax free at their marginal rate with the only proviso that they cant draw it till they're 50.

    The principle of tax relief on pensions is that a pension is deferred income. Tax free into the wrapper and taxed coming out. This change would tax it both going in and coming out (unless all pension income was taxed at 20%). It is not morally wrong to give tax relief at the marginal rate. It encourages people to fund their own retirement rather than rely on the state to fund it.

    ISAs are looking better, money is post tax on the way in, but tax free on the way out.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Trident replacement:

    Replace with something as powerful: 38 (+7)
    Replace with something cheaper: 28 (-1)
    Scrap altogether: 19 (--5)

    Support for getting rid of nuclear weapons is highest in Scotland (35), but a majority of Scots would keep the bomb either in a like for like replacement (28) or as a cheaper version (27).
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Easterross said:

    I buy my local paper on a Friday. It is overpriced garbage but the only way I can find out who has died across the county.

    Chortle .... :smile:

  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited April 2015
    foxinsoxuk said:

    It is not morally wrong to give tax relief at the marginal rate. It encourages people to fund their own retirement rather than rely on the state to fund it.

    Especially since the state conspicuously can't fund it, as can be judged by the steadily increasing retirement age. It is verging on fraud for the state to claim to be able to fund people in their dotage when it can't, and inexcusable to make it prohibitively expensive for people to fund it for themselves. Just another example of government raking in a quick buck now and dropping the problem on their successors in a couple of decades or so.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,351
    Panelbase Scotland poll for the Sunday Times

    Do you want an independence referendum before 2020

    Yes 39% No 54%

    If there was a referendum tomorrow, 51% would vote No; 42% said yes; 6% were undecided; and 1% would not vote.

    64% believe Scotland will become an independent nation by the middle of the century, 25% said Scotland wouldn't be independent by then.

    Fieldwork 30th of March to the 2nd of April
  • RogerRoger Posts: 21,694
    AF

    "I completely disagree with the idea that the public are much swayed by policy announcements."

    I think the evidence that even budgets don't shift voting intention suggests you're right. This though has become a joke. I believe Prince Rainier sent Grace 100 roses a day. Compared to George thats sheer parsimony.....

    I'm holding out for a Bentley and the way it's going I shouldn't have to wait long
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    foxinsoxuk said:

    Roger said:

    Fox

    "Ending higher rate relief for everybody is quite a large tax rise. It would make pensions a poor savings scheme for all above the 40% rate. Punishment of the thrifty again."

    It's always been unfair to give more relief to higher earners than to lower ones but more importantly now that pension limitations don't exist I wonder whether any tax relief is appropriate?

    As it stands people can save money tax free at their marginal rate with the only proviso that they cant draw it till they're 50.

    The principle of tax relief on pensions is that a pension is deferred income. Tax free into the wrapper and taxed coming out. This change would tax it both going in and coming out (unless all pension income was taxed at 20%). It is not morally wrong to give tax relief at the marginal rate. It encourages people to fund their own retirement rather than rely on the state to fund it.

    ISAs are looking better, money is post tax on the way in, but tax free on the way out.
    The charges on ISAs are far higher than on most pensions (despite being far less complex products). For that reason, most people would be best advised to save in a pension first unless they really need the instant access that ISAs offer.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    I'll be a big beneficiary of the IHT policy as my Dad is currently occupying a ~£1m house in London. Completely scooters any chance that he and my step-mother might downsize to something more fitting to their needs, thus freeing up a house for a family.

    One or two spare rooms for visiting family is reasonable, but four? Such under-occupation is a major feature of the current housing pressure in London.

    The government desperately needs to make other investments more attractive compared to housing, to rebalance the economy, instead we are continuing to drift in the wrong direction.
  • PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,275
    edited April 2015
    Easterross said:

    Good morning all and I see overnight the polls have returned to something close to normal.

    Surely the most inappropriately named newspaper must be "The Independent"? There is nothing independent about it. It is an unashamed socialist republican rag. However for most people now it seems the nearest they get to reading newspapers (me included) is the likes of the paper review on SKY. I buy my local paper on a Friday. It is overpriced garbage but the only way I can find out who has died across the county.

    Chin up, Easterross - perhaps, along with recent aborted Grauniad front page, today's Sindy will become a collector's item like the Kinnock lightbulb in the Sun in 1992 and that priceless article from Sion Simon in 2007!

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 40,184
    CD13 said:

    No surprise that Ukip are being squeezed as the big two take centre stage. They need a Labour/SNP coalition for a few months to rejuvenate. Not so sure the UK needs it but that's democracy.

    UKPR actually had UKIP moving up a touch to 15%, this week. But, I still think 12% or so on the day is likely.

    Pretty consistently now, polls that have UKIP doing well have the Conservatives doing poorly, and vice versa.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    When are the Tories going to come out with policies that appeal to the Midlands marginals? Train fares and IHT are very "South East" centric - are they aiming for bigger majorities there, while leaving the populist field free to Labour?
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    antifrank said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Roger said:

    Fox

    "Ending higher rate relief for everybody is quite a large tax rise. It would make pensions a poor savings scheme for all above the 40% rate. Punishment of the thrifty again."

    It's always been unfair to give more relief to higher earners than to lower ones but more importantly now that pension limitations don't exist I wonder whether any tax relief is appropriate?

    As it stands people can save money tax free at their marginal rate with the only proviso that they cant draw it till they're 50.

    The principle of tax relief on pensions is that a pension is deferred income. Tax free into the wrapper and taxed coming out. This change would tax it both going in and coming out (unless all pension income was taxed at 20%). It is not morally wrong to give tax relief at the marginal rate. It encourages people to fund their own retirement rather than rely on the state to fund it.

    ISAs are looking better, money is post tax on the way in, but tax free on the way out.
    The charges on ISAs are far higher than on most pensions (despite being far less complex products). For that reason, most people would be best advised to save in a pension first unless they really need the instant access that ISAs offer.
    ?

    The charge on my ISA is nil, other than dealing costs of £12 odd per trade. As I buy one boring holding per year and stick with it, that's £12 per year.
  • JonCisBackJonCisBack Posts: 911
    Roger said:

    Fox

    "Ending higher rate relief for everybody is quite a large tax rise. It would make pensions a poor savings scheme for all above the 40% rate. Punishment of the thrifty again."

    It's always been unfair to give more relief to higher earners than to lower ones but more importantly now that pension limitations don't exist I wonder whether any tax relief is appropriate?

    As it stands people can save money tax free at their marginal rate with the only proviso that they cant draw it till they're 50.

    Pension saving is tax free because it is NOT tax free when you draw it. Otherwise it is double taxed. This is a clear and obviously fair principle, so I disagree.

    By the same token things you have bought with taxed income should not be taxed when you die, and IHT is therefore also highly morally questionable.

    However we as a society think that some sort of "redistribution" should occur, so we do have IHT. Osborne's plan to effectively exempt a family home as an exception to this is one many people would support surely, although perhaps not metropolitan champagne socialists...
  • scotslassscotslass Posts: 912
    The Sunday Times in Scotland must be running out of money. This is last week's Panelbase poll ie one which showed the SNP at 45%!

    There should be some trade descriptions' rule which prevents papers recycling old polls in the middle of general election campaigns.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 40,184
    CarlottaVance said:

    When are the Tories going to come out with policies that appeal to the Midlands marginals? Train fares and IHT are very "South East" centric - are they aiming for bigger majorities there, while leaving the populist field free to Labour?

    IHT is a very unpopular tax, surprisingly, even among those who are in no danger of paying it. Usually, voters like the idea of other people paying more tax, but not in this case.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    JonCisBack said:

    Roger said:

    Fox

    "Ending higher rate relief for everybody is quite a large tax rise. It would make pensions a poor savings scheme for all above the 40% rate. Punishment of the thrifty again."

    It's always been unfair to give more relief to higher earners than to lower ones but more importantly now that pension limitations don't exist I wonder whether any tax relief is appropriate?

    As it stands people can save money tax free at their marginal rate with the only proviso that they cant draw it till they're 50.

    Pension saving is tax free because it is NOT tax free when you draw it. Otherwise it is double taxed. This is a clear and obviously fair principle, so I disagree.

    By the same token things you have bought with taxed income should not be taxed when you die, and IHT is therefore also highly morally questionable.

    However we as a society think that some sort of "redistribution" should occur, so we do have IHT. Osborne's plan to effectively exempt a family home as an exception to this is one many people would support surely, although perhaps not metropolitan champagne socialists...
    Totally agree with this. Some kind of meaty policy too after my prolonged whinge on Friday night about all the parties being rubbish so far.
  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    CarlottaVance said:

    When are the Tories going to come out with policies that appeal to the Midlands marginals? Train fares and IHT are very "South East" centric - are they aiming for bigger majorities there, while leaving the populist field free to Labour?

    A smallish swing to the Tories in and around London, offset by larger swings against them in the rest of England, is a highly plausible scenario.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 100,027
    edited April 2015
    I agree with those that say policy announcements do not sway people. I think that's wishful thinking from those answering the poll. We see that all the time in that the most important thing for most people about a policy is who is proposing it, and it has to be pretty amazing to break through to the other side, and so even if it is objectively what they want you might get something like 'Oh, it's not a bad idea, but you cannot trust x to do it, and it isn't in the right way'.

    I think the good lord has it right with this bit:

    As my focus groups with undecided voters have shown, little of substance is getting through to most people but what they do hear reinforces what they already think about the parties – good and bad

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/04/its-now-too-late-for-tories-or-labour-to-change-what-people-think-about-them/

    That is, perceptions of what the parties are like are going to colour how a policy from them will be interpreted, limiting the opportunity for a new policy to change someone's actual view of that party.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,348
    Morning, everyone.

    F1: found the race most entertaining, but am a bit disappointed with the way the bet turned out.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    CarlottaVance said:

    When are the Tories going to come out with policies that appeal to the Midlands marginals? Train fares and IHT are very "South East" centric - are they aiming for bigger majorities there, while leaving the populist field free to Labour?

    We tend to believe that we and our friends are typical of humanity at large, and doubtless this applies also to the small coterie around George Osborne. Labour has had a similar problem, and Ken Livingstone blamed the 1992 defeat on the Scottish circle around John Smith not recognising how badly some proposals would play in London and the South-East. We even see it on pb outside of election periods: everyone sane supports X so clearly anyone voting Y has been bribed (probably by Gordon Brown).
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 26,096
    Indigo said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Purseybear said:

    Tory IHT is a big winner even tho it doesn't affect that many. They'll also be v happy with front page coverage: 3.2 million (MoS, ST, SunTel, Sun Exp) vs Labours 325,000 (Obs, I)

    We always need to be careful when taking at face value what people say in polls. If asked whether they are more interested in policies than leaders people will say policies. That doesn't mean they are. At least subliminally. Come election day like it or not people vote not just for a local MP but for who they most trust to run the country.

    Anyhow will be interesting to see what happens next week with post easter shakedown. Someone made a point yday that if policies like IHT had been in the budget it would now be law whereas in the manifesto it means people need to vote for it to happen. I'm still unconvinced the budget was good for the tories but I'm getting the feeling things are moving their way.

    The Tory IHT move is an interesting one. It is clearly another policy aimed at UKIPers and may well appeal to them. But it also plays into the Tories are for the rich meme. That will galvanise anti- Tory voters and so will help Labour (and perhaps LDs in Tory/LD marginals). What it also does, of course, is frees up Labour to use upper rate pension relief as a no comeback source of funding. With all the recent Tory policy announcements and Ed is a traitor claims you have to assume they have been focus-grouped to death. But have they been completely thought-through, I wonder?

    I think its more about motivating the ordinary middle classes to get out and vote. Many of those will have estates worth more than the current IHT threshold but wont feel rich because of the part of the country they live in, this is a reason for them to be bothered to go down to the polling station which they might otherwise not have found.
    If that is the case it just shows how stupid the Cameroons are. Why do they need more people in the SE to turn out and vote for them ? Bigger majorities won't bring them much by way of seats. They need policies for the parts of the country beyond Banbury.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Sean_F said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    When are the Tories going to come out with policies that appeal to the Midlands marginals? Train fares and IHT are very "South East" centric - are they aiming for bigger majorities there, while leaving the populist field free to Labour?

    IHT is a very unpopular tax, surprisingly, even among those who are in no danger of paying it. Usually, voters like the idea of other people paying more tax, but not in this case.
    The problem for the Conservatives is that they've been in power for the past 5 years. They spoke of making IHT 'a tax for millionaires only' before the 2010 election. Why believe them twice?



  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,348
    Mr. Dave, because it's a coalition?
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    Regarding "Successor",

    The problem is this...:

    Tomahawk is in draw-down (hence Ozzies recent buys): There are no freebies available to replace the D5 system. There are future systems - vapourware at the moment - to replace short-range conventional systems - Perseus - but that system will a) cost and b) not fulfill the role of a deterrant.

    So the options are simple: Extend D5 (or E6?) until 2040, or b) Fund unproven - and expensive - new systems. Any humanoid with a pair of brain-cells would no which answer makes most sense.

    The elephant-in-the-room is this: You cannot expect your target to mis-interpret your intentions. Any conventional system must be seen as non-apocalyptic. Your deterrant should present an unambiguously, ckear and present danger to your foe....
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Ishmael_X said:

    antifrank said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Roger said:

    Fox

    "Ending higher rate relief for everybody is quite a large tax rise. It would make pensions a poor savings scheme for all above the 40% rate. Punishment of the thrifty again."

    It's always been unfair to give more relief to higher earners than to lower ones but more importantly now that pension limitations don't exist I wonder whether any tax relief is appropriate?

    As it stands people can save money tax free at their marginal rate with the only proviso that they cant draw it till they're 50.

    The principle of tax relief on pensions is that a pension is deferred income. Tax free into the wrapper and taxed coming out. This change would tax it both going in and coming out (unless all pension income was taxed at 20%). It is not morally wrong to give tax relief at the marginal rate. It encourages people to fund their own retirement rather than rely on the state to fund it.

    ISAs are looking better, money is post tax on the way in, but tax free on the way out.
    The charges on ISAs are far higher than on most pensions (despite being far less complex products). For that reason, most people would be best advised to save in a pension first unless they really need the instant access that ISAs offer.
    ?

    The charge on my ISA is nil, other than dealing costs of £12 odd per trade. As I buy one boring holding per year and stick with it, that's £12 per year.
    I was addressing the choice of primary long term savings vehicle. If you save in a managed fund in an ISA, the charges will normally be more expensive than if done through a pension.

    ISAs certainly have their uses. I have one myself.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 21,694
    JonCisBack

    "However we as a society think that some sort of "redistribution" should occur, so we do have IHT. Osborne's plan to effectively exempt a family home as an exception to this is one many people would support surely, although perhaps not metropolitan champagne socialists... "

    This hasn't been thought through. Do we really want people to hang on to their over large houses as their families get smaller?

    Those even richer may decide to buy as they approach their dotage as a smart way to avoid tax.Houses should not be used as a vote buyer. There are just too many homeless for that.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 26,096
    edited April 2015
    CarlottaVance said:

    When are the Tories going to come out with policies that appeal to the Midlands marginals? Train fares and IHT are very "South East" centric - are they aiming for bigger majorities there, while leaving the populist field free to Labour?

    They aren't. Their upper echelons are packed full of people who have no feel for life outside London and its hinterland.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Dave, because it's a coalition?

    Their 2014 EU Parliament platform was largely lies. So I'm inclined to view contradictions in their 2015 platform in that light.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 23,145
    Indigo said:

    NickPalmer said:

    On policies, YG has huge majorities for all Labour's controversial tax proposals (64-24 for raising top rate tax, 64-23 for the mansion tax [56-29 in London], 50-25 on non-doms) and supports the tuition fee change and rejects the suggestion that it will damage universites by 30-point margins. There's a slightly odd question on Trident, offering what appears to be a land-based nuclear missile alternative: this gains the most support (38%) but I've not seen it seriously suggested by anyone. Have I missed something?
    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/oqslggwc4a/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-110415.pdf

    Voters agree other people should pay more tax, so they can get more handouts... shocker!
    Tory thinks the poor and disabled should lose more benreits so that the rich can get more tax handouts - shocker
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    When are the Tories going to come out with policies that appeal to the Midlands marginals? Train fares and IHT are very "South East" centric - are they aiming for bigger majorities there, while leaving the populist field free to Labour?

    We tend to believe that we and our friends are typical of humanity at large, and doubtless this applies also to the small coterie around George Osborne. Labour has had a similar problem, and Ken Livingstone blamed the 1992 defeat on the Scottish circle around John Smith not recognising how badly some proposals would play in London and the South-East. We even see it on pb outside of election periods: everyone sane supports X so clearly anyone voting Y has been bribed (probably by Gordon Brown).
    Which is why by far the most interesting Tory policy recently was their promotion of devolution of powers to a greater Manchester. It also left Labour completely flatfooted. But neither main party seems to have learned anything from that.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,348
    edited April 2015
    Mr. Owls, what hand outs have been proposed to the rich?

    Mr. Dave, what's the contradiction?

    Writing the post-race piece. Mixed feelings. Entertaining race (enjoyed Ericsson and Ricciardo's never-ending duel and the misadventures of Maldonado), but a stroke of bad luck turning a bet red is irksome.

    Edited extra bit: Sauber are fourth in the Constructors'. I bet you would've gotten monumental odds on that for three races into the season.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 40,184
    Alanbrooke said:

    Indigo said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Purseybear said:

    Tory IHT is a big winner even tho it doesn't affect that many. They'll also be v happy with front page coverage: 3.2 million (MoS, ST, SunTel, Sun Exp) vs Labours 325,000 (Obs, I)

    We always need to be careful when taking at face value what people say in polls. If asked whether they are more interested in policies than leaders people will say policies. That doesn't mean they are. At least subliminally. Come election day like it or not people vote not just for a local MP but for who they most trust to run the country.

    Anyhow will be interesting to see what happens next week with post easter shakedown. Someone made a point yday that if policies like IHT had been in the budget it would now be law whereas in the manifesto it means people need to vote for it to happen. I'm still unconvinced the budget was good for the tories but I'm getting the feeling things are moving their way.

    The Tory IHT move is an interesting one. It is clearly another policy aimed at UKIPers and may well appeal to them. But it also plays into the Tories are for the rich meme. That will galvanise anti- Tory voters and so will help Labour (and perhaps LDs in Tory/LD marginals). What it also does, of course, is frees up Labour to use upper rate pension relief as a no comeback source of funding. With all the recent Tory policy announcements and Ed is a traitor claims you have to assume they have been focus-grouped to death. But have they been completely thought-through, I wonder?

    I think its more about motivating the ordinary middle classes to get out and vote. Many of those will have estates worth more than the current IHT threshold but wont feel rich because of the part of the country they live in, this is a reason for them to be bothered to go down to the polling station which they might otherwise not have found.
    If that is the case it just shows how stupid the Cameroons are. Why do they need more people in the SE to turn out and vote for them ? Bigger majorities won't bring them much by way of seats. They need policies for the parts of the country beyond Banbury.
    If it motivates people to vote Tory in seats like Hendon, Harrow East, Croydon Central, Brentford & Isleworth, Ealing Acton, Battersea, then it will have done its job. I can't see it making much difference elsewhere.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Roger said:

    JonCisBack

    "However we as a society think that some sort of "redistribution" should occur, so we do have IHT. Osborne's plan to effectively exempt a family home as an exception to this is one many people would support surely, although perhaps not metropolitan champagne socialists... "

    This hasn't been thought through. Do we really want people to hang on to their over large houses as their families get smaller?

    Those even richer may decide to buy as they approach their dotage as a smart way to avoid tax.Houses should not be used as a vote buyer. There are just too many homeless for that.

    It would be more honest and better to move to a wealth tax system than to increase inheritance tax. That would be my preference, and I hope that a mansion tax might be the thin end of the wedge in that regard.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Sean_F said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    Indigo said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Purseybear said:

    Tory IHT is a big winner even tho it doesn't affect that many. They'll also be v happy with front page coverage: 3.2 million (MoS, ST, SunTel, Sun Exp) vs Labours 325,000 (Obs, I)

    We always need to be careful when taking at face value what people say in polls. If asked whether they are more interested in policies than leaders people will say policies. That doesn't mean they are. At least subliminally. Come election day like it or not people vote not just for a local MP but for who they most trust to run the country.

    Anyhow will be interesting to see what happens next week with post easter shakedown. Someone made a point yday that if policies like IHT had been in the budget it would now be law whereas in the manifesto it means people need to vote for it to happen. I'm still unconvinced the budget was good for the tories but I'm getting the feeling things are moving their way.

    The Tory IHT move is an interesting one. It is clearly another policy aimed at UKIPers and may well appeal to them. But it also plays into the Tories are for the rich meme. That will galvanise anti- Tory voters and so will help Labour (and perhaps LDs in Tory/LD marginals). What it also does, of course, is frees up Labour to use upper rate pension relief as a no comeback source of funding. With all the recent Tory policy announcements and Ed is a traitor claims you have to assume they have been focus-grouped to death. But have they been completely thought-through, I wonder?

    I think its more about motivating the ordinary middle classes to get out and vote. Many of those will have estates worth more than the current IHT threshold but wont feel rich because of the part of the country they live in, this is a reason for them to be bothered to go down to the polling station which they might otherwise not have found.
    If that is the case it just shows how stupid the Cameroons are. Why do they need more people in the SE to turn out and vote for them ? Bigger majorities won't bring them much by way of seats. They need policies for the parts of the country beyond Banbury.
    If it motivates people to vote Tory in seats like Hendon, Harrow East, Croydon Central, Brentford & Isleworth, Ealing Acton, Battersea, then it will have done its job. I can't see it making much difference elsewhere.
    Quite so in those Greater London constituencies.

    However I wonder whether more widely this plays into the Labour mantra of Conservatives giving "tax breaks for the wealthy" off the backs of the poor and the LibDem claim that spare cash should be directed at the working poor and middle earners?



  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Morris_Dancer said:



    Mr. Dave, what's the contradiction?

    1. In 2010 they said they'd cut this tax.
    2. In government they did not cut this tax. Their first act in government was to increase VAT.
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Owls, what hand outs have been proposed to the rich?

    Mr. Dave, what's the contradiction?

    Writing the post-race piece. Mixed feelings. Entertaining race (enjoyed Ericsson and Ricciardo's never-ending duel and the misadventures of Maldonado), but a stroke of bad luck turning a bet red is irksome.

    Edited extra bit: Sauber are fourth in the Constructors'. I bet you would've gotten monumental odds on that for three races into the season.

    I took your Vettel podium finish bet at 1.62, thanks once again for another profitable race.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 26,096
    edited April 2015
    Sean_F said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    Indigo said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Purseybear said:

    Tory IHT is a big winner even tho it doesn't affect that many. They'll also be v happy with front page coverage: 3.2 million (MoS, ST, SunTel, Sun Exp) vs Labours 325,000 (Obs, I)

    We always need to be careful when taking at face value what people say in polls. If asked

    The Tory IHT move is an interesting one. It is clearly another policy aimed at UKIPers and may well appeal to them. But it also plays into the Tories are for the rich meme. That will galvanise anti- Tory voters and so will help Labour (and perhaps LDs in Tory/LD marginals). What it also does, of course, is frees up Labour to use upper rate pension relief as a no comeback source of funding. With all the recent Tory policy announcements and Ed is a traitor claims you have to assume they have been focus-grouped to death. But have they been completely thought-through, I wonder?

    I think its more about motivating the ordinary middle classes to get out and vote. Many of those will have estates worth more than the current IHT threshold but wont feel rich because of the part of the country they live in, this is a reason for them to be bothered to go down to the polling station which they might otherwise not have found.
    If that is the case it just shows how stupid the Cameroons are. Why do they need more people in the SE to turn out and vote for them ? Bigger majorities won't bring them much by way of seats. They need policies for the parts of the country beyond Banbury.
    If it motivates people to vote Tory in seats like Hendon, Harrow East, Croydon Central, Brentford & Isleworth, Ealing Acton, Battersea, then it will have done its job. I can't see it making much difference elsewhere.
    As I said it may give them a handful of seats, but in an election their priority is to secure as many marginals as possible, and most of those aren't in the South East. They need policies for the Midlands, North and Scotland.

    However they needed them about 2 years ago to build up a better jump off point for this GE. Instead they subscribed to kippers come home theory and did bugger all to build support. Looking at this juncture of the election that's a seriously bad call.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 57,185
    The Greens really are off the scale in lunacy.

    How anyone can think that these policies would have no effect on the rest of the economy (which seems to be the assumption)?
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    Alanbrooke said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    When are the Tories going to come out with policies that appeal to the Midlands marginals? Train fares and IHT are very "South East" centric - are they aiming for bigger majorities there, while leaving the populist field free to Labour?

    They aren't. Their upper echelons are packed full of people who have no feel for life outside London and its hinterland.
    Same as Labour then.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited April 2015
    ''Tory thinks the poor and disabled should lose more benreits so that the rich can get more tax handouts - shocker''

    This isn't a proposal for the rich. They never pay tax anyway.

    This is for the middle classes.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,348
    Mr. England, *cough* I didn't tip that :p

    But congrats on profitably misreading my article (you probably mistook top 3 in qualifying for top 3 in the race). I ended up with a red race, after backing No Safety Car.

    Mr. Dave, VAT's a different tax, and they didn't win a majority.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 23,145
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Owls, what hand outs have been proposed to the rich?

    Mr. Dave, what's the contradiction?

    Writing the post-race piece. Mixed feelings. Entertaining race (enjoyed Ericsson and Ricciardo's never-ending duel and the misadventures of Maldonado), but a stroke of bad luck turning a bet red is irksome.

    Edited extra bit: Sauber are fourth in the Constructors'. I bet you would've gotten monumental odds on that for three races into the season.

    A tax rate cut for super rich is a handout in my books whether it be IHT or top rate of tax.

    I dont think the semantics of if it meets the definition of "handout" bothers the votes much who see the contrast with £12bn welfare cuts.

    Or actually they don;t see till after GE by the look of it.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 45,572
    From last night, this really shows why the Tories are so hated and called the nasty party, people with many houses , unlimited spare rooms, lackeys , money etc and yet they still want to shove the unfortunate poor into one room.
    Shameful.
    Charles said:

    » show previous quotes
    I pay plenty in taxes, and I'm fine with that.

    I just want it to be spent more productively than giving an individual a spare room unless they need it. There is too much need to waste resources like that.

    care to comment on Overseas Aid ?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 21,694
    edited April 2015

    Important announcement by the Greens. The bottom line in return for their support is banning the Grand National
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 26,096
    nigel4england said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    When are the Tories going to come out with policies that appeal to the Midlands marginals? Train fares and IHT are very "South East" centric - are they aiming for bigger majorities there, while leaving the populist field free to Labour?

    They aren't. Their upper echelons are packed full of people who have no feel for life outside London and its hinterland.
    Same as Labour then.
    I do0n't necessarily disagree with that, but the Labourites have the advantage they sit in Northern seats; Labour's problem is more that it doesn't understand the South.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,758
    Morning all :)

    If life has taught me anything it's that politics and punting share a common meme in being about swings and roundabouts. On Friday at Fontwell, money was made and I was already considering Mrs Stodge's steak dinner when THE DRUID'S NEPHEW crashed out of the National so the champers was off the menu.

    The usual cheap anti-Miliband jibe from someone down thread this morning - looks a perfectly normal picture to me. There's some good ones of Cameron looking old and tired - whatever happened to "young Dave" ? Nick Clegg still looks on good form as well.

    Policy, well, yes. One will freeze your energy prices, the other will freeze your fares. Frankly, I don't believe either of them but as a London commuter, any sense of wage "recovery" has been more than wiped out by fare rises and I don't quite see how, in a deregulated market working on market forces (in which I thought Conservatives believed) we now have the "State" artificially freezing fares. Next thing, they'll be re-nationalising the whole network.

    There seemed a twinge of populist desperation about that - now we have this new nonsense about "family allowance". I thought the country was running a large deficit and trying to pay off an enormous debt. Now it seems Osborne is giving it away right, right and centre. The cynic in me wonders why we've heard nothing yet about the detail of public spending cuts - perhaps they will be outlined in the Conservative Manifesto which will doubtless be hailed by some on here as the greatest piece of visionary political thinking and writing since, well, the last Conservative manifesto.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,348
    Mr. Owls, it isn't a hand out to allow people to keep more of their own money. There's a difference between giving more and taking less. It isn't merely a semantic difference.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 40,184
    JackW said:

    Sean_F said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    Indigo said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Purseybear said:

    Tory IHT is a big winner even tho it doesn't affect that many. They'll also be v happy with front page coverage: 3.2 million (MoS, ST, SunTel, Sun Exp) vs Labours 325,000 (Obs, I)

    We always need to be careful when taking at face value what people say in polls. If asked whether they are more interested in policies than leaders people will say policies. That doesn't mean they are. At least subliminally. Come election day like it or not people vote not just for a local MP but for who they most trust to run the country.

    The Tory IHT move is an interesting one. It is clearly another policy aimed at UKIPers and may well appeal to them. But it also plays into the Tories are for the rich meme. That will galvanise anti- Tory voters and so will help Labour (and perhaps LDs in Tory/LD marginals). What it also does, of course, is frees up Labour to use upper rate pension relief as a no comeback source of funding. With all the recent Tory policy announcements and Ed is a traitor claims you have to assume they have been focus-grouped to death. But have they been completely thought-through, I wonder?

    I think its more about motivating the ordinary middle classes to get out and vote. Many of those will have estates worth more than the current IHT threshold but wont feel rich because of the part of the country they live in, this is a reason for them to be bothered to go down to the polling station which they might otherwise not have found.
    If that is the case it just shows how stupid the Cameroons are. Why do they need more people in the SE to turn out and vote for them ? Bigger majorities won't bring them much by way of seats. They need policies for the parts of the country beyond Banbury.
    If it motivates people to vote Tory in seats like Hendon, Harrow East, Croydon Central, Brentford & Isleworth, Ealing Acton, Battersea, then it will have done its job. I can't see it making much difference elsewhere.
    Quite so in those Greater London constituencies.

    However I wonder whether more widely this plays into the Labour mantra of Conservatives giving "tax breaks for the wealthy" off the backs of the poor and the LibDem claim that spare cash should be directed at the working poor and middle earners?



    IHT is an unpopular tax, unlike taxing non-doms, or taxing high earners at 50%. People just view it as unfair to tax people at death, and don't associate it with the very rich.

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,817
    OT Local elections in Japan today. Some shops are doing voter discounts (in Japan you can get a receipt that says you voted, but not who for.)

    Has this ever been done in the UK? If not would it be legal? I guess you could use a selfie of yourself outside the polling station to do without a receipt.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 40,184
    Alanbrooke said:

    Sean_F said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    Indigo said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Purseybear said:

    Tory IHT is a big winner even tho it doesn't affect that many. They'll also be v happy with front page coverage: 3.2 million (MoS, ST, SunTel, Sun Exp) vs Labours 325,000 (Obs, I)

    We always need to be careful when taking at face value what people say in polls. If asked

    The Tory IHT move is an interesting one. It is clearly another policy aimed at UKIPers and may well appeal to them. But it also plays into the Tories are for the rich meme. That will galvanise anti- Tory voters and so will help Labour (and perhaps LDs in Tory/LD marginals). What it also does, of course, is frees up Labour to use upper rate pension relief as a no comeback source of funding. With all the recent Tory policy announcements and Ed is a traitor claims you have to assume they have been focus-grouped to death. But have they been completely thought-through, I wonder?

    I think its more about motivating the ordinary middle classes to get out and vote. Many of those will have estates worth more than the current IHT threshold but wont feel rich because of the part of the country they live in, this is a reason for them to be bothered to go down to the polling station which they might otherwise not have found.
    If that is the case it just shows how stupid the Cameroons are. Why do they need more people in the SE to turn out and vote for them ? Bigger majorities won't bring them much by way of seats. They need policies for the parts of the country beyond Banbury.
    If it motivates people to vote Tory in seats like Hendon, Harrow East, Croydon Central, Brentford & Isleworth, Ealing Acton, Battersea, then it will have done its job. I can't see it making much difference elsewhere.
    As I said it may give them a handful of seats, but in an election their priority is to secure as many marginals as possible, and most of those aren't in the South East. They need policies for the Midlands, North and Scotland.

    However they needed them about 2 years ago to build up a better jump off point for this GE. Instead they subscribed to kippers come home theory and did bugger all to build support. Looking at this juncture of the election that's a seriously bad call.
    If the Tories were to hold all (or all but one or two) of their London seats, their chances of being the largest party would be good.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046
    OblitusSumMe said:

    I'll be a big beneficiary of the IHT policy as my Dad is currently occupying a ~£1m house in London. Completely scooters any chance that he and my step-mother might downsize to something more fitting to their needs, thus freeing up a house for a family.

    One or two spare rooms for visiting family is reasonable, but four? Such under-occupation is a major feature of the current housing pressure in London.

    The government desperately needs to make other investments more attractive compared to housing, to rebalance the economy, instead we are continuing to drift in the wrong direction.

    Lack of available family housing is why me and Mrs T will be paying an eyewatering mortgage into our seventies, whilst the person we bought the house from trousered a fortune whilst having bought it and a house in France on only one salary in 20 years.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 45,572
    scotslass said:

    The Sunday Times in Scotland must be running out of money. This is last week's Panelbase poll ie one which showed the SNP at 45%!

    There should be some trade descriptions' rule which prevents papers recycling old polls in the middle of general election campaigns.

    It is expensive toilet paper for fools
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 100,027
    malcolmg said:

    From last night, this really shows why the Tories are so hated and called the nasty party, people with many houses , unlimited spare rooms, lackeys , money etc and yet they still want to shove the unfortunate poor into one room.
    Shameful.
    Charles said:

    » show previous quotes
    I pay plenty in taxes, and I'm fine with that.

    I just want it to be spent more productively than giving an individual a spare room unless they need it. There is too much need to waste resources like that.

    care to comment on Overseas Aid ?

    I have never voted Tory in my life, but I still don't see what's wrong with not paying for someone to have spare room if it is indeed a spare room, that is it is a room they do not need. Millions upon millions of Tory voters will not be the ones with unlimited money and rooms (they do get votes in poor areas too remember, just not enough to win in them), but paying for unnecessary things hurts those people too.

    If the rooms are not in fact spare, then sure someone should be exempted or the policy clarified to make sure such people are not swept up in it, but the principle seems fair. Many things are ideal but not fair to provide - and yes, the rich absolutely should pay more to make things much fairer.

    Overseas aid? I'm fine with it in principle, it can do a lot of good, although ti should be much tighter controlled.

  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    If life has taught me anything it's that politics and punting share a common meme in being about swings and roundabouts. On Friday at Fontwell, money was made and I was already considering Mrs Stodge's steak dinner when THE DRUID'S NEPHEW crashed out of the National so the champers was off the menu.

    The usual cheap anti-Miliband jibe from someone down thread this morning - looks a perfectly normal picture to me. There's some good ones of Cameron looking old and tired - whatever happened to "young Dave" ? Nick Clegg still looks on good form as well.

    Policy, well, yes. One will freeze your energy prices, the other will freeze your fares. Frankly, I don't believe either of them but as a London commuter, any sense of wage "recovery" has been more than wiped out by fare rises and I don't quite see how, in a deregulated market working on market forces (in which I thought Conservatives believed) we now have the "State" artificially freezing fares. Next thing, they'll be re-nationalising the whole network.

    There seemed a twinge of populist desperation about that - now we have this new nonsense about "family allowance". I thought the country was running a large deficit and trying to pay off an enormous debt. Now it seems Osborne is giving it away right, right and centre. The cynic in me wonders why we've heard nothing yet about the detail of public spending cuts - perhaps they will be outlined in the Conservative Manifesto which will doubtless be hailed by some on here as the greatest piece of visionary political thinking and writing since, well, the last Conservative manifesto.

    I've missed you, Stodge. Especially when you write like that :)

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 40,184
    Roger said:


    Important announcement by the Greens. The bottom line in return for their support is banning the Grand National

    They've got their finger on the pulse of public opinion.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Marr to Hattie

    "Will your tax avoidance measures cover what Ed Miliband did?"
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 100,027
    edited April 2015
    stodge said:


    The usual cheap anti-Miliband jibe from someone down thread this morning - looks a perfectly normal picture to me. .

    Me too, although it does make me think either the photographer's lens cap was broken or someone cropped it incorrectly but was too lazy to change it - not entirely sure what's with the 'stares into your soul' kind of image choice.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 45,572
    nigel4england said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    When are the Tories going to come out with policies that appeal to the Midlands marginals? Train fares and IHT are very "South East" centric - are they aiming for bigger majorities there, while leaving the populist field free to Labour?

    They aren't. Their upper echelons are packed full of people who have no feel for life outside London and its hinterland.
    Same as Labour then.
    Exactly, two cheeks of the same ARSE.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited April 2015
    edmundintokyo said:

    OT Local elections in Japan today. Some shops are doing voter discounts (in Japan you can get a receipt that says you voted, but not who for.)

    Has this ever been done in the UK? If not would it be legal? I guess you could use a selfie of yourself outside the polling station to do without a receipt.

    I like that idea. Even if it does fall foul of some kind of archaic law, is any well-meaning shop/chain really going to get prosecuted for it?

    It would be great PR for Wetherspoons or whoever.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 7,716
    edited April 2015
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Owls, it isn't a hand out to allow people to keep more of their own money. There's a difference between giving more and taking less. It isn't merely a semantic difference.

    I think in Mr Owls' world you and all your possessions are owned by the state, the question is how little of it you should be allowed to keep as pocket money.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025