politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New study points to UKIP’s support base being more middle c

@JoeWatts_: Alex Salmond gives the Tory narrative a big push.... https://t.co/BkybNymKOC

dyedwoolie said:

AllyPally_Rob said:

Given 1992 seems to be 'in vogue' as the benchmark for this years election, here's some sobering facts for the Tories:

- If Cameron does 'as well' as Major did in '92 (-40 Seats) He wont be Prime Minister.

- If Miliband does 'as badly' as Kinnock did in '92 (+42 Seats) He will be Prime Minister.

If Labour are plus 42 seats, they will have taken 80-90 off the Tories and Liberals
If the Cons lose net 40, they'll have lost ca 60 to Labour,

Your maths are wrong. To win most seats allowing for, say, 5 SLAB MPs to be saved, LAB needs to make 41 gains off CON assuming that both parties are equal in net terms from LD and UKIP battles.

41 gains would put LAB on 263 and reduce CON to 262. Add on to that the net seats from LD/UKIP encounters with CON and LAB .

LAB would get to 41 gains from CON on a theoretical 3.51% CON to LAB swing in England+Wales.

dyedwoolie said:

Sean_F said:

Plato said:

From Mr Liddle's Speccy column...

And the Labour leader Ed Miliband made a hugely useful contribution with a tweet saying that the people who died were among the poorest in the world and something should be done. I suppose if they had been moderately affluent it would have been less of a tragedy, Ed, you halfwit. Again, with Hodges and Miliband and the ludicrous Izzy Saunders, the response was all about infantile attitudinalising, nothing more than a wish to tell everybody else that they care more than every-body else and that therefore they are right.

Here’s the deal. There are two ways in which we can act to prevent future boatloads of migrants from drowning in the Mediterranean, and only two ways. Let them all in, or stop them trying to come.

I really dislike all the Something Must Be Done crowd - who don't actually do anything bar demanding sacking someone whose opinions they don't like. How completely self-righteous and pointless.

"Something must be done" gave us the Iraq War.

HMS Farage could sail out and pick up any floating Christians and put all the others on some sort of barge with homing instincts

Not hard to find -they're the ones being chucked off the boat by Muslims.

volcanopete said:

Looking at the LibDems seats it does appear there are 3 without an incumbent which have gone to the Tories.The LibDem brand has been damaged by coalition with the heartless Tories and so it will fall on the strengths of personality,independent thinking and constituency reputation.For these reasons I suggest evens at Corals is value for a LD hold in Torbay and St Ives is still backable for a LD hold at just under evens.Both candidates may just get over the line using their personal brand rather than their parties and certainly no pictures of Clegg on the leaflets.Places like these,Bath and Yeovil,the LibDems are like bindweed and you just can't get rid of them.

I think Andrew George is likely to be in trouble in St Ives following the dumb "no tory coalition" comments - unless, I suppose, some electors actually believe it rather than being tipped over the edge by one blatant lie too many.

The all important poster war is evenly blue and yellow. The LD posters have Andrew George in very large letters and a very small mention of the LDs. The Tory posters go one better and completely omit the party name.

The Spectator (@spectator)
22/04/2015 13:59
An ‘anti-racism’ event at a British university has banned white people specc.ie/1yS0JrM by @laraprendergast pic.twitter.com/DLlQfGUMon

SandyRentool said:

Carnyx said:

Just noticed the Graun live feed reporting a Press Association study of the use of Twitter by PPCs:

"Of the seven main parties, the SNP has managed to get all of its parliamentary candidates on Twitter - while Ukip has only managed to do so with 52% of its prospective MPs.

The Scottish nationalists and Ukip top-and-tailed a Press Association table on Twitter participation. Labour were in second place with 92% of candidates on the micro-blogging site, while you can expect to see tweets from 84% of the Tories’ hopefuls.

Plaid Cymru had 83% of its candidates on Twitter, compared to 77% of the Greens’ and 69% of the Lib Dems".

And what percentage of voters bother with Twitter, let alone 'follow' their candidates? It's a lot easier to reach people via a leaflet through the letterbox.

Oh, undoubtedly. But it all helps.

Polruan said:

The Tory posters go one better and completely omit the party name.

Do they have the candidate name?

@RossBrierley: "The name's Surname. Name Surname" http://t.co/ITula3yrnw

MikeSmithson said:

dyedwoolie said:

AllyPally_Rob said:

Given 1992 seems to be 'in vogue' as the benchmark for this years election, here's some sobering facts for the Tories:

- If Cameron does 'as well' as Major did in '92 (-40 Seats) He wont be Prime Minister.

- If Miliband does 'as badly' as Kinnock did in '92 (+42 Seats) He will be Prime Minister.

If Labour are plus 42 seats, they will have taken 80-90 off the Tories and Liberals
If the Cons lose net 40, they'll have lost ca 60 to Labour,

Your maths are wrong. To win most seats allowing for, say, 5 SLAB MPs to be saved, LAB needs to make 41 gains off CON assuming that both parties are equal in net terms from LD and UKIP battles.

41 gains would put LAB on 263 and reduce CON to 262. Add on to that the net seats from LD/UKIP encounters with CON and LAB .

LAB would get to 41 gains from CON on a theoretical 3.51% CON to LAB swing in England+Wales.

That's a different equation Mike. For Labour to gain net 42 seats they will need to take about 80 off the Libs and Tories. I didn't say for Labour to be largest party now did I?

nigel4england said:

rcs1000 said:

nigel4england said:

My next grandson takes his 11+ in a couple of years and I cannot see him passing, what is the point of coaching your kids to pass an exam that sends them to a school they will struggle at and be unhappy?

Do remember that kids mature at different times. When I was seven, I was in the remedial class of a very state ordinary junior school in west London.

And I went on to go to Cambridge. I was just (a) young in my year, and (b) a late developer.

If your grandson is just a late developer, then not coaching him to get through the 11+ is doing him a great disservice.

He will get some coaching, he is good at numbers and problem solving but his English work is not great.

Anyway he will be the England goalkeeper in the 2030 World Cup!

Sorting kids into at age 11 is counterproductive, they do develop at different rates (and boys slower than girls). Other posters have pointed out that kids could swap schools, but kids that age like to stay with their friends. The answer is streaming surely.

TheWatcher said:

Tykejohnno said:

Jason Groves @JasonGroves1

Ed Miliband says he will pay Mansion Tax on his £2.7m home, but insists it is not a mansion. 'That's just a term that's used...

It's a different world isn't it.

Reminds me of Blair's claim a week or so ago, that he wasn't rich, and his massive earnings were all spent on 'infrastructure'.

Ed probably has flying ducks on the wall of the Nanny's kitchen, which he only calls the scullery in private. He's a man of the people, for the people and he understands them implicitly

LAB on 263 and reduce CON to 262

What a result that would be.

dyedwoolie said:

Pulpstar said:

LAB on 263 and reduce CON to 262

What a result that would be.

No possible government.

Of course there is !

262 Lab, 263 Con is far more problematic for the yellow peril

TheWatcher said:

Cyclefree said:

Tykejohnno said:

Jason Groves @JasonGroves1

Ed Miliband says he will pay Mansion Tax on his £2.7m home, but insists it is not a mansion. 'That's just a term that's used...

when the tax ends up being applied to pretty much every house in the country.

I'm surprised the Tories haven't run up any 'Today's Mansion, is Tomorrow's Semi' posters, to get homeowners thinking.

And point out they will be after private renters next - if you can afford to rent a 'mansion' you should pay mansion rental tax

murali_s said:

Plato said:

No, that encourages people traffickers. Like kidnappers.

IIRC since Australia took on a zero tolerance stance - the number of boat people like this has virtually stopped.

Stereotomy said:

Here’s the deal. There are two ways in which we can act to prevent future boatloads of migrants from drowning in the Mediterranean, and only two ways. Let them all in, or stop them trying to come.

Or maybe some kind of search and rescue operations.

Nah, that'd never work...

Yep - in the process they've broken many of their international obligations.



Presumably he's calculated that Australians prefer the international obligations to be broken rather than have a load of migrants end up on their shores without them having any say in the matter. Has there been much political comeback for this decision?

If matters get worse in North Africa and the Middle East Europe too may have to make that choice. If we in Europe want to allow immigration but on our terms then we have to be able to turn away those we don't want. Otherwise we may as well tear up any immigration policy at all and simply accept whoever is lucky enough to survive the journey. That's not really a sensible policy.

Pulpstar said:

dyedwoolie said:

Pulpstar said:

LAB on 263 and reduce CON to 262

What a result that would be.

No possible government.

Of course there is !

262 Lab, 263 Con is far more problematic for the yellow peril

I mean no possible practical government that won't fall apart inside 6 months!

Voted yesterday in the coop member elections. three candidates for three boardroom positions: I now see here that three other candidates were blackballed.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/12/co-op-group-members-revolt-over-boardroom-elections

So much for democracy.

Anyway I have a general rule for such for/against elections where the number of candidates doesn't exceed the number of positions: simply don't make it clear that you're a Labour member and I'll give assent. Labour folks get the thumbs down. It's amazing how often the student union hacks shoot themselves in the foot by proudly proclaiming Labour membership.

Anyway the type of national candidates seemed remarkably establishment types so I took a different tack and voted against Hazel Blears and abstained on the other two. Quite happy to be able to officially give Blears the thumbs down. Of course I voted against all Co-op political donations too.

All pointless, but no more so than voting in any general election seat not decided by one vote.

Stereotomy said:

dyedwoolie said:

Pulpstar said:

LAB on 263 and reduce CON to 262

What a result that would be.

No possible government.

Unless LD and SNP were both willing to prop up a LAB government (hard to see a scenario with those seat counts where LD&SNP don't both do extremely well

I'd give that 6 months before new elections and a Con/Kip landslide in England and Wales

Plato said:

Flying ducks? Very Hilda Ogden.

dyedwoolie said:

TheWatcher said:

Tykejohnno said:

Jason Groves @JasonGroves1

Ed Miliband says he will pay Mansion Tax on his £2.7m home, but insists it is not a mansion. 'That's just a term that's used...

It's a different world isn't it.

Reminds me of Blair's claim a week or so ago, that he wasn't rich, and his massive earnings were all spent on 'infrastructure'.

Ed probably has flying ducks on the wall of the Nanny's kitchen, which he only calls the scullery in private. He's a man of the people, for the people and he understands them implicitly

And now what the metro set do to show they are really w/c

''That's not really a sensible policy.''

People are starting to want politicians who will put them first. Politicians who will think about the effect on them before calling for expensive help for Africans, many of whom could be criminals or even ISIS supporters.

It's a novel idea, putting your constituents first, but I reckon it might catch on.

Plato said:

OT Culinary question - what would PBers recommend asparagus with? I've only tried it with chicken.

Had delicious lambs liver with courgettes, french beans, mushrooms and onions yesterday. Oh and of course a bit of bubble and squeak.

Asparagus + Salmon steaks en croute, served with a cheese sauce. - tis a staple at chez SSC.

http://www.deliaonline.com/recipes/cuisine/european/french/salmon-en-croute.html

Alistair said:

TGOHF said:

Eck's back

@David_Cameron

This footage will shock you: Alex Salmond laughs & boasts he’ll write Labour’s budget. Vote Conservative to stop it.

https://amp.twimg.com/v/8771ab80-c4b9-4e9d-ba4b-a1bb4ccddc9e …

The shocking footage which is just the same stuff that he said 2 weeks ago?

I also don't see any PB Tory shock at the potentially personally offensive comments by Mr Cameron about Mr Salmond being a thief. It's nothing new, either, but this time it's Mr Cameron choosing to revive them. No skin off my nose - or Mr Salmond's by now - but it does show a certain mentality, and one that won't help the Tory revival in Scotland.

edmundintokyo said:

JosiasJessop said:

Carnyx said:

Just noticed the Graun live feed reporting a Press Association study of the use of Twitter by PPCs:

"Of the seven main parties, the SNP has managed to get all of its parliamentary candidates on Twitter - while Ukip has only managed to do so with 52% of its prospective MPs.

The Scottish nationalists and Ukip top-and-tailed a Press Association table on Twitter participation. Labour were in second place with 92% of candidates on the micro-blogging site, while you can expect to see tweets from 84% of the Tories’ hopefuls.

Plaid Cymru had 83% of its candidates on Twitter, compared to 77% of the Greens’ and 69% of the Lib Dems".

I'd be more likely to vote for a candidate that was not on Twitter, not less. It is truly the communication medium of the Damned.

Blimey, who have you been following?

#SNPout and #Historywoman?

Carnyx said:

one that won't help the Tory revival in Scotland.

I'm not sure that being rude about the SNP is going to be a particular drag on Tory chances north of the border.

What's this? The Tories want to tax me for having a semi? It's all Priti Patel's fault!

taffys said:

''That's not really a sensible policy.''

People are starting to want politicians who will put them first. Politicians who will think about the effect on them before calling for expensive help for Africans, many of whom could be criminals or even ISIS supporters.

It's a novel idea, putting your constituents first, but I reckon it might catch on.

Quite some years ago Matthew Parris wrote an article saying that the 1951 Refugee Convention would need to be rewritten because conceived at a time when travel was far more difficult it was simply unworkable at a time when it was far easier. His argument was that we cannot accept every refugee who gets here so since it's a numbers game rather than a question of categorisation ("Is the Nigerian in the leaky boat landing in Sicily really a refugee or a migrant?") we may as well tear up the Convention and decide who we want to let into the country and how many. Anyone outside those categories gets turned away.

Sooner or later something like that is going to have to happen, it seems to me.

MikeSmithson said:

dyedwoolie said:

MikeSmithson said:

dyedwoolie said:

AllyPally_Rob said:

Given 1992 seems to be 'in vogue' as the benchmark for this years election, here's some sobering facts for the Tories:

- If Cameron does 'as well' as Major did in '92 (-40 Seats) He wont be Prime Minister.

- If Miliband does 'as badly' as Kinnock did in '92 (+42 Seats) He will be Prime Minister.

If Labour are plus 42 seats, they will have taken 80-90 off the Tories and Liberals
If the Cons lose net 40, they'll have lost ca 60 to Labour,

Your maths are wrong. To win most seats allowing for, say, 5 SLAB MPs to be saved, LAB needs to make 41 gains off CON assuming that both parties are equal in net terms from LD and UKIP battles.

41 gains would put LAB on 263 and reduce CON to 262. Add on to that the net seats from LD/UKIP encounters with CON and LAB .

LAB would get to 41 gains from CON on a theoretical 3.51% CON to LAB swing in England+Wales.

That's a different equation Mike. For Labour to gain net 42 seats they will need to take about 80 off the Libs and Tories. I didn't say for Labour to be largest party now did I?

Not correct. They won't. Every LAB gain from CON counts double in terms of plurality. LAB total up 1 CON total down 1 so gap moves by 2.

No that's a different equation. AllyPally set the benchmark as being +42 seats as LAB did in '92. Allowing for 5 SLAB that means 77 gains in E&W to be +42 seats and on par with '92.

The Tories are redundant in that equation. The comparison was to net changes for LAB in 92, not to the Tories.

Plato said:

Have parmesan handy too - this is culinary serendipity! Not so keen on balsamic so will use lemon juice instead. Wish me luck or it's kitty dining...

Anorak said:

Plato said:

I've salmon fillets in the freezer - will give it a go. Thnx.

EDIT Mr @SimonStClare Ah Ha! Great. Have some Colman's cheese sauce in the cupboard. Job done. And charlotte potatoes too...

TGOHF said:

Plato said:

OT Culinary question - what would PBers recommend asparagus with? I've only tried it with chicken.

Had delicious lambs liver with courgettes, french beans, mushrooms and onions yesterday. Oh and of course a bit of bubble and squeak.

Jamie Oliver does a fish tray bake with it - lemon etc.

Drizzle with olive oil, oven bake for 8-10 mins, splash of balsamic, sea salt and black pepper, then add some parmesan shavings. Top notch starter.

Had that for lunch today about 2 hours ago - tend to bake it for 12-14 minutes.

Though I also had a poached egg with my asparagus,

OblitusSumMe said:

How many seats do people think will change hands? Perhaps this would make for an interesting spread bet.

My best guess is 130, based on a triumphant SNP, vanquished Liberal Democrats and a solid, if unspectacular, performance by Labour in the Conservative/Labour marginals. For comparison, the number of seats changing hands in previous elections was:

2010 - 115
2005 - 62
2001 - 27
1997 - 184
1992 - 52
1987 - 46
1983 - 70
1979 - 73
1974O - 29
1974F - 63
1970 - 86
1966 - 55
1964 - 75
1959 - 39

That looks a bit high to me - you may be double-counting Lib Dem losses and SNP gains. I'd suggest something like the following:

45 SNP gains
Something like 20 to 25 other Lib Dem losses
Say 40 Labour/Tory shifts
Roughly 5 others

That makes 110-115. So, around the same as last time.

''I look forward to the passengers of the Mayflower being described as calculating criminals.''

What an absurd comparison.

Polruan said:

SandyRentool said:

What's this? The Tories want to tax me for having a semi? It's all Priti Patel's fault!

I think the suggestion was that in future Ed Miliband would want to milk your semi for all it's worth actually.

I don't think he'll make that stand up.

Polruan said:

dyedwoolie said:

Cyclefree said:

dyedwoolie said:

TheWatcher said:

Cyclefree said:

Tykejohnno said:

Jason Groves @JasonGroves1

Ed Miliband says he will pay Mansion Tax on his £2.7m home, but insists it is not a mansion. 'That's just a term that's used...

when the tax ends up being applied to pretty much every house in the country.

I'm surprised the Tories haven't run up any 'Today's Mansion, is Tomorrow's Semi' posters, to get homeowners thinking.

And point out they will be after private renters next - if you can afford to rent a 'mansion' you should pay mansion rental tax

The Tory candidate in my constituency has done just that - some time back.

Edited: not the bit about the rental but about the mansion tax ending up being applied to every house.

Then he should take my advice and point out to renters they are next

Not immediately clear how an asset/wealth tax would apply to people with no asset, but it's a thought. Might be worth talking up the threat of CGT on the value of the house when you move out of it (deemed sale, right?) at the same time.

Well if you have an asset whose price is £2.1 mio but you have a mortgage of £1.9 mio you only own - outright - a £200K asset so shouldn't be caught at all. But that's not the basis of the Labour policy.

Personally, I'd have thought it a racing certainty that if Labour get in and introduce the tax it will end up being levied on houses worth very much less than £2 mio and, inevitably, on all property. I wouldn't be surprised to see CGT levied on sale on the owner as well as stamp duty on the buyer.

Certainly it will no more remain a "mansion tax" than income tax has remained a temporary tax to fight the Napoleonic wars.

That's the argument the Tories ought to be going with. But one suspects that once in they too will make use of this source of revenue.

taffys said:

''I look forward to the passengers of the Mayflower being described as calculating criminals.''

What an absurd comparison.

It's entirely reasonable that people should want to leave poverty-stricken third world countries and settle in rich countries. And, it's entirely reasonable that rich countries should not wish to admit them in huge numbers.

@George_Osborne: Salmond remarks confirm that weak Miliband + SNP in charge = economic chaos for UK. Two big risks of election have just collided

Tories and SNP playing a mutually beneficial game.MILI needs to rule out a deal with SNO

@bbcnickrobinson: Are you shocked or amused ? Was Alex Salmond boasting or joking when he he told an @SNP meeting "I’m writing the Labour Party Budget!”

taffys said:

''I look forward to the passengers of the Mayflower being described as calculating criminals.''

What an absurd comparison.

I would however quite like to avoid the fate of the American Indians.

Cyclefree said:

rcs1000 said:

FalseFlag said:

Stereotomy said:

Here’s the deal. There are two ways in which we can act to prevent future boatloads of migrants from drowning in the Mediterranean, and only two ways. Let them all in, or stop them trying to come.

Or maybe some kind of search and rescue operations.

Nah, that'd never work...

Do as the Aussies do, intercept early and tow them back to their point of departure. Absolutely criminal to bring them to Europe, just encourages them.

Of course they know the risk when they set out so I am not sure why they are presented as innocent victims rather than as calculating criminals breaking the law and in the process endangering others.

I look forward to the passengers of the Mayflower being described as calculating criminals.

What law did they break when they sailed across the Atlantic?



According to Nick Clegg there was no exit check on their passports.

SMukesh said:

Tories and SNP playing a mutually beneficial game.MILI needs to rule out a deal with SNO

He can't because that would basically end any chance of him becoming PM. Without SNP support there is no way he can make it into No. 10.

SMukesh said:

Tories and SNP playing a mutually beneficial game.MILI needs to rule out a deal with SNO

Of course it's deliberate - Alex and Nicola know exactly what they are doing. Miliband can rule out whatever he likes, but the fact is that if Con > Lab and Lab + SNP > 323 he is dependent on them. That's the point.

ComRes ‏@ComResPolls

We've got an exclusive poll of voters in #UKIP target seats out later today for @ITVNews. Tune in this evening for full results. #GE2015

Cyclefree said:

Polruan said:

Not immediately clear how an asset/wealth tax would apply to people with no asset, but it's a thought. Might be worth talking up the threat of CGT on the value of the house when you move out of it (deemed sale, right?) at the same time.

Well if you have an asset whose price is £2.1 mio but you have a mortgage of £1.9 mio you only own - outright - a £200K asset so shouldn't be caught at all. But that's not the basis of the Labour policy.

Personally, I'd have thought it a racing certainty that if Labour get in and introduce the tax it will end up being levied on houses worth very much less than £2 mio and, inevitably, on all property. I wouldn't be surprised to see CGT levied on sale on the owner as well as stamp duty on the buyer.

Certainly it will no more remain a "mansion tax" than income tax has remained a temporary tax to fight the Napoleonic wars.

That's the argument the Tories ought to be going with. But one suspects that once in they too will make use of this source of revenue.

I do agree that it should be a net equity tax rather than an absolute value tax, there's an inherent injustice there. Unfortunately in countries with wealth taxes (Spain springs to mind) there's a lot of scope of avoidance through combinations of artificial holding companies and/or leveraging the asset with an offshore loan which you effectively make to yourself via some kind of concealed structure. So it's a lot cleaner to tax the gross asset.

CGT on principal private residence with a reinvestment relief would be a much better way to raise revenue, deal with the socially and economically damaging transfer of wealth up the generations as a result of house price superinflation, and generally distribute housing stock more efficiently. But it would be too easy for the Daily Mail to portray it as harming those it would benefit so it's not going to happen.