politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It could be that the days of saturation general election polling ended at 10pm on May 7th
The chart says it all. There have been just 6 general election polls published in the UK since May 7th – a sharp contrast with the numbers we saw even by this stage five years ago.
The polling companies have shot themselves in the foot, in a prisoner's dilemma scenario. None of them wanted to stand out from the field, considering it better to be closer to the others and more likely wrong, than away from the field and more likely right. The result is that the whole industry now looks bad, and people will buy fewer polls.
Reading the comments section of this article shows that Osborne has got it right on BTL. If even Telegraph readers are in favour of the removal of tax relief then it is a winner.
Unsurprisingly most also hold the same views as I do, BTL landlords are parasites that drain capital out of the real economy and prevent first time buyers from getting on the ladder. The sooner we do away with them the better off we will be. Young people should not have to double pay the pensions of baby boomers through tax and via their rent.
Good. The fewer polls the better. Hopefully the crummy political journalism that piggybacks off it will start to wither away as well, as will politicians making their every move dependent on the supposed polling reaction to it/underpinning for it. We might also get less of the push-polling on behalf of interest groups than we have had of late...
The polling companies created this situation. A Ratner type of mistake. Run with dodgy polls and hope it never bites them back. How arrogant, how stupid.
Reading the comments section of this article shows that Osborne has got it right on BTL. If even Telegraph readers are in favour of the removal of tax relief then it is a winner.
Unsurprisingly most also hold the same views as I do, BTL landlords are parasites that drain capital out of the real economy and prevent first time buyers from getting on the ladder. The sooner we do away with them the better off we will be. Young people should not have to double pay the pensions of baby boomers through tax and via their rent.
As a little BTL landlord on balance this change is a good move. But, we still need 300k new housing units a year. Why London is unable to build 2/3 of them is the puzzle.
Reading the comments section of this article shows that Osborne has got it right on BTL. If even Telegraph readers are in favour of the removal of tax relief then it is a winner.
Unsurprisingly most also hold the same views as I do, BTL landlords are parasites that drain capital out of the real economy and prevent first time buyers from getting on the ladder. The sooner we do away with them the better off we will be. Young people should not have to double pay the pensions of baby boomers through tax and via their rent.
OK.
Who's going to let houses to young people when the BTL "parasites" vanish?
Are the young people all going to buy the large properties in central London in which they currently tend to live?
The over reaction to each poll on here was cringeworthy even before they were discredited
We rightly trusted the overall view they were portraying. But as Hodges says, we were mislead.
As I said at the time, it was the equivalent of going to s football match and celebrating every throw in as if it were a goal
That said, the trend in the final fortnight was towards the Tories and ukip and away from labour, which proved correct, so I don't buy that the polls were completely useless as an indicator. I think they got it right
Reading the comments section of this article shows that Osborne has got it right on BTL. If even Telegraph readers are in favour of the removal of tax relief then it is a winner.
Unsurprisingly most also hold the same views as I do, BTL landlords are parasites that drain capital out of the real economy and prevent first time buyers from getting on the ladder. The sooner we do away with them the better off we will be. Young people should not have to double pay the pensions of baby boomers through tax and via their rent.
As a little BTL landlord on balance this change is a good move. But, we still need 300k new housing units a year. Why London is unable to build 2/3 of them is the puzzle.
Honestly, we probably don't need that many. We need to unlock existing stock so it is available to purchase for first time buyers.
People need to start putting their money elsewhere and not into existing housing stock, it prices people out of the market. This is the one policy that stands out for me as actually solving a major problem for the future.
The over reaction to each poll on here was cringeworthy even before they were discredited
We rightly trusted the overall view they were portraying. But as Hodges says, we were mislead.
I was not betting on the election, but I didn't trust the polls. I posted on here that every fibre in my body was telling me something was wrong. And I even posted about two ladies of a certain age talking about having voted by post and how frightened they were of an SNP/Labour stitch up.
It was all there if you were not taking the polls as gospel. That said I think Salmond saying he was already writing the Labour budget helped the Conservatives enormously.
Who would want to spend money on polling, when the election produced a stable government set to last five years; while the polling companies themselves are still investigating why only a couple of months ago they were all as crap as Ed?
Having said that, the first big event of the new Parliament was yesterday, so expect a couple of polls in the next week or two as the media try to understand the reaction to the Budget.
The polls are like those Lambos that kept bursting into flames. Great to look at, but hellishly expensive for something so likely to blow up under you. So until they fix the faults - the money stays in the bank.
Reading the comments section of this article shows that Osborne has got it right on BTL. If even Telegraph readers are in favour of the removal of tax relief then it is a winner.
Unsurprisingly most also hold the same views as I do, BTL landlords are parasites that drain capital out of the real economy and prevent first time buyers from getting on the ladder. The sooner we do away with them the better off we will be. Young people should not have to double pay the pensions of baby boomers through tax and via their rent.
As a little BTL landlord on balance this change is a good move. But, we still need 300k new housing units a year. Why London is unable to build 2/3 of them is the puzzle.
The tax changes in the budget may discourage investment in housing at the margins currently attractive due to low interest rates on other investments. The only way to see serious inroads into the housing shortage is major planning reform and transport infrastructure - and probably another Milton Keynes too.
Reading the comments section of this article shows that Osborne has got it right on BTL. If even Telegraph readers are in favour of the removal of tax relief then it is a winner.
Unsurprisingly most also hold the same views as I do, BTL landlords are parasites that drain capital out of the real economy and prevent first time buyers from getting on the ladder. The sooner we do away with them the better off we will be. Young people should not have to double pay the pensions of baby boomers through tax and via their rent.
As a little BTL landlord on balance this change is a good move. But, we still need 300k new housing units a year. Why London is unable to build 2/3 of them is the puzzle.
Honestly, we probably don't need that many. We need to unlock existing stock so it is available to purchase for first time buyers.
People need to start putting their money elsewhere and not into existing housing stock, it prices people out of the market. This is the one policy that stands out for me as actually solving a major problem for the future.
In London the rental returns on property bought for BTL are very low. These tax changes and the expected interest rate increases in 2016/17 will probably finish off the viability of a mortgaged BTL market in London funded by the rents. It will only be for those investing for the longer term.
The over reaction to each poll on here was cringeworthy even before they were discredited
We rightly trusted the overall view they were portraying. But as Hodges says, we were mislead.
As I said at the time, it was the equivalent of going to s football match and celebrating every throw in as if it were a goal
That said, the trend in the final fortnight was towards the Tories and ukip and away from labour, which proved correct, so I don't buy that the polls were completely useless as an indicator. I think they got it right
So even on your analysis the polls showed a move to the govt in the 2 weeks before the GE - doesn't that happen normally or is my memory awry?
The over reaction to each poll on here was cringeworthy even before they were discredited
We rightly trusted the overall view they were portraying. But as Hodges says, we were mislead.
I was not betting on the election, but I didn't trust the polls. I posted on here that every fibre in my body was telling me something was wrong. And I even posted about two ladies of a certain age talking about having voted by post and how frightened they were of an SNP/Labour stitch up.
It was all there if you were not taking the polls as gospel. That said I think Salmond saying he was already writing the Labour budget helped the Conservatives enormously.
I made a couple of hundred in a bet made a week before GE. But that was arising from a couple of late reports and analysis.
Reading the comments section of this article shows that Osborne has got it right on BTL. If even Telegraph readers are in favour of the removal of tax relief then it is a winner.
Unsurprisingly most also hold the same views as I do, BTL landlords are parasites that drain capital out of the real economy and prevent first time buyers from getting on the ladder. The sooner we do away with them the better off we will be. Young people should not have to double pay the pensions of baby boomers through tax and via their rent.
As a little BTL landlord on balance this change is a good move. But, we still need 300k new housing units a year. Why London is unable to build 2/3 of them is the puzzle.
The tax changes in the budget may discourage investment in housing at the margins currently attractive due to low interest rates on other investments. The only way to see serious inroads into the housing shortage is major planning reform and transport infrastructure - and probably another Milton Keynes too.
Most of the units are needed within London. Build where the demand is. Go up.
If you make stock available for first-time buyers, it is almost always not going to be a multi-family unit. But most BTL properties probably are multi-family these days; unrelated people who live together for short-term expedience. So you probably need to build a lot more houses and flats if your social goal is to reduce BTL and increase home ownership among young people, particularly young people in single-person households.
The first forecast was higher than the OBR's wasn't it? 2.5% is UK trend when all said and done. If the IFS were not complaining about the removal of tax credits making people poorer then the budget would have failed. The IFS's figures only assume that those 'encouraged' to enter work will only do it for the basic minimum. It does not take into account the £3 billion of levy for apprenticeships - ie trained jobs not unskilled ones. The IFS and Labour are assuming that the people in question are too thick to better themselves.
The over reaction to each poll on here was cringeworthy even before they were discredited
We rightly trusted the overall view they were portraying. But as Hodges says, we were mislead.
I was not betting on the election, but I didn't trust the polls. I posted on here that every fibre in my body was telling me something was wrong. And I even posted about two ladies of a certain age talking about having voted by post and how frightened they were of an SNP/Labour stitch up.
It was all there if you were not taking the polls as gospel. That said I think Salmond saying he was already writing the Labour budget helped the Conservatives enormously.
How much input did Salmond have into Osborne's Budget yesterday?
The over reaction to each poll on here was cringeworthy even before they were discredited
We rightly trusted the overall view they were portraying. But as Hodges says, we were mislead.
As I said at the time, it was the equivalent of going to s football match and celebrating every throw in as if it were a goal
That said, the trend in the final fortnight was towards the Tories and ukip and away from labour, which proved correct, so I don't buy that the polls were completely useless as an indicator. I think they got it right
A late trend to UKIP? One that saw Farage rejected in his tame seat of choice - by an electorate that was assured he would resign if he lost. Thats some trend to UKIP.
The over reaction to each poll on here was cringeworthy even before they were discredited
We rightly trusted the overall view they were portraying. But as Hodges says, we were mislead.
As I said at the time, it was the equivalent of going to s football match and celebrating every throw in as if it were a goal
That said, the trend in the final fortnight was towards the Tories and ukip and away from labour, which proved correct, so I don't buy that the polls were completely useless as an indicator. I think they got it right
A late trend to UKIP? One that saw Farage rejected in his tame seat of choice - by an electorate that was assured he would resign if he lost. Thats some trend to UKIP.
Yes in terms of vote share on the polls leading up to the election there was a swing towards ukip and their eventual score of 12.6% was over what most shrewdies on here thought as my bank balance will testify
Try and put away the partisan fury when it comes to betting analysis, you just look an uninformed wally
I am sanguine about the Govt. helping people to buy their first home.
But I think it is a piss-poor waste of tax money for investors to be helped to buy their second, third....or forty sixth.
Exactly. The fact that the landlords association and big buy to let scumbags are all squirming today is a very good sign that the government are on the right track here. I would further disincentivise housing investment by removing basic rate relief as well and finally by introducing a land value tax for the purchase of any existing property for purposes of rental or long term investment (catch the cash buyers as well).
I am sanguine about the Govt. helping people to buy their first home.
But I think it is a piss-poor waste of tax money for investors to be helped to buy their second, third....or forty sixth.
Tax money helps businesses offset the costs of finance against revenues from operations. Should businesses pay tax on revenues, even if their profits are very low or negative after paying to finance their operations? BTLs will now move one big step toward that world, while other businesses will not. Ironically, investors are now more likely to be incentivised by speculative capital appreciation, rather than stable or reasonable cashflow on an ongoing basis. Maybe this isn't the market you want.
Is this guy the Freddy Krueger of the Labour party? Ed Miliband @Ed_Miliband "The challenge for the Chancellor is that he claimed the mantle of One Nation. But @TheIFS figures suggest a profoundly regressive Budget."
Reading the comments section of this article shows that Osborne has got it right on BTL. If even Telegraph readers are in favour of the removal of tax relief then it is a winner.
Unsurprisingly most also hold the same views as I do, BTL landlords are parasites that drain capital out of the real economy and prevent first time buyers from getting on the ladder. The sooner we do away with them the better off we will be. Young people should not have to double pay the pensions of baby boomers through tax and via their rent.
Who is stopping people buying houses? Is there a law against it for first time buyers? The govt actually have a fund to help them. But when the govt do that the nutjobs then spout that it is only going to create a boom and make housing unaffordable. (it hasn't of course). You talk drivel about BTL landlords.
I am sanguine about the Govt. helping people to buy their first home.
But I think it is a piss-poor waste of tax money for investors to be helped to buy their second, third....or forty sixth.
Exactly. The fact that the landlords association and big buy to let scumbags are all squirming today is a very good sign that the government are on the right track here. I would further disincentivise housing investment by removing basic rate relief as well and finally by introducing a land value tax for the purchase of any existing property for purposes of rental or long term investment (catch the cash buyers as well).
The over reaction to each poll on here was cringeworthy even before they were discredited
We rightly trusted the overall view they were portraying. But as Hodges says, we were mislead.
It was all there if you were not taking the polls as gospel. That said I think Salmond saying he was already writing the Labour budget helped the Conservatives enormously.
Very true - that brief statement, although uttered in jest at the time, probably delivered at least 10 seats to the Tories in England. As such it could readily be argued that Salmond single-handedly enabled the Tories to win with an overall working majority. Was he unable to see that this was likely to be the result, or did he perhaps see a Tory Government as being the preferable outcome for his party?
Is this guy the Freddy Krueger of the Labour party? Ed Miliband @Ed_Miliband "The challenge for the Chancellor is that he claimed the mantle of One Nation. But @TheIFS figures suggest a profoundly regressive Budget."
Labour are totally floundering as Osborne removes the dependency culture which they deliberately created. Tax credits were an enormous vote-buying exercise as was the deliberate increase in immigration. The chickens started to come home yesterday. As for Ed M - who? who?
The thing about housing is that it whilst it is and has been used as a yield producing investment like say Vodafone shares, noone needs a Vodafone share to live in ! People do need houses to live in, and whilst there are building types that will never be owned by their occupiers (Student flats are a good example) - it's better for the average bod in the average terrace to pay their own mortgage rather than someone else's. At the very least they should not be at a disadvantage to the 'borrow to let' landlord.
There's a lot of legs left in BTL, so no need to weep for the landlords yet. The government is about to give them a huge boost with the sell off of housing association properties.
Reading the comments section of this article shows that Osborne has got it right on BTL. If even Telegraph readers are in favour of the removal of tax relief then it is a winner.
Unsurprisingly most also hold the same views as I do, BTL landlords are parasites that drain capital out of the real economy and prevent first time buyers from getting on the ladder. The sooner we do away with them the better off we will be. Young people should not have to double pay the pensions of baby boomers through tax and via their rent.
Who is stopping people buying houses? Is there a law against it for first time buyers? The govt actually have a fund to help them. But when the govt do that the nutjobs then spout that it is only going to create a boom and make housing unaffordable. (it hasn't of course). You talk drivel about BTL landlords.
And yet my comments are still better than your since you talk nothing but drivel all day long.
The Budget has revealed Osborne to be essentially dishonourable and slippery.We had already seen a very big change in his projections between he Autumn Statement and the March Budget. Now in barely three months he plans to spend an additional £83billion over the course of this Parliament. Where did this suddenly come from? From what he said in March and last Autumn this man can very reasonably now be described as having deliberately sought to mislead the public in his earlier statements. Not the kind of human being we need to be responsible for our affairs at all
There's a lot of legs left in BTL, so no need to weep for the landlords yet. The government is about to give them a huge boost with the sell off of housing association properties.
The Conservative policy on forced sales (At below market value !!!) from Housing Associations is almost as bad as Corbyn's crackpot "right to buy" from private Landlords, Burnham's arbitrary confiscations, or the SNP's seeming land appropriations.
The thing about housing is that it whilst it is and has been used as a yield producing investment like say Vodafone shares, noone needs a Vodafone share to live in ! People do need houses to live in, and whilst there are building types that will never be owned by their occupiers (Student flats are a good example) - it's better for the average bod in the average terrace to pay their own mortgage rather than someone else's. At the very least they should not be at a disadvantage to the 'borrow to let' landlord.
People need food to live; it doesn't justify state intervention to nobble farmers and encourage household self-sufficiency. If anything the opposite: farming is subsidised and thereby encouraged by the state.
The typical BTL property is not going to be easily converted into an affordable, one-family house like a small terrace. The median case is probably two young people, sharing a kitchen, in a flat that is part of a big house, in one of the Inner London boroughs. It neither suits these people to buy today, nor does it really make more housing available to the others if one of them does buy.
I am sanguine about the Govt. helping people to buy their first home.
But I think it is a piss-poor waste of tax money for investors to be helped to buy their second, third....or forty sixth.
Exactly. The fact that the landlords association and big buy to let scumbags are all squirming today is a very good sign that the government are on the right track here. I would further disincentivise housing investment by removing basic rate relief as well and finally by introducing a land value tax for the purchase of any existing property for purposes of rental or long term investment (catch the cash buyers as well).
The thing about housing is that it whilst it is and has been used as a yield producing investment like say Vodafone shares, noone needs a Vodafone share to live in ! People do need houses to live in, and whilst there are building types that will never be owned by their occupiers (Student flats are a good example) - it's better for the average bod in the average terrace to pay their own mortgage rather than someone else's. At the very least they should not be at a disadvantage to the 'borrow to let' landlord.
Exactly, there are equities in the UK that pay pretty well in yield terms, not companies that are about to go bankrupt either. Investing in housing is a literal case of beggar thy neighbour, especially when it comes to buy-to-let.
There's a lot of legs left in BTL, so no need to weep for the landlords yet. The government is about to give them a huge boost with the sell off of housing association properties.
I'm not even sure how right to buy is going to work with housing association property. Now that the they have introduced market rents for over £30k and over £40k the next logical step is market value for them as well so maybe RTB won't be so bad.
I am sanguine about the Govt. helping people to buy their first home.
But I think it is a piss-poor waste of tax money for investors to be helped to buy their second, third....or forty sixth.
Tax money helps businesses offset the costs of finance against revenues from operations. Should businesses pay tax on revenues, even if their profits are very low or negative after paying to finance their operations? BTLs will now move one big step toward that world, while other businesses will not. Ironically, investors are now more likely to be incentivised by speculative capital appreciation, rather than stable or reasonable cashflow on an ongoing basis. Maybe this isn't the market you want.
Not quite as simple as you suggest - only debt financing is tax deductible, while equity financing receives no tax shield. This incentivises thin capital structures or tax scams like designating equity as shareholder loans provided by offshore entities.
Restricting the availability of the tax shield on interest is a good idea.
I am sanguine about the Govt. helping people to buy their first home.
But I think it is a piss-poor waste of tax money for investors to be helped to buy their second, third....or forty sixth.
Tax money helps businesses offset the costs of finance against revenues from operations. Should businesses pay tax on revenues, even if their profits are very low or negative after paying to finance their operations? BTLs will now move one big step toward that world, while other businesses will not. Ironically, investors are now more likely to be incentivised by speculative capital appreciation, rather than stable or reasonable cashflow on an ongoing basis. Maybe this isn't the market you want.
Not quite as simple as you suggest - only debt financing is tax deductible, while equity financing receives no tax shield. This incentivises thin capital structures or tax scams like designating equity as shareholder loans provided by offshore entities.
Restricting the availability of the tax shield on interest is a good idea.
UK companies tend to have too much leverage because of this perverse incentive to have as much debt as possible and then write off the interest. If we can change that then it will make companies better off in the long term. Some will find it tough and many will go bankrupt, but it would be a favourable move for debt interest to no longer have tax deductibility.
David Cameron stated in the IPSE magazine that: “The self-employed are a key part of our long-term economic plan for the country.”
Budget reaction from IPSE: The Chancellor has greatly disappointed us by listening to the army of faceless wonders in HMRC and threatening contractors throughout the UK.
If you work through your own limited company things are going to get tougher, much tougher.
HMRC dealt not one, not two, but three blows to the UK's smallest businesses yesterday. In all cases we believe the blows are below the belt!
First, arcane rules known as IR35 are ominously to be made 'more effective'. These rules try and almost always fail to separate disguised employees from genuine businesses.
Second, new restrictions on travel and subsistence expenses are to be imposed on one-person limited companies.
Third, there is a significant tax hike on dividends - a change that will affect all company directors, not just independent professionals.
I am sanguine about the Govt. helping people to buy their first home.
But I think it is a piss-poor waste of tax money for investors to be helped to buy their second, third....or forty sixth.
Tax money helps businesses offset the costs of finance against revenues from operations. Should businesses pay tax on revenues, even if their profits are very low or negative after paying to finance their operations? BTLs will now move one big step toward that world, while other businesses will not. Ironically, investors are now more likely to be incentivised by speculative capital appreciation, rather than stable or reasonable cashflow on an ongoing basis. Maybe this isn't the market you want.
Not quite as simple as you suggest - only debt financing is tax deductible, while equity financing receives no tax shield. This incentivises thin capital structures or tax scams like designating equity as shareholder loans provided by offshore entities.
Restricting the availability of the tax shield on interest is a good idea.
UK companies tend to have too much leverage because of this perverse incentive to have as much debt as possible and then write off the interest. If we can change that then it will make companies better off in the long term. Some will find it tough and many will go bankrupt, but it would be a favourable move for debt interest to no longer have tax deductibility.
I doubt many will go bankrupt. Those companies with this kind of structure tend to be PE owned or have a corporate owner that is tax planning. Either of them can afford the additional equity to rebalance the business; the government shouldn't be in the business of subsidising equity returns.
If it's really an issue then I'd look at doing what Osborne did with the Living Wage and cut corporation tax to offset the loss of the tax shield
Just had a glance on the Daily Mail, even the head bangers on there seem to support this move.
Amazing the amount of resistance I had yesterday before the budget when I said it would be a good idea and yet I think this is one move that has very wide support among the public. If DM and DT readers support it then surely the rest of the country does as well. All except the private landlord parasites who stand to lose out.
I am sanguine about the Govt. helping people to buy their first home.
But I think it is a piss-poor waste of tax money for investors to be helped to buy their second, third....or forty sixth.
Exactly. The fact that the landlords association and big buy to let scumbags are all squirming today is a very good sign that the government are on the right track here. I would further disincentivise housing investment by removing basic rate relief as well and finally by introducing a land value tax for the purchase of any existing property for purposes of rental or long term investment (catch the cash buyers as well).
Gawd, are you still whining on behalf of all your chums who'd rather spend their salaries on craft beers and moustache wax than save up like everyone else?
It's really quite boring now. The endless shrieking about 'scumbag' landlords does you no favours, and turns away those who might otherwise be sympathetic to your cause.
Andy Burnham has just gone odds on for the Labour leadership (Betfair)
Fair drift on Corbyn out to 15/8.
He has managed to avoid making a prat of himself on TV in the 24 hours since the budget? He is the favourite but odds-on sounds a little tight, I might lay him as a trading bet. Sounds like a little value in Corbyn for those who missed the silly odds a month ago. 365 have him at 10s
I am sanguine about the Govt. helping people to buy their first home.
But I think it is a piss-poor waste of tax money for investors to be helped to buy their second, third....or forty sixth.
Exactly. The fact that the landlords association and big buy to let scumbags are all squirming today is a very good sign that the government are on the right track here. I would further disincentivise housing investment by removing basic rate relief as well and finally by introducing a land value tax for the purchase of any existing property for purposes of rental or long term investment (catch the cash buyers as well).
Gawd, are you still whining on behalf of all your chums who'd rather spend their salaries on craft beers and moustache wax than save up like everyone else?
It's really quite boring now.
Oh no, another buy-to-let parasite scared that his pension supplement isn't going to be enough. Better try and raise the rent and leech more from young people I guess.
The over reaction to each poll on here was cringeworthy even before they were discredited
In a partial defence, not that there was not overreactions, but on occasions people dismissed reactions as cringeworthy overreactions even if they were merely overly strong reactions to what appeared a continuing trend or adding to a cumulative effect.
That is to say, yes there were overreactions, but even if at the same time as a particular poll, that is not to say the overreaction was always solely about that single poll but a reaction to be considered in context, rightly or wrongly, which is not quite the same thing as an overreaction to a 'mere' poll.
I am sanguine about the Govt. helping people to buy their first home.
But I think it is a piss-poor waste of tax money for investors to be helped to buy their second, third....or forty sixth.
Exactly. The fact that the landlords association and big buy to let scumbags are all squirming today is a very good sign that the government are on the right track here. I would further disincentivise housing investment by removing basic rate relief as well and finally by introducing a land value tax for the purchase of any existing property for purposes of rental or long term investment (catch the cash buyers as well).
Gawd, are you still whining on behalf of all your chums who'd rather spend their salaries on craft beers and moustache wax than save up like everyone else?
It's really quite boring now.
The ironic thing is that without BTL landlords, the moustache crew would be living with Mum and Dad in Guildford rather than hanging out in the trendy bit of Hackney.
At best, they might buy a house most of the way to Luton. Try drinking your craft beers there.
Andy Burnham has just gone odds on for the Labour leadership (Betfair)
Fair drift on Corbyn out to 15/8.
He has managed to avoid making a prat of himself on TV in the 24 hours since the budget? He is the favourite but odds-on sounds a little tight, I might lay him as a trading bet. Sounds like a little value in Corbyn for those who missed the silly odds a month ago. 365 have him at 10s
Back Yvette, lay Liz if I was starting from scratch here.
I am sanguine about the Govt. helping people to buy their first home.
But I think it is a piss-poor waste of tax money for investors to be helped to buy their second, third....or forty sixth.
Exactly. The fact that the landlords association and big buy to let scumbags are all squirming today is a very good sign that the government are on the right track here. I would further disincentivise housing investment by removing basic rate relief as well and finally by introducing a land value tax for the purchase of any existing property for purposes of rental or long term investment (catch the cash buyers as well).
Gawd, are you still whining on behalf of all your chums who'd rather spend their salaries on craft beers and moustache wax than save up like everyone else?
It's really quite boring now.
Oh no, another buy-to-let parasite scared that his pension supplement isn't going to be enough. Better try and raise the rent and leech more from young people I guess.
Tedious. Two of the biggest problems with property prices, certainly in London, are foreign investors who won't be bothered or affected by any tax changes, and the wall of bonus money that continues to flood outwards from the City. Osborne's reforms will do little to affect those.
I'm guessing a lot of your senior colleagues at Spiv&WadBank are big players in BTL - how do your views go down there?
David Cameron stated in the IPSE magazine that: “The self-employed are a key part of our long-term economic plan for the country.”
Budget reaction from IPSE: The Chancellor has greatly disappointed us by listening to the army of faceless wonders in HMRC and threatening contractors throughout the UK.
If you work through your own limited company things are going to get tougher, much tougher.
HMRC dealt not one, not two, but three blows to the UK's smallest businesses yesterday. In all cases we believe the blows are below the belt!
First, arcane rules known as IR35 are ominously to be made 'more effective'. These rules try and almost always fail to separate disguised employees from genuine businesses.
Second, new restrictions on travel and subsistence expenses are to be imposed on one-person limited companies.
Third, there is a significant tax hike on dividends - a change that will affect all company directors, not just independent professionals.
I think these rule changes are going to end up hurting a lot of small businesses.
They seem to want to target one-person service companies as they think they are skipping paying some tax. But they don't seem to understand two important points:-
1. The changes affect many other "normal" start-ups.
2. If someone starts as a one-person service they might end up employing others - but not if you punish them right at the start.
Just had a glance on the Daily Mail, even the head bangers on there seem to support this move.
Amazing the amount of resistance I had yesterday before the budget when I said it would be a good idea and yet I think this is one move that has very wide support among the public. If DM and DT readers support it then surely the rest of the country does as well. All except the private landlord parasites who stand to lose out.
Landlords often get a bad press,but we are not all bad,and I am certainly not parasitical,I own my properties outright,and maintain them to exceptional standards,I am extremely careful with choice of tenant,and in return I have very few problems. A good tenant will get a good landlord. I am retired and this provides me with some income.
Andy Burnham has just gone odds on for the Labour leadership (Betfair)
Fair drift on Corbyn out to 15/8.
He has managed to avoid making a prat of himself on TV in the 24 hours since the budget? He is the favourite but odds-on sounds a little tight, I might lay him as a trading bet. Sounds like a little value in Corbyn for those who missed the silly odds a month ago. 365 have him at 10s
Back Yvette, lay Liz if I was starting from scratch here.
I still can't really get my head around this market, so I'm playing for small stakes trying to end up all-green as the market moves around. I am on Corbyn and Yvette at much better odds than are around now.
I don't think I understand the electorate enough to know which groups will turn out, it seems much more likely to be the full members voting this time rather than the old affiliates, and last time that group voted for the candidate nearest the centre in DavidM. On topic we desperately need some good polling of the membership but I fear it won't be forthcoming.
My heart also thinks Liz is someone I could vote for, but she doesn't seem to have set the campaign on fire as did Cameron or Blair previously.
My guess is that they teamed up to head of BT Sport who are said to be looking for some international union and since the 6N isn't a Category A event it was thought to be a prime piece of real estate for BT.
My guess is that they teamed up to head of BT Sport who are said to be looking for some international union and since the 6N isn't a Category A event it was thought to be a prime piece of real estate for BT.
You maybe correct, the BBC contract was supposed to last till 2017. - Certainly looks premptive in view of BT Sports success in snaffling up the Champions League.
Just had a glance on the Daily Mail, even the head bangers on there seem to support this move.
Amazing the amount of resistance I had yesterday before the budget when I said it would be a good idea and yet I think this is one move that has very wide support among the public. If DM and DT readers support it then surely the rest of the country does as well. All except the private landlord parasites who stand to lose out.
Landlords often get a bad press,but we are not all bad,and I am certainly not parasitical,I own my properties outright,and maintain them to exceptional standards,I am extremely careful with choice of tenant,and in return I have very few problems. A good tenant will get a good landlord. I am retired and this provides me with some income.
I wonder how many, like me, became landlords by accident. I was posted abroad for a few months, which turned into a couple of years. I didn't particularly want to sell up as I would need somewhere to move back to when the contract ended, but didn't want to leave the place empty while paying the mortgage either. Now I spend a lot of time time abroad and rent short-term when back in the UK. I still have the property for when the overseas contracts come to an end or a family arrives.
As you say, finding a good tenant is the key. I also use an agent for the convenience of myself and the tenant. It provides enough income to pay the mortgage (and the rainy-day fund while interest rates are low).
David Cameron stated in the IPSE magazine that: “The self-employed are a key part of our long-term economic plan for the country.”
Budget reaction from IPSE: The Chancellor has greatly disappointed us by listening to the army of faceless wonders in HMRC and threatening contractors throughout the UK.
If you work through your own limited company things are going to get tougher, much tougher.
HMRC dealt not one, not two, but three blows to the UK's smallest businesses yesterday. In all cases we believe the blows are below the belt!
First, arcane rules known as IR35 are ominously to be made 'more effective'. These rules try and almost always fail to separate disguised employees from genuine businesses.
Second, new restrictions on travel and subsistence expenses are to be imposed on one-person limited companies.
Third, there is a significant tax hike on dividends - a change that will affect all company directors, not just independent professionals.
I think these rule changes are going to end up hurting a lot of small businesses.
They seem to want to target one-person service companies as they think they are skipping paying some tax. But they don't seem to understand two important points:-
1. The changes affect many other "normal" start-ups.
2. If someone starts as a one-person service they might end up employing others - but not if you punish them right at the start.
Those people would naturally veer towards the Tories; I wonder how many will think again next time they're expected to cast a vote?
The BBC has had exclusive rights since the tournament became the Six Nations in 2000 – You may be thinking of SKY and ITV who both shared the Champions League, before losing it to BT Sport.
Where polling is concerned there seems to have been a failure to distinguish between known unknowns and unknown unknowns and by treating them the same they came unstuck. Other factors - relentlessly polling the same bunch of people (you know who you are, yougov) who may not have been entirely disinterested in their answers; inability to tell outliers from new trends; becoming part of the story instead of shedding light on it (e.g. so many polls showing one thing motivates the other side to come out to vote, e.g. having an impact on election tactics and strategy which changes the result); and quite possibly, asking the wrong questions and making the wrong assumptions in the first place. Can't help wondering whether both the inaccuracy problem and the fawning acceptance by press and pundits would have been solved if they had said the MOE was 10% either way. In other words, not much better than an educated guess. Never mind, John Curtice will sort them out. At least they are all in it together!
oh and while I'm at it, when there is talk of predicting what the public will do in any given situation, does anyone else think of Azimov's Foundation Trilogy?
Where polling is concerned there seems to have been a failure to distinguish between known unknowns and unknown unknowns and by treating them the same they came unstuck. Other factors - relentlessly polling the same bunch of people (you know who you are, yougov) who may not have been entirely disinterested in their answers; inability to tell outliers from new trends; becoming part of the story instead of shedding light on it (e.g. so many polls showing one thing motivates the other side to come out to vote, e.g. having an impact on election tactics and strategy which changes the result); and quite possibly, asking the wrong questions and making the wrong assumptions in the first place. Can't help wondering whether both the inaccuracy problem and the fawning acceptance by press and pundits would have been solved if they had said the MOE was 10% either way. In other words, not much better than an educated guess. Never mind, John Curtice will sort them out. At least they are all in it together!
Young people completely overestimating their chance of voting.
Marie Buchan, 33, says welfare cuts will leave her family on the breadline Says if her handouts are cut she will be forced out of four-bedroom home She receives around £2,000 a month in benefits, including child benefit, income support and housing benefit, and pays £137 a week in rent Money is equivalent to the take home pay of someone earning a salary of £34,500 a year before tax
There is little doubt pollsters have had their worst year for decades and that is not just in the UK but globally. In Israel, the UK and Greece they all failed to predict the final swing to one side in their polls which had it tied. They will be relying on Canada and Spain later in the year and next year's London Mayoral race and of course the US presidential elections to restore confidence. That may also explain the relative lack of polling, certainly membership polling, for the Labour leadership. When it does come they will want to be certain it looks right
On 31 March 2015, David Cameron appeared on the Question Time Election Leaders Special. The very first exchange was as follows:
Questioner: "Will you put to bed rumours that you plan to cut child tax credit and restrict child benefit to two children?"
David Cameron: "Well thank you Jenny for that question. No, I don't want to do that, this report that was out today was something that I rejected at the time as prime minister and I reject it again today".
He finishes his answer by pivoting to the successes of his benefits cap.
But Dimbleby clarifies with the Prime Minister: "Sorry – you said you didn’t want to put to bed the rumours that you were going to cut Child Tax Credits, you meant you did want to put to bed the rumour?"
Cameron: "Ah, yes. We increased child tax credits actually, we increased them by £452 under this government because I was determined that while we had to take difficult decisions, and we have, we were left an absolute nightmare to clear up, I wanted to make sure that child poverty continued to fall and it has fallen because of what we did on child tax credits."
Dimbleby: "And so that’s a guarantee that you won’t" (moves on to audience member who asks about benefit cap)
In the run up to the Budget, my colleague Allegra Stratton reported that the Government was looking at options on how to make changes to child tax credits.
Sure enough, George Osborne, presumably with David Cameron's blessing, announced that the Government was going to limit child tax credit for people with more than two children.
He also made other changes, including increasing the rate at which it was withdrawn from people as they got more work (the "taper rate") from 41% to 48%, and reducing the level of income at which it would be withdrawn. They also froze the level of tax credits.
The effect of all of these measures is that the Government will be spending less on tax credits than it would have been if it hadn't done them - to the tune of billions. We know this because the budget book tells us so.
I leave it to you as to whether what George Osborne announced yesterday on tax credits was consistent with what David Cameron told the Question time audience before the election.
David Cameron stated in the IPSE magazine that: “The self-employed are a key part of our long-term economic plan for the country.”
Budget reaction from IPSE: The Chancellor has greatly disappointed us by listening to the army of faceless wonders in HMRC and threatening contractors throughout the UK.
If you work through your own limited company things are going to get tougher, much tougher.
HMRC dealt not one, not two, but three blows to the UK's smallest businesses yesterday. In all cases we believe the blows are below the belt!
First, arcane rules known as IR35 are ominously to be made 'more effective'. These rules try and almost always fail to separate disguised employees from genuine businesses.
Second, new restrictions on travel and subsistence expenses are to be imposed on one-person limited companies.
Third, there is a significant tax hike on dividends - a change that will affect all company directors, not just independent professionals.
I think these rule changes are going to end up hurting a lot of small businesses.
They seem to want to target one-person service companies as they think they are skipping paying some tax. But they don't seem to understand two important points:-
1. The changes affect many other "normal" start-ups.
2. If someone starts as a one-person service they might end up employing others - but not if you punish them right at the start.
Those people would naturally veer towards the Tories; I wonder how many will think again next time they're expected to cast a vote?
Let's see how it works in practice. Plenty of time to tweek the changes to get them back on board....
On topic. Had we banned the public polling in the last week/ten days before election, the phone pollsters would have loved that.
Tory lead of 6% with the Ashcroft phone poll (fieldwork ending 26th of April)
Tory lead of 3% with the ICM/Guardian phone poll (fieldwork ending 26th of April)
Tory lead of 5% with Ipsos Mori phone poll (field work ending 28th of April)
Coupled with the Tory leads on the economy/leader ratings, then actual result wouldn't have been a surprise.
Something went wrong in the last week or so with most of the polls showing a swing to Labour.
TSE You have hit the nail on the head there Eagles! The problem is not so much the polls themselves, indeed Survation had an eve of poll poll with a 6 point Tory lead which was unpublished. The problem is the 'herding' all pollsters do to cover their backs. That has also occurred in Israel and Greece this year and mean pollsters have had it neck and neck and failed to predict the final surge. If pollsters developed a few guts and reported what they actually saw rather than trying to minimise their risk of humiliation they might actually get some more reliable final forecasts
oh and while I'm at it, when there is talk of predicting what the public will do in any given situation, does anyone else think of Azimov's Foundation Trilogy?
On 31 March 2015, David Cameron appeared on the Question Time Election Leaders Special. The very first exchange was as follows:
Questioner: "Will you put to bed rumours that you plan to cut child tax credit and restrict child benefit to two children?"
David Cameron: "Well thank you Jenny for that question. No, I don't want to do that, this report that was out today was something that I rejected at the time as prime minister and I reject it again today".
He finishes his answer by pivoting to the successes of his benefits cap.
But Dimbleby clarifies with the Prime Minister: "Sorry – you said you didn’t want to put to bed the rumours that you were going to cut Child Tax Credits, you meant you did want to put to bed the rumour?"
Cameron: "Ah, yes. We increased child tax credits actually, we increased them by £452 under this government because I was determined that while we had to take difficult decisions, and we have, we were left an absolute nightmare to clear up, I wanted to make sure that child poverty continued to fall and it has fallen because of what we did on child tax credits."
Dimbleby: "And so that’s a guarantee that you won’t" (moves on to audience member who asks about benefit cap)
In the run up to the Budget, my colleague Allegra Stratton reported that the Government was looking at options on how to make changes to child tax credits.
Sure enough, George Osborne, presumably with David Cameron's blessing, announced that the Government was going to limit child tax credit for people with more than two children.
He also made other changes, including increasing the rate at which it was withdrawn from people as they got more work (the "taper rate") from 41% to 48%, and reducing the level of income at which it would be withdrawn. They also froze the level of tax credits.
The effect of all of these measures is that the Government will be spending less on tax credits than it would have been if it hadn't done them - to the tune of billions. We know this because the budget book tells us so.
I leave it to you as to whether what George Osborne announced yesterday on tax credits was consistent with what David Cameron told the Question time audience before the election.
Going forward people will have the full knowledge that they'll only have tax credits for two children.
On topic: we really do need to be careful not to draw the wrong conclusions from the mismatch between the GE polling, the pre-election betting, and the final result.
If the conclusion you draw is that 'the polls were wrong', or that 'the betting was a better guide than the polls', you are ignoring a huge chunk of the data. Because the fact is that the polling was dead right, whereas many punters, and especially the pundits, were wrong not to believe it. I'm referring of course to Scotland, which was where the easiest money was to be made in GE 2015.
The correct conclusion to draw, IMO, is not that we should ignore the polling, or assume it is wrong as such, but that we should interpret it intelligently, and especially (as I said repeatedly before the election) that we should not under-estimate the uncertainty in any election forecasts. Polling is a guide, it doesn't tell you the answer.
I'm not even convinced that the polling was wrong. Rather as with the old adage that the definition of IQ is 'that which is measured by intelligence tests', an opinion poll vote share figure is 'that which is measured by opinion polls'. It is an important figure, but it is an input to the view one should take as to what the final result may be, it is not a substitute for that view.
I always believed (and I posted here) that the Conservative lead would be higher than the opinion polls suggested, because of differential enthusiasm and differential swingback from UKIP. However, I underestimated how much higher - I was expecting the final Tory vote to be about 4% higher than Labour's, rather than the 6% actually achieved. That's the kind of error which we should not be at all suprised by. Plan your betting positions accordingly.
On 31 March 2015, David Cameron appeared on the Question Time Election Leaders Special. The very first exchange was as follows:
Questioner: "Will you put to bed rumours that you plan to cut child tax credit and restrict child benefit to two children?"
David Cameron: "Well thank you Jenny for that question. No, I don't want to do that, this report that was out today was something that I rejected at the time as prime minister and I reject it again today".
He finishes his answer by pivoting to the successes of his benefits cap.
But Dimbleby clarifies with the Prime Minister: "Sorry – you said you didn’t want to put to bed the rumours that you were going to cut Child Tax Credits, you meant you did want to put to bed the rumour?"
Cameron: "Ah, yes. We increased child tax credits actually, we increased them by £452 under this government because I was determined that while we had to take difficult decisions, and we have, we were left an absolute nightmare to clear up, I wanted to make sure that child poverty continued to fall and it has fallen because of what we did on child tax credits."
Dimbleby: "And so that’s a guarantee that you won’t" (moves on to audience member who asks about benefit cap)
In the run up to the Budget, my colleague Allegra Stratton reported that the Government was looking at options on how to make changes to child tax credits.
Sure enough, George Osborne, presumably with David Cameron's blessing, announced that the Government was going to limit child tax credit for people with more than two children.
He also made other changes, including increasing the rate at which it was withdrawn from people as they got more work (the "taper rate") from 41% to 48%, and reducing the level of income at which it would be withdrawn. They also froze the level of tax credits.
The effect of all of these measures is that the Government will be spending less on tax credits than it would have been if it hadn't done them - to the tune of billions. We know this because the budget book tells us so.
I leave it to you as to whether what George Osborne announced yesterday on tax credits was consistent with what David Cameron told the Question time audience before the election.
Going forward people will have the full knowledge that they'll only have tax credits for two children.
But it suggests that Cameron was lying through his teeth during the election campaign.
Housing is all about supply is it ? Well taking away over generous tax breaks for buy to letters should mean more flats and houses for those that want to buy to live in - and depress prices.
So GO is increasing supply - of houses for people who want to live in them.
Comments
Reading the comments section of this article shows that Osborne has got it right on BTL. If even Telegraph readers are in favour of the removal of tax relief then it is a winner.
Unsurprisingly most also hold the same views as I do, BTL landlords are parasites that drain capital out of the real economy and prevent first time buyers from getting on the ladder. The sooner we do away with them the better off we will be. Young people should not have to double pay the pensions of baby boomers through tax and via their rent.
Hear hear, and I say that as a 53 year old.
Who's going to let houses to young people when the BTL "parasites" vanish?
Are the young people all going to buy the large properties in central London in which they currently tend to live?
That said, the trend in the final fortnight was towards the Tories and ukip and away from labour, which proved correct, so I don't buy that the polls were completely useless as an indicator. I think they got it right
People need to start putting their money elsewhere and not into existing housing stock, it prices people out of the market. This is the one policy that stands out for me as actually solving a major problem for the future.
It was all there if you were not taking the polls as gospel. That said I think Salmond saying he was already writing the Labour budget helped the Conservatives enormously.
Having said that, the first big event of the new Parliament was yesterday, so expect a couple of polls in the next week or two as the media try to understand the reaction to the Budget.
But I think it is a piss-poor waste of tax money for investors to be helped to buy their second, third....or forty sixth.
*innocent face*
Try and put away the partisan fury when it comes to betting analysis, you just look an uninformed wally
Ed Miliband @Ed_Miliband
"The challenge for the Chancellor is that he claimed the mantle of One Nation. But @TheIFS figures suggest a profoundly regressive Budget."
You talk drivel about BTL landlords.
As such it could readily be argued that Salmond single-handedly enabled the Tories to win with an overall working majority.
Was he unable to see that this was likely to be the result, or did he perhaps see a Tory Government as being the preferable outcome for his party?
This feedback loop is a problem in itself, but is doubly a problem when the polls are incorrect and the feedback is bogus.
https://www.lettingagenttoday.co.uk/news_features/Right-to-buy-turns-into-buy-to-let-goldmine
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/great-council-house-selloff-scandal-righttobuy-council-houses-leave-nowhere-for-poor-to-live-9832339.html
All of them piss poor policies.
The typical BTL property is not going to be easily converted into an affordable, one-family house like a small terrace. The median case is probably two young people, sharing a kitchen, in a flat that is part of a big house, in one of the Inner London boroughs. It neither suits these people to buy today, nor does it really make more housing available to the others if one of them does buy.
Restricting the availability of the tax shield on interest is a good idea.
Andy Burnham has just gone odds on for the Labour leadership (Betfair)
Fair drift on Corbyn out to 15/18.
Budget reaction from IPSE:
The Chancellor has greatly disappointed us by listening to the army of faceless wonders in HMRC and threatening contractors throughout the UK.
If you work through your own limited company things are going to get tougher, much tougher.
HMRC dealt not one, not two, but three blows to the UK's smallest businesses yesterday. In all cases we believe the blows are below the belt!
First, arcane rules known as IR35 are ominously to be made 'more effective'. These rules try and almost always fail to separate disguised employees from genuine businesses.
Second, new restrictions on travel and subsistence expenses are to be imposed on one-person limited companies.
Third, there is a significant tax hike on dividends - a change that will affect all company directors, not just independent professionals.
If it's really an issue then I'd look at doing what Osborne did with the Living Wage and cut corporation tax to offset the loss of the tax shield
Amazing the amount of resistance I had yesterday before the budget when I said it would be a good idea and yet I think this is one move that has very wide support among the public. If DM and DT readers support it then surely the rest of the country does as well. All except the private landlord parasites who stand to lose out.
It's really quite boring now. The endless shrieking about 'scumbag' landlords does you no favours, and turns away those who might otherwise be sympathetic to your cause.
He is the favourite but odds-on sounds a little tight, I might lay him as a trading bet.
Sounds like a little value in Corbyn for those who missed the silly odds a month ago. 365 have him at 10s
That is to say, yes there were overreactions, but even if at the same time as a particular poll, that is not to say the overreaction was always solely about that single poll but a reaction to be considered in context, rightly or wrongly, which is not quite the same thing as an overreaction to a 'mere' poll.
At best, they might buy a house most of the way to Luton. Try drinking your craft beers there.
I'm guessing a lot of your senior colleagues at Spiv&WadBank are big players in BTL - how do your views go down there?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/33369443
I think these rule changes are going to end up hurting a lot of small businesses.
They seem to want to target one-person service companies as they think they are skipping paying some tax. But they don't seem to understand two important points:-
1. The changes affect many other "normal" start-ups.
2. If someone starts as a one-person service they might end up employing others - but not if you punish them right at the start.
Should be some good tennis, tomorrow.
I am retired and this provides me with some income.
I don't think I understand the electorate enough to know which groups will turn out, it seems much more likely to be the full members voting this time rather than the old affiliates, and last time that group voted for the candidate nearest the centre in DavidM. On topic we desperately need some good polling of the membership but I fear it won't be forthcoming.
My heart also thinks Liz is someone I could vote for, but she doesn't seem to have set the campaign on fire as did Cameron or Blair previously.
London is overwhelmingly where the jobs are. There isn't much of an alternative. Plus commuting is deeply uncool for twenty somethings.
As you say, finding a good tenant is the key. I also use an agent for the convenience of myself and the tenant. It provides enough income to pay the mortgage (and the rainy-day fund while interest rates are low).
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/the-dirty-little-secrets-about-2016-predictions-119860.html
And, on a different tack, here's a pix I'd entitle something like "alive!!"
http://tinyurl.com/ojngt3f
Other factors - relentlessly polling the same bunch of people (you know who you are, yougov) who may not have been entirely disinterested in their answers; inability to tell outliers from new trends; becoming part of the story instead of shedding light on it (e.g. so many polls showing one thing motivates the other side to come out to vote, e.g. having an impact on election tactics and strategy which changes the result); and quite possibly, asking the wrong questions and making the wrong assumptions in the first place.
Can't help wondering whether both the inaccuracy problem and the fawning acceptance by press and pundits would have been solved if they had said the MOE was 10% either way. In other words, not much better than an educated guess.
Never mind, John Curtice will sort them out. At least they are all in it together!
The result of the Lib Dem leadership election is going to be announced via twitter
http://bit.ly/1CrDdnx
Farron is crystal clear and in full campaign mode.
http://tinyurl.com/pqdh2lp
Clever way to get extra followers.
Tory lead of 6% with the Ashcroft phone poll (fieldwork ending 26th of April)
Tory lead of 3% with the ICM/Guardian phone poll (fieldwork ending 26th of April)
Tory lead of 5% with Ipsos Mori phone poll (field work ending 28th of April)
Coupled with the Tory leads on the economy/leader ratings, then actual result wouldn't have been a surprise.
Something went wrong in the last week or so with most of the polls showing a swing to Labour.
Cameron child tax credit changes
Did he rule them out before the election?
Ed Brown
Newsnight producer
Posted at 12:32
On 31 March 2015, David Cameron appeared on the Question Time Election Leaders Special. The very first exchange was as follows:
Questioner: "Will you put to bed rumours that you plan to cut child tax credit and restrict child benefit to two children?"
David Cameron: "Well thank you Jenny for that question. No, I don't want to do that, this report that was out today was something that I rejected at the time as prime minister and I reject it again today".
He finishes his answer by pivoting to the successes of his benefits cap.
But Dimbleby clarifies with the Prime Minister: "Sorry – you said you didn’t want to put to bed the rumours that you were going to cut Child Tax Credits, you meant you did want to put to bed the rumour?"
Cameron: "Ah, yes. We increased child tax credits actually, we increased them by £452 under this government because I was determined that while we had to take difficult decisions, and we have, we were left an absolute nightmare to clear up, I wanted to make sure that child poverty continued to fall and it has fallen because of what we did on child tax credits."
Dimbleby: "And so that’s a guarantee that you won’t" (moves on to audience member who asks about benefit cap)
In the run up to the Budget, my colleague Allegra Stratton reported that the Government was looking at options on how to make changes to child tax credits.
Sure enough, George Osborne, presumably with David Cameron's blessing, announced that the Government was going to limit child tax credit for people with more than two children.
He also made other changes, including increasing the rate at which it was withdrawn from people as they got more work (the "taper rate") from 41% to 48%, and reducing the level of income at which it would be withdrawn. They also froze the level of tax credits.
The effect of all of these measures is that the Government will be spending less on tax credits than it would have been if it hadn't done them - to the tune of billions. We know this because the budget book tells us so.
I leave it to you as to whether what George Osborne announced yesterday on tax credits was consistent with what David Cameron told the Question time audience before the election.
This has to be the low point for the dems. I think Osborne's plans might leave plenty of people behind.
https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/618883165675859969
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/which-clps-are-nominating-who-labour-leadership-contest
Andy 27
Jeremy 19
Yvette 18
Liz 4
How does the current polling situation compare to say the week's after 1992? Or 2001?
If the conclusion you draw is that 'the polls were wrong', or that 'the betting was a better guide than the polls', you are ignoring a huge chunk of the data. Because the fact is that the polling was dead right, whereas many punters, and especially the pundits, were wrong not to believe it. I'm referring of course to Scotland, which was where the easiest money was to be made in GE 2015.
The correct conclusion to draw, IMO, is not that we should ignore the polling, or assume it is wrong as such, but that we should interpret it intelligently, and especially (as I said repeatedly before the election) that we should not under-estimate the uncertainty in any election forecasts. Polling is a guide, it doesn't tell you the answer.
I'm not even convinced that the polling was wrong. Rather as with the old adage that the definition of IQ is 'that which is measured by intelligence tests', an opinion poll vote share figure is 'that which is measured by opinion polls'. It is an important figure, but it is an input to the view one should take as to what the final result may be, it is not a substitute for that view.
I always believed (and I posted here) that the Conservative lead would be higher than the opinion polls suggested, because of differential enthusiasm and differential swingback from UKIP. However, I underestimated how much higher - I was expecting the final Tory vote to be about 4% higher than Labour's, rather than the 6% actually achieved. That's the kind of error which we should not be at all suprised by. Plan your betting positions accordingly.
So GO is increasing supply - of houses for people who want to live in them.