politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This week’s PB/Polling Matters Podcast looks ahead to Iowa

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sean_F said:

And, the sight of "eurosceptic" Conservatives boldly turning tail, and proclaiming their devotion to the EU, just demonstrates why a party like UKIP is needed.

Alternatively, you could say that if even committed Eurosceptics are now unconvinced that we should leave, then it lays bare how badly the Leave side have done in putting together a plausible alternative.

Which is what I've been saying all along.

To suggest that Members of Parliament need the 'Leave' campaign to convince them either way is ridiculous. If they're not firmly convinced either way by a political career, God help everyone else.

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

another_richard said:

Your whole thesis makes the assumption that UKIP should be nothing more than an EU pressure group rather a party articulating opposition to a variety of 'establishment' positions.

Yes, it does. You've put your finger on the central point I was making all along: do Kippers want us to leave the EU, as their most important aim, or not? The evidence seems to be that they don't, since they haven't followed a strategy calculated to maximise the probability of that happening.

Having said that, if indeed that isn't the idea, then their strategy was even more bonkers. Quite how putting Ed Miliband into No 10, or depriving the Conservatives of a majority thus forcing another coalition or a minority government, was supposed to further non-establishment positions is mystifying.

I think it's a failure of imagination to think that the only legitimate options are Cameron vs Milliband or Osborne vs Corbyn.

There are many of us who don't like either. Yes, if forced to choose, we'll choose the more right wing option, but that's only an issue in 100 or so marginal constituencies.

I sincerely hope that, in the not-so-distant future, Osborne's political career is terminated with extreme prejudice.

All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs.

Fine. So long as he doesn't become leader.

Question for PBers: why are there so few French opinion polls?

I can get weekly (or better) polls from Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, and Italy.

But France... The last Hollande v Le Pen match up was in April last year. Totally useless, in other words.

Luckyguy1983 said:

To suggest that Members of Parliament need the 'Leave' campaign to convince them either way is ridiculous. If they're not firmly convinced either way by a political career, God help everyone else.

These cases don't build themselves. Someone has to do, you know, some work, which is why I suggested, three years ago, that they should get stuck in. Nothing, almost nothing whatsoever, has been done, since the Brexit competition. The winner of that did a very good job of at least identifying the issues. No one seems to have done anything with it.

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

another_richard said:

Your whole thesis makes the assumption that UKIP should be nothing more than an EU pressure group rather a party articulating opposition to a variety of 'establishment' positions.

Yes, it does. You've put your finger on the central point I was making all along: do Kippers want us to leave the EU, as their most important aim, or not? The evidence seems to be that they don't, since they haven't followed a strategy calculated to maximise the probability of that happening.

Having said that, if indeed that isn't the idea, then their strategy was even more bonkers. Quite how putting Ed Miliband into No 10, or depriving the Conservatives of a majority thus forcing another coalition or a minority government, was supposed to further non-establishment positions is mystifying.

I think it's a failure of imagination to think that the only legitimate options are Cameron vs Milliband or Osborne vs Corbyn.

There are many of us who don't like either. Yes, if forced to choose, we'll choose the more right wing option, but that's only an issue in 100 or so marginal constituencies.

I sincerely hope that, in the not-so-distant future, Osborne's political career is terminated with extreme prejudice.

All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs.

Fine. So long as he doesn't become leader.

Hey: if isam's not on the board, somebody's got to quote Enoch Powell

TheScreamingEagles said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

another_richard said:

Your whole thesis makes the assumption that UKIP should be nothing more than an EU pressure group rather a party articulating opposition to a variety of 'establishment' positions.

Yes, it does. You've put your finger on the central point I was making all along: do Kippers want us to leave the EU, as their most important aim, or not? The evidence seems to be that they don't, since they haven't followed a strategy calculated to maximise the probability of that happening.

Having said that, if indeed that isn't the idea, then their strategy was even more bonkers. Quite how putting Ed Miliband into No 10, or depriving the Conservatives of a majority thus forcing another coalition or a minority government, was supposed to further non-establishment positions is mystifying.

I think it's a failure of imagination to think that the only legitimate options are Cameron vs Milliband or Osborne vs Corbyn.

There are many of us who don't like either. Yes, if forced to choose, we'll choose the more right wing option, but that's only an issue in 100 or so marginal constituencies.

I sincerely hope that, in the not-so-distant future, Osborne's political career is terminated with extreme prejudice.

All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs.

Except Dave's career (assuming he wins the referendum)

Arguably Blair's too. Although it was a bit of a "here's your coat, where's your hurry" exit. And the aftermath hasn't been great. Even before the trial.

TheScreamingEagles said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

another_richard said:

Your whole thesis makes the assumption that UKIP should be nothing more than an EU pressure group rather a party articulating opposition to a variety of 'establishment' positions.

Yes, it does. You've put your finger on the central point I was making all along: do Kippers want us to leave the EU, as their most important aim, or not? The evidence seems to be that they don't, since they haven't followed a strategy calculated to maximise the probability of that happening.

Having said that, if indeed that isn't the idea, then their strategy was even more bonkers. Quite how putting Ed Miliband into No 10, or depriving the Conservatives of a majority thus forcing another coalition or a minority government, was supposed to further non-establishment positions is mystifying.

I think it's a failure of imagination to think that the only legitimate options are Cameron vs Milliband or Osborne vs Corbyn.

There are many of us who don't like either. Yes, if forced to choose, we'll choose the more right wing option, but that's only an issue in 100 or so marginal constituencies.

I sincerely hope that, in the not-so-distant future, Osborne's political career is terminated with extreme prejudice.

All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs.

Except Dave's career (assuming he wins the referendum)

If Dave wins the referendum and resigns on his own terms, that will be an unprecedented achievement in modern times. Blair and Thatcher were both forced out by their own parties, while Brown, Major and Callaghan were sent packing by the electorate.

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

another_richard said:

Your whole thesis makes the assumption that UKIP should be nothing more than an EU pressure group rather a party articulating opposition to a variety of 'establishment' positions.

Yes, it does. You've put your finger on the central point I was making all along: do Kippers want us to leave the EU, as their most important aim, or not? The evidence seems to be that they don't, since they haven't followed a strategy calculated to maximise the probability of that happening.

Having said that, if indeed that isn't the idea, then their strategy was even more bonkers. Quite how putting Ed Miliband into No 10, or depriving the Conservatives of a majority thus forcing another coalition or a minority government, was supposed to further non-establishment positions is mystifying.

I think it's a failure of imagination to think that the only legitimate options are Cameron vs Milliband or Osborne vs Corbyn.

There are many of us who don't like either. Yes, if forced to choose, we'll choose the more right wing option, but that's only an issue in 100 or so marginal constituencies.

I sincerely hope that, in the not-so-distant future, Osborne's political career is terminated with extreme prejudice.

All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs.

Except Dave's career (assuming he wins the referendum)

Arguably Blair's too. Although it was a bit of a "here's your coat, where's your hurry" exit. And the aftermath hasn't been great. Even before the trial.

Blair didn't go at the time of his own choosing. He was forced out.

I need to do a thread about Labour, in recent times, the only leader they've deposed, is their most electorally successful leader.

isam said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sean_F said:

And, the sight of "eurosceptic" Conservatives boldly turning tail, and proclaiming their devotion to the EU, just demonstrates why a party like UKIP is needed.

Alternatively, you could say that if even committed Eurosceptics are now unconvinced that we should leave, then it lays bare how badly the Leave side have done in putting together a plausible alternative.

Which is what I've been saying all along.

To suggest that Members of Parliament need the 'Leave' campaign to convince them either way is ridiculous. If they're not firmly convinced either way by a political career, God help everyone else.

Seems incredible to me that adults need to see a campaign to make their minds up, let alone MP's

I was on holiday last year with a friend of mine who has a 250 million quid electronics distribution business. I asked him his view of the EU, and he admitted, "I haven't really thought about it, to be honest."

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sean_F said:

I think it's a failure of imagination to think that the only legitimate options are Cameron vs Milliband or Osborne vs Corbyn.

There are many of us who don't like either. Yes, if forced to choose, we'll choose the more right wing option, but that's only an issue in 100 or so marginal constituencies.

It's not a failure of imagination, it's a recognition of reality. If we had a PR system, it would be different. But we don't.

If I live in a safe Labour or Conservative seat (most are) what's the downside to voting UKIP?

We wouldn't even be having this referendum were it not for UKIP.

No we wouldn't even be having this referendum were it not for the Tories.

Yeah, but the Tories wouldn't be in power if it wasn't for Alex Salmond.

So, really, you need to thank him.

Casino_Royale said:

Philip_Thompson said:

another_richard said:

Philip_Thompson said:

another_richard said:

DavidL said:

SimonStClare said:

DavidL said:

Scenario 1. David Cameron says, "well guys, I tried my best but they just don't want to listen. Let's head for the EEA." The cabinet agrees completely (since Ken has retired) and Leave wins in a landslide.

Every other scenario. Leave is toast.

It really is that simple isn't it?

A year ago I would have agreed, however a spate of bad economic news from the EU and the on going immigration crisis has seen a tightening in the polls and even some with Leave in front. - Now I'm not quite as convinced as I was.

You're kidding yourself. We have a Tory government because we don't elect incompetents to look after our economy (Brown, of course, was never elected). If those we have chosen as competent, even in comparison with the muppets, say this is the way to go then this is where we will go. Most people will give it very little thought.

How many hundreds of billions more has Osborne borrowed / is borrowing than he said he would ?

Ironically Osborne's extra borrow and bribe is the main reason the government was reelected.

Competency has little to do with things - people vote for governments which take money from THEM and give it to ME.

A government which takes money from Peter and gives it to Paul will always receive the support of Paul.

Not always. If it did then the "tax them til they bleed" brigade would win landslides every time.

The trick is to get the number of voters you are bribing more than the number of voters you are taxing and more than the number of voters your opponents are trying to bribe.

Extra borrowing is highly useful for this as present Paul has a vote and future Peter doesn't.

As does having an incompetent opponent who tries to bribe a low voting group (the young) while you are bribing a high voting group (the old).

Only the top 15% of earners pay the 40% higher rate of tax. While only 2% of earners pay the 45% rate (ex-50% rate).

You'd think that if it was based on bribes alone then the parties proposing jacking up these rates would win dramatically. But the country isn't that petty and misguided. .

But a far greater proportion of workers will be within that bracket at some point in their working careers (particularly between the ages of 35 and 55) or will aspire to be so.

Which is just one of many reasons why it is far more complicated than the very simplistic base nature Richard proposes.

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

another_richard said:

Your whole thesis makes the assumption that UKIP should be nothing more than an EU pressure group rather a party articulating opposition to a variety of 'establishment' positions.

Yes, it does. You've put your finger on the central point I was making all along: do Kippers want us to leave the EU, as their most important aim, or not? The evidence seems to be that they don't, since they haven't followed a strategy calculated to maximise the probability of that happening.

Having said that, if indeed that isn't the idea, then their strategy was even more bonkers. Quite how putting Ed Miliband into No 10, or depriving the Conservatives of a majority thus forcing another coalition or a minority government, was supposed to further non-establishment positions is mystifying.

I think it's a failure of imagination to think that the only legitimate options are Cameron vs Milliband or Osborne vs Corbyn.

There are many of us who don't like either. Yes, if forced to choose, we'll choose the more right wing option, but that's only an issue in 100 or so marginal constituencies.

I sincerely hope that, in the not-so-distant future, Osborne's political career is terminated with extreme prejudice.

All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs.

Except Dave's career (assuming he wins the referendum)

Arguably Blair's too. Although it was a bit of a "here's your coat, where's your hurry" exit. And the aftermath hasn't been great. Even before the trial.

Blair didn't go at the time of his own choosing. He was forced out.

I need to do a thread about Labour, in recent times, the only leader they've deposed, is their most electorally successful leader.

I am not sure that is an original insight. I think Dan may have mentioned it, possibly even more than once (an article).

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

another_richard said:

Your whole thesis makes the assumption that UKIP should be nothing more than an EU pressure group rather a party articulating opposition to a variety of 'establishment' positions.

Yes, it does. You've put your finger on the central point I was making all along: do Kippers want us to leave the EU, as their most important aim, or not? The evidence seems to be that they don't, since they haven't followed a strategy calculated to maximise the probability of that happening.

Having said that, if indeed that isn't the idea, then their strategy was even more bonkers. Quite how putting Ed Miliband into No 10, or depriving the Conservatives of a majority thus forcing another coalition or a minority government, was supposed to further non-establishment positions is mystifying.

I think it's a failure of imagination to think that the only legitimate options are Cameron vs Milliband or Osborne vs Corbyn.

There are many of us who don't like either. Yes, if forced to choose, we'll choose the more right wing option, but that's only an issue in 100 or so marginal constituencies.

I sincerely hope that, in the not-so-distant future, Osborne's political career is terminated with extreme prejudice.

All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs.

Except Dave's career (assuming he wins the referendum)

Arguably Blair's too. Although it was a bit of a "here's your coat, where's your hurry" exit. And the aftermath hasn't been great. Even before the trial.

Blair didn't go at the time of his own choosing. He was forced out.

I need to do a thread about Labour, in recent times, the only leader they've deposed, is their most electorally successful leader.

I am not sure that is an original insight. I think Dan may have mentioned it, possibly even more than once (an article).

I know, but I enjoy the abuse from the Corbynistas on twitter.

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sean_F said:

I think it's a failure of imagination to think that the only legitimate options are Cameron vs Milliband or Osborne vs Corbyn.

There are many of us who don't like either. Yes, if forced to choose, we'll choose the more right wing option, but that's only an issue in 100 or so marginal constituencies.

It's not a failure of imagination, it's a recognition of reality. If we had a PR system, it would be different. But we don't.

If I live in a safe Labour or Conservative seat (most are) what's the downside to voting UKIP?

We wouldn't even be having this referendum were it not for UKIP.

No we wouldn't even be having this referendum were it not for the Tories.

Yeah, but the Tories wouldn't be in power if it wasn't for Alex Salmond.

So, really, you need to thank him.

Anything but that. I would rather thank Nigel. Honestly.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

To suggest that Members of Parliament need the 'Leave' campaign to convince them either way is ridiculous. If they're not firmly convinced either way by a political career, God help everyone else.

These cases don't build themselves. Someone has to do, you know, some work, which is why I suggested, three years ago, that they should get stuck in. Nothing, almost nothing whatsoever, has been done, since the Brexit competition. The winner of that did a very good job of at least identifying the issues. No one seems to have done anything with it.

Very many people need to do a lot of work to build a future outside of the EU; hopefully as many voices as possible will contribute to it, but that's quite different to making it the central pillar of a campaign which is a simple binary choice, in or out. Where are your convincing arguments for staying in? Where is your vision of what the UK will look like in 10 or 20 years?

another_richard said:

Philip_Thompson said:

another_richard said:

Philip_Thompson said:

another_richard said:

DavidL said:

SimonStClare said:

DavidL said:

.

How many hundreds of billions more has Osborne borrowed / is borrowing than he said he would ?

Ironically Osborne's extra borrow and bribe is the main reason the government was reelected.

Competency has little to do with things - people vote for governments which take money from THEM and give it to ME.

A government which takes money from Peter and gives it to Paul will always receive the support of Paul.

Not always. If it did then the "tax them til they bleed" brigade would win landslides every time.

The trick is to get the number of voters you are bribing more than the number of voters you are taxing and more than the number of voters your opponents are trying to bribe.

Extra borrowing is highly useful for this as present Paul has a vote and future Peter doesn't.

As does having an incompetent opponent who tries to bribe a low voting group (the young) while you are bribing a high voting group (the old).

Only the top 15% of earners pay the 40% higher rate of tax. While only 2% of earners pay the 45% rate (ex-50% rate).

You'd think that if it was based on bribes alone then the parties proposing jacking up these rates would win dramatically. But the country isn't that petty and misguided. .

Take a look at the comments from PBers in favour of reducing pension tax allowances on the 'rich'.

The 'take it from THEM and give it to ME' mentality runs strongly through them.

I supported this government in taking away my CB, slightly more reluctantly in taking away my PA and have accepted that I will get less tax relief on my pension contributions than I do now in future. I just don't recognise your description. I have accepted that I can better afford the removal of these benefits than those who live on them.

Casino_Royale said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

@another_richard - UKIP were trying, principally, to take votes off the Conservatives. There was no secret about that, they boasted about it, and indeed sometimes seemed to be carrying out a personal vendetta against Cameron. The fact that they largely failed, and might even have had the opposite effect, was a combination of luck and good work by the Conservative campaign.

Good work that included retaining a sufficient right-wing offering in the manifesto to tempt me back.

David Cameron has been a brilliant leader.

Not in terms of his specific policies, but in terms of changing the shape of the Conservative coalition so as to lock other parties out of power. By stealing half the LibDem's votes, and losing the same amount to UKIP, he swapped a party with 60 seats for one with 1.

Casino_Royale said:

Good work that included retaining a sufficient right-wing offering in the manifesto to tempt me back.

For which "It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad "

.

Every other scenario. Leave is toast.

It really is that simple isn't it?

A year ago I would have agreed, however a spate of bad economic news from the EU and the on going immigration crisis has seen a tightening in the polls and even some with Leave in front. - Now I'm not quite as convinced as I was.

You're kidding yourself. We have a Tory government because we don't elect incompetents to look after our economy (Brown, of course, was never elected). If those we have chosen as competent, even in comparison with the muppets, say this is the way to go then this is where we will go. Most people will give it very little thought.

How many hundreds of billions more has Osborne borrowed / is borrowing than he said he would ?

Ironically Osborne's extra borrow and bribe is the main reason the government was reelected.

Competency has little to do with things - people vote for governments which take money from THEM and give it to ME.

A government which takes money from Peter and gives it to Paul will always receive the support of Paul. Not always. If it did then the "tax them til they bleed" brigade would win landslides every time.

The trick is to get the number of voters you are bribing more than the number of voters you are taxing and more than the number of voters your opponents are trying to bribe.

Extra borrowing is highly useful for this as present Paul has a vote and future Peter doesn't.

As does having an incompetent opponent who tries to bribe a low voting group (the young) while you are bribing a high voting group (the old).



Only the top 15% of earners pay the 40% higher rate of tax. While only 2% of earners pay the 45% rate (ex-50% rate).

You'd think that if it was based on bribes alone then the parties proposing jacking up these rates would win dramatically. But the country isn't that petty and misguided. .

Take a look at the comments from PBers in favour of reducing pension tax allowances on the 'rich'.

The 'take it from THEM and give it to ME' mentality runs strongly through them.



Actually that's just a view that suits your viewpoint.. when you have people on here doing sums and whining about a potential "loss" to their pot of £200k when others can only dream of such a sum, in this case let the rich squeal as much as they like. It doesn't affect me one way or the other, so I can look on impartially

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

@another_richard - UKIP were trying, principally, to take votes off the Conservatives. There was no secret about that, they boasted about it, and indeed sometimes seemed to be carrying out a personal vendetta against Cameron. The fact that they largely failed, and might even have had the opposite effect, was a combination of luck and good work by the Conservative campaign.

Good work that included retaining a sufficient right-wing offering in the manifesto to tempt me back.

David Cameron has been a brilliant leader.

Not in terms of his specific policies, but in terms of changing the shape of the Conservative coalition so as to lock other parties out of power. By stealing half the LibDem's votes, and losing the same amount to UKIP, he swapped a party with 60 seats for one with 1.

True. And by taking those votes from the centre he has encouraged Labour to go looking to the lefty fringe amongst the do not votes as well.

He used to be mocked for saying that he thought he might be quite good at politics. The only accusation against him now is understatement.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Where are your convincing arguments for staying in? Where is your vision of what the UK will look like in 10 or 20 years?

Why ask me? I'm not campaigning. At the moment, in the absence of any coherent alternative, I'm intending to vote Remain, but not with any enthusiasm. As far as I can see, if we leave we either get an EEA-style deal, which doesn't change anything much in terms of the issues which most concern people, or we take a huge economic risk - and even then we might end up buying back into much of what we've just left.

Casino_Royale said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sean_F said:

I think it's a failure of imagination to think that the only legitimate options are Cameron vs Milliband or Osborne vs Corbyn.

There are many of us who don't like either. Yes, if forced to choose, we'll choose the more right wing option, but that's only an issue in 100 or so marginal constituencies.

It's not a failure of imagination, it's a recognition of reality. If we had a PR system, it would be different. But we don't.

If I live in a safe Labour or Conservative seat (most are) what's the downside to voting UKIP?

We wouldn't even be having this referendum were it not for UKIP.

No we wouldn't even be having this referendum were it not for the Tories.

What's the point in posting a tautololgy like that?

The referendum was a risk. It was proposed because Cameron was worried about his voter base, and backbench MPs, defecting to UKIP. So he offered it to them to prevent that.

Had been no such threat from UKIP, there would have been no referendum; we would just have had a recycling of the 2010 pledge to "not let matters rest there".

Had there been a 2nd coalition, we'd have had the referendum but it'd have been more rigged for Remain by Clegg. That'd probably have meant 16/17 years voting and EU citizens as well.

If In wins by 2,000 votes, it will probably be the fault of those damn Maltese EU citizens hanging out in the UK.

isam said:

Havering is leaving the EU!

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/28/havering-leave-eu-brexit

Excellent, perhaps they'll be able to show us how Brexit actually works.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Casino_Royale said:

Good work that included retaining a sufficient right-wing offering in the manifesto to tempt me back.

For which "It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad "

I'm pleased you respect my opinions so highly!

Final Iowa PPP poll, conducted completely after the Trump debate announcement:

Trump 31 +3
Cruz 23 -3
Rubio 14 +1
Carson 9 +1
Bush 4 -2
Huckabee 4 +1
Paul 4 +1
Fiorina 3 0
Christie 2 -1
Kasich 2 -2
Gilmore 1 +1
Santorum 1 -1

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_1282016.pdf

Richard_Nabavi said:

another_richard said:

I always know when someone is near an inconvenient truth because you start blustering.

If borrowing had been lower than Osborne predicted you would be hailing him a genius.

I certainly would, if at the same time unemployment had fallen and growth was higher than most of our competitors. If, on the other hand, he had achieved lower borrowing at the cost of huge unemployment and a slump when other countries weren't doing too badly, then, no, I wouldn't have hailed him as a genius, I'd have said he got it wrong.

You have to look at the whole picture.

Certainly - which is the problem loyalists of any party have.

Whereas I am one of the few people who can take a fair and equal view ** and am able to pay credit where its due - raising VAT was the right thing to do, the pension reforms are necessary and action against public sector fatcats should be supported if it belatedly takes place.

** I can do this as I have the wonderful gift of being able to say a bad word about anyone ;-)

As to the economy the other side of high employment is that its been produced by the extra borrowing subsidising the economy which has increased the current account deficit, kept zombie businesses on a life support and has encouraged ever more immigration of low skilled migrants.

It is an irony that Thatcher is hailed by Conservatives for reducing government subsidies whilst Osborne has continually resorted to them. The only difference is that Thatcher reduced subsidies to heavy industry and that Osborne has increased them to wealth consumers.

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

[Lots of swear words here]

Presidential Election if Michael Bloomberg runs as an independent.

• Bloomberg: 29%
• Trump: 37%
• Hillary: 33%


http://uk.businessinsider.com/frank-luntz-michael-bloomberg-president-run-poll-2016-1

To make sense of that, they'd really need to do a state-by-state electoral college prediction.

Bloomberg wins Florida, New York and California, but loses everything else.

Sandpit said:

isam said:

Havering is leaving the EU!

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/28/havering-leave-eu-brexit

I struggle to the difference between that and the various Nuclear Free Zone councils in the 1980s.
Havering is in the UK, and it's place or otherwise in the EU will be decided in due course by a national referendum.

No idea what it means to be honest, probably nothing... but at least Im in the right place!

SquareRoot said:

.

Every other scenario. Leave is toast.

It really is that simple isn't it?

A year ago I would have agreed, however a spate of bad economic news from the EU and the on going immigration crisis has seen a tightening in the polls and even some with Leave in front. - Now I'm not quite as convinced as I was.

You're kidding yourself. We have a Tory government because we don't elect incompetents to look after our economy (Brown, of course, was never elected). If those we have chosen as competent, even in comparison with the muppets, say this is the way to go then this is where we will go. Most people will give it very little thought.

How many hundreds of billions more has Osborne borrowed / is borrowing than he said he would ?

Ironically Osborne's extra borrow and bribe is the main reason the government was reelected.

Competency has little to do with things - people vote for governments which take money from THEM and give it to ME.

A government which takes money from Peter and gives it to Paul will always receive the support of Paul. Not always. If it did then the "tax them til they bleed" brigade would win landslides every time.

The trick is to get the number of voters you are bribing more than the number of voters you are taxing and more than the number of voters your opponents are trying to bribe.

Extra borrowing is highly useful for this as present Paul has a vote and future Peter doesn't.

As does having an incompetent opponent who tries to bribe a low voting group (the young) while you are bribing a high voting group (the old).



Only the top 15% of earners pay the 40% higher rate of tax. While only 2% of earners pay the 45% rate (ex-50% rate).

You'd think that if it was based on bribes alone then the parties proposing jacking up these rates would win dramatically. But the country isn't that petty and misguided. .

Take a look at the comments from PBers in favour of reducing pension tax allowances on the 'rich'.

The 'take it from THEM and give it to ME' mentality runs strongly through them.



Actually that's just a view that suits your viewpoint.. when you have people on here doing sums and whining about a potential "loss" to their pot of £200k when others can only dream of such a sum, in this case let the rich squeal as much as they like. It doesn't affect me one way or the other, so I can look on impartially

He's right, though. There was a surprising degree of hostility, among people who call themselves Conservatives towards the better off. Had Gordon Brown proposed cutting tax relief on pensions, there would have been unanimous fury, but if George Osborne does so, it's fine.

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

@another_richard - UKIP were trying, principally, to take votes off the Conservatives. There was no secret about that, they boasted about it, and indeed sometimes seemed to be carrying out a personal vendetta against Cameron. The fact that they largely failed, and might even have had the opposite effect, was a combination of luck and good work by the Conservative campaign.

Good work that included retaining a sufficient right-wing offering in the manifesto to tempt me back.

David Cameron has been a brilliant leader.

Not in terms of his specific policies, but in terms of changing the shape of the Conservative coalition so as to lock other parties out of power. By stealing half the LibDem's votes, and losing the same amount to UKIP, he swapped a party with 60 seats for one with 1.

I think this is precisely the conclusion Osborne has reached too, but it's wrong. The Conservatives cleaned up the LD seats because their vote collapsed and they were already in a strong 2nd place.

In many cases the UKIP vote increased by just as much, if not more so, than the Conservative vote did at the LDs expense:

http://www.socialliberal.net/lib_dem_seats_in_2010_5_where_did_the_votes_go_part_1_of_2

"The Conservative-facing seats showed a remarkably consistent pattern; the main factor at play was Lib Dem collapse rather than Conservative recovery. In each of the 27 seats lost to the Conservatives, the collapse in Lib Dem votes was sizably larger than any increase in Tory votes, by a factor of anything up to 29."

"Firstly, it means that in 21 out of these 27 seats, the Conservatives ended up taking the constituency in 2015 with fewer votes than the Lib Dems did in 2010. Only in six seats did Conservative support in 2015 outnumber Lib Dem support in 2010: Chippenham; Solihull; Somerton and Frome; St Austell and Newquay; Mid Dorset and Poole North; and Wells (and in the case of St Austell and Newquay, Conservative support was just 61 votes higher than the Lib Dem vote in 2010.)"

"Secondly, it points to the net transfer of votes in these seats not having been from the Lib Dems to the Conservatives. While the Conservatives were the ultimate beneficiaries due to their pre-existing positioning in second place, Lib Dem losses of votes went in all directions – Conservative, Labour, UKIP and Green."

That doesn't contradict what rcs said at all. In fact if as rcs said the Conservatives had "[stolen] half the LibDem's vote, and [lost] the same amount to UKIP" then the net increase in the Tory vote would, all else being equal be 0 votes changed.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

[Lots of swear words here]

Presidential Election if Michael Bloomberg runs as an independent.

• Bloomberg: 29%
• Trump: 37%
• Hillary: 33%


http://uk.businessinsider.com/frank-luntz-michael-bloomberg-president-run-poll-2016-1

To make sense of that, they'd really need to do a state-by-state electoral college prediction.

I reckon that kinda result means no candidate gets 270.

So Congress gets to choose the winner.

Congress gets to chose the winner or faithless electors do?

Sean_F said:

He's right, though. There was a surprising degree of hostility, among people who call themselves Conservatives towards the better off. Had Gordon Brown proposed cutting tax relief on pensions, there would have been unanimous fury, but if George Osborne does so, it's fine.

So there's more to it than mere "tax Peter to give to me, Paul" then.

I don't understand why people are so bothered with income...it really is pretty inconsequential. I know people on very good salaries who are poor....tied into debt, renting and loans. The government really needs to go after wealth, inherited wealth and assets to make the UK fairer. But this government is not remotely concerned about making the UK fairer.

Casino_Royale said:

Philip_Thompson said:

another_richard said:

Philip_Thompson said:

another_richard said:

DavidL said:

SimonStClare said:

DavidL said:

Scenario 1. David Cameron says, "well guys, I tried my best but they just don't want to listen. Let's head for the EEA." The cabinet agrees completely (since Ken has retired) and Leave wins in a landslide.

Every other scenario. Leave is toast.

It really is that simple isn't it?

A year ago I would have agreed, however a spate of bad economic news from the EU and the on going immigration crisis has seen a tightening in the polls and even some with Leave in front. - Now I'm not quite as convinced as I was.

You're kidding yourself. We have a Tory government because we don't elect incompetents to look after our economy (Brown, of course, was never elected). If those we have chosen as competent, even in comparison with the muppets, say this is the way to go then this is where we will go. Most people will give it very little thought.

How many hundreds of billions more has Osborne borrowed / is borrowing than he said he would ?

Ironically Osborne's extra borrow and bribe is the main reason the government was reelected.

Competency has little to do with things - people vote for governments which take money from THEM and give it to ME.

A government which takes money from Peter and gives it to Paul will always receive the support of Paul.

Not always. If it did then the "tax them til they bleed" brigade would win landslides every time.

Extra borrowing is highly useful for this as present Paul has a vote and future Peter doesn't.

As does having an incompetent opponent who tries to bribe a low voting group (the young) while you are bribing a high voting group (the old).

Only the top 15% of earners pay the 40% higher rate of tax. While only 2% of earners pay the 45% rate (ex-50% rate).

But the country isn't that petty and misguided. .

But a far greater proportion of workers will be within that bracket at some point in their working careers (particularly between the ages of 35 and 55) or will aspire to be so.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Where are your convincing arguments for staying in? Where is your vision of what the UK will look like in 10 or 20 years?

Why ask me? I'm not campaigning. At the moment, in the absence of any coherent alternative, I'm intending to vote Remain, but not with any enthusiasm. As far as I can see, if we leave we either get an EEA-style deal, which doesn't change anything much in terms of the issues which most concern people, or we take a huge economic risk - and even then we might end up buying back into much of what we've just left.

Sorry I forgot you were undecided. The point is this is not a case of staying still or moving, it is a crossroads. The EU has not stood still since 1975, so what makes us think it will be 'the same' after we've effectively committed to 30 more years of membership?

Because every time the EU changed previously it was ratified by the UK.

If the UK ratifies changes again it ought to be by referendum unlike in the past.

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sean_F said:

I think it's a failure of imagination to think that the only legitimate options are Cameron vs Milliband or Osborne vs Corbyn.

.

It's not a failure of imagination, it's a recognition of reality. If we had a PR system, it would be different. But we don't.

If I live in a safe Labour or Conservative seat (most are) what's the downside to voting UKIP?

We wouldn't even be having this referendum were it not for UKIP.

No we wouldn't even be having this referendum were it not for the Tories.

What's the point in posting a tautololgy like that?

The referendum was a risk. It was proposed because Cameron was worried about his voter base, and backbench MPs, defecting to UKIP. So he offered it to them to prevent that.

Had been no such threat from UKIP, there would have been no referendum; we would just have had a recycling of the 2010 pledge to "not let matters rest there".

Had there been a 2nd coalition, we'd have had the referendum but it'd have been more rigged for Remain by Clegg. That'd probably have meant 16/17 years voting and EU citizens as well.

I don't agree. I think it was proposed because he lost his backbenchers when nearly 100 of the rebelled and demanded a referendum against his wishes. He know if he didn't take decisive action the party would be torn in two like it was in the 90s so he proposed what he did for the sake of party unity as much as anything else.

UKIP were barely on the radar as far as reasons were concerned. This happened before UKIP's poll rise, years before any defections ... trying to avoid the fate of John Major rather than the risk of Nigel Farage explains the issue far more.

You are possibly the most insufferably tedious and pedantic Conservative poster on here!

(1) Your first paragraph is agreeing with me, despite saying you don't agree with me. His backbenchers rebelled first in Oct 2011 , but it was the threat of UKIP that made Cameron realise he had to act. You can read about his original "line" here:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/oct/24/david-cameron-tory-rebellion-europe

(2) Wrong. Cameron pledged a referendum in January 2013. UKIP had grown strongly throughout 2012, this was after UKIP had overtaken the LDs in the polls, were in double figures, and the Conservatives were polling awfully - in the high 20s - in December 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21148282

You just like to think you point out things no-one else has spotted, and to be right.

Sean_F said:

He's right, though. There was a surprising degree of hostility, among people who call themselves Conservatives towards the better off. Had Gordon Brown proposed cutting tax relief on pensions, there would have been unanimous fury, but if George Osborne does so, it's fine.

Reminiscent of how some PB Tories changed from

'Disgraceful, threat to skilled workers, class envy at its worst'

when it was suggested Labour would cut the lifetime pension allowance to

'Totally right, why should the rich be subsidised this way'

when Osborne did it.

It doesn't mean anything, but it seems the hope is that it will provoke debate

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/havering-council-becomes-first-in-britain-to-back-leaving-eu-a3167076.html

The Tory MP Rosindale is in cahoots with wise old Gerard Batten MEP, who took him on in Romford, to campaign for out

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

You just like to think you point out things no-one else has spotted, and to be right.

As opposed to all the other posters on politicalbetting who...

That was my thought (but I felt too guilty to point it out).

Casino_Royale said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I don't agree. I think it was proposed because he lost his backbenchers when nearly 100 of the rebelled and demanded a referendum against his wishes. He know if he didn't take decisive action the party would be torn in two like it was in the 90s so he proposed what he did for the sake of party unity as much as anything else.

UKIP were barely on the radar as far as reasons were concerned. This happened before UKIP's poll rise, years before any defections ... trying to avoid the fate of John Major rather than the risk of Nigel Farage explains the issue far more.

You are possibly the most insufferably tedious and pedantic Conservative poster on here!

(1) Your first paragraph is agreeing with me, despite saying you don't agree with me. His backbenchers rebelled first in Oct 2011 , but it was the threat of UKIP that made Cameron realise he had to act. You can read about his original "line" here:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/oct/24/david-cameron-tory-rebellion-europe

(2) Wrong. Cameron pledged a referendum in January 2013. UKIP had grown strongly throughout 2012, this was after UKIP had overtaken the LDs in the polls, were in double figures, and the Conservatives were polling awfully - in the high 20s - in December 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21148282

You just like to think you point out things no-one else has spotted, and to be right.

I'll just ignore the personal remarks, I'm not trying to be funny just saying what I think and that is that it was the rebellion that caused it.

Cameron pledged the referendum in January 2013 but as the article says that pledge was by then "long awaited". It was being briefed much sooner than that Cameron was changing course.

It may have taken just over a year between the rebellion in Oct 2011 and the announcement in January 2013 but you don't think Cameron was doing nothing at all in that year until he was spooked by UKIP do you? It's already come out that well before the announcement he'd already much earlier discussed the issue with Merkel and briefed her that he was going to call a referendum, you don't think he did that in January 2013 do you?

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

[Lots of swear words here]

Presidential Election if Michael Bloomberg runs as an independent.

• Bloomberg: 29%
• Trump: 37%
• Hillary: 33%


http://uk.businessinsider.com/frank-luntz-michael-bloomberg-president-run-poll-2016-1

To make sense of that, they'd really need to do a state-by-state electoral college prediction.

I doubt it, until there is an actual polling firm that conducts a poll instead of a focus group firm, I firmly believe the results of the other polling firms that say Bloomberg is in the low double digits.

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

[Lots of swear words here]

Presidential Election if Michael Bloomberg runs as an independent.

• Bloomberg: 29%
• Trump: 37%
• Hillary: 33%


http://uk.businessinsider.com/frank-luntz-michael-bloomberg-president-run-poll-2016-1

To make sense of that, they'd really need to do a state-by-state electoral college prediction.

Bloomberg wins Florida, New York and California, but loses everything else.

Thanks. I think on those numbers Trump wins, but I'm not certain.

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

[Lots of swear words here]

Presidential Election if Michael Bloomberg runs as an independent.

• Bloomberg: 29%
• Trump: 37%
• Hillary: 33%


http://uk.businessinsider.com/frank-luntz-michael-bloomberg-president-run-poll-2016-1

To make sense of that, they'd really need to do a state-by-state electoral college prediction.

Bloomberg wins Florida, New York and California, but loses everything else.

That hurts Hillary a lot more than Trump.

If there is a hung election and goes to the House do the GOP reps have to vote for Trump or could they instead vote for an establishment Republican ?

The Twelfth Amendment requires the choice to be made from the top three polling candidates in the electoral college.

TheScreamingEagles said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

[Lots of swear words here]

Presidential Election if Michael Bloomberg runs as an independent.

• Bloomberg: 29%
• Trump: 37%
• Hillary: 33%


http://uk.businessinsider.com/frank-luntz-michael-bloomberg-president-run-poll-2016-1

To make sense of that, they'd really need to do a state-by-state electoral college prediction.

Bloomberg wins Florida, New York and California, but loses everything else.

That hurts Hillary a lot more than Trump.

If there is a hung election and goes to the House do the GOP reps have to vote for Trump or could they instead vote for an establishment Republican ?

Is a bit more complex than that. They don't vote as individual congressmen/women, but as part of a state delegation. So each state gets one 1 vote.

Congress chooses the President from the top 3 candidates.

The Senate choses the Veep from the top 2 candidates.

So we could have a President who has a Veep who wasn't their running mate (nor even from their party)

1 state 1 vote? So tiny states count as strong as large states?

That's good for the GOP isn't it? I though the Democrats were disproportionately from the larger, coastal States.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Where are your convincing arguments for staying in? Where is your vision of what the UK will look like in 10 or 20 years?

Why ask me? I'm not campaigning. At the moment, in the absence of any coherent alternative, I'm intending to vote Remain, but not with any enthusiasm. As far as I can see, if we leave we either get an EEA-style deal, which doesn't change anything much in terms of the issues which most concern people, or we take a huge economic risk - and even then we might end up buying back into much of what we've just left.

Sorry I forgot you were undecided. The point is this is not a case of staying still or moving, it is a crossroads. The EU has not stood still since 1975, so what makes us think it will be 'the same' after we've effectively committed to 30 more years of membership?

Because every time the EU changed previously it was ratified by the UK.

If the UK ratifies changes again it ought to be by referendum unlike in the past.

By the Government, not the populace. Of course further changes should be ratified by a referendum, but they won't be, nor will any voting to 'Remain' encourage them to be.

The law says that future changes will be by referenda.

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

[Lots of swear words here]

Presidential Election if Michael Bloomberg runs as an independent.

• Bloomberg: 29%
• Trump: 37%
• Hillary: 33%


http://uk.businessinsider.com/frank-luntz-michael-bloomberg-president-run-poll-2016-1

To make sense of that, they'd really need to do a state-by-state electoral college prediction.

Bloomberg wins Florida, New York and California, but loses everything else.

Thanks. I think on those numbers Trump wins, but I'm not certain.

Since those numbers are entirely fictional (until someone else proves they are not but the evidence so far suggests it is fictional), without California and N.Y the democrats have nothing much left in the Electoral College, thus Trump wins.
But it's pure fan fiction at this point.

MarkHopkins said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

[Lots of swear words here]

Presidential Election if Michael Bloomberg runs as an independent.

• Bloomberg: 29%
• Trump: 37%
• Hillary: 33%


http://uk.businessinsider.com/frank-luntz-michael-bloomberg-president-run-poll-2016-1

To make sense of that, they'd really need to do a state-by-state electoral college prediction.

Bloomberg wins Florida, New York and California, but loses everything else.

That hurts Hillary a lot more than Trump.

If there is a hung election and goes to the House do the GOP reps have to vote for Trump or could they instead vote for an establishment Republican ?

Is a bit more complex than that. They don't vote as individual congressmen/women, but as part of a state delegation. So each state gets one 1 vote.

Congress chooses the President from the top 3 candidates.

The Senate choses the Veep from the top 2 candidates.

So we could have a President who has a Veep who wasn't their running mate (nor even from their party)

"So we could have a President who has a Veep who wasn't their running mate (nor even from their party) "

Has this ever happened?

Not since Lincoln who was a republican but had a democrat for VP, it proved a very bad idea after Lincoln was murdered, so no one has ever dared to do it again.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Where are your convincing arguments for staying in? Where is your vision of what the UK will look like in 10 or 20 years?

Why ask me? I'm not campaigning. At the moment, in the absence of any coherent alternative, I'm intending to vote Remain, but not with any enthusiasm. As far as I can see, if we leave we either get an EEA-style deal, which doesn't change anything much in terms of the issues which most concern people, or we take a huge economic risk - and even then we might end up buying back into much of what we've just left.

Sorry I forgot you were undecided. The point is this is not a case of staying still or moving, it is a crossroads - or more precisely a t-junction. The EU has not stood still since 1975, so what makes us think it will be 'the same' after we've effectively committed to 30 more years of membership?

If you want to see what the Eurofanatics are working towards it is well worth reading the Five Presidents Report below. British Eurofanatics are incredibly naive if they think the status quo is available to us.

http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/sites/beta-political/files/5-presidents-report_en.pdf

The report is based on A Fundamental Law of the European Union by the Spinelli Group:

http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/en/publications/publication/did/a-fundamental-law-of-the-european-union-2/

There will be a two-speed EU with the UK left as a second class member.

PbCom has really just turned into a right wing site where, in light of having no lefties standing anymore, relies on righties squabbling with each other.

I posted last night that I thought it was pretty disgusting that Cameron brought up his dead child in the debates last year to neutralise the NHS, something I have said on a number of occasions. The responses I got back was akin to murdering the child myself.

Cameron is an opportunistic politician- from his admiration to Blair, hoody hugging, migrant baiting, I think there is very little he thinks about other than himself. Which in modern standards is pretty par for the course for a politician. Quite how so many people, particularly those here, lap it up is certainly surprising.

Philip_Thompson said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Where are your convincing arguments for staying in? Where is your vision of what the UK will look like in 10 or 20 years?

Why ask me? I'm not campaigning. At the moment, in the absence of any coherent alternative, I'm intending to vote Remain, but not with any enthusiasm. As far as I can see, if we leave we either get an EEA-style deal, which doesn't change anything much in terms of the issues which most concern people, or we take a huge economic risk - and even then we might end up buying back into much of what we've just left.

Sorry I forgot you were undecided. The point is this is not a case of staying still or moving, it is a crossroads. The EU has not stood still since 1975, so what makes us think it will be 'the same' after we've effectively committed to 30 more years of membership?

Because every time the EU changed previously it was ratified by the UK.

If the UK ratifies changes again it ought to be by referendum unlike in the past.

By the Government, not the populace. Of course further changes should be ratified by a referendum, but they won't be, nor will any voting to 'Remain' encourage them to be.

The law says that future changes will be by referenda.

Depends if they're changes or just changes.

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I don't agree. I think it was proposed because he lost his backbenchers when nearly 100 of the rebelled and demanded a referendum against his wishes. He know if he didn't take decisive action the party would be torn in two like it was in the 90s so he proposed what he did for the sake of party unity as much as anything else.

UKIP were barely on the radar as far as reasons were concerned. This happened before UKIP's poll rise, years before any defections ... trying to avoid the fate of John Major rather than the risk of Nigel Farage explains the issue far more.

You are possibly the most insufferably tedious and pedantic Conservative poster on here!

(1) Your first paragraph is agreeing with me, despite saying you don't agree with me. His backbenchers rebelled first in Oct 2011 , but it was the threat of UKIP that made Cameron realise he had to act. You can read about his original "line" here:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/oct/24/david-cameron-tory-rebellion-europe

(2) Wrong. Cameron pledged a referendum in January 2013. UKIP had grown strongly throughout 2012, this was after UKIP had overtaken the LDs in the polls, were in double figures, and the Conservatives were polling awfully - in the high 20s - in December 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21148282

You just like to think you point out things no-one else has spotted, and to be right.

I'll just ignore the personal remarks, I'm not trying to be funny just saying what I think and that is that it was the rebellion that caused it.

Cameron pledged the referendum in January 2013 but as the article says that pledge was by then "long awaited". It was being briefed much sooner than that Cameron was changing course.

It may have taken just over a year between the rebellion in Oct 2011 and the announcement in January 2013 but you don't think Cameron was doing nothing at all in that year until he was spooked by UKIP do you? It's already come out that well before the announcement he'd already much earlier discussed the issue with Merkel and briefed her that he was going to call a referendum, you don't think he did that in January 2013 do you?

All sorts of things are briefed to the media all the time. Not all of them come to fruition, so you can't go back and selectively pick the ones that support your case.

For example, if Osborne goes through with the pensions hike it will be reported as "long expected". If his leaking to the media creates such a kickback from his support base that he backtracks the report will be "listens" and "u-turns". He may, or may not - probably the latter - brief out again that his course has changed. Or he may leave it as a rabbit.

Politics is a game of smoke & mirrors, as much as it is of "fact", and it responds to political pressures.