Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Don’t expect anything to come of the GOP’s establishment ef

135

Comments

  • George Osborne made a bad mistake trailing his pension changes so far in advance. It gave people time to spot what he was doing. In a Parliament with a tiny majority only a few fainthearts on the Conservative backbenches could kill the idea.

    Mr Meeks you did a lot of good on this.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    BBC Breaking

    The director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce has been temporarily suspended over his personal views on Brexit, according to the Financial Times. John Longworth told the BCC's annual conference on Thursday that the UK's long-term prospects could be "brighter" outside the EU.
    The BCC has said it will not campaign for either side before the 23 June referendum as its membership is split.

    The BCC said it had no comment

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35732291
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,471
    Jonathan said:

    Osborne looks more like Brown with every passing day.

    Beleaguered!
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Oh I do understand there's a difference.

    Gordon went for the top job by buying everyone doubles at the bar and slapping it on the credit card

    George is buyng everyone singles.

    But both of them are spending money they don't have.
    The Eurozone has been much more effective at cutting deficits than the UK:

    http://www.debtclocks.eu/public-debt-and-budget-deficits-comparison-of-the-eu-member-states.html

    Only Spain is worse than us. We are still pumping in "stimulus" into the economy years after a return to growth. For all their faults the rEU are better at managing a budget than us.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,394
    I see Osborne has pulled the pensions reforms.

    I'm far too modest to point out which pb'er predicted that.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Roger said:

    Beleaguered!
    He will be if he ever got to this point.

    http://youtu.be/9Gi7qqvRlY0
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,035
    JackW said:

    A very useful article for PBers.

    Additionally the hispanic demographic is unsurprisingly proving difficult for Trump. Romney secured 27% of their vote in 12, presently the best estimate is that Trump is managing only 15% of this increasingly important bloc that is vital in a number of swing states.
    Interesting that in the exit polls for the primaries so far only 49% of Republicans would be happy if Trump was the candidate. By comparison 63% were happy with Romney in 2012 and 77% happy with McCain in 2008.

    79% of democrats would be happy with Hilary.

    Attacks like Romney's will not affect the core-trump vote but will put of independents and floaters. Bear in mind that amidst all the Trump razzmatazz he has only polled 34% of the votes in the Republican primaries (admittedly with a large field) If he is going to win POTUS he is going to have to expand his coalition fast but I can't see which groups he is going to do it with. There are not enough "mad as hell" non-college educated white males to take him to the White House.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,255
    Moses_ said:

    BBC Breaking

    The director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce has been temporarily suspended over his personal views on Brexit, according to the Financial Times. John Longworth told the BCC's annual conference on Thursday that the UK's long-term prospects could be "brighter" outside the EU.
    The BCC has said it will not campaign for either side before the 23 June referendum as its membership is split.

    The BCC said it had no comment

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35732291

    So the Institute of Directors polls its members in 2014. A total of 4% actually respond to the poll and of those only 31% say they support staying in the EU without significant reform.

    Yet the IoD claims its membership is against Brexit and supports REMAIN. No one gets suspended

    When the BCC DG comes out for LEAVE, he is told he is not reflecting the views of his membership and is suspended.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865

    In 2010

    "Britain’s shortfall in its finances amounted to 10.4pc of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2010, according to data for each of the EU’s 27 member states from the statistics agency Eurostat.
    That meant the UK had a bigger deficit, or annual shortfall, than the recently bailed-out Portugal and also Spain, which is viewed as the next euro-using nation to potentially need international aid."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8473705/UK-has-third-biggest-budget-deficit-in-Europe.html

    Of course any attempt to bring under control Browns damage is met with the cry from the lefties of "Tory savage cuts" at every turn. Even the present LOTO just castigated Brown for his methods and busting parts of the NHS with his PFI slights of hand.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,394
    Moses_ said:

    BBC Breaking

    The director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce has been temporarily suspended over his personal views on Brexit, according to the Financial Times. John Longworth told the BCC's annual conference on Thursday that the UK's long-term prospects could be "brighter" outside the EU.
    The BCC has said it will not campaign for either side before the 23 June referendum as its membership is split.

    The BCC said it had no comment

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35732291

    That smacks of vindictiveness and bullying.

    There's a real risk that horribly backfires for Remain: i.e. you can only speak for a large business, trade association, institution or union if you hold the "right" views, or you lose your job.

    The reason they might get away with it is simply due to its lack of headline news prominence.

    If I were in Vote Leave I'd be making a big deal of this and trying to get it headline splashed across all the Sunday newspapers.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,035

    For once I agree with Roger!

    Higher rate tax relief is grossly unfair (and I receive it) the flat rate proposed is a much better idea.
    It is unfair and I find it comical that those who are most vocal in urging Osborn to cut the deficit scream like stuck pigs the moment he does anything that affects them personally!
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    OllyT said:

    It is unfair and I find it comical that those who are most vocal in urging Osborn to cut the deficit scream like stuck pigs the moment he does anything that affects them personally!
    Foxinsoxuk's dictum: fair taxes are those paid by other people :-)

    Anythough on Spurs vs the Arsenal? Looks nailed on for Spurs to me. Arsenal are pisspoor at present.
  • Yes, happening to me this year as translation is going well - you lose £1 personal allowance for every £2 income over £100K. So your marginal tax rate for 100-120 is the usual 40% plus half the 40% that you're losing, i.e. 60%. I'm philosophical about it as I don't mind paying tax, and indeed voted for the measure back in the day, but it's a bit illogical that the marginal rate goes 40-60-40-45 as you move up the scale. A flat 42-43 rate in the 100-150 range would be more logical.
    Correct.
  • Foxinsoxuk's dictum: fair taxes are those paid by other people :-)

    Anythough on Spurs vs the Arsenal? Looks nailed on for Spurs to me. Arsenal are pisspoor at present.
    By god I hope you are right!!!
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,255
    OllyT said:

    It is unfair and I find it comical that those who are most vocal in urging Osborn to cut the deficit scream like stuck pigs the moment he does anything that affects them personally!
    What he should be doing is making a radical attack on benefits and handouts to the middle classes. The State should not provide any form of benefit to anyone who is earning a decent wage (or independently wealthy). Benefits should be a safety net for those unable to look after themselves, not a bribe to those you hope are going to vote for you. Cutting Middle Class benefits would be a good start in trying to get overall levels of public spending down.

    I also support the flat rate tax system and think it should be extended far beyond what Osborne was proposing.
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800

    Foxinsoxuk's dictum: fair taxes are those paid by other people :-)

    Anythough on Spurs vs the Arsenal? Looks nailed on for Spurs to me. Arsenal are pisspoor at present.
    Cards. Lots of them.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Cards. Lots of them.
    Some straight reds would suit me nicely!
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,789

    What he should be doing is making a radical attack on benefits and handouts to the middle classes. The State should not provide any form of benefit to anyone who is earning a decent wage (or independently wealthy). Benefits should be a safety net for those unable to look after themselves, not a bribe to those you hope are going to vote for you. Cutting Middle Class benefits would be a good start in trying to get overall levels of public spending down.

    I also support the flat rate tax system and think it should be extended far beyond what Osborne was proposing.
    Yup
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454

    Correct.
    The problem here is that income tax rates + surrender of the personal allowance is only that start of it.

    Between £0 and £50,000 all sorts of benefits and entitlements are phased out. Then child benefit. And NI - different for class IV.

    Universal credit is supposed to help with some of this stuff. While I express no particular confidence in it, let's hope so.
  • LondonBobLondonBob Posts: 467
    hoveite said:

    Alsio 5% of the population of Florida is Jewish and Trump isn't going to get those votes.

    http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/u-s-election-2016/1.706970
    Again a demographic that never votes Republican regardless, much more worthwhile alienating in order to get more of the white and black vote. To say nothing of the catastrophic effect on America of military adventurism in the ME and open borders.

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/

    Demonstrates the awesome power of the non-college educated whites.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/jim-webb-no-hillary-clinton-220255

    Jim Webb, no to HRC, maybe yes to Trump. Won't be a VP for Trump but I have seen him touted.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,214

    I don't say this as a criticism of Osborne as such, just a personal observation.

    Government spending is, in my opinion, far too high. Looking at the figures over the last 30 years we should be aiming for well below 40% of GDP as the absolute maximum of spending (which we achieved in 2000) and preferably down below 35% as a norm in the long term.

    Which is fine but if you want to cut more than £100bn from annual government spending then you need to say where it's coming from because that implies some pretty big changes about what government does.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    edited March 2016
    Kansas - polling shows Trump leading by 6 points.

    To be taken with a pinch of salt re: Oklahoma, but nevertheless 2.72 (Betfair) is value.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,255

    The problem here is that income tax rates + surrender of the personal allowance is only that start of it.

    Between £0 and £50,000 all sorts of benefits and entitlements are phased out. Then child benefit. And NI - different for class IV.

    Universal credit is supposed to help with some of this stuff. While I express no particular confidence in it, let's hope so.
    Again I have to ask why anyone earning £50K a year should get any sort of benefit or entitlement?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,426

    No household debt is half that, 85% of GDP and has been falling for years: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/households-debt-to-gdp

    For some reason that FRED site is actually reporting our household debt to income ratio which is how the UK typically measures debt ratios but is not the international standard, debt to GDP is.
    Actually, the OECD agrees with me too.
    And I trust the OECD and St Louis Fed more than I trust Trading Economics.

    Here is the OECD data on household debt to GDP:
    Australia   205.5
    Sweden 173.4
    UK 156.2
    Spain 127.3
    USA 113.4
    France 104.7
    Germany 93.6
    Italy 90.1
    Austria 89.1
    We're not the worst, I agree. But we're not in that great a shape.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,107

    Do you think Nicola will have the courage of your convictions?
    I doubt it
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454

    Again I have to ask why anyone earning £50K a year should get any sort of benefit or entitlement?
    I agree Richard - we have to phase out benefits somehow. Without any regard for marginal rates, however, you can end up in a mess.
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486

    Again I have to ask why anyone earning £50K a year should get any sort of benefit or entitlement?

    It's not the £50k, it's the £30-35k that's the problem, but you need to taper it off to avoid weird skewing.

    I currently earn £30k and am the sole earner in the family - so compared to two incomes on £15k I get clobbered with tax, NI, student loan. If I get a pay rise to £40k the net impact will only be an additional £200 per month in my bank, because of the removal of tax credits.

    The more the tax system can take account of the whole household (like the marriage tax allowance), the better.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,255

    Which is fine but if you want to cut more than £100bn from annual government spending then you need to say where it's coming from because that implies some pretty big changes about what government does.
    Absolutely. But that is what we need. As I have said before I would return the benefits system to a safety net only system. Cut out all benefits for those earning a reasonable wage (which can be argued about of course) and stop using the tax and benefits system as a means of bribing certain sections of society - like the pensioners. It won't go all the way but it will certainly be a start at cutting into Government spending.

    Of course if we leave the EU we can save about 10% of your £100 billion straight away.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,823
    rcs1000 said:

    Actually, the OECD agrees with me too.
    And I trust the OECD and St Louis Fed more than I trust Trading Economics.

    Here is the OECD data on household debt to GDP:
    Australia   205.5
    Sweden 173.4
    UK 156.2
    Spain 127.3
    USA 113.4
    France 104.7
    Germany 93.6
    Italy 90.1
    Austria 89.1
    We're not the worst, I agree. But we're not in that great a shape.
    Housing bubbles. Wonderful aren't they.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,214
    DavidL said:

    You pays your money and you make your choice. It is so much easier to make a case as to why either loses than why one wins but this is a 2 horse race (whether Bloomberg throws his hat in the ring or not) and there will be a winner.
    Very true.

    I don't think that Trump guarantees a win for Hillary. She is a weak candidate and Trump is an energetic and charismatic campaigner, which she isn't. She will have a far better grasp of issues but that will reinforce an impression of her as the insider (which she is). If she's sensible, she'll aim to make that an asset but the evidence so far is the opposite; that she's somehow an outsider, which is a game she can't win.

    My guess is that Trump will probably inadvertently destroy his own chances by saying something beyond the pale, uncalled for and probably sexist towards Hillary. He doesn't seem to be able to help himself and given that it's not damaged his run to the nomination, he may well feel justified in having mouthed off at every opportunity. But the GE electorate is different from that in the primaries and there's legitimate and unfair criticism; I'm not sure he perceives the line well. Not that he should need to - there's enough to go for Hillary on that is fair game.

    As for demographics, yes, they're very bad for him but if they were truly appalling then he wouldn't be within a handful of points of Hillary on head-to-heads. That he is suggests that it's a weakness but not a fatal one. Clinton should still win but I wouldn't take it for granted.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,426
    MaxPB said:

    Housing bubbles. Wonderful aren't they.
    You're absolutely right: Sweden (housing bubble), us (housing bubble), Australia (housing bubble)... Spain (used to have a housing bubble), US (used to have a housing bubble...)
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,214
    OllyT said:

    Interesting that in the exit polls for the primaries so far only 49% of Republicans would be happy if Trump was the candidate. By comparison 63% were happy with Romney in 2012 and 77% happy with McCain in 2008.

    79% of democrats would be happy with Hilary.

    Attacks like Romney's will not affect the core-trump vote but will put of independents and floaters. Bear in mind that amidst all the Trump razzmatazz he has only polled 34% of the votes in the Republican primaries (admittedly with a large field) If he is going to win POTUS he is going to have to expand his coalition fast but I can't see which groups he is going to do it with. There are not enough "mad as hell" non-college educated white males to take him to the White House.
    They might not be happy with Trump but I can't see the Cruz and Rubio supporters jumping ship to Hillary.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,107
    Scott_P said:

    Oh dear, Malky, are you not even allowed to look at a cartoon featuring the prophet Nicola now?

    Remember, it's not a cult...
    You must have been there yesterday and its addled what brain cells were remaining. Is there anything about Scotland you don't hate , what drives you to denigrate Scotland 24x7, what could have caused such hatred.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,214

    Correct.
    Three different rates, at 40 / 42 / 45 is just silly. You'd be better having the 45% rate kick in at a lower threshold.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,107

    Absolutely. But that is what we need. As I have said before I would return the benefits system to a safety net only system. Cut out all benefits for those earning a reasonable wage (which can be argued about of course) and stop using the tax and benefits system as a means of bribing certain sections of society - like the pensioners. It won't go all the way but it will certainly be a start at cutting into Government spending.

    Of course if we leave the EU we can save about 10% of your £100 billion straight away.
    I agree 100%
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420

    Yes, happening to me this year as translation is going well - you lose £1 personal allowance for every £2 income over £100K. So your marginal tax rate for 100-120 is the usual 40% plus half the 40% that you're losing, i.e. 60%. I'm philosophical about it as I don't mind paying tax, and indeed voted for the measure back in the day, but it's a bit illogical that the marginal rate goes 40-60-40-45 as you move up the scale. A flat 42-43 rate in the 100-150 range would be more logical.
    Feck!:

    I agree with Sven....

    :dizzy:
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,214

    Absolutely. But that is what we need. As I have said before I would return the benefits system to a safety net only system. Cut out all benefits for those earning a reasonable wage (which can be argued about of course) and stop using the tax and benefits system as a means of bribing certain sections of society - like the pensioners. It won't go all the way but it will certainly be a start at cutting into Government spending.

    Of course if we leave the EU we can save about 10% of your £100 billion straight away.
    As a campaigning point, that's a fair start. I'll give you a cut in international development aid as another easy win but even so, as you accept, that wouldn't go all the way but would kick up the mother of all protests.

    It might be deliverable in an economic crisis when there's an acceptance that cuts need to be made but I don't think any parliament in the near future would go near accepting that scale of reductions.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,426

    Absolutely. But that is what we need. As I have said before I would return the benefits system to a safety net only system. Cut out all benefits for those earning a reasonable wage (which can be argued about of course) and stop using the tax and benefits system as a means of bribing certain sections of society - like the pensioners. It won't go all the way but it will certainly be a start at cutting into Government spending.

    Of course if we leave the EU we can save about 10% of your £100 billion straight away.
    At least 10%. I wish people would stop using the net number.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,035

    They might not be happy with Trump but I can't see the Cruz and Rubio supporters jumping ship to Hillary.
    Possibly not many though some, particularly, neocons like Robert Kagan who think Trump's Foreign Policy is insane, have said they will vote for Clinton. The point is a lot will simply not vote at all. Although the other candidates said through gritted teeth they would support a Trump candidacy I would expect them to sit on their hands. It will be enough to see Hilary home comfortably.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,426
    I don't see what's wrong with my Project 6%: the goal being to get government spending as a percentage of GDP back to where it was before WW1.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,255

    As a campaigning point, that's a fair start. I'll give you a cut in international development aid as another easy win but even so, as you accept, that wouldn't go all the way but would kick up the mother of all protests.

    It might be deliverable in an economic crisis when there's an acceptance that cuts need to be made but I don't think any parliament in the near future would go near accepting that scale of reductions.
    As with so many other of my views, I have never pretended they were going to be popular at least in the short term or that any party was likely to pick them up. But it doesn't change the fact that we are living on both borrowed money and borrowed time and the sorts of suggestions I am making are going to have to come at some point anyway. If we wait then the change will be far more disruptive and dangerous than if we gradually move towards the position in advance
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,487
    Freedom of the press working well in Turkey:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35730041
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    rcs1000 said:

    At least 10%. I wish people would stop using the net number.
    Well, if you want it gross then you should deduct what EU spending we would replicate. That's fair enough of course; there will be areas we won't match.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,520

    Very true.

    I don't think that Trump guarantees a win for Hillary. She is a weak candidate and Trump is an energetic and charismatic campaigner, which she isn't. She will have a far better grasp of issues but that will reinforce an impression of her as the insider (which she is). If she's sensible, she'll aim to make that an asset but the evidence so far is the opposite; that she's somehow an outsider, which is a game she can't win.

    My guess is that Trump will probably inadvertently destroy his own chances by saying something beyond the pale, uncalled for and probably sexist towards Hillary. He doesn't seem to be able to help himself and given that it's not damaged his run to the nomination, he may well feel justified in having mouthed off at every opportunity. But the GE electorate is different from that in the primaries and there's legitimate and unfair criticism; I'm not sure he perceives the line well. Not that he should need to - there's enough to go for Hillary on that is fair game.

    As for demographics, yes, they're very bad for him but if they were truly appalling then he wouldn't be within a handful of points of Hillary on head-to-heads. That he is suggests that it's a weakness but not a fatal one. Clinton should still win but I wouldn't take it for granted.
    In practice, I think both candidates have a high floor (45% or so) and a low ceiling (52% or so). Of course a 52/45 win can produce a landslide in the Electoral College, but it's not much in percentage terms.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,426

    Well, if you want it gross then you should deduct what EU spending we would replicate. That's fair enough of course; there will be areas we won't match.
    And we also need to include our "access charge" too, if you want to be strictly accurate.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    Sean_F said:

    In practice, I think both candidates have a high floor (45% or so) and a low ceiling (52% or so). Of course a 52/45 win can produce a landslide in the Electoral College, but it's not much in percentage terms.
    Normally poll-lead size is correlated strongly with probability of victory, such that 52/48 implies no better than a 60/40 chance of winning. However that might not be true here; Trump will struggle to find the extra few percent.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,520
    rcs1000 said:

    At least 10%. I wish people would stop using the net number.
    The gross number is more accurate, as we do not control how the money that gets returned to us is spent.
  • rcs1000 said:

    I don't see what's wrong with my Project 6%: the goal being to get government spending as a percentage of GDP back to where it was before WW1.

    Explain to yourself how government spending rose above 6% and then you'll know, won't you?

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,255
    rcs1000 said:

    At least 10%. I wish people would stop using the net number.
    I use the net number as it is the easiest way to counter the argument that we would need to replace much of the net/gross difference with our own spending, at least in the short term.

    So the net figure is the actual extra money we would have available if we still continued to support directly those areas paid for currently by the EU.

    But I agree with you basic point. And also agree with the 6% aim. But you have to accept that it is never going to be politically acceptable.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,426

    Explain to yourself how government spending rose above 6% and then you'll know, won't you?

    We designed a tax and benefit system with the express goal of discouraging economic activity.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Maomentum
    Crib sheet for #labourdoorstep this morning:

    1. Trident

    2. Falklands

    3. Prostitutes

    Let's go win an election!
  • rcs1000 said:

    We designed a tax and benefit system with the express goal of discouraging economic activity.
    Who expressed that goal? Please cite evidence...

  • I am very perplexed at the moment as I am genuinely undecided and can see advantages on both sides. However, the ‘project fear’ and instant dismissal of the issues by leave is creating a climate of distrust among the voters, and frustration, as I am convinced most voters, like myself, want to come to a considered fact based decision on this very important matter. I believe a truce should be called by both sides until April when one of the leave’s campaigns is confirmed as the official one and real fact based debates can begin with Boris, Gove, IDS, Kate Hoey, and campaigners from both sides answering, under intense scrutiny, the many questions voters are genuinely seeking answers to. I do have worries over a lot of the print media who are so biased for leave that most if not all their articles are so prejudiced they lack authenticity. This really frustrates and may turn out to be counter productive as I am sure that many readers want a sensible balanced view.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    OllyT said:

    It is unfair and I find it comical that those who are most vocal in urging Osborn to cut the deficit scream like stuck pigs the moment he does anything that affects them personally!
    Correct.
    But equally we have the usual attacks on the most helpless the ones in receipt of the state pension and not ever having the luxury of paying the higher rate of tax. The lifetime allowance for pensions has been regularly cut. So pensioners are not being given much.
    I think income tax rates are too high BTW and as a pensioner would not benefit particularly if they were cut. If the costs of the pension allowance was cut for higher rate earners then money might be available to cut the basic rates.
    The people the govt need to encourage to save are not the higher rate earners but the average normal people. The 25% flat rate would do that. But we see numpty Tory backbenchers egged on by EU hating and therefore Osborne bashing press pushing the other way.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,520

    I am very perplexed at the moment as I am genuinely undecided and can see advantages on both sides. However, the ‘project fear’ and instant dismissal of the issues by leave is creating a climate of distrust among the voters, and frustration, as I am convinced most voters, like myself, want to come to a considered fact based decision on this very important matter. I believe a truce should be called by both sides until April when one of the leave’s campaigns is confirmed as the official one and real fact based debates can begin with Boris, Gove, IDS, Kate Hoey, and campaigners from both sides answering, under intense scrutiny, the many questions voters are genuinely seeking answers to. I do have worries over a lot of the print media who are so biased for leave that most if not all their articles are so prejudiced they lack authenticity. This really frustrates and may turn out to be counter productive as I am sure that many readers want a sensible balanced view.

    I think it's very rare to see a "fact-based" political campaign. It's always going to be about mud-slinging and scare stories.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    We've three months to go, hopefully by then - things will be clearer for the undecideds.

    I've been very surprised at the kitchen sinks thrown so early on.

    I am very perplexed at the moment as I am genuinely undecided and can see advantages on both sides. However, the ‘project fear’ and instant dismissal of the issues by leave is creating a climate of distrust among the voters, and frustration, as I am convinced most voters, like myself, want to come to a considered fact based decision on this very important matter. I believe a truce should be called by both sides until April when one of the leave’s campaigns is confirmed as the official one and real fact based debates can begin with Boris, Gove, IDS, Kate Hoey, and campaigners from both sides answering, under intense scrutiny, the many questions voters are genuinely seeking answers to. I do have worries over a lot of the print media who are so biased for leave that most if not all their articles are so prejudiced they lack authenticity. This really frustrates and may turn out to be counter productive as I am sure that many readers want a sensible balanced view.

  • Three different rates, at 40 / 42 / 45 is just silly. You'd be better having the 45% rate kick in at a lower threshold.
    Possibly so but either is better than the current 62% distortion of Darlings.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,017
    rcs1000 said:

    We designed a tax and benefit system with the express goal of discouraging economic activity.

    It's far less generous than it was. I got my mortgage paid when unemployed and was not forced into taking the first job available. That gave me time to find the right job, which - in turn - has helped to create more jobs and lots of tax money for the treasury. Today, none of that would be possible.

  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651

    Three different rates, at 40 / 42 / 45 is just silly. You'd be better having the 45% rate kick in at a lower threshold.
    If you ever make a run for parliament, I'll put you down for the "Tories for taxing the rich" party ;-)

    But, yep. Far more sensible.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,730
    Lots of rich Republicans will cross over to Hillary compared to when Romney/McCain were in the field
    Not many poor Democrats will cross over to Trump compared to when Obama was running
    Thus I see Hillary upside and am reluctant to bet on Trump beyond the convention
  • its only 3 points
    its only 3 points

    I'm not going to survive these next few hours... COYS!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,017

    its only 3 points
    its only 3 points

    I'm not going to survive these next few hours... COYS!

    There is no way on God's earth that Arsenal will lose four games in a row. The best Spurs can hope for is a draw. More likely, though, is a defeat. I have a horrible feeling it could be a mauling.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,859
    OllyT said:

    Possibly not many though some, particularly, neocons like Robert Kagan who think Trump's Foreign Policy is insane, have said they will vote for Clinton.
    Trump's opponents on both the left and right think he's insane for completely the wrong reasons. Whether this will prove an asset to him in the long term is unclear but it does mean they're likely to be aiming at the wrong targets in fighting him.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,017
    edited March 2016
    Putting the final result (Arsenal win) to one side, I see two things happening at WHL today:
    1. Arsenal will score inside the last five minutes of the game.
    2. Harry Kane will miss a penalty.
    I have been a Spurs fan for long enough to know we just don't do well in games like this. Changes of guard, new dawns etc - not a chance. It's not the Tottenham way.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,214
    EPG said:

    Lots of rich Republicans will cross over to Hillary compared to when Romney/McCain were in the field
    Not many poor Democrats will cross over to Trump compared to when Obama was running
    Thus I see Hillary upside and am reluctant to bet on Trump beyond the convention

    Quite a lot of poor Democrats won't vote for Hillary either. The key question may not be swing voters so much as GOTV.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,214

    Possibly so but either is better than the current 62% distortion of Darlings.
    I agree. That was introduced for political rather than fiscal reasons and is a complexity and an unfairness that could easily be done without. That Osborne hasn't done without it says something.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited March 2016

    Putting the final result (Arsenal win) to one side, I see two things happening at WHL today:
    1. Arsenal will score inside the last five minutes of the game.
    2. Harry Kane will miss a penalty.
    I have been a Spurs fan for long enough to know we just don't do well in games like this. Changes of guard, new dawns etc - not a chance. It's not the Tottenham way.

    Pessimist. Spurs fans cannot back themselves to win after 55 years ! They will win the Prem this year.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,017
    surbiton said:

    Pessimist. Spurs fans cannot back themselves to win after 55 years ! They will win the Prem this year.

    Nope - that will not happen. I also think we may struggle to make the Top 4. Man Utd are starting to look very ominous. And after this weekend they'll be within striking distance, with a game at WHL still to come.

    Sadly, the season is going to catch up with Tottenham legs. They are knackered. Too many players have had to play too many games because of lack of back-up. Kane is out on his feet.

  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903

    If you ever make a run for parliament, I'll put you down for the "Tories for taxing the rich" party ;-)

    But, yep. Far more sensible.
    I am in favour of significantly lower income taxes for everyone which would make various allowances more pointless. However this would come with a cost to the exchequer which would have to be recovered some how. Less avoidance ? Fewer allowances? Withdrawal of in work benefits? General boost to the economy?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,214
    surbiton said:

    Pessimist. Spurs fans cannot back themselves to win after 55 years ! They will win the Prem this year.
    Their track record would suggest they won't. But then Leicester haven't finished in the top two for 87 years.
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    surbiton said:

    Pessimist. Spurs fans cannot back themselves to win after 55 years ! They will win the Prem this year.
    Agree, it's hilarious watching them fall over themselves in self defeat.

    Arsenal without Cech today, I've seen cream turn quicker than Mertesacker, just keep their forwards relatively quiet and your home.

    And by the way, a draw wouldn't be a bad result either.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,572

    Quite a lot of poor Democrats won't vote for Hillary either. The key question may not be swing voters so much as GOTV.
    Bernie Sanders and Trump have both been claiming they can win by appealing to non-voters. But as was pointed out to Corbyn's admirers on these threads a few months ago, the problem is that non-voters don't vote. Indeed, it's more or less a requirement to be called a non-voter.

    The difference is that Trump is set to be the candidate and Sanders is not. He will get support from those who then fail to vote. But that's not where or how elections are won. Accepting what you say upthread about Clinton's mistakes and weaknesses, this alone should make her favourite.

    She should therefore hope the FBI get a move on. It would not look good if she entered the election as the first president since 1972* to be under criminal investigation during the campaign, particularly given the Clintons' public image. That's surely where her greatest danger lies.

    *I don't think Iran-Contra was being investigated in 1984, although I could be wrong.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,580

    Quite a lot of poor Democrats won't vote for Hillary either. The key question may not be swing voters so much as GOTV.
    Much will depend on where these voters are though; Hilary could pile up big votes in “liberal” areas and it wouldn’t make a difference. The popular vote can be lost and the Presidency won. Hasn’t happened often, but it has.
    Will Trump bring out some (many?) of the 45% who didn’t vote last time?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,235
    Who should be the better favourite at this point:

    Donald GOP Nom

    Clinton POTUS

    Odds are almost identical.
  • Putting the final result (Arsenal win) to one side, I see two things happening at WHL today:
    1. Arsenal will score inside the last five minutes of the game.
    2. Harry Kane will miss a penalty.
    I have been a Spurs fan for long enough to know we just don't do well in games like this. Changes of guard, new dawns etc - not a chance. It's not the Tottenham way.

    but this time it's different.

    it never is.

    i've sold harry kane as point 2 is inevitable... but also cos my action of selling him might mean my 'powers' do the old double bluff, it's that hope which kills me!
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    rcs1000 said:

    Actually, the OECD agrees with me too.
    And I trust the OECD and St Louis Fed more than I trust Trading Economics.

    Here is the OECD data on household debt to GDP:
    Australia   205.5
    Sweden 173.4
    UK 156.2
    Spain 127.3
    USA 113.4
    France 104.7
    Germany 93.6
    Italy 90.1
    Austria 89.1
    We're not the worst, I agree. But we're not in that great a shape.

    It is important to know whether the debt/GDP ratio is using gross debt or net debt. Having a £100,000 mortgage but no equity in the house is very different from a £100,000 mortgage on a £300,000 house with £200,000 of equity.

    In the UK more people have equity in their house than they do in Germany where more people rent and so don't accumulate wealth in property to use as security for borrowing.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,235
    Trump is getting new voters though, 20,000 Dems switching party in MA. Look at the VA turnout too !

    Turnout up all across the board.

    Sanders is basically getting Hillary's 2008 vote + some young people.

    Hillary's margins amongst black voters are so enormous though her lead is far better than it looks.

    She'll run up a tremendous victory in LA today, which will overwhelm what I expect to be Bernie victories in the other two states and will gain another +20 voters I think.
  • Nope - that will not happen. I also think we may struggle to make the Top 4. Man Utd are starting to look very ominous. And after this weekend they'll be within striking distance, with a game at WHL still to come.

    Sadly, the season is going to catch up with Tottenham legs. They are knackered. Too many players have had to play too many games because of lack of back-up. Kane is out on his feet.

    happens every year...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,572
    Pulpstar said:

    Who should be the better favourite at this point:

    Donald GOP Nom

    Clinton POTUS

    Odds are almost identical.

    It is not certain Clinton can beat Trump, although it is likely.

    It is almost inconceivable the GOP can find a challenger to Trump now. Under the rules, the only possible challenger at the moment is Cruz and he's an even worse candidate.

    Therefore the first is better value at identical odds.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,859

    It is important to know whether the debt/GDP ratio is using gross debt or net debt. Having a £100,000 mortgage but no equity in the house is very different from a £100,000 mortgage on a £300,000 house with £200,000 of equity.

    In the UK more people have equity in their house than they do in Germany where more people rent and so don't accumulate wealth in property to use as security for borrowing.

    Yes but as Mervyn King once said, house prices are an opinion but debt is real. The equity in people's houses is linked to what other people are able and willing to pay, which in aggregate is a function of the availability of more debt.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    malcolmg said:

    what drives you to denigrate Scotland 24x7

    FFS Malc, it's a cartoon featuring the words Nicola and Sturgeon

    In what non-Zoomer Universe is that "denigrating Scotland" ?

    I guess Matt will "rue the day", eh?
  • SO, also

    3. Lamela gets sent off.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @alexmassie: Map Truthers for Freedom! The latest anti-Scottish BBC plot is revealed. https://t.co/dg3dTK8poT
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited March 2016
    but even as matters stand 7 percent of the SNP’s Westminster group belong in the Map Truther camp. There are probably more of them out there than that.

    Now you may think this reflects a certain lack of perspective. Even, also, an unawareness that perspective even exists. The curvature of the earth may also remain a mystery to flat-earth nationalists.
    Scott_P said:

    @alexmassie: Map Truthers for Freedom! The latest anti-Scottish BBC plot is revealed. https://t.co/dg3dTK8poT

  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800

    happens every year...
    Oh please give it up...

    Utd are at West Brom today, a game they won't win. Spurs two games after today are at Villa and home to Bournemouth, Utd are at City that day, you will be well clear of 5th spot by then.

    Only real problem is away at my lot, where for reasons I've never understood you struggle to even get a corner.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    The curvature of the earth may also remain a mystery to flat-earth nationalists.

    Why do the BBC insist on denigrating Scotland 24/7 by using images from a satellite positioned over the Equator?
  • I agree. The persistance of the deficit despite the stage we are in the economic cycle does mean that we need tax rises. Stealth taxes that further damage pension planning are not wise. A simple and honest uptick in income tax is the fairest way.
    GO has clearly lost it ...... first his forced abandonment of scrapping tax credits last year, then his having to give up on the withdrawal of pension tax breaks for the middle classes .... it's high time he was replaced, but will Dave dare take such action against his best mate?
    It's rather beginning to look as if Mike Smithson's recent 10/1 tip on Osborne leaving the Treasury this year may prove to be the bet of the year so far (leaving aside Roger's outrageous suggestion of Ex Machina winning an Oscar at odds of up to 80/1).
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,214
    ydoethur said:

    Bernie Sanders and Trump have both been claiming they can win by appealing to non-voters. But as was pointed out to Corbyn's admirers on these threads a few months ago, the problem is that non-voters don't vote. Indeed, it's more or less a requirement to be called a non-voter.

    The difference is that Trump is set to be the candidate and Sanders is not. He will get support from those who then fail to vote. But that's not where or how elections are won. Accepting what you say upthread about Clinton's mistakes and weaknesses, this alone should make her favourite.

    She should therefore hope the FBI get a move on. It would not look good if she entered the election as the first president since 1972* to be under criminal investigation during the campaign, particularly given the Clintons' public image. That's surely where her greatest danger lies.

    *I don't think Iran-Contra was being investigated in 1984, although I could be wrong.
    We should remember though that Obama *did* bring out a lot of former non-voters in the form of poor blacks. His effect will to a large extent drop out this time so Hillary needs to either keep them engaged, replace them or accept that all else being equal, she starts off close to level. (That said, she does have strong support from the black community but I've not seen whether that extends to the 'new' black voters Obama reached out to).
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Hmm, wonder what he has planned

    Rupert Murdoch
    UK Brexit campaign gathers force as government makes obviously false claims aimed at scaring voters. Early days yet.
  • Quite a lot of poor Democrats won't vote for Hillary either. The key question may not be swing voters so much as GOTV.
    Trump as GOP candidate will be a massive boost to Democrats' GOTV.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,113
    Mitt Romney's top strategist in 2012, Stuart Stevens, says Hillary Clinton would be a better president than Donald Trump.

    "Personally, I think Hillary Clinton would be a better president than Donald Trump because I think that Donald Trump is a dangerous person and is someone who would embarrass America," Stuart Stevens, who advised 2012 nominee Mitt Romney, said Tuesday on Bloomberg's "With All Due Respect."

    "I have no desire to see Hillary Clinton as president of the United States," he added. "But if this is the choice -- I will not give her my vote, but I can't support Donald Trump."
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitt-romney-stuart-stevens-hillary-clinton-donald-trump_us_56d63a3be4b0871f60ed2a8f
  • rogerhrogerh Posts: 282
    Is ridicule a powerful weapon.?
    Nicknaming him as Donald trumpet might have some mileage.
    Describing him as elephant trump might be damaging elephants after all do trump and cause a lot of damage.
    I'm reminded of the song Nellie the elephant some words from the song ." Nellie the elephnat phant packed her trunk and said goodbye to the circus.And of course we have elephants on parade from the jungle book with Donald as the colonel elephant.
    The other line of attack is exposing any financial scandals in his business dealings.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,789

    Hmm, wonder what he has planned

    Rupert Murdoch
    UK Brexit campaign gathers force as government makes obviously false claims aimed at scaring voters. Early days yet.

    Oh I can't get excited. people always overstate what "Murdoch" will do and he always sabre rattles and then disappoints.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,235
    edited March 2016

    Trump as GOP candidate will be a massive boost to Democrats' GOTV.

    It really wouldn't.

    All the Trump vs Clinton polls are like 42-38.

    Turnout will be awful.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Scott_P said:

    @alexmassie: Map Truthers for Freedom! The latest anti-Scottish BBC plot is revealed. https://t.co/dg3dTK8poT

    GERS figures in 4 days......dead cat watch.......
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,113
    LondonBob said:

    Seems it has with those rallying round Trump. Romney got a pathetic share of the historically low turnout of the white vote in 2012. Continuing to run with pro Iraq War and pro amnesty candidates is a recipe for disaster, Trump gives them a chance before immigration turns America into California, a no hope for the GOP. A long way off though as Hispanics remain less than 10% of the vote with it mostly concentrated in states that don't swing, Texas and California. Florida is Trump's second home state and is in the bag already.
    Romney won 60% of the white vote in 2012, the highest share since 1988 of any GOP candidate but it was his low share of the Hispanic and Black vote which killed him
  • Initially I though - crazy bet - then I thought this is a once every two years scoreline so perhaps 125/1 ain't such bad value after all!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,572
    edited March 2016
    rogerh said:

    Is ridicule a powerful weapon.?
    Nicknaming him as Donald trumpet might have some mileage.
    Describing him as elephant trump might be damaging elephants after all do trump and cause a lot of damage.
    I'm reminded of the song Nellie the elephant some words from the song ." Nellie the elephnat phant packed her trunk and said goodbye to the circus.And of course we have elephants on parade from the jungle book with Donald as the colonel elephant.
    The other line of attack is exposing any financial scandals in his business dealings.

    You can't ridicule Donald Trump. You might think you have an angle. But then he goes and says or does something even more ridiculous. And his folks just laugh along with him.

    I'm beginning to think it's only the old adage of being found in bed with a live boy/dead girl that stands a chance of making large numbers of people go Eeeeeeeuuuw at Donald.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    I thought I'd seen this somewhere before:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4556025.stm

    The BBC's new weather map has caused a political storm with the Scottish National Party claiming it gives a "distorted" view of Scotland.
    New 3-D television weather forecast graphics began on Monday but the SNP MP for the Western Isles, Angus MacNeil, called for the BBC to think again.


    From 2005.........
This discussion has been closed.