politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The issue that looks set to decide GE2015 – the size of the

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The issue that looks set to decide GE2015 – the size of the UKIP vote

With the vast bulk of the 2010 LDs who switched to LAB in the first year of the coalition sticking with their new allegiance the big decider at GE2015 looks set to be how UKIP perform in the key battlegrounds.

Read the full story here

NickPalmer

It's clearly correct that a low UKIP score increases the chance of the Tories at least forcing another hung parliament. Is there an arb? Betting on a Labour majority and a low UKIP score should cover all the likely outcomes.

Quincel

There's got to more than a 20% chance that UKIP win the 2014 Euros, get some momentum and hold on to more than 10% of the vote, right? Feels like value to me.

Bobajob

To the plug-eared PB Tories who continue to deny that middle income families with dad (or mum) on £50-£60k aren't paying 50-75% marginal rates because "the loss of a benefit isn't a tax" - for the nth time: do your bloody homework before making a fool of yourself on here. The government has imposed a new Child Benefit Tax Charge on that demographic - even HMRC admits it's a tax--- and one that forces us into the SA system to boot. The policy is an absolute dog, from an absolute tool in the shape of Ozzy.

MikeSmithson

@Tim

The sample size in the Ashcroft marginals phone poll was 12,809 not 20,000.

So 12,801 larger than the 8 person online focus group that the Times devoted two full pages to.

JohnO

How to ruin tim's day.

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/business-confidence-rises-highest-level-000120585.html

Bobajob

@Tim

We have stopped using focus groups at work as you get a groupthink effect - one or two dominant players influence the others - We find empirical surveys are a much better guide.

MikeSmithson

Love this

Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 1m
Joke in Westminster is this is a minorities reshuffle: "ethnic Tory MPs, women Tory MPs, northern Tory MPs...and fans of George Osborne"

Pulpstar

NickPalmer said:

It's clearly correct that a low UKIP score increases the chance of the Tories at least forcing another hung parliament. Is there an arb? Betting on a Labour majority and a low UKIP score should cover all the likely outcomes.

Not a true arb, or even a 'near arb' I would say. The Lib Dems may still recover...

Laying the Lib Dems in the Euros however...

Charles

FPT @surbiton

re: giving away the Royal Mail for free: yes, there is a philosophical argument for that. But if you are going down that route then you should give shares to everyone in equal proportion which means, in practice, people will end up with £50 each (£3bn / 60m). Impractical, and the risk is that as in the Czech Republic and elsewhere you will get unscruplous people who buy on the cheap from people who don't know better. So it is better to charge close to fair value in the end.

re: German energy: I've been spending a lot of time in Germany recently & had a bunch of conversations about renewables. Basically they are all bought into wind power (Germany can be very windy and has lots of remote space), are very sceptical about solar energy and depressed by Merkel's decision on nuclear but understand the politics.

Charles

Bobajob said:

To the plug-eared PB Tories who continue to deny that middle income families with dad (or mum) on £50-£60k aren't paying 50-75% marginal rates because "the loss of a benefit isn't a tax" - for the nth time: do your bloody homework before making a fool of yourself on here. The government has imposed a new Child Benefit Tax Charge on that demographic - even HMRC admits it's a tax--- and one that forces us into the SA system to boot. The policy is an absolute dog, from an absolute tool in the shape of Ozzy.

You are looking at form over substance.

It sucks for people in the zone you are in, and perhaps there is a better way it could have been structured.

But the fundamental point is that someone of £50K+ shouldn't be getting money from the taxes of poorer people

surbiton

I had previously said 6%. Now, I am thinking 7%, maybe 8% ?

Polruan

Bobajob said:

To the plug-eared PB Tories who continue to deny that middle income families with dad (or mum) on £50-£60k aren't paying 50-75% marginal rates because "the loss of a benefit isn't a tax" - for the nth time: do your bloody homework before making a fool of yourself on here. The government has imposed a new Child Benefit Tax Charge on that demographic - even HMRC admits it's a tax--- and one that forces us into the SA system to boot. The policy is an absolute dog, from an absolute tool in the shape of Ozzy.

Funny, I'd assumed that they would have made every effort to avoid describing it as a tax (calling it something like "Higher Earners' Benefit Clawback" say, albeit collected through self-assessment) but they seem to have given up on that. From the HMRC website:

"You may be liable to this new tax charge if you, or your partner, have an individual income of more than £50,000 and one of you gets Child Benefit or contributions towards the upkeep of a child. "

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/childbenefitcharge/

Careless.

JohnO

MikeSmithson said:

Love this

Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 1m
Joke in Westminster is this is a minorities reshuffle: "ethnic Tory MPs, women Tory MPs, northern Tory MPs...and fans of George Osborne"

The true One Nation party. Always was, always is, and always will be. Ignore imitations.

edmundintokyo

Quincel said:

There's got to more than a 20% chance that UKIP win the 2014 Euros, get some momentum and hold on to more than 10% of the vote, right? Feels like value to me.

That might be value if the bet was as you phrased it, but if they get that much momentum then they could keep going into one of the higher brackets.

I think I'd prefer Lab maj to those highish UKIP scores, as a strong UKIP performance would probably be sufficient for that, and isn't necessarily necessary.

Bobajob

tim said:

Bobajob said:

To the plug-eared PB Tories who continue to deny that middle income families with dad (or mum) on £50-£60k aren't paying 50-75% marginal rates because "the loss of a benefit isn't a tax" - for the nth time: do your bloody homework before making a fool of yourself on here. The government has imposed a new Child Benefit Tax Charge on that demographic - even HMRC admits it's a tax--- and one that forces us into the SA system to boot. The policy is an absolute dog, from an absolute tool in the shape of Ozzy.

And don't forget they were never meant to happen, they were meant to be a Grand Gesture to prove the genius of Omnishambles Osborne

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/wintour-and-watt/2012/mar/05/georgeosborne-davidcameron

Cameron laughed when he heard about it- even Mrs Thatcher steered clear because she knew it would create a whopping disincentive to work harder. As the IoD said yesterday. But never fear, the PB Tories think it's a good policy...

Morris_Dancer

It's more than just the size, though. UKIP has a large Old Tory feel to it, but also substantial support from WWC sorts who would otherwise vote Labour. It's not just the I Can't Believe It's Not The Conservatives! Party.

It also depends how UKIP decides to cock-up its General Election strategy this year. They could stand a chance in a few seats if they focused heavily on them, but I suspect they'll instead opt for 5% or so nationwide, preventing the party offering a referendum from gaining office and ensuring the more EU-phile parties get in.

edmundintokyo

Charles said:

FPT @surbiton

re: giving away the Royal Mail for free: yes, there is a philosophical argument for that. But if you are going down that route then you should give shares to everyone in equal proportion which means, in practice, people will end up with £50 each (£3bn / 60m). Impractical, and the risk is that as in the Czech Republic and elsewhere you will get unscruplous people who buy on the cheap from people who don't know better. So it is better to charge close to fair value in the end.

I don't think there is a philosophical argument for that - or rather there is, but it's a stupid one. No need to think too hard about this - the government should just sell the shares on the open market at the best price they can get for them. Anything else they may do is dumb policy, and they're doing it because it's good politics to buy off some favoured constituency.

But if you insisted on giving the voters shares directly and those small amounts were too expensive to administer, the way to do it would be to give them away in a lottery, so everybody had a 10% chance of getting £500 or a 1% chance of getting £5000.

JohnO

Wonder what today's Populus holds? All good clean fun as we await the employment stats on the 16th and 3Q GDP on the 25th.

TGOHF

5-10% looks the best bet.

Ukip will be another victim of the fptp system - the thought of Miliband as PM is just too scary.

Polruan

Charles said:

But the fundamental point is that someone of £50K+ shouldn't be getting money from the taxes of poorer people

If you have a true progressive tax system, the most valid way of looking at who receives money from whose taxes is to say that everyone only gets money from the taxes of richer people (looking at income cohorts at a whole and assuming that the consumption of public services declines as people become richer - in broad brush terms that's reasonable) - admittedly this is in the context of the idea of "who pays for who" is complete gibberish anyway, because to the extent that anyone is a net recipient from the state, it's obvious that their taxes are paying part of their "own" cost and none of anybody else's.

However, this argument is most prone to breaking down when you have super-high marginal rates due to complexities in the system, which create regressive elements. In this situation, there's just about a valid argument that those in supertax thresholds (£50-60k, £100-118k and possibly some around the withdrawal of unemployment benefit thresholds) are giving tax to richer people, who in some cases have a lower effective tax rate than those within the supertax thresholds. Again, emphasising that this doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but is the most sensible way of analysing the concept you're raising, that means that by removing CB in this way, Osborne actually increases the degree to which someone on £50k+ is giving tax money to someone on £60k+.

Gerry_Mander

MikeSmithson said:

Love this

Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 1m
Joke in Westminster is this is a minorities reshuffle: "ethnic Tory MPs, women Tory MPs, northern Tory MPs...and fans of George Osborne"

Ethnic Tory MPs as a minority? Remind me, how many do the LDs have?

TGOHF

When will GO cut this evil mortgage tax ?

Robert Peston ‏@Peston 18m

That 0.9% Treasury fee implies government could generate revenues of just under £12bn a year from Help to Buy http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24427274 …

JohnO

TGOHF said:

5-10% looks the best bet.

Ukip will be another victim of the fptp system - the thought of Miliband as PM is just too scary.

Make that under 9% and the pbTories (Hibernian branch) can imbibe more cocktails courtesy of Isam (we'll let tim off on this occasion).

Charles

tim said:

@Charles

But the fundamental point is that someone of £50K+ shouldn't be getting money from the taxes of poorer people

The nanny tax break will apply to couples up to £300k and George Osbornes dad will get a winter fuel allowance.Dave's mum gets a bus pass, Douglas Hurd gets a free tv licence, so lets not try and claim its a principle.
This policy is a cock up from start to finish, a piece of political theatre from the man who cost the tories an election last time and wrecked their polling with his Omnishambles.

There's no debate to be had that putting 70% marginal rates in this £50-60k range is insane.

I don't speak for the party, I just express my own views.

Childcare is far too expensive in this country, and that needs to be fixed. But the LibDems wouldn't allow changes.

Bus passes and WFA were Brownies. Silly and should be phased out, but given Labour's scaremongering in last election Cameron was forced into making a promise. And he is a man of his word.

TV licence - I am not a fan either. There is clearly a role for some public service TV funding, but not for the monolith that is the BBC, backed up by criminal action. If they want to behave like a commercial organisation, why should that be backed up by compulsary extraction of money

Now try addressing the fundamental point: why should someone like me be subsidied by people who earn a whole lot less than I do?

anothernick

If only the Tories had supported AV they would have a good chance of gaining a majority on UKIP's second preferences. With FPTP they're stuffed.

Charles

edmundintokyo said:

Charles said:

FPT @surbiton

re: giving away the Royal Mail for free: yes, there is a philosophical argument for that. But if you are going down that route then you should give shares to everyone in equal proportion which means, in practice, people will end up with £50 each (£3bn / 60m). Impractical, and the risk is that as in the Czech Republic and elsewhere you will get unscruplous people who buy on the cheap from people who don't know better. So it is better to charge close to fair value in the end.

I don't think there is a philosophical argument for that - or rather there is, but it's a stupid one. No need to think too hard about this - the government should just sell the shares on the open market at the best price they can get for them. Anything else they may do is dumb policy, and they're doing it because it's good politics to buy off some favoured constituency.

But if you insisted on giving the voters shares directly and those small amounts were too expensive to administer, the way to do it would be to give them away in a lottery, so everybody had a 10% chance of getting £500 or a 1% chance of getting £5000.

The philosophical argument is simply that it is a national asset and belongs to the people. Either you give it to everyone or you sell it and (ideally) return the money to taxpayers through reduced taxes/borrowing/debt

Selling on the market at the best price is what they are doing. Valuation is an art, not a science. A price range with a 10% spread is quite normal. An IPO discount is quite normal. Nothing they have done is particularly strange.

TGOHF

Charles said:

edmundintokyo said:

Charles said:

FPT @surbiton

re: giving away the Royal Mail for free: yes, there is a philosophical argument for that. But if you are going down that route then you should give shares to everyone in equal proportion which means, in practice, people will end up with £50 each (£3bn / 60m). Impractical, and the risk is that as in the Czech Republic and elsewhere you will get unscruplous people who buy on the cheap from people who don't know better. So it is better to charge close to fair value in the end.

I don't think there is a philosophical argument for that - or rather there is, but it's a stupid one. No need to think too hard about this - the government should just sell the shares on the open market at the best price they can get for them. Anything else they may do is dumb policy, and they're doing it because it's good politics to buy off some favoured constituency.

But if you insisted on giving the voters shares directly and those small amounts were too expensive to administer, the way to do it would be to give them away in a lottery, so everybody had a 10% chance of getting £500 or a 1% chance of getting £5000.

The philosophical argument is simply that it is a national asset and belongs to the people. Either you give it to everyone or you sell it and (ideally) return the money to taxpayers through reduced taxes/borrowing/debt

Selling on the market at the best price is what they are doing. Valuation is an art, not a science. A price range with a 10% spread is quite normal. An IPO discount is quite normal. Nothing they have done is particularly strange.

The "British people" have run up a huge debt - they need to start paying it off.

Selling a few nick nacks on ebay sounds like a good start.

Plato

MikeSmithson said:

Love this

Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 1m
Joke in Westminster is this is a minorities reshuffle: "ethnic Tory MPs, women Tory MPs, northern Tory MPs...and fans of George Osborne"

If only the LDs could appoint an ethnic minority MP to a ministerial job.

TOPPING

surbiton said:

I had previously said 6%. Now, I am thinking 7%, maybe 8% ?

3-6%.

There are different flavours of Kipper, each at, say, 3-4%:

1. Young, thoughtful, they're-all-in-it-for-themselves-I-need-something-different ones (eg iSam of this parish) - could be from Lab, Cons, LD.

2. Older, essentially conservative, really want out of Europe, but get the vote-UKIP-get-Mili conundrum.

3. Older still, don't care anymore hate Cam, Europeans, world-gone-to-hell-in-a-handbasket, cut-nose-to-spite-face.

Being (very) generous to the kippers I would say that 50% of 1s might stay as Kippers; they'll have lots of time and many elections to play about with their political views. 90% of 2s will return to Cons as they get what is at stake re. europe, Labour, etc. And 90% of 3s will stay as Kippers as they don't give a stuff.

So by my rigorous Topping patented calculus, that works out at:

(3.5% x .5) + (3.5% x .1) + (3.5% x .9) = (1.5 x 3.5%) = 5.25%

Plato

anothernick said:

If only the Tories had supported AV they would have a good chance of gaining a majority on UKIP's second preferences. With FPTP they're stuffed.

I do love this form of argument - the Tories rejected it because they thought it was a crap idea even if they'd get a supposed advantage from it. Even the LDs called it *a miserable* idea.

And an overwhelming majority of the electorate rejected it - so why are you still talking about it? It didn't happen.

Polruan

TGOHF said:

Charles said:

edmundintokyo said:

Charles said:

FPT @surbiton

re: giving away the Royal Mail for free: yes, there is a philosophical argument for that. But if you are going down that route then you should give shares to everyone in equal proportion which means, in practice, people will end up with £50 each (£3bn / 60m). Impractical, and the risk is that as in the Czech Republic and elsewhere you will get unscruplous people who buy on the cheap from people who don't know better. So it is better to charge close to fair value in the end.

I don't think there is a philosophical argument for that - or rather there is, but it's a stupid one. No need to think too hard about this - the government should just sell the shares on the open market at the best price they can get for them. Anything else they may do is dumb policy, and they're doing it because it's good politics to buy off some favoured constituency.

But if you insisted on giving the voters shares directly and those small amounts were too expensive to administer, the way to do it would be to give them away in a lottery, so everybody had a 10% chance of getting £500 or a 1% chance of getting £5000.

The philosophical argument is simply that it is a national asset and belongs to the people. Either you give it to everyone or you sell it and (ideally) return the money to taxpayers through reduced taxes/borrowing/debt

Selling on the market at the best price is what they are doing. Valuation is an art, not a science. A price range with a 10% spread is quite normal. An IPO discount is quite normal. Nothing they have done is particularly strange.

The "British people" have run up a huge debt - they need to start paying it off.

Selling a few nick nacks on ebay sounds like a good start.

If you have a debt that's cheap to service, selling off an asset that should produce a rate of return in excess of the interest on the amount of debt repaid is a bad trade. Whilst I don't know what the expected rate of return on Royal Mail valued at the launch price is (any ideas?) it seems unlikely to be lower than the UK government's borrowing rate.

And that's ignoring the fact that certain utilities may produce a public or social good if held in public ownership to ensure continued uniform national provision.

dr_spyn

New mental health condition logged ACHD?

Alistair Campbell's Happy Depressive - available in paper back from booksellers, and online low tax paying multinationals.

surbiton

tim said:

All three party reshuffles under way.

Tim Reid ‏@TimReidBBC 3m
Scot Secretary Michael Moore has been sacked in a libDem reshuffle. He is to be replaced by the LibDem chief whip Alistair Carmichael.

No Jo Swinson?
I guess Carmichael has a much safer seat

Lib Dems don't do women !

Plato

Great and long overdue http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/uk/witness-protection-scheme-to-launch-29637294.html

The first UK-wide witness protection scheme is to be launched tomorrow to help secure convictions and care for vulnerable witnesses.

More than 3,000 individuals with a real and immediate risk to their lives will get expert protection under the UK Protected Persons Service, victims' minister Helen Grant said.

TGOHF

tim said:

Not sure which journalist wrote the Sun's front page story today but it looks seriously misjudged

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2013/10/todays-sun-front-page-mental-health/

Being offended is merely an opinion.

Neil

tim said:

Nick Robinson ‏@bbcnickrobinson 55m
If you're a middle aged Southern white man don't wait for PM to call today to offer you a job (unless you're a mate of @George_Osborne)
Expand


The person with the worst appointments record in living memory gets to do the reshuffle again.

IOS was declaring it to be a "move against Osborne" last night!

NickPalmer

TGOHF said:

5-10% looks the best bet.

Ukip will be another victim of the fptp system - the thought of Miliband as PM is just too scary.

That's presumably why the Tories have swtiched from "Miliband is weak" to "Miliband is scary". But oddly, I think they kept up the previous meme too long for the new line to work. I have literally NEVER met a voter who was alarmed by the thought of Ed as PM. Tories who don't think he'd be good? Sure. Labour voters who worry that he might not win? Certainly. But scared? No.

MikeSmithson

I had 25/1 with Ladbrokes that Moore would be next Cabinet exit.

Let's hope that there are no other cabinet casualties which would dillute my winnings

Easterross

Morning all and as a Highlander, I am delighted to learn local MP Alistair Carmichael has been promoted to role of Secretary of State for Scotland. Alistair is a very popular, hard-working local MP and frankly wouldn't lose his seat even if he stood for UKIP or MRLP instead of LibDems.

On the other hand I wonder if Michael Moore is in fact standing down rather than being sacked so he can spend more time trying to hold on to his seat at #GE2015? I like Michael but would rather see a Tory MP sitting in his place.

TheWatcher

It's only 10 AM, and I see Wee Timmy has been ranting for 4 hours.

Must be seriously rattled about something.

OllyT

The way I look at it UKIP got 3% in 2010 so, given that Cameron didn't even manage a majority then, any increase on 3% is going to make an overall majority for the Tories almost impossible.

surbiton

Charles said:

tim said:

@Charles

But the fundamental point is that someone of £50K+ shouldn't be getting money from the taxes of poorer people

This policy is a cock up from start to finish, a piece of political theatre from the man who cost the tories an election last time and wrecked their polling with his Omnishambles.

There's no debate to be had that putting 70% marginal rates in this £50-60k range is insane.

I don't speak for the party, I just express my own views.

Childcare is far too expensive in this country, and that needs to be fixed. But the LibDems wouldn't allow changes.

Bus passes and WFA were Brownies. Silly and should be phased out, but given Labour's scaremongering in last election Cameron was forced into making a promise. And he is a man of his word.

TV licence - I am not a fan either. There is clearly a role for some public service TV funding, but not for the monolith that is the BBC, backed up by criminal action. If they want to behave like a commercial organisation, why should that be backed up by compulsary extraction of money

Now try addressing the fundamental point: why should someone like me be subsidied by people who earn a whole lot less than I do?

Why choose only this one and not the others ? In any case, the politically "astute", in other words, an absolute idiot, Osborne has managed to sucessfully rile many people who would otherwise hav evoted Tory. Precisely, the aspiring ones. Childcare support upto £300k may help a few Tory buddies, but they would vote Tory anyway.

Easterross

surbiton said:

tim said:

All three party reshuffles under way.

Tim Reid ‏@TimReidBBC 3m
Scot Secretary Michael Moore has been sacked in a libDem reshuffle. He is to be replaced by the LibDem chief whip Alistair Carmichael.

No Jo Swinson?
I guess Carmichael has a much safer seat

Lib Dems don't do women !

even though I agree she is not the most effective minister, as Jo Swinson is several months pregnant, wouldn't sacking her cause Nick Clegg all sorts of problems with the feminist/PC brigade?

MikeK

"The CON message will be simple: Vote UKIP and end up Ed Miliband as PM."

And thereby lies the achillies heel of the Tories: UKIP doesn't care if Labour wins. To Ukippers Labour and Tory are just the same old party. Confound the Lab/Lib/Con party. Vote UKIP for true change.

OllyT

@ Nick Palmer

As long as 40% aren't "scared" it won't matter if the rest are terrified witless!

Plato

Tim Stanley points it out.

We've all met a liberal paradox. He's the guy at parties who bangs on loudly about equality and justice – but all his friends know him privately to be a rich chauvinist. He calls himself a feminist, but he treats women like fast food. He is impeccably anti-racist, but doesn't know a single person of colour. He is a socialist, but sends his children to private schools. He believes that he is good by dint of what he believes, and he is so sure of this that he doesn't even notice that he's actually a jerk. This is the great Left-wing hypocrisy: good on paper, awful in practice.

...The shallowness – the fundamental hypocrisy – of the Left-wing attack on the Daily Mail is twofold. First, consider the story of Mehdi Hasan. Hasan is a charming man, a good journalist and a fine writer – but his crusading style hides the fact that he's just as much a grubby reporter trying to pay the bills as the rest of us. On Question Time last week he got a cheap clap out of the audience by launching a tirade against the Mail, which he called "immigrant-bashing, woman-hating, Muslim-smearing, NHS-undermining, gay-baiting". Jolly stirring stuff, except that an understandably irritated Daily Mail then revealed that Mehdi had once applied for a job there.

Not only did he praise the newspaper for its "relentless focus on the need for integrity and morality in private life" but also said that he agreed with it on "marriage, the family, abortion and teenage pregnancies." So, in the opinion of much of the Left, he too might be called "woman-hating" and "gay-bashing". Of course, he's neither – he's presumably just a faithful Muslim. A Muslim who wants to work for the "Muslim-smearing" Daily Mail. Well, we've all gotta make a living.* http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100240034/mehdi-hasan-the-daily-mail-ralph-miliband-and-the-scary-moral-hypocrisy-of-the-left/

edmundintokyo

MikeK said:

"The CON message will be simple: Vote UKIP and end up Ed Miliband as PM."

And thereby lies the achillies heel of the Tories: UKIP doesn't care if Labour wins. To Ukippers Labour and Tory are just the same old party. Confound the Lab/Lib/Con party. Vote UKIP for true change.

The other problem with this is that right-wingers don't really seem to do tactical voting, hence the thing where Ashcroft nudges voters with his "thinking about your constituency" wording and the only movement is to Lib and Lab.

Bobajob

@Charles - we aren't. My family are massive net contributors, and were even before this insane tax was introduced to hammer the life out of us.
@Polruan - careless indeed. Like the PB Tories who claimed that it wasn't a tax. Oh.

MikeK

TOPPING said:

surbiton said:

I had previously said 6%. Now, I am thinking 7%, maybe 8% ?

3-6%.

There are different flavours of Kipper, each at, say, 3-4%:

1. Young, thoughtful, they're-all-in-it-for-themselves-I-need-something-different ones (eg iSam of this parish) - could be from Lab, Cons, LD.

2. Older, essentially conservative, really want out of Europe, but get the vote-UKIP-get-Mili conundrum.

3. Older still, don't care anymore hate Cam, Europeans, world-gone-to-hell-in-a-handbasket, cut-nose-to-spite-face.

Being (very) generous to the kippers I would say that 50% of 1s might stay as Kippers; they'll have lots of time and many elections to play about with their political views. 90% of 2s will return to Cons as they get what is at stake re. europe, Labour, etc. And 90% of 3s will stay as Kippers as they don't give a stuff.

So by my rigorous Topping patented calculus, that works out at:

(3.5% x .5) + (3.5% x .1) + (3.5% x .9) = (1.5 x 3.5%) = 5.25%

Talking through your top hat again.

DavidL

Wll done Mike. Another winner.

I remember commenting the day Mr Moore was appointed that the biggest story on his webpage was about sheep dip.

Unfortunately he did not fulfil that early promise and has not even been a source of amusement.

dr_spyn

Get the"Medhi applyin' to "immigrant-bashin', woman-hatin', Muslim-smearin', NHS-underminin', gay-baitin' Daily Mail", T shirt.

Plato

dr_spyn said:

Get the"Medhi applyin' to "immigrant-bashin', woman-hatin', Muslim-smearin', NHS-underminin', gay-baitin' Daily Mail", T shirt.

I still can't help thinking of his application letter to the Mail and smiling.

OllyT

@ MikeK

The only chance that Tories have of squeezing UKIP sufficiently would be if a Tory majority (and EU Referendum) looked on the cards. Under those circumstances sufficient numbers might hold their nose and vote for Cameron. however at the moment it looks a distant prospect

DavidL

Completely OT but Malala was truly astonishing on the Today Program this morning. Anyone who didn't hear it should really track it down. It should be on here somewhere: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qj9z

I would be tempted to say that Pakistan's loss is our gain but their need is far greater than ours.

dr_spyn

Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 1m
I'm told we will get the newly reshuffled Tory ministerial team at 10.30am
Expand

surbiton

edmundintokyo said:

MikeK said:

"The CON message will be simple: Vote UKIP and end up Ed Miliband as PM."

And thereby lies the achillies heel of the Tories: UKIP doesn't care if Labour wins. To Ukippers Labour and Tory are just the same old party. Confound the Lab/Lib/Con party. Vote UKIP for true change.

The other problem with this is that right-wingers don't really seem to do tactical voting, hence the thing where Ashcroft nudges voters with his "thinking about your constituency" wording and the only movement is to Lib and Lab.

Could it be they are not intelligent enough ?

maaarsh

Charles said:

FPT @surbiton

re: giving away the Royal Mail for free: yes, there is a philosophical argument for that. But if you are going down that route then you should give shares to everyone in equal proportion which means, in practice, people will end up with £50 each (£3bn / 60m). Impractical, and the risk is that as in the Czech Republic and elsewhere you will get unscruplous people who buy on the cheap from people who don't know better. So it is better to charge close to fair value in the end.

But it's not remotely close to fair value.

As usual the book runners are being paid huge fees to deliberately under price an asset so that the share price spikes on day 1 and everyone can call it a success.

Given it's being sold on my behalf, I'd be much happier with a facebook style outcome, but apparently that is a failure when the bookrunners manage to generate maximum income for the people who have contracted them.

JosiasJessop

MikeK said:

"The CON message will be simple: Vote UKIP and end up Ed Miliband as PM."

And thereby lies the achillies heel of the Tories: UKIP doesn't care if Labour wins. To Ukippers Labour and Tory are just the same old party. Confound the Lab/Lib/Con party. Vote UKIP for true change.

"UKIP doesn't care if Labour wins"

UKIP the party may not care, but potential UKIP voters may well care.

All parties will be playing FUD cards at the next election. It's a really negative part of politics.

surbiton

Easterross said:

Morning all and as a Highlander, I am delighted to learn local MP Alistair Carmichael has been promoted to role of Secretary of State for Scotland. Alistair is a very popular, hard-working local MP and frankly wouldn't lose his seat even if he stood for UKIP or MRLP instead of LibDems.

On the other hand I wonder if Michael Moore is in fact standing down rather than being sacked so he can spend more time trying to hold on to his seat at #GE2015? I like Michael but would rather see a Tory MP sitting in his place.

So, 2 out 0f 22 cabinet places goes to the H&I. Fair proportion ?

maaarsh

surbiton said:

edmundintokyo said:

MikeK said:

"The CON message will be simple: Vote UKIP and end up Ed Miliband as PM."

And thereby lies the achillies heel of the Tories: UKIP doesn't care if Labour wins. To Ukippers Labour and Tory are just the same old party. Confound the Lab/Lib/Con party. Vote UKIP for true change.

The other problem with this is that right-wingers don't really seem to do tactical voting, hence the thing where Ashcroft nudges voters with his "thinking about your constituency" wording and the only movement is to Lib and Lab.

Could it be they are not intelligent enough ?

Or using a Haidt'ian analysis, voting for a party you don't support offends certain moral instincts in a right wing voter which left wing voters do not have.

MikeSmithson

SeanT said:

In a spirit of whimsy, I've applied for £5k of Royal Mail shares. But now I've realised I know nothing about shares.

How the heck do I sell them if I get them?

Try Ebay

CarlottaVance

tim said:

Another one of those polls of more than 8 people, ignore

HELP TO BUY STOKES FEARS OF NEW HOUSING BUBBLE

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/10/07/help-buy-stokes-fears-over-new-housing-bubble/

That would be the data I posted yesterday morning then?

edmundintokyo

surbiton said:

edmundintokyo said:

MikeK said:

"The CON message will be simple: Vote UKIP and end up Ed Miliband as PM."

And thereby lies the achillies heel of the Tories: UKIP doesn't care if Labour wins. To Ukippers Labour and Tory are just the same old party. Confound the Lab/Lib/Con party. Vote UKIP for true change.

The other problem with this is that right-wingers don't really seem to do tactical voting, hence the thing where Ashcroft nudges voters with his "thinking about your constituency" wording and the only movement is to Lib and Lab.

Could it be they are not intelligent enough ?

No wing of the electorate can be trusted to operate heavy democratic machinery without cutting somebody's toes off or accidentally turning off the cooling pumps to a melted-down nuclear reactor, but it's particularly hard for the British right at the moment because:

1) People who have been Conservatives until recently have internalized the idea that FPTP is a good system, so they don't feel comfortable trying game it. Relatedly,

2) They haven't had the experience the left had under Thatcher of being repeatedly slapped around by a united party because, as they saw it, their side was divided into two. It took the left quite a long time to learn even under those circumstances.

CarlottaVance

Telegraph reshuffle live stream:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10360141/MPs-reshuffle-live.html

MikeSmithson

Five minutes to go before the CON reshuffle list.

No cabinet changes amongst the blues and it's champagne tonight

CD13

I think the meme of "scary Ed" is destined to fail; he's not scary, he's just .... not a lot really, and that is the problem.

Even a staunch Labour friend of mine refuses to pass an opinion on him. After he launched an anti-Cameron, posh fop, out-of-touch rant, I asked him his opinion of his party leader.

"I vote for the MP, not the leader," was his response.

I reminded him that his MP was the former MP Witney, the man with seven houses and a butler.

"I vote for the party," was his reply.

Ed could be lucky in that his uselessness in already factored in.

TOPPING

tim said:

DavidL said:

Completely OT but Malala was truly astonishing on the Today Program this morning. Anyone who didn't hear it should really track it down. It should be on here somewhere: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qj9z

I would be tempted to say that Pakistan's loss is our gain but their need is far greater than ours.

She was amazing, there's a Panorama special tonight too

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01hxyfz

She's also bang on the money - we need to speak to the Taliban and the Haqqani network (and the Pakistanis/ISI).

Is it too late to make her Foreign Secretary?

jayfdee

SeanT said:

In a spirit of whimsy, I've applied for £5k of Royal Mail shares. But now I've realised I know nothing about shares.

How the heck do I sell them if I get them?

I also have just put £5k in,the offer will be scaled back for us humble private investors,but we will see.
I bought mine through Hargreaves Lansdown,took about 2 mins to apply,trading is simple through this company. Open up an account,and if you get any shares you can transfer them in to a vantage account,and then trade.
If you are a higher rate tax payer,you should also consider a SIPP with the same company. The tax benefits of a SIPP are slowly being eroded,use them now whilst there is still an advantage.
All the usual stuff,I am not an adviser,do your own research etc.

Fenster

@ Charles

"But the fundamental point is that someone of £50K+ shouldn't be getting money from the taxes of poorer people"

The problem is that a lot of people - like me - are getting clobbered by this, when I don't earn £50k.

Basically, if you now earn in the mid £30k's, have a decent company vehicle and the potential to earn bonuses, you are going to have to fill in a self-assessment form.

My company was looking to defer my bonuses because i got whacked by HMRC a week or so ago - they are on to me. I've decided to say f*ck it and just lose my child benefit.

Car and fuel-card taxes have stealthily gone up, the 40% tax band kicks in at £34k'ish and without the child benefit I'm going to be about £3500 worse off a year. The only other way round it was to try not to earn bonuses (which are capped, not big enough to make the child benefit not matter).

With two young children and a wife working part-time (childcare is mega money) it's going to hurt.

Like I said last week, I'm not that bothered. But there will be a lot of people out there like me, who get clobbered, when rich people get better off. Polling wise, this will crucify the Tories, because many of the people who this directly affects are likely to be middle class, middle earner and ergo sing voters.

AndyJS

UKIP share by constituency at GE2010:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dDZoVmdlVXBEQVNvcUNfR294UXo0S3c&usp=drive_web#gid=0

MikeSmithson

Let's hope that James Forsyth is correct

"James Forsyth reports that no Tories will leave the Cabinet today:

Understand that this reshuffle won’t see any Tory in Cabinet, or who attends Cabinet, leave government. So, Ken Clarke is safe

maaarsh

MikeSmithson said:

Let's hope that James Forsyth is correct

"James Forsyth reports that no Tories will leave the Cabinet today:

Understand that this reshuffle won’t see any Tory in Cabinet, or who attends Cabinet, leave government. So, Ken Clarke is safe

10.09am Alan Cochrane, the Telegraph's Scottish Editor, says it's a "dead cert" that Ken Clarke will be sacked from the Cabinet.

Plato

maaarsh said:

MikeSmithson said:

Let's hope that James Forsyth is correct

"James Forsyth reports that no Tories will leave the Cabinet today:

Understand that this reshuffle won’t see any Tory in Cabinet, or who attends Cabinet, leave government. So, Ken Clarke is safe

10.09am Alan Cochrane, the Telegraph's Scottish Editor, says it's a "dead cert" that Ken Clarke will be sacked from the Cabinet.

Does Ken count? I thought he wasn't technically in the Cabinet?

R0berts

It does seem like Labour's 35+ coalition is going nowhere, now.

So to merely deprive Labour a majority, the Tories need UKIP down below 5%ish, as well as hoping the UKIP and resurgent anti-Tory tactical dynamic doesn't hurt them too much. A pretty big task.

To win most seats, they need to do all the above whilst holding on to most of their 2010 support. For a majority they probably need to do all the above as well as increasing their vote share over 2010!

Puts it in perspective for the Blues.

isam

TOPPING said:

surbiton said:

I had previously said 6%. Now, I am thinking 7%, maybe 8% ?

3-6%.

There are different flavours of Kipper, each at, say, 3-4%:

1. Young, thoughtful, they're-all-in-it-for-themselves-I-need-something-different ones (eg iSam of this parish) - could be from Lab, Cons, LD.

2. Older, essentially conservative, really want out of Europe, but get the vote-UKIP-get-Mili conundrum.

3. Older still, don't care anymore hate Cam, Europeans, world-gone-to-hell-in-a-handbasket, cut-nose-to-spite-face.

Being (very) generous to the kippers I would say that 50% of 1s might stay as Kippers; they'll have lots of time and many elections to play about with their political views. 90% of 2s will return to Cons as they get what is at stake re. europe, Labour, etc. And 90% of 3s will stay as Kippers as they don't give a stuff.

So by my rigorous Topping patented calculus, that works out at:

(3.5% x .5) + (3.5% x .1) + (3.5% x .9) = (1.5 x 3.5%) = 5.25%

You're being very generous to me I'm pushing 40!

I used to vote Labour in a kind of red rosette on a donkey way really, only when I looked at politics more closely did I realise that the party my parents voted for no longer existed.

Voting Labour now would be like going to a Fleetwood Mac concert in 2013 expecting to hear Peter Green singing Man of the World or Oh Well

WelshJones

I would, with all due respect, point out to Ladbrokes that, taking UK elections throughout 2013 as a whole, UKIP have polled around 22%, with the vast majority of results being in the 20-25% range.

Given that the Euro 2014 elections are 'the UKIP thing', they're likely, IMO, to exceed those figures in the elections held that day, meaning they will have an even larger base (voters, councillors, MEPs, activists, well-wishers) in 2015 than they do today (and, I'd suggest, the LDs will see the reverse).

Caveat: all of these elections have low turn-outs and Kippers are committed, if nothing else, and 25% of 30% (7.5%, for those poor at maths!) would translate into maybe 16-18% of a typical GE turn-out

So
Assuming that the Kipper vote is comprised of those who wish ConLabLib ill, (various grounds, not least they got us into this mess through unaffordable promises to future generations on welfare, immigration, CM/EEC/EU/USoE, Maastrict/Lisbon etc etc etc and have not a clue how to solve the problems they created, nor any intention of trying to do so) as well as NOTA's in the past (eg soft LD's).

I can see the overall GE2015 turn-out being significantly higher than in recent GE's, with the additional voters being Kippers - and those terrified of the Kipper vote - thus meaning UKIP might well poll comfortably in excess of that 16-18%, as much air-time will be devoted to decrying them.

In conclusion, a UKIP vote in the (very wide) range of 15-25+% seems eminently possible - with the higher the UKIP vote in Euro2014, the more likely their vote in GE2015 will be high too.

I can also see Cameron agreeing to Farage being in the 'Party leader's' debate - on the grounds that his inexperience, lack of consistency and general 'boor in the pub' persona will be exposed and so crush the UKIP vote, only for it to blow up spectacularly in his face and UKIP to poll significantly better as a result.

IMO, there should be 2 waves of TV set-pieces one with RedEd and Cameron (no-one else could be PM) and one with all the other NATIONAL Party leaders (UKIP, Greens, BNP, OMRLP, LDs etc).

Think 1930's to get some idea of where we, in the West, are politically: no powerful national leaders and an international talking-shop that's been exposed as completely ineffectual, and global economic mismanagement coming home to roost - mainly affecting 'ordinary, hard-working families' and leaving rich and political elites unaffected.

Sean_F

It's easily the best message that the Conservatives can come up with. My own view (for ages) has been that UKIP will win c.7% of the national vote. I think the Lib Dems will win c.17%, which should leave c.70% going to the big two.

dr_spyn

aul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 7s
RT @jameskirkup #reshuffle latest: Ken Clarke officially in the departure lounge -at Heathrow, en route for govt trip to Washington>Survivor

Sean_F

surbiton said:

edmundintokyo said:

MikeK said:

"The CON message will be simple: Vote UKIP and end up Ed Miliband as PM."

And thereby lies the achillies heel of the Tories: UKIP doesn't care if Labour wins. To Ukippers Labour and Tory are just the same old party. Confound the Lab/Lib/Con party. Vote UKIP for true change.

The other problem with this is that right-wingers don't really seem to do tactical voting, hence the thing where Ashcroft nudges voters with his "thinking about your constituency" wording and the only movement is to Lib and Lab.

Could it be they are not intelligent enough ?

Who is there to tactically vote for? Not many people on the right will be more enthusiastic about a Lib Dem MP than a Labour MP, and vice-versa.

Clearly, some UKIP supporters will vote tactically for Conservatives (and a smaller number for Labour).

Sean_F

MikeK said:

"The CON message will be simple: Vote UKIP and end up Ed Miliband as PM."

And thereby lies the achillies heel of the Tories: UKIP doesn't care if Labour wins. To Ukippers Labour and Tory are just the same old party. Confound the Lab/Lib/Con party. Vote UKIP for true change.

There's a fair-sized element of UKIP supporters that doesn't care whether Labour or Conservatives get in. But, there's also a fair-sized element that does care. In forced choice questions, UKIP supporters tend to split about 45: 20% in favour of Conservatives; Labour.

WelshJones

Sean_F said:

It's easily the best message that the Conservatives can come up with. My own view (for ages) has been that UKIP will win c.7% of the national vote. I think the Lib Dems will win c.17%, which should leave c.70% going to the big two.

I think you have the LD/UKIP vote reversed: LDs have not covered themselves in glory in the Coalition and will be blamed by BOTH Con and Lab for the (perceived) failures in that period and Cameron/Osborne/ID-S/Gove/May will claim 100% of the credit for every single success.

Fuel prices too high? That's all RedEd's fault when Energy Sec and the 'Super-Green' insanity of the LD ministers i/c. Vote Con and see Greenery ended, vote Labour and get prices frozen.

Vote LD and see lights go out and prices soar..........

'Neither of the above' voters who voted LD in the past as the respectable, credible alternative, will now, IMO, vote Kipper.

Charles

maaarsh said:

Charles said:

FPT @surbiton

re: giving away the Royal Mail for free: yes, there is a philosophical argument for that. But if you are going down that route then you should give shares to everyone in equal proportion which means, in practice, people will end up with £50 each (£3bn / 60m). Impractical, and the risk is that as in the Czech Republic and elsewhere you will get unscruplous people who buy on the cheap from people who don't know better. So it is better to charge close to fair value in the end.

But it's not remotely close to fair value.

As usual the book runners are being paid huge fees to deliberately under price an asset so that the share price spikes on day 1 and everyone can call it a success.

Given it's being sold on my behalf, I'd be much happier with a facebook style outcome, but apparently that is a failure when the bookrunners manage to generate maximum income for the people who have contracted them.

What you are forgetting is that the government is retaining a big stake. It's not in their interests to leave buyers p1ssed off and bruised.

Sean_F

tim said:

CourtNewsUK ‏@CourtNewsUK
Rolf Harris to stand trial at Southwark Crown Court on April 30 on charges he molested two girls in the 80s http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/newsgallery/?public_id=34529 …

Thats the move to Culture Media and Sport off then.

Apparently Jonathan King once wanted to become a Conservative candidate. The party dodged a wide bullet there.

rcs1000

Charles said:

re: German energy: I've been spending a lot of time in Germany recently & had a bunch of conversations about renewables. Basically they are all bought into wind power (Germany can be very windy and has lots of remote space), are very sceptical about solar energy and depressed by Merkel's decision on nuclear but understand the politics.

Re German solar: it doesn't matter how sceptical the utilities are about solar - if the prices keep dropping then people will keep installing panels on their roofs, and demand for utility power - particularly in summer - will keep falling. I have some genuinely scary charts from Citi about how solar is already destroying demand for peaking power plant in summer.

maaarsh

Charles said:

maaarsh said:

Charles said:

FPT @surbiton

re: giving away the Royal Mail for free: yes, there is a philosophical argument for that. But if you are going down that route then you should give shares to everyone in equal proportion which means, in practice, people will end up with £50 each (£3bn / 60m). Impractical, and the risk is that as in the Czech Republic and elsewhere you will get unscruplous people who buy on the cheap from people who don't know better. So it is better to charge close to fair value in the end.

But it's not remotely close to fair value.

As usual the book runners are being paid huge fees to deliberately under price an asset so that the share price spikes on day 1 and everyone can call it a success.

Given it's being sold on my behalf, I'd be much happier with a facebook style outcome, but apparently that is a failure when the bookrunners manage to generate maximum income for the people who have contracted them.

What you are forgetting is that the government is retaining a big stake. It's not in their interests to leave buyers p1ssed off and bruised.

So just give away 30% of this tranche for free then, because we wouldn't want people to be upset.

It's pure and simple a case of directors acting to protect their own reputation rather than maximise the wealth of their shareholders. Not uncommon, but it doesn't make it right.

perdix

MikeK said:

"The CON message will be simple: Vote UKIP and end up Ed Miliband as PM."

And thereby lies the achillies heel of the Tories: UKIP doesn't care if Labour wins. To Ukippers Labour and Tory are just the same old party. Confound the Lab/Lib/Con party. Vote UKIP for true change.

Yes, kippers are a bunch of backward looking intolerant nimbys with opportunistic policies.

Charles

maaarsh said:

Charles said:

maaarsh said:

Charles said:

FPT @surbiton

re: giving away the Royal Mail for free: yes, there is a philosophical argument for that. But if you are going down that route then you should give shares to everyone in equal proportion which means, in practice, people will end up with £50 each (£3bn / 60m). Impractical, and the risk is that as in the Czech Republic and elsewhere you will get unscruplous people who buy on the cheap from people who don't know better. So it is better to charge close to fair value in the end.

But it's not remotely close to fair value.

As usual the book runners are being paid huge fees to deliberately under price an asset so that the share price spikes on day 1 and everyone can call it a success.

Given it's being sold on my behalf, I'd be much happier with a facebook style outcome, but apparently that is a failure when the bookrunners manage to generate maximum income for the people who have contracted them.

What you are forgetting is that the government is retaining a big stake. It's not in their interests to leave buyers p1ssed off and bruised.

So just give away 30% of this tranche for free then, because we wouldn't want people to be upset.

It's pure and simple a case of directors acting to protect their own reputation rather than maximise the wealth of their shareholders. Not uncommon, but it doesn't make it right.

Directors don't set the price.

People in the room are the shareholders representatives, possibly the company CEO (although as an observer) and the heads of equity capital markets at the bookrunning banks

Anorak

rcs1000 said:

Charles said:

re: German energy: I've been spending a lot of time in Germany recently & had a bunch of conversations about renewables. Basically they are all bought into wind power (Germany can be very windy and has lots of remote space), are very sceptical about solar energy and depressed by Merkel's decision on nuclear but understand the politics.

Re German solar: it doesn't matter how sceptical the utilities are about solar - if the prices keep dropping then people will keep installing panels on their roofs, and demand for utility power - particularly in summer - will keep falling. I have some genuinely scary charts from Citi about how solar is already destroying demand for peaking power plant in summer.

That's an extremely interesting point; I'd love to see those charts. Unintended consequences are a b*tch, aren't they.

edmundintokyo

Anorak said:

rcs1000 said:

Charles said:

re: German energy: I've been spending a lot of time in Germany recently & had a bunch of conversations about renewables. Basically they are all bought into wind power (Germany can be very windy and has lots of remote space), are very sceptical about solar energy and depressed by Merkel's decision on nuclear but understand the politics.

Re German solar: it doesn't matter how sceptical the utilities are about solar - if the prices keep dropping then people will keep installing panels on their roofs, and demand for utility power - particularly in summer - will keep falling. I have some genuinely scary charts from Citi about how solar is already destroying demand for peaking power plant in summer.

That's an extremely interesting point; I'd love to see those charts. Unintended consequences are a b*tch, aren't they.

That sounds like the intended consequence of the policy.

edmundintokyo

tim said:

Sean_F said:

It's easily the best message that the Conservatives can come up with. My own view (for ages) has been that UKIP will win c.7% of the national vote. I think the Lib Dems will win c.17%, which should leave c.70% going to the big two.

Con 36%
Lab 34%
LD 17%

=

Con 280
Lab 302
LD 40


The Tories winning the popular vote and being booted out would be a fitting end to Camerons career, losing the boundary changes, decimating the Tory membership and splitting the right, magnificent

If that happened I think Con and UKIP voters would start to get quite good at tactical voting for subsequent elections.

dr_spyn

@Sean_F Jonathan I am a music man...King.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-85486/How-did-King-fool-so-long.html

Sadly that headline 'How Did King Fool So Many For So Long can be reused so many times for others in his field."

The Independent wrote in 2012 "King was arrested in 2000 after a man approached the publicist Max Clifford."

TGOHF

tim said:

Just when you thought(1) the Tories couldn't get(2) anymore(3) out of touch(4)
.

1) Anecdote
2) Anecdotal opinion
3) Anecdotal opinion
4) Anecdotal opinion

Everyone here knows your tautologies are still utter tripe tim...

Plato

LOL

Tim Shipman (Mail) @ShippersUnbound
Dr Julian Huppert should be Lib Dem chief whip. Stern lecturer look. Gold stars for loyalists. 'See me' on essays for rebels.

edmundintokyo

tim said:

edmundintokyo said:

tim said:

Sean_F said:

It's easily the best message that the Conservatives can come up with. My own view (for ages) has been that UKIP will win c.7% of the national vote. I think the Lib Dems will win c.17%, which should leave c.70% going to the big two.

Con 36%
Lab 34%
LD 17%

=

Con 280
Lab 302
LD 40


The Tories winning the popular vote and being booted out would be a fitting end to Camerons career, losing the boundary changes, decimating the Tory membership and splitting the right, magnificent

If that happened I think Con and UKIP voters would start to get quite good at tactical voting for subsequent elections.

Tory voters don't vote tactically, they'd rather whine about the unfair electoral system while worshipping FPTP.

I know that's true now, but I'm not convinced the same behaviour would survive the five-year reign of the popular-vote-losing tyrant Miliband.

taffys

''I have some genuinely scary charts from Citi about how solar is already destroying demand for peaking power plant in summer.''

Several newspapers report Osborne intends to slash green taxes to make energy bills cheaper (and pay for it by taxing fracking).

BannedInParis

"People say they support Labour now because it is a painless way of expressing disdain for the Coalition. In 2015 they will have to concentrate on cold reality."

This.

You'll only know how hard/soft the current support really is at some point in spring 2015.

Outside of the Expenses scandal, the Tories stayed happily above 40 for, what, 2 and a half years? The gradual winding in of the lead happened from Jan 2010 onwards*. IF there isn't a general decrease in the Labour poll by about Feb/March 2015, then its hard and then the Tories will be screwed, hard.

* --- and yes, I know tthe Conservative's own campaign (showing suitability for leadership) didn't help matters. Nor did Labour's insurgents campaign. One of these things cannot be repeated in 2015.

Alanbrooke

tim said:

edmundintokyo said:

tim said:

Sean_F said:

It's easily the best message that the Conservatives can come up with. My own view (for ages) has been that UKIP will win c.7% of the national vote. I think the Lib Dems will win c.17%, which should leave c.70% going to the big two.

Con 36%
Lab 34%
LD 17%

=

Con 280
Lab 302
LD 40


The Tories winning the popular vote and being booted out would be a fitting end to Camerons career, losing the boundary changes, decimating the Tory membership and splitting the right, magnificent

If that happened I think Con and UKIP voters would start to get quite good at tactical voting for subsequent elections.

Tory voters don't vote tactically, they'd rather whine about the unfair electoral system while worshipping FPTP.

people voting for what they believe in whatever next ? Can anyone be so so stupid* as 2010 LDs the folk who got Cameron in to government in the first place ?

* aside from Andy Burnham

BannedInParis

Who first used the phrase 'flat cap' reshuffle? First I can see was early hours of this morning.

TGOHF

tim said:

TGOHF said:

tim said:

Just when you thought(1) the Tories couldn't get(2) anymore(3) out of touch(4)
.

Everyone here knows your tautologies are still utter tripe tim...

The polling is very clear on the tories under Cameron as being seen as out of touch.
Of course in PB Toryworld there is denial of that.

Seriously get a second trick - duller than dull.

TheWatcher

BannedInParis said:

Who first used the phrase 'flat cap' reshuffle?

Probably a Labour smear merchant.