Marvels of modern polling? Exit polls, part 1
August 27th, 2006
Part 1 of a two-part guest series by Harry Hayfield. Part 2 can be found here.
Exit polls came to fame in 1952 when following a long study of the American electorate, NBC fed the information into a computer and after a few moments said “Eisenhower to win”. As the results came in, the computer was proven right and the sceptics wrong.
In our elections, exit polls have only really been around since 1970 when the BBC commissioned a poll of the electors of the “typical” seat of Gravesend. Since 1987 they’ve been a common occurrence, but have they always been as accurate as they were in 2005?
The 1987 election was preceded by a campaign that seemed to suggest that the Conservatives were heading for another landslide victory. However on Election Night, the BBC published a Gallup exit poll that seemed to suggest that everyone else had got it horrendously wrong. They were projecting a national vote share of Con 40%, Lab 35%, Alliance 23%, which suggested a House of Commons comprising 338 Conservative MP’s, 261 Labour, the Alliance on 26 and the Others getting 25.
Given a 2% margin of error, the figures could have reflected a Conservative majority of 86, or a hung parliament with the Conservatives 17 short of a majority. But the BBC stuck to their guns and said “Con majority of 26” as their exit poll forecast. So now all that was needed was a seat to confirm this forecast and in 1987, that seat was Torbay.
Torbay in 1983, like much of the South West of England, had elected a Conservative MP, with the Alliance they were in second place and Labour’s deposit in danger. With the Alliance just 13% behind against an incumbent who was retiring, they were optimistic in 1987. But what was the exit poll suggesting? Con 26,000 votes said Professor Tony King, but when the returning officer made her statement everyone was in for a real surprise!
Not only did the Conservatives hold Torbay, but beat the exit poll into a cocked hat polling 54% of the vote (+1% on 1983). More importantly for the House of Commons forecast, Labour only polled 8% (also +1% on 1983), in other words a negligible swing from Con to Lab: and the effect on the forecast was instantly evident. Instead of 338 Con MPs, the new forecast said 348, instead of 261 Lab MP’s, the new forecast said 252, the Alliance remained on 26 and the Others fell to 24. And so it carried on all evening. As the Conservatives held seats that the exit poll suggested would fall to Labour, the forecast majority continued to climb to the final result of 102.
Ten years later in 1997, battered and bruised from their failed 1992 forecast, the pollsters made sure that they weren’t going to make the same mistake again and completely rejigged their methods to include “the spiral of silence”. This was a theory that supporters of a party that was deemed very unpopular would declare themselves as “don’t knows” or even suggest that they supported another party altogether. So when the BBC election programme started with the exit poll all loaded up and ready for broadcast everyone crossed their fingers and hoped for the best.
“There it is, ten o’clock and we say that Tony Blair is to be Prime Minister and a landslide is likely”
Would those words come back to haunt the BBC at the end of election night? Well, remember that margin of error back in 1987? Well, there was also a margin of error on this poll as well and as in 1987 was also 2%, but there was no way even this margin of error could produce a wrong result surely?
Labour 47%, Conservatives 29%, Liberal Democrats 18% (range 16% - 20%). Whichever way you looked at it, it seemed to be suggesting one thing and one thing alone. A massive rejection of the Conservatives and no poll hiccup! And this was confirmed not only by the first Labour gain (Birmingham, Edgbaston) but the second (Portsmouth North) and even the third gain (Crosby), so it looked as though the pollsters had finally perfected the art of polling as Labour did indeed glide into government with the biggest Labour majority ever of 179.
Next week: the 2001 and 2005 elections
Harry Hayfield is a Lib Dem activist in Wales.
MessageSpace Advertising
What is the percentage vote share margin of error is arguably missing the point, since the aim of UK exit polls is to accurately predict the number of seats, rather than the number of votes (something which their large sample makes possible, unlike your bog-standard opinion polls). But for the record, Labour got 44.33% in 1997 - outside the margin of error - so hardly a major triumph. (In fact, if I recall correctly, the exit pollsters in 1997 managed the feat of massively overestimating the size of the Labour vote and lead, but underestimating the size of the majority!)
I’ve oftern wondered what the effect would be on UK elections of prohibiting opinion polls in the latter stages of election campaigns - like some European countries.
As well as destroying the “winning here” barchart industry at a stroke, it may mean that electors are more likley to cast their ballot on the strength of the candidates and their relative positions on the issues, rather than on the (sometime presentational?) momentuum that appears to be behind one party or another.
I wonder if it would increase turnout - as the outcome would not seem a foregone conclusion, as it increasingly seems to these days, with more accurate opinion polling methods.
It would also make the announcement of the BBC Exit Poll at 10pm even more dramatic.
o/t
BBC reporting Tory Party hint at tax cut plans with George Obsorne indicating that abolishing stamp duty on share trading may become policy.
This would help address the disaster of Gordon Brown’s tax raid on personal pension funds.
Two interesting points from the article;
Firstly the BBC has spotted what many non-Tory PB.composters haven’t yet: “The Tories are not scheduled to even consider a raft of new policies until next year. But fresh ideas are constantly being publicised as several review groups set up by David Cameron discuss what the party should actually propose to voters in the future.”
Secondly, the treasury line is that “Anyone who wants to abolish this tax need to explain how to plug the £4bn gap in public finances. That’s double the amount that we’re spending this year on counter-terrorism and security.”
Is this the new strategy, now that security & immigration is “top of the in-tray?” To link any tax/spending proposal to cuts in our security?
Makes a change from “schoolsnhospitals”
test
Interesting that Cameron in to-day’s Observer has decided to distance himself from the policies of the Thatcher government towards the South African apartheid regime. Who can forget Thatcher and Major (then Foreign Secretary) returning from the Commonwealth Conference proudly announcing that Britain stood alone against sanctions.
Question; What attracted twenty year old Cameron to a party that tacitly supported apartheid? Question; Why did so many in the party have connections with a regime that repulsed most of the rest of the world?
Ah! it’s working… Osborne also expressed the hope that he would be able to abolish (not limit the scope of) Inheritance Tax - so, given the lack of talent on the Tory front bench, perhaps there’s a place there for Stephen Byers
If the Stamp Duty proposal gets into the Tory manifesto, we won’t need polls to tell us if the Tories are going to win next time, just the FT share index…
TONY Blair is embroiled in a bitter dispute with the Metropolitan Police over arrangements for quizzing him about a long-running investigation into the cash for honours scandal. Or so says the Scotsman.
The same paper reports more poll gloom for Labour with this headline: SNP set to seize power at Holyrood.
The other Blair looks increasingly silly after talk about it being safe enough for Londoners to leave their doors unlocked with this story in The Times. Britain is the most burgled nation in Europe
Rod liddle in The Sunday Times says ,a href=”http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2330258,00.html”>Quick, somebody buy a wreath. Last week marked the passing of multiculturalism as official government doctrine. No longer will opponents of this corrosive and divisive creed be silenced simply by the massed Pavlovian ovine accusation: “Racist!”
A bit of a mess that last bit, it should have been like this.
Rod Liddle in The Sunday Times says Quick, somebody buy a wreath. Last week marked the passing of multiculturalism as official government doctrine. No longer will opponents of this corrosive and divisive creed be silenced simply by the massed Pavlovian ovine accusation: “Racist!”
8. Re the Scottish poll. Have they asked voting intentions for FPTP seats or for the list seats? The comparison are made with the FPTP results
Scottish Tory support down 7% to just !0% in the latest Scottish poll.
10 - No
‘The poll, conducted by Scottish Opinion, asked 1,000 Scots who they intended to support next year. It did not, however, break the question down into first and second votes to reflect the Scottish electoral system.’
This site seems to have a problem today. I tried for an hour to post the poll results without success - kept getting ’server has gone away’
“Britain is the most burgled nation in Europe” - can’t get the link to work.
Always suspicious of such statistics. In addition, it is easier to burglarise (as the correct verb is) a house (which is the British obsession) than a flat (which is a more usual dwelling in every other country in Europe).
The media has an obsession with the UK being the worst for this, that and the other. We’re actually pretty good at many things, but any surveys such as that never get reported. Other countries are better at blowing their own trumpets.
Also in today’s Sunday Times:
10m want to quit ‘over-taxed’ UK - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2330678,00.html
I find it rather depressing. Very often these people want to head to the USA or Australia. Tax may be lower, but you get fewer public services for free, and social provision is weaker. You can’t have it both ways.
Anecdotally, I have spoken to a number of people who would like to emigrate to USA, NZ or Oz, as there are too many immigrants here. (I have also heard white South Africans complain there are too many immigrants here.) Kind of ironic really. Guess they expect to be welcomed in those countries as they are white. Must be a racist undercurrent to their feelings. Among those who said this was an elderly couple - both disabled - that I know. Would be curious to know whether they would enjoy their idealised Oz. I am not sure Oz has much of a national health service these days, and I am certain it would not be free to this couple of modest means.
11 - I wouldn’t get too excited Roger. Scottish Opinion have had Tory support at 6% before. On top of that they had Labour at 39% in 2003 (they got 31%) and the SNP on 31% (they got 24%) so I’ll not lose much sleep over it. IIRC last time round they also had the SNP at 36% on the list vote which was massively wrong.
The results are all the more unlikely given that YouGov had the Tories up fractionally and Labour and the Lib dems down with the SNP unchanged.
15 - Sorry Labour ended up on 29%.
A few weeks ago Matthew Parris wrote a column about the blindingly obvious things that people did not realise in the past (that we can now see are blindly obvious). He questioned what weird notions of today will be looked back on with despair / hilarity by future more enlightened generations.
He suggested shampoo, saying it’s pointless (which it kind of is). I suggest immigration. People have too much “stuff”, too many pointless possessions lumbering around in their houses where they live, rooted to the spot, for decades. Why not cut down on our possessions thus making it easier to move around the world and take advantage of changing markets? Why does it matter if lots of people want to live in a different country? Great, go for it. Why do we still have ingrained nationalism in our heads? Why do people think the area they live in is “our” country? It’s just land. Admittedly England is quite nice land with, in my opinion, a relatively decent democracy* operating on it; but it’s hardly unique in this respect. There’s lots of nice (and considerably cheaper) land out there.
Come on everyone, let’s go. Languages can be picked up in a few months.
http://www.easyjet.co.uk
* Note: I said “democracy”, not government.
13 - look forward to…
UK being ranked below Belarus for human rights…
UK being ranked worse than South Pacific islands for obesity and diabetes…
UK being ranked below Sudan for water quality…
UK being ranked below Italy and Russia for media impartiality…
UK being ranked below as yet undiscovered Amazon tribes for literacy…
UK being ranked below all Prozac addled suicidal northern European countries for happiness…
All these surveys will be coming out this silly season.
12. Thanks Marcia. I should read better. I juts jumped to the part with the figures!
I remember the exit polls of 1992, a Labour win surely? People must have told them they were voting Labour on the way in, voted Conservative, then told them they had voted Labour on the way out. Facinating election. I am not sure it was a good one to win though.
UK ranked worst in the world for obsession with political betting
20 - had Labour won the 1992 election, it would have been interesting. There was still quite a collection of real lefties, and a strong anti EU contingent. Kinnock could never have got Maastricht through, and would have split his party nastily. Not sure how the Tories would have played it, but I cannot see them siding with people like Tony Benn in 1992. Major may have resigned but might have clung on as leader. If not, Ken Clarke, then a long serving minister, and not identifiably a Europhile at that time, may have succeeded him as leader.
The Labour government, which would have had a thin majority, would have collapsed over Europe in 18 months, having presided over ERM collapse, a run on the pound, and massively increased taxes, allowing the Tories back in. My guess is that is that had happened, the Tories may well still be in power now. All Kinnock’s reforms would be wasted as Labour in 1992 would be seen as the same as Labour were in the 1970s.
17 - “Why do we still have ingrained nationalism in our heads? Why do people think the area they live in is “our” country? It’s just land.”
Will the Lib Dems be saying this to their new bed-fellows in the SNP in the event of a Labour defeat in the Holyrood elections?
22,Many middle-aged friends of mine,mainly Tory,but a couple of Labourites,agree that it would have been better for the Tories to lose narrowly in 1992,and wait for Neil Kinnock to fail in office,than for the Tories to have won themselves again,and then preside over many,many mishaps,U-turns,and generally totally lose credibility-in the event of a hypothetical 1992-1997 Kinnock govt,as a Labour voter (who may himself have swung against),Ken Clarke or Michael Heseltine could have been a tempting Leader of the Opposititon-food for thought!
22,Many middle-aged friends of mine,mainly Tory,but a couple of Labourites,agree that it would have been better for the Tories to lose narrowly in 1992,and wait for Neil Kinnock to fail in office,than for the Tories to have won themselves again,and then preside over many,many mishaps,U-turns,and generally totally lose credibility-in the event of a hypothetical 1992-1997 Kinnock govt,as a Labour voter (who may himself have swung against),Ken Clarke or Michael Heseltine could have been a tempting Leader of the Opposititon-food for thought!
Sorry for the double-my PC has hiccups!
2. Stamp duty on share dealing is a transaction tax set at 0.5%. If it was deterring people buying shares, you would see the volumes traded on the LSE fall. Instead they’ve been increased exponentially. There is no evidence that transaction costs have any impact on the level of the share price - witness the way house prices continued to increase after the stamp was increased on homes over 250k. The only thing that impacts share prices are the fundamentals of the company concerned - are they making profits or losses. No cut in stamp duty will ever make the share price of a company making losses go up. The macroeconomic climate affects company profits and hence share prices, transaction costs do not.
Secondly, most of the trading done on the LSE is by international investors eg the NYSE has bought a 25% stake in the LSE for circa £650 million, and paid circa £3.25 million to the treasury in stamp duty for the priviledge. Similarly the Ferrovial takeover of BAA and the Dubai takeover of P&O and so on. Given that most of the stamp duty is paid by international investors, why should you look to abolish their costs, and try to find the resulting £4bn shortfall by either imposing taxes on ordinary Brits or by cutting services?
Given the scale of the 1997 result, surely predicting a Labour victory is like hitting a barn door at ten paces? Not exactly a great demonstration of accuracy.
25 - a Labour government in 1992 would certainly not have lasted 5 years. There was an Observer article to that effect in about 1995.
28 - He tries hard, but Harry is yet to find the topic for comment upon which he is an expert. Sorry Harry, but I’m sure you’ll get there in the end.
29 - Would a hung parliament with Labour largest party have led to PR in 1992?
14. Taxes in Australia arn’t that much lower than ours. They have a 15% band that kickes in at AUS$6000, a 30% band that kicks in at AUS$25,001, a 42% band that kicks in at AUS$75,001 and a 47% band that kicks in at AUS$150,000. And you pay a medicare levy of 2.5% on top. The exchange rate is AUS$1.426 to £1. And the above tax rates are the result of a cut this year - the timing of the cut was unfortunate as the Reserve Bank was worrying about inflation, and tax cuts act in the same way as interest rate cuts in that they put money into the economy - so the Reserve Bank responded promptly by putting interest rates up to 6%.
As for the USA, it depends where you go. The southern states have low state taxes. If you go to New York State, and you rates eithe work out the same as Britain on lower incomes, or higher than in Britain - federal tax of either 28%, 33% or 35%, plus New York state income taxes of 6.85%, 7.375% or 7.7%, plus New York City income tax at 3.648%. Therefore an investment banker getting large bonuses would be looking at 46.348%, compared to 41% in the UK. A person earning $100,000 (£53,000) would be looking at 44.02%. Interest rates in the US are 5.25%.
In the UK tax plus NI if you are not contracted out comes to 21%, 33%, and 41%. And we have lower interest rates than both the USA and Oz.
People moan in Britain (it’s the British sport), but actually, things are pretty good compared to the rest of the world. The difference is that people in the USA and Oz are constantly told how lucky they are compared to the rest of the world, and in Britain, people are constantly told they are worse off than the rest of the world and it distorts people’s perceptions.
test
25. I’m glad we lost 1992 too. We’d have been taking the blame for Tory mistakes. Plus the economic side of our project hadn’t yet been fully developed at the time.
One problem with exit polls now is the increased number of postal votes which if they are more in favour of one party will mean the exit polls are not representative of the whole electorate .
Snowflake5, you are being very selective.
You have included state taxes in the US, but not council tax in the UK. It does your credibility no good at all.
15 Max . For reasons I gave yesterday , I would place no reliance on the Yougov regional figures . If you think they are correcr then you must tell us which Other Party in Scotland has increased it’s support by 7% .
37 - Why is it impossible that the SSP have increased their support? After all their initial appeal was strongly linked to Tommy Sheridan, so you could make an argument that the court case has strongly helped in that respect, both because of the “vindication” that he received and the large amount of publicity.
37 - I doubt they are 100% correct but I would place far more reliance on YouGov than Scottish Opinions. Surely any sensible person would? In saying that I don’t think this poll done for the SNP is even a poll in the true sense. It was done so as to get an idea of how their focus groups should be made up - hence no second question.
And much as I’m sure others would wish it to be the case I don’t think anyone who is involved in politics up here would give the figures much credence.
38 Alex the Yougov figures are the aggregate of votes since circa March , most of which were prior and during the court case . All evidence clearly points to the fact that SSP support has collapsed since the GE .
38 - I did wonder that but it would be taking the maxim of ‘all publicity is good publicity’ to a new extreme.
39 - I should also point out it continues the remarkable trend of the SNP doing well in every poll they’ve ever leaked.
Max - Fair enough then please answer my question as to where the missing 7% of the vote has gone in the Yougov regional Scottish survey . You may argue about the scale of it but there is no doubt SNP support is up on the last GE at the moment .
Another factor in the Yougov aggregates is that LibDem support is said to be down 6% since the GE whereas the current average of all pollsters including Yougov is down 3% .
36. Once Bitten, the rates I quoted were state income taxes - I was comparing the total income tax in the USA with the total income tax in the UK.
You seem to be assuming that the rates I quoted were property taxes, and that there are no state income taxes in the uS. False - they have state income taxes and state property taxes, plus federal income taxes, plus city income taxes. Plus sales tax, etc, etc. And what’s more the property tax is paid on up-to-date values. Usually about 15% of the market value in New York State. See the following link for more info about New York City property tax:
http://www.orps.state.ny.us/pamphlet/taxworks.htm
41/42 Another factor on which I am waiting clarification from Anthony Wells is that the Scottish regional figures are usually based on the Scottish TV regions and so included parts of Northern England where of course there are no SNP voters . It is unclear to me whether the aggregate regional figures are similarly based .
42 - Mark I said I didn’t agree 100% with YouGov. Of course I don’t know where all the ‘others’ have gone. All I’m saying is that I would place more reliance on them than the figures produced by Scottish Opinion.
I’m sure support for the SNP will be greater at Holyrood than Westminster - it always is. But I’m not at all convinced it’s up by all that much on 2003. Remember prior to 2003 they were polling very well - it just so happened most of the polls were very wrong.
43. Correction: the 15% of value is then multiplied by a municiple rate. In the example in the pamphlet showed a property valued at $100,000 (£53,000) paying property tax of $750 (£397). That’s expensive. Band D in my area (homes just over £200k) pay £1200. If if you scale up the New York rate, you’d be paying £1600 if you were there.
38.”Why is it impossible that the SSP have increased their support? After all their initial appeal was strongly linked to Tommy Sheridan, so you could make an argument that the court case has strongly helped in that respect, both because of the “vindication” that he received and the large amount of publicity. ”
uhm, but the verdict means that the majority of the jury thought that at least 3 SSP MSPs lied in court. Someone is lying in SSP, it’s the only sure thing there.
[32] What extra services are provided by the “high tax” States across the Pond by comparison with the “low tax” ones?
Have just noticed a strange aroma in the air. I think it might be the smell coming from the barbq’s of Tory MP’s as they use their ‘Hang Nelson Mandela’ ‘T’ shirts for fuel. Winston Smith has just been hired to re-write Tory Party history on its relations with the apartheid regime in SA. Standy by for ‘Thatcher was an ANC mole’ revelation in the Daily Mail.
I see the SNP look like they are heading for victory in next year’s Scottish Parliament elections. I really do hope they get an absolute majority because I can’t see them forming an effective alliance with either of their unionist arch rivals Labour, Lib Dems or even the Tories. The UK is on the verge of break up and the WLQ will be solved, about time too.
If Norman Lamont made an error over the ERM in the early 1990’s that cost the Tories in 1997, then surely Labour’s devolved Parliaments will have the same effect in 2009/2010. Many Scottish Labour (or Lib Dem or Tory) voters want independence just as must as the SNP, so an independence referendum will probably succeed. I really cannot see how Labour can possibly argue that devolution has strengthened the UK. Labour have scored a massive own goal, and I really cannot see how a Scottish political party will win in England again as there is no true successor to Blair. Relying on the the ethnic minority vote will not work as they in the fulness of time will reject anti-English Labour just as much as everyone else in England will.
Borrowing £15 billion from the PFI to fund the welfare state is yet another Gordon Brown gaffe as it has to paid back 7 times over a 30 year period, so how can we fund the welfare state at a later stage while at the same time paying back this massive loan??? Economic competence??? You must be joking.
49 - having just read a little piece of hagiography on squeaky George in the Telegraph, wasn’t he one of the alleged t-shirt sporters?
48. None as far as I can tell. All the states pay out for Medicare for the over 65s, but unlike in Britain, the state is not allowed to bulk negotiate the drug bills, hence their costs for the over 65s exceed our entire health costs.
Also, the role of the high tax states seems to be to subsidize the low-tax states. And to pay for outlandish armies. For instance, if you are in New York, you are much more likely to be subject to the dreaded alternative minimum tax, (which is a fiendish federal flat tax with no exemptions) than if you live in Louisiana - and the AMT is a big cash cow for the federal govt. And the federal money also goes on endless rebuilding after hurricanes etc. (Their system guarantees that if you lose your property in a hurricane, the federal govt pays out, which means there is nothing to deter people from building in danger zones - whereas in Britain, you have to get insured, and the market ensures that you are not rewarded for building in danger areas). They also have lots of pork federal spending on bridges to nowhere in Alaska and that sort of thing.
Americans are actually incredibly patient with their government. Britons being stroppier, would have organised a lynch party by now.
47 - I wasn’t asserting that the SSP definitely had increased support just suggesting it as a possibility. Arguably the wider party (such as it is) is irrelevant. The SSP’s fortunes rose and fell on one man - Tommy Sheridan. If he is up then the SSP are up.
53. but they’re splitting anyway. Rosie Kane has to defend her honour!
54 - that has no relevance to my argument
55. Ah, I see you’ve reversed to your (recent) usual unpolite tone.
Anyway, I just think that voters aren’t too keen to claim their support for a party they know it’s going to split in less than a month. Do you see the relevance now?
55. I kind expected a comment like this by you anyway (after having seen the so elegant comment at 30).
Details from the Scottish Opinion/SNP poll:
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1262582006
(diff is compared to election 2003)
sample size: 1000
1. SNP 33% (+9%)
2. Labour 29% (-6%)
3. LD 19% (+4%)
4. Con 10% (-7%)
5. Greens 5%
6. SSP 2%
There is an intriguing “open letter to the nation from departing US consul to Edinburgh Cécile Shea” in the Sunday Herald today:
http://www.sundayherald.com/57574
“A message for Scotland: stop beating yourself up and learn to love your country”
“Had there never been a Scotland, I, like most people in the world, would be less free, less educated, less safe, and less healthy.”
57 - I was being as polite as i could without completely ignoring your comment. What else could i have said? All i said was that it was possible that the recent court case could have led to a bubble in support for the SSP/Tommy Sheridan. I didn’t assert that it was the case, and certainly not that it would be longlasting, but merely that it was possible. Implicit in that is that it is possible that the court case has not helped them one bit (especially if the public genuinely don’t see the SSP as a oneman band). But obviously all arguments for that idea are not really relevant to the possibility that the court case has helped them, unless they actively disprove it.
60. Alex, listen, let drop this issue here. I don’t want to create a fight or something of that sort. We’ve never really “understood” each other on pb.com, so let’s finish it there and move on
Roger @ 6
Your comment “Question; What attracted twenty year old Cameron to a party that tacitly supported apartheid?” is a bit disingenuous.
Thatcher and Major did not “tacitly support apartheid” (tacit: adj. Unvoiced or unspoken; they are both on record many times in opposition to racially-motivated policy. If you want I will trawl both their memoirs for suitable quotes and references. However, as Tebbit points out today, they did differ from others on the best way to bring about an end to apartheid - favouring a process of constructive engagement, leading to a voluntary and smooth transition of power.
If we think about most conflict resolution-type scenarios, constructive engagement is often the most successful tactic.
I am certainly no expert on the topic or policy, but do not think that it woud have served the longer term interests of all South Africans if we had brought about the transition to majority rule through sanctions and the general destruction of the South African economy, however odious elements of it were.
61 - A pleasure. The reason my comment at 54 was so short and too the point was because i didn’t think it was a topic particularly worth getting into a fight about, but i don’t like ignoring posts that refer to one of my posts. I certainly wasn’t trying to be impolite or rude, in fact the opposite. It took me a couple of minutes to formulate the composition of it, obviously to no avail!
As for Harry’s article. Well yes i was being provocatively rude about that. I’m quite sure if i attempted to write a guest article someone would be itching to make a similar response, even if they held back
63. Alex, issue closed. The efforts of international diplomacy avoided a potential fight!
I’ve to say that “unpolite” wasn’t probably the best term to say what I wanted to say. But let’s no come back to that.
Alex & Andrea - enough already. I suggest a duel of Pinguini Baseball…
What’s the record?
306.4
307.1
317.1
Alex - a bit like the denominations of Scottish presbyterian churches, or hard left political parties, there are many variants of Lancio del Pinguino. The vegetarian version (323.4 posted last night by JulianH , the blood, guts and landmines version (749 is my PB) or the all-singing all dancing version from http://www.yetisports.org.
I have now grown out of Penguin Baseball - having transferred to Flamingo Driving (3000-odd yards is my best so far), which is on yetisports.org
We really should have a PB tournament. Then we could test one SeanT’s unposted suggestions from yesterday’s spat - that lefties are inherently worse at games and sports than Tories. Something to do with genetics, I believe…
Good Gracious - I’ve just managed 316 (usually I can’t even hit the foul fowl!)
70 Our competitive drive?
I have noticed that the lefties on this site are behaving in the arrogant and aggressive manner they accuse the Tories of. Does the word hypocrit come to mind? The ME ME ME attitude is more prevalent amongst NuLab than anyone else, and yes Labour are resting on their Laurels.
70,If online snooker/pool was the game,maybe Snowflake and I could make up a mixed doubles pair?:P
(Shame there’s only one blue ball in snooker to pot!):lol:
74. Patrick, ok, but be warned, am not very good at snooker or pool (it’s a girl thing!)
76 - or a lefty thing
Not necessarily so-I used to know a female pub pool team captain-she was exceptionally good!
Not necessarily so-I used to know a female pub pool team captain-she was exceptionally good!
320.9
17 - Julian, that is the most sensible post I’ve seen on immigration all year. Thank you very much.
Snowflake @ 32 - The exchange rate is 2.45 AUS$ to £1 - You have to compare our NI plus income tax.
Robin @ 2 “As well as destroying the “winning here” barchart industry at a stroke” - Bollocks, carefully crafted bar charts use real recent (in the last ten years within a 50 mile radius) election results not vague things like opinion polls!
Posters supporting Ming all over the subway here - in Shanghai.
All these Lib Dems agreeing with you must be very disconcerting, Julian…
83. I appear to have been mistaken for a Scottish one earlier on. Frankly, I’d have thought my penguin score would attract more attention.
Anyway whilst Andrea graces a Milanese tennis court I off to stroll around the common. Wimbledon that is, not Clapham.
*I’m
82. I did include NI - see the third paragraph of my post 32, which gives totals of the three tax bands with non-contracted out NI.
You are correct about the exchange rate - but it means that their taxes kick in earlier than ours eg 15% tax band kicks in at AUS$6000, which is £2449 at AUS$2.45 to £1.
32 - Snowflake. One thing to bear in mind with your US comparison is that the rates you quote apply to taxable income. Under the US tax code, there are considerable deductions to be had, the most significant being that mortgage interest is still deductible at the marginal rate. State and local taxes are also deductible from federal taxable income. There are also significant deductions and allowances for children, marriage, retirement and education savings etc etc. A single investment banker living in a Manhattan rental probably does pay more tax than her counterpart in London, but I suspect most middle income Americans with mortgages, families, living outside New York would probably pay lower taxes than in the UK.
- “I suspect most middle income Americans with mortgages, families, living outside New York would probably pay lower taxes than in the UK” - yep, but those self-employed or working for smaller companies do not really get health cover beyond emergency treatment. For the others, the employers fork out a hell of a lot for health cover.
87. Paul M, an increasing number of middle class Americans are subject to the Alternative Minimum federal tax. Basically, they do their normal tax calc with the deductions, and the AMT, with no deductions, and pay whichever is the highest. It’s kicking on on incomes as low as $30,000. See the attached article, which has a graphic.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/09/pf/taxes/amt_101/index.htm
I’m afraid the grass is greener myth is just that, a myth.
Re. posts 22, 24 and 25, I think you might find it worth buying ‘President Gore and other things that never happened’, due to be published by Politico’s next month (available at all three party conferences, at the Westminster Bookshop/Politico’s stands) when it will include a chapter on this very subject.
Snowflake, you have no idea what you are talking about. The AMT only applies if your tax burden is extemely low. For the middle classes, all the points in 87 are true. The American tax system especially promotes home ownership while Brown penalises it with stamp duty at ludicrously low thresholds. Not only is there mortgage income tax relief at 100% there is also depreciation allowance for buildings even as they increase in value.
America is vastly more competitive than the UK, groaning under Brown’s stealth taxes.
Are you David Miliband?
89 - Snowflake - Don’t remind me ! I paid it myself last year. It actually has a political impact because it hits hardest in areas with high local taxes and high property prices e.g. the blue states in the North East, esp New Jersey. Politicians on all sides are keen to get this fixed, as AMT, originally conceived of as a millionaires tax has fallen on swing voters. Hillary Clinton has had a lot to say on the subject for instance…
53 - Alex I think it’s more likely that the Greens figure may have gone up since May 2005. They polled (IIRC) 1.1% in 2005 but only contested around 15 seats. They polled reasonably well in some including a few saved deposits.
Obviously in an opinion poll it doesn’t matter how many seats you actually contest and people can say they’ll vote for whoever they like. Had the Greens contested all seats then they may well have done quite a bit better. It doesn’t seem beyond the realms of possibility that 3-4% of the increase in others could have gone to them.
Those too lazy to click on Snowflake’s link should note that the AMT has a top rate of 28%.
Earn just 32,500 pounds a year and you are paying Brown’s version of “tax for the rich” = 40%.
Yes, the taxation grass is greener in the States and we need tax relief to catch up with them.
91. Commentator, the AMT is paid by those whose tax burden is high, making their bill higher still - see Paul’s post 92.
92. Paul, do you think they really will fix AMT? It seems to be the only thing keeping the federal budget from exploding. And Republicans have no interest in helping out blue states at all.
I also think we forget how patient Americans are compared to Brits. Americans are told they pay lower taxes than anywhere else, and they swallow it whole, without checking, and they also don’t check what if anything they get out of their taxes compared to everywhere else. Brits on the other hand are pretty well served, but are pepetually discontented.
94. Commentator, if you’d been following the discussion at all, you’d have grasped that the federal tax is on top of state income taxes and city income taxes.
Surely you need to add in state taxes as well as federal. In the UK the rate at 32,500 is 51%, it drops for higher earners, the people nulab really cares about!!! - Why the Unions give them any cash is beyond me!
Snowflake, would you like to explain how those who tax burden is high (ie - almost every mid-level professional in the UK) would benefit from paying 40% tax (Gordon Brown) vs 28% tax (AMT, United States) ?
Snowflake, you seem not have understood AMT exemptions:
“In trying to determine tax liability under AMT, you do get to exempt a certain amount of income from your calculations.
The problem is that the exemptions granted under the AMT have not kept pace with inflation — while the average paycheck has. For instance, in 1982, the exemption for married couples filing joint was $40,000. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $82,000 today.
Currently, the exemptions are only $58,000 for married couples filing jointly and $40,250 for singles. And they would be even lower if Congress every year did not vote through a “patch.”
That seems like a sizeable exemption to me.
Of course Brown’s 40% income tax is also on top of council tax and other levies such as the raid on pensions and his sin taxes.
97. Total higher rate tax is 41%, not 51% in the UK. You forget that regular NI stops at the Upper Earnings Limit, and beyomd that you pay 1% NI (if you earned at that level, you’d know this), giving a total of 41% (40% tax + 1% N.I.).
As for state taxes, yes, already covered in post 32. Read it again. In New York City, you pay City Income tax, State Income Tax, State Property tax, and Federal income tax. You do two calcs to work out the federal income tax, one with deductions, at a higher fed tax rate, and one with no deductions and a lower fed tax rate, and you pay whichever results in the higher amount.
If you are a higher tax payer, you are most certainly better off in the UK. Families also better off, as in UK the state provides healthcare (vital for those with children), whereas the family in the USA has to buy this in an expensive way.
Sorry, grass is only greener in your imagination
Snowflake: Completely false. All employers in the US offer healthcare plans for families. AMT = 28%. British tax = 40%. Both exclude local rates such as council taxation in the UK.
Taxation in the US is far more beneficial. The AMT is only for those upper rate taxpayers finding enough deductions to swing below the figure of 28%.
Let Brown cut income taxes (the equivalent of federal taxes) to 28%. Then I’ll be impressed.
And for the unemployed the US does provide free health and free schooling. It’s called Medicaid, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield work in New York. If a person is employed by a corporation, health care is the responsibility of that corporation (by law - they may not choose to duck providing health insurance).
98. Commentator - can you explain how an American in New York state would manage to just pay 28% federal rax and not pay any of the state or city income taxes, and still be outside of jail?
Methinks you are a troll - you mention council tax without mentioning US property taxes dealt with in post 46 (is it possible in your imagination that you thought they didn’t have property tax?). You claim AMT is paid by those with exceptionally low taxes, when it is paid by those who pay high taxes. You continually suggest that Americans only pay federal tax, when it is clear to everyone that they pay state income taxes and city income taxes on top. Let’s face it, you can’t amke the case that Britain is very highly taxed without resorting to these tactics.
x02. OK several things - Total income tax (dealt with in post 32) and property tax (dealt with in post46). Both are lower in the UK, compared to New York state.
Your tactic is to pretend that the state income taxes and city income taxes are the equivalent of the council tax (they are not) and that there is no property tax in the US at all. Completely false.
Secondly, your claim that employers in the USA have to provide healhcare is again, completely false. It’s up to the employer to decide whether to do so. Companies that were set up in the 50’s when labour was scare, offered healthcare as an incentive, and this has built into large legacy costs. newer companies often don’t offer benefits at all, resulting in 40 million Americans who are not covered by healthcare.
Yes Snowflake wrong re top rates of taxes they are 41% marginal rate at the top.
“And for the unemployed the US does provide free health and free schooling. It’s called Medicaid” - yes, and it’s pretty sketchy!
Property taxes: stamp duty is a fraction here of what it is in France for example. Sure, the system is flawed, but it’s not an evil tax.
NI and income tax - for God’s sake amalgamate income tax and employee’s NI. At least the LDs are moving in this direction.
(Anecdotally, in Finland 10 years ago, I was earning about £11,000 a year. My marginal rate of tax was 42%. I will not have the Sunday Times lecture me on high tax.)
x07 SBS, the irony is that I did amalgamate NI and income tax in my illustration of total tax on income, but Commentator wants to exclude state income taxes, and city income taxes, to make his figures look good.
Property tax in America is the equivalent of our council tax, in that it is based on the value of property owned and levied every year.
Don’t confuse it with stamp duty, which is a tax on transactions to do with buying assets, eg shares, or houses. It’s a one off tax paid only when the asset is purchased.
Commentator was also bizarrely complaining in post 91 that Britain didn’t promote home ownership, but penalised it. Actually homeownership is very high in the UK, and trying to fuel the mania even further will result in higher prices (which no doubt Commentator would also complain about). It’s more about bash the UK govt whichever way you can!
108. Clearly Commentator is an idiot. Why bother.
I’ve just seen Dobson on Sky tieless and his shirt a bit unbuttoned…this new tieless trend is developping on Labour benches too!
Clare Short was wearing a scarf though (would she wear it on a beach in mid-August too?).
I can’t believe what I’ve read from Robin 62.
Apartheid South Africa was ‘loved’ by most Tories that I knew, It still is! The Thatchers loved apartheid South Africa, if you can find any quotes that says any thing different, they are not telling the truth. Dennis Thatcher, though SA was heaven on earth, they even gave SA their most treasured possession, their only mis-begotten son Mark.
Snowflake - AMT in the US was originally designed to target those with high incomes who claimed excessive tax-free allowances, but the failure to uprate the thresholds with income inflation means it now catches people on moderate incomes. Not “excessively low”, sure, but it’s by no means confined to the super-rich.
112 - actually, reading back to your 89 you made this point yourself. I’d only read 104 and got a misleading impression of what you were trying to say - sorry.
Regarding apartheid, it is interesting to see that “The Freedom Association”, after a long sabbatical, is active again. This nasty little set-up, once backed strongly by long time extreme right-winger, the late Norris McWhirter, now writes to local rag newspapers, pretending to be interested in civil liberties.
How ironic that the only freedom it was interested in during the 1980s was the freedom of the SA police and government to run a supremacist state, and shoot a few black people for good measure.
In my “Oxford days” (Christ that sounds arrogant! Sorry!), the Conservative Association had very close links with the Freedom Association, and many OUCA (Oxford Univ Cons Ass) drinks parties were FA sponsored. Cameron is a few years older than I am, but it should not take too much digging in OUCA archives (probably lodged in the Bodleian library; OUCA would feel they are of national importance) to find a Cameron / FA connection. Anybody want to do some research?
Osborne is about the same age as I am. It should be quite easy to find a link for him. On reflection, disappointingly, I think there may be no picture of Ozzy wearing a “Hang Nelson Mandela” T shirt. Could you ever picture Osborne in a T shirt? Only a Jermyn Street shirt for him… and if he had to wear a T shirt, it would have been with a silk tie.
So where are 10 million Brits going to move to in order to avoid tax? The Caymans? (I gather a hurricane is on its way there!)
111 - Stonecold.
Nice to see that you’ve taken over from Tyson whilst he’s away, in terms of deluded ranting.
Thatcher confirms her long-held opposition to apartheid a number of times in her memoirs “The Downing Street Years”, the following are a few examples:
p513 “Because I recognised [the relative success of free enterprise economics in SA compared to the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa] did not mean I held any brief for apartheid. The colour of someone’s skin should not determine his or her political rights”
Elsewhere she describes apartheid as “unjust and oppresive”
She explains her strategy of opposition to draconian economic sanctions because “the worst approach was to isolate South Africa further. The isolation had already gone too far, contributing to an inflexible siege mentality among the governing Afikaner class”
When she met President Botha at Chequers in June 1985 (itself the cause of much controversy) she used the opportunity to express that the UK govt were “appaled by the forced removeal of balcks from white residents areas” and pressed again for the release of Nelson Mandela, and was clear the he was fundamental to any process of democratic change in South Africa.
As I said in my post at 61, I am not expert on the topic. However it is simply wrong for you or Roger to suggest that either the Thatcher or Major governments supported (overtly or tacitly) the odious apartheid regimes in SOuth Africa.
It is very easy, as Tebbit says today, to view this period in a historical context; it was very different for those who had to deal with the situation on an ongoing basis.
Thatcher was a pragmatist in terms of what was the most successful strategy to bring about fundamental change. Isolating the regime and attempting to bring about its economic downfall would have led to the sort of anarchy and worsening of the situation of black Africans that has been seen so many other times in post-Colonial African states. It would also have driven South Afircan in to the arms of the Soviets.
Her strategy to engage constructively and to let the forces of free enterprise and economic development bring about an orderly change. It has many parallels to my mind, in the collapse of communism.
I may have interpreted some of this wrongly (I am not an expert) - but she was not an apartheid apologist, nor supporter as you and Roger claim.
RE 22, Yes SBS I think you are broadly right. Winning in 1992 has cost the Conservatives dear in terms of winning elections.
Robin at 62. It is possible that Thatcher was right and almost every other country in the world was wrong in thinking that the best way to get rid of the apartheid regime was to trade with them.
I would point out though that both Mandela and De Klerk have said it was the pressure of sanctions that brought about the end of the regime. I would also point out that Cameron said this in the Observer to-day.
I would also point out the extensive business interests members of the Tory Party had in South Africa. Curious knowing what the regime was like? Most people in this country wouldn’t eat a Cape Orange. As for “Hang Mandela T-Shirts”; Osborne must be sh**ing himself!
Robin at 62. It is possible that Thatcher was right and almost every other country in the world was wrong in thinking that the best way to get rid of the apartheid regime was to trade with them.
I would point out though that both Mandela and De Klerk have said it was the pressure of sanctions that brought about the end of the regime. I would also point out that Cameron said this in the Observer to-day.
I would also point out the extensive business interests members of the Tory Party had in South Africa. Curious knowing what the regime was like? Most people in this country wouldn’t eat a Cape Orange. As for “Hang Mandela T-Shirts”; Osborne must be sh**ing himself!
Her husband Dennis was a staunch supporter of the apartheid regime, her son Mark hated it so much, he went to live there. Do not be taken in by what someone puts into print. As PM she would have had to be diplomatic about ‘upsetting people’. Now I’m not interested whether you think I am standing in for Tyson, or anyone else. I’m interested in the truth, and the truth is Robin that apartheid SA was ‘loved’ by the vast majority of Tories. To pretend otherwise is living a lie, you are in denial. I am not saying by any stretch of the imagination that all Tories are racist, I know thats not true. Anymore than I’m saying, that every leftie who professes to be opposed to racism, would welcome a black/Asian family moving in next door. I’ll ask you one simple question: do you think that Jim Davidson would have been a welcome guest/warm up man at the Labour or Libdem. conferences.Do you think that any Labour/libdem leader would welcome him as a friend. The Carlton club had him in as an act, they sold out of tickets almost immediately. As I’ve said, you are in denial, many Tory members would have supported the charming gentleman, who opposed the adoption of a particularly fine candidate John Taylor, because he was a F*****g N****r to pretend otherwise is living a lie. Do not re-write history. I,m sure David Cameron will not be sending out an invitation to Jim Davidson, don’t you?
Read what Peter Hain had to say. Thatcher was the greatest appeaser of apartheid outside of South Africa. Her husband made most of his money there. She said anyone believing there would be an ANC government “Was living in cloud cuckoo land” and uniquely she called the ANC “terrorists”. She was even against the release of Mandela even after his release.
O/T Does anyone know what the French opinion poll in today’s Sunday Times meant, just it added up to well over 100%. If the basic argument is right then Segolene Royal will be the Socialist Party’s Presidential Candidate. Does anyone know if there is a market available on this?
“Apartheid South Africa was ‘loved’ by most Tories that I knew, It still is!”
I have to say in all the time I’ve been visiting this site that is one of the lowest things I’ve read here. Are Labour supporters really so desperate that this is what they’re reduced to?
The more I see the tone and nature of Labour posting on this site the more it becomes obvious who the nasty party really are.
Roger,
I’m not saying whether her strategy was right or wrong. I simply think you are wrong to state that Thatcher and Major and the Party at the time “tacitly supported” apartheid.
You well point out that some on the right (maybe even Tory party members at the time) were tacit (even overt) supporters. I’m sure I could find some on the left at the time (maybe even Labour Party members), who wanted the Soviets to match up the Mall and install a politburo in Buck House. But that doesn’t mean I could claim that the Labour Party leadership “tacitly supported” a a communist takeover.
Stonecold - I’m sorry but I found your post almost unintelligible. you’ve lost me with the Jim Davidson thing. I can’t imagine anyone finding him funny on the basis that the sexual and racial content of some of his ‘humuor’ is objectionable.
Do you have evidence to substantiate your claim that “apartheid South Africa was loved by the vast majority of Tories”? I very much doubt it, as it seems to be fuelled by your stereotype of Conservatives as far-right racist idealogues. The dopcumentary evidence shows that Thatcher was opposed to apartheid and worked to bring about its demise.
You *may* well…
122 Ben - http://politicalbetting.bestbetting.com/Default.aspx?market=22191084
‘Snowflake, Despite property taxation, you can deduct both mortgage interest tax relief and property depreciation in the US. State and federal (and let\’s not forget many states have low or even zero income tax - I believe CT and FL are two examples) do not add up to as muh as Brown\’s 40%, a ludicrous rate occurring at such a low figure as 32,500. Not to mention that Brown is the master of stealth taxes and has gouged the taxpayer in many ways other than income tax. Raiding pensions, for example. The Telegraph earlier this year listed Brown\’s sixty tax rises. These do not apply in the United States. Have you ever worked, or done business, over there? I have and I can tell you I am taxed far more greatly in the UK under New Labour - and the services are infinitely worse
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2330028,00.html
Belinda Oaten said he wouldn’t enter politics (there were apparently rumours that the Lidbems would have asked her to stand in Winchester)
128 - These two are making Neil and Christine Hamilton look like shy retiring violets
126 Thanks BV. Given that Segolene Royal is so far ahead to get the nomination, could money not be made out of the other Socialist challengers?
First of all, if you can find out what my politics are from my posts on this issue, I’d like to know why. I went out of my way, to point out that I did not believe that all Tories are racist, I also went out of my way to point out the hypocrisy of those on the left, who say they hate racism, but make sure they live in a place where non-whites are unlikely to be.
But its typical of you max and others, say something about your beloved Tory Party that you don’t like, even if its obviously the truth, and its the ‘left’ its paranoid, you really ought to seek medical help, they tell me there are some really good drugs out there that can cure that sort of thing.
Now my own beliefs on politics religion etc. I HAVE NONE, I have a preference, but no belief. To have a belief requires the suspension of my critical nature. To have a belief in a political party, would require me to accept, that everything that party will do will be positive, that everyone in that party will be a plaster saint, working tirelessly on my and the countries behalf I couldn’t believe that, it would be arse. I believe in only one thing, the person who for forty years has shared my bed, my dear wife: nothing else.
If you were around, (I doubt it) at the time of ‘the Stop the Tour’ run of course by Peter Hain, you would know what I mean. I supported Hain’s campaign, a Tory who knew I did, spat on me, called me a ‘Nigger Lover’ and had to be restrained from attacking me. Do not Max go into denial about this, admit there is a problem, do something about it. As for Jim Davidson, I’m amazed you do not know about his relationship with the Tory Party etc try wikipedia.
Re Snowflake at 89, It seems that the AMT rule is only just begining to bite, so the grass was greener. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out why that is no longer the case though. GWB is a useless git.
RE Stonecold at 120, I have not met a Conservative who supported Apartheid.
I’ve not met a German who fought against the British or the Americans, they all fought on the eastern front.
33. Nice one!
Stonecold - you cannot come out with all this ‘most Tories I know’ stuff and then start saying you’ve gone out your way to say most Tories aren’t racist.
I’m not in denial I think their is a small element within the party but neither is it ‘most’ and neither is it (Nick P’s words) substantial.