Baxter puts the Lib Dems on zero seats
October 8th, 2007
The spread betting markets are unmoved
For what must almost certainly be the first time ever Martin Baxter’s Electoral Calculus is putting the Lib Dems on zero seats for the next general election.
This is based on feeding his weighted average of recent polls into his commons seat calculator. The result appears above.
So if you believe it there’s a fortune to be made on the spread betting markets. The latest Lib Dem Spreadfair prices are SELL 46.5 seats and BUY 49.5 seats. If the buy price moves just a couple of notches I might go into the market.
For what Martin’s formula does not take into account is the fact the LD incumbents are pretty difficult to shift.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Something pretty close to this (though not quite as extreme) is what I’ve batting on about for a while.
Ming will be gone before the next conference. The slide in the polls will continue until he goes.
If they fail to pick Clegg this time, it will be a long road back.
1? You seriously thinking the Lib Dems would be in single figures? Look even in 1970 when they had only 7% they still got enough to fill a taxi. Even if they dropped 10% they would still have double that
4 - Baxter is fun. But it is pretty crazy. I look forward to Baxter predicting -10 seats next week.
The point is, even if incumbent LD’s do have a disproportionate incumbency advantage (and I’m not convinced at all that they do) there comes a point when even that is not enough to save them.
And 10% looks to be it.
IIRC from my history we only have a third party because the Conservatives and Liberals didn’t agree to merge in the 1950’s. How far we have come!
3 - Nope - but I do think there’s a danger of them losing *at least* half their current seats. The polls at the moment make a huge number of their core power-bases in the SW and Scotland highly vulnerable.
Song of encouragement for LDs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38fz0TzBcfA
4: -10 seats LOL Will that be Lab?
You see, baring a complete meltdown, when I look at it seat by seat, I can’t get them down below 45. And 14% - which looking back historically means 18% by polling day is not a meltdown.
4 Just read your post after thinking the same thing…..Is it possible for Baxter to predict negative seats for the Lib Dems…. ??
It reminds me of the original Duckworth Lewis Cricket calculator that led to Australia having to score 22 runs off one delivery. It was then discredited. Back to the drawing board???
Hmm.. When was the last time there were NO Liberals in parliament?
Answer
The time before there were Liberals.
This shows the problem with swing calculators.
Martin Baxter’s system has a built in bias against the Lib Dems.
This Baxter bloke seems to use absolute percentage reductions, which is clearly mathematically illiterate. Why does it merit a thread? It’s clearly bonkers.
unless I have misunderstood it, he seems to say that if, say, Labour lose 5% in their overall share, corresponding to losing slightly less than 1 voter in 7 who voted for them last time, then in a seat where they had 10% of the votes last time, they are predicted to end up with (10-5) = 5% next time, i.e. their vote has halved! As Mr Garrison would say “Bzzzzzzzzzzzz, wrong!!! try again dum ass!!!”
Someone whould buy him a maths Key stage 4 textbook and a dictionary to look up the word ‘percentage’. It’s total rubbish!
I think you would have to be crazy to get involved in buying LibDem seats so far out from an election. They may ultimately do better, but as a trading move it’s got to be pretty ludicrous. In many respects it’s surprising their seat level is holding up to the extent it is considering the polls. Basically you’d be betting on something unforeseen turning up to improve their situation. I’d be surprised if anybody could come up with anything.
Before anyone gets too confident about LibDem incumbency there is a big unknown that has to be borne in mind. Turnout. Until one can confidently explain exactly why turnout has dropped from 80% in ‘92 to 70% in ‘97 down to 60% to back the LibDems has to be a big risk.
Because if that situation were to be reversed, then the LibDems will probably IMO suffer badly. A close election will boost turnout among Tories and Lab dramatically. I doubt that the same will be true of the LibDems to anywhere near the same extent.
9 - I think it depends how good the LibDems are at defending seats against the tide. Something I don’t think they have done in a while. The last few general elections have seen either a broadly static general level of support or rising general support. I think if their poll ratings remain as dismal as they are at the moment then it really depends on their opponents and the capacity to defend against the threat. I think what makes it interesting is that it is almost completely unknowable.
10 - that’s slander against Duckworth-Lewis. It was South Africa and there was no such calculator.
Looking at Anthony Wells site in 2001-2005 at 15% for LDs a couple of 15% in 2001 and one 13% otherwise mostly in the 20’s. Recent polls since Gordon look more like the 1997 to 2001 pattern. I know Lib Dems put a lot on incumbency but the increase in seats must make a larger prortion liable to voting trends and weaken the incumbency factor.
It wouldn’t be zero, but with stronger Tory showing falling below 40 could be on the cards.
Ben Brogan has picked it up!
ok its not 0
Maybe LEMBIT will hold his seat - thats a cheeky proposition!
Zero LibDems doesn’t seem at all likely, but it does flag up that they might be at a tipping point if this sort of percentage vote indicated in the polls occurred at a GE.
But it doesn’t tell us what that would mean. 1,2,3…45…50….?
20 - I totally agree with you. I suppose they can no longer get away with referring to three party politics.
29 seats vulnerable to swings under 5%
13 Jon C From the FAQ part of the Baxter website its says the following “Parties who decline will be assumed to decline multiplicatively. That is, if their national supports drops by a tenth (say from 40% to 36%), then their vote in each seat will drop by a tenth. ”
Which is what I think you would want it to do. Obviously Baxter is not perfect, but if you do the add 4% to the Lib Dem poll and subtract it from Labour (historically the case in a campaign) you get arguably more realistic results Lab 319, Con 275, LibDem 24.
16 I thought It was Duckworth Lewis, I apologise If I was wrong
Where is Jack W and his ARSE when we need it??!
Evening all :).
Well, one or two contributors having a more or less generous dig at the LD’s expense but it’s time to be serious
Back in 1989 and 1990, the LDs were polling far below even today’s levels (yet still managed to take control of Sutton at the 1990 local elections). In 1992, the party polled 16.8%, well down on the 1987 figure but enough to keep most of the party’s MPs though none of the by-election victors survived.
There is a long way to go and to project today’s figures to 2009 or 2010 is, to quote Peter Snow, “just a bit of fun”. I’m certain that the next election will be very tough for the party, however, and there must be an element of defending what we have before necessarily pushing for other gains.
I would still regard an LD presence of 35-45 MPs as significant, especially in what may well be an HoC with either no overall majority or with a Government with a very small majority. I’m sure all LD MPs are working hard to survive and there will doubtless be heartbreaking losses and near-misses but we are definitely looking at what size of minibus the LD MPs need, not whether a taxi will be adequate
James (6) “IIRC from my history we only have a third party because the Conservatives and Liberals didn’t agree to merge in the 1950’s. How far we have come!”
But you have to admit that your Cameron is doing all he can to convert the Tories into Lib Dems. NOMINALLY (in terms of the Lib Dem policies they are putting forward - sometimes) they are getting close…
But I really do feel that there will be an almighty revolt from the Tory backwoodsmen when Your Dave sends in an application form for the Tories to join the Lib Dems en masse.
10 You are correct , and i stand corrected.
PS. Baxter has been discredited since before the last general election. Not news….
25 Sorry - When we need them.
26 - I agree, although I think it depends how strong the squeeze is. I think your best shot at gains will be against Labour, and moving slightly leftwards as you have recently will assist. The problem is that with the emergence of a noticeably less toxic brand of Conservatism you will have a heck of a fight on your hands in the South and South West.
Anyone got s handle on tonite’s poll?
23 - Quite. Baxter obviously has major flaws but then so does any simplistic calculator. Bear in mind that in the face of a general nationwide Liberal decline there is an argument that they will suffer greater percentage-wise in areas of strength, because those are the areas where they arguably will have far greater levels of “soft” support.
When people criticise the calculators, over and above their obvious well documented flaws, it is noticeable how often there is a complete ignorance of the percentage share of the LibDem vote plugged in - ie. half the time the criticisms are actually criticisms of the polls, not the calculator which is dependent upon them.
Biggest LD rises at last GE were in hopeless seats - like Ealing Southall. This is where the LD vote is at its softest.
In many LD held seats, despite a 5% increase nationally, the LD vote barely rose, or even fell.
This is the opposite of the Baxter model.
Re: 31 - I tend not to think in terms of “left” and “right” any more, James. That’s such a 1980s view of things and I leave seanT to talk in those terms.
I’m sure a 4p cut in income tax is extremely left-wing as well
27 - bit difficult to tell though. The Lib Dems have gone from rabid tax raisers to rabid tax cutters in the space of 5 years!
UK Polling Reports Calculator gives the following figures based on the Calculus percentages:
Con : 246
Lab : 348
LD : 29
Other: 9
NI : 18
Seems a bit closer to me……
27 - You know I can so see that happening. Not. I think that you have hit the nail on the head though. The Lib Dems and Liberals before them always prospered when Conservatives declined. During the 90’s the party carefully maintained equidistance and hoovered up votes off of Tories in 1997 and on into 2001 as well. The re-emergence of a credible Conservative party in the political mainstream severely damages the Lib Dems.
345 (previous thread) Nick Palmer “God, you can take me now. I’ve finally seen everything.”
By-election in Broxtowe - read all about it……
By the way Nick… Gordon Brown in his statement in the House on Iraq referred to a reduction for the troops in Southern Iraq to 2,500. Curious why he needed to say Southern. This formulation still allows him to move some troops to Baghdad; or maybe somewhere along the Iranian border. I’ve found when listening to Gordon Brown’s satements, it pays to listen to every single word - for none are placed there lightly.
Plus - what was the “1,000 reduction by Christmas” about last week, when he could have made a bigger splash by talking about going down by 3,000. Something here still does not stack up. Genuinely baffled by this.
Whilst Baxter is an obvious nonsense, it’s worth remembering that in the past 60 years the Liberals did badly at general elections when a Labour government lost power ie 1950/51, 1970 and 1979.
However, those landmark years led to increases in support over the following years. If history repeats itself, a Conservative victory at the next election will see the Lib Dems gather strength once Cameron & Co inevitably lose popularity.
Past waves of Liberal support got stronger each time, both in terms of councillors and MPs. Who knows what may happen from 2009/2010 onwards?
Even more interesting may be the future for the Labour party once it loses power. In the past, its existence was sustained by a philosophy and the Labour “movement”. Since “New” Labour was invented purely to gain power (and to hell with all pretence of socialism), what will keep the party together? Is tribalism enough?
34 - it varies. Sure there are extremely soft patches of support due to the rise in the vote at the last election. But is this support that will be necessarily the first to go in the context of a Tory advance?
Just because a chunk of the electorate has been supporting the LibDems consistently for 3 elections vs the hopeless Tories, doesn’t mean that it isn’t soft.
Re: 36 - Sorry, Alex, “rabid tax raisers” - not sure what you mean. There was a policy to raise the top level of tax to 50% at one time but I believe that was to be balanced by an above-inflation increase in the taxation threshhold.
Not sure that’s “rabid”.
39 500 troops are going to Kuwait instead of to Iraq so they won’t be seeing their families at Christmas will they?
Mike,
Thank you for this thread.
If the buy price on LibDems goes up a couple of notches I WILL buy.
A wonderful betting opportunity!
Wait until just before a new leader is installed,I will try to find out whaever I am able to.
Martin Baxter really needs to revise his formula. It is more elegant, mathematically speaking, than Uniform National Swing in that it doesn’t allow a party’s vote share to fall below zero, but he has taken a sledgehammer to crack a nut as it really doesn’t matter much how a party fares in seats where it starts from 10% of the vote.
In the marginal seats where the parties in contention generally have between 35% and 45% of the vote, Martin’s proportional fall/uniform rise method favours Labour and Tories over the Lib Dems, and the historical evidence doesn’t support this. If you apply Baxter’s method to 1979, the last election when the Liberals suffered a significant fall in vote share, they are projected to fall to 1 seat, whereas UNS projects 6 seats and they in fact ended up with 11 seats, including one retained by-election gain.
As for incumbency, I think this has been overstated as a reason for the Lib Dems improved seat gains/retentions. Prior to 1997 a high proportion of Lib Dem seats were in remote rural areas where everyone knows who their MP is, and incumbency counts for more. It remains to be seen how this will play out in the more urban seats with mobile populations that the Lib Dems have gained at recent elections should they suffer a big swing against them next time. However, the pool of potential personal votes for any Lib Dem MP is probably higher than that for their Labour and Tory counterparts, as there are fewer people who are strongly anti-Lib Dem.
Personally, I wouldn’t be too bothered if the Lib Dem parliamentary contingent could fit in the back of a taxi after the next election (though I would prefer that Evan Harris and David Heath were in that taxi). But even if their vote share halved I can’t really see them falling below 20 MPs next time
“rabid tax raisers”, not rabid tax raisers.
IMO the LibDems have a habit of getting far too tied up in the minutiae of policy details.
(BTW i’ve always said that the 50% tax rate was ultimately ludicrous, not because of the policy itself, but because it was targeted at an income of 100k in every election from 1992 until 2005!)
35 - The problem is it looks like a gimmick attached as an afterthought rather than a part of a credible strategy. Second you appear to have gone back to almost a satirised version of yourselves. Immigrant amnesties for instance may be justified and philosophically justifiable but I can guarantee they don’t attract votes anywhere much. Also your green policy may have merit but is too easily portrayed as just a bit crackers, especially when spun as being about abolishing carbon totally. Erm humans are carbon based.
Why did Gordon Brown let the TV cameras see his press conference notes, btw? Did he really need them?
“We’re all doomed!”
The reality is that another 18 months gives more time for the other two parties to get their act together and finish appointing all their candidates and build up their support.
The Conservatives are better at this than Labour who still have unfilled 1/3 of their top LD target seats.
A delay to 2009 and the current estimate of 20 LD losses may rise to 30. But not 60!
Baxter is cack. Don’t encourage him, Mike! He uses proportional loss, which does not fit the empirical data anyhow. No mainstream psephologist uses it, because they know it’s for the birds.
There is some evidence of a more proportional loss at the extremes. i.e. If you start with 10% in a seat and lose 10% raw nationally you are unlikely to end up with 0% in that seat, but suffer a more proportional decline. Likewise, where you start on 70% and are losing nationally there is some tendency to take a larger hit, in proportion to what you started with.
However, in the range of about 30-55% of the vote there is no evidence of a proportional swing. And this is precisely the range where seats are won or lost. Uniform swing, while not perfect, is a far better predictor here.
But even uniform swing does not really capture the performance of the LibDems (or Nats for that matter), which is repeatedly shown election after election to be more influenced by local and personal factors…
The current line from Brown on the Iraq trip is that “he would have been criticised if he’d made a statement to the House, without having visited the troops in Iraq”
Anyone know on what grounds?
51 Quite. Look at Cardiff Central 2001-2005. Did the Tory vote increase in line with national trends. Did it heck, it dropped off a cliff with relentless Lib Dem squeezing with the message only we can win
“The Lib Dems have gone from rabid tax raisers to rabid tax cutters in the space of 5 years!”
Oy! Less of the rabid please! We’re not that European!
Why Baxter persists with his flawed methodology, I don’t know. He seems obsessed with making his sums “tidy” i.e. you can never in reality have a negative vote share or more than 100%. He achieves this spurious accuracy at the expense of the only useful information a swingometer is supposed to provide - how many seats, realistically will a party win?
His own common sense must tell him his predictions are risible.
Well we can argue over how we model votes to seats from now till armageddon and we will never find a model that will take account of the most unpredictable variable, humans!! They will always have the propensity to bugger up even the most complex calculations etc
51 - Has anyone tried to construct some slightly more detailed models using adaptations of the “past vote” data offered by some of the polling companies?
I’m sure if you could reasonably estimate the two party swings between the parties then far more realistic outcomes could be produced, and help to solve some of the problems surrounding the LibDems.
44- herbert- you are without doubt my favourite poster on pbCOM- I am going to start your campaign for pbCOM poster of the year now.
Go Herbert!!!
19 TBH Ave It and let’s indulge your fantasy here if there were only 1, my money would not be on Lembit. Ms Lloyd is brinmg her book out. I’m sure you’ll be first to buy…
14 Serious;y good point. Lib Dems defied vote share link to vote % as turnout dropped down. But IMHO it would have to hit 70% to have a real effect and even with a close race that would be highly surprising in one leap
*seats to vote share link*
The LibDems seats are relatively impervious to the “national swing”, which should not surprise if one reflects on this question:
“How many LibDem seats were gained in the first place due to the national swing?”
Our Labour PPC in a three-way marginal often quotes Baxter’s projections to show that the Lib Dems are nowhere and it’s a two-horse race. I really ought to enlighten him, but..
61 - Thats as maybe but I guess there are a couple of dozen seats that are highly vulnerable to energetic campaigns.
59 - True but it’s a great unknown. Look at France. Or even the United States (where i think the way turnout is recorded appears to reduce the impact)
34&45 Another big factor will be Tory voting in hopeless seats or not. With their own mountain to climb their candidates in certain seats eg Islinton South Norwich South and Swansea West are likely to be quite alone. To what extent the Lib Dems can exploit this will determine their success in breaking that historic link that the Liberals/Lib Dems must be down if Tories are up
Those forecasting a LibDem wipeout still have to explain why in all the council byelections in September/October the LibDem vote rose overall compared to when they were last fought in 2005/2006 or 2007 . There were seats in which it fell but those were nearly all where the LibDem vote was already low . An overall collapse in the LibDem vote suggested by the national polls should be mirrored to at least some extent in the local results .
To me this suggests that the national polls are froth opinions reacting to day to day headline news from people who have little interest in politics . It is also interesting that the marginal poll by ICM indicates a LibDem national level of support of around 17/18% rather than Yougov’s 11% . Now they cannot both be right and of course may both be wrong but the differences are clearly fundamental not Margin Of Error based and we should be trying to establish the cause or causes for this difference .
It was interesting to hear Bob Worcester the other day say that Ipsos-Mori had their own model that they use to translate vote share into seats.
In the light of that it was a bit surprising to see that the Independent use Baxter for their predictions.
65 - I would suspect that with a resurgent Tory party (if that is what it turns out to be) Tory voters will be keen to go to the polls and support their team, regardless of the individual seat situation.
59 But it’s been ages since the Lib Dems had a Welsh leader; tons of Scots, an Englishman and an Indian born, Northern Irishman (educated in Bedford though).
Though perhaps with Lembit in charge Martin Baxter would be proven right….
” Martin Baxter’s system has a built in bias against the Lib Dems. ”
… don’t we all?
18 Ben Brogan has picked it up!
Quite so, at 8.05pm, Great minds, etc!
66 Very simple Mark, the by elections leading into the May locals projected Lib Dem gains and not the several hundred cllrs that were lost.
By elections are one offs and bear little relationship to full elections.
I think common consensus is that 11% is too low for the Lib Dems. I think thought what it does show is that the Lib Dems have problems, and that the 20% or so they got in 2005 is probably a current highwater mark. It is perfectly possible for the Lib Dems to lose share and not lose and possibly increase seats. From 1992-1997 the Lib Dem national vote share went down by about 1% but seats went from 18 to 46. So it is feasible to decouple share and seats, however I think that it is going to be tougher with a 4-5% drop in support.
Most General Election voters have little interest in politics.
71 - Far be it for me to blow my own trumpet, but i picked it up 2 days ago.
57 Yes alex , I have done this but of course you cannot use it with Yougov polls as they do not give any comparitive figures for vote at the last GE ( though they did pre 2005 ) . It is also possible to take the raw data from Mori and Populus and estimate pretty closely what result ICM would have published from that raw data ( and vice versa ) .
76 - Any good? Combine it with the pollsters standardising their regional boundaries and we might actually get somewhere!
A terrible “ten” for Gordo. BBC News at Ten that is.
The beat goes on.
68 Why do you think that. The same was not true of Labour voters in say Sheffield Hallam, Cheadle or Solihull then. I’m guessing that even with a rising Tory tide they could exploit the revenge factor. Look you know whatever the Tories do nationally they can not win here, use us to turn the knife hard just as they once said vicer versa to Labour voters
69 Yes Lembit could do that
72 That is much too simplistic an answer HF , as you know in May LibDems had a loss of circa 275 seats , what increase in the national vote share would have turned that into a net gain using universal national swing ( not a Baxter model ) . I have worked it out and the results surprised me but I would be interested in your guesstimate .
Lib Dems need a woman. Maximises coverage in GE campaign by rediscovering USP.
78 You’ve found a new hobby SeanT. Gordon baiting.
39 you are right. they will be moved to the east and the iranian border, maybe in conjunction with US action against Iran. you just cant trust a word he said.
81 - I thought politics was about issues not personalities?
The Populus poll is out.
Labour up 1 on 40.
Tories up 2 on 38.
But 4/5 of the poll was done before Yellow Saturday. Fairly useless.
Lib Dems on 12!
Oh dear.
84 - I agree not much use really. Although I think that will probably be true of polls for at least 5-6 months.
79 - Labour weren’t “resurgent” in 2001 and 2005.
Sean T. Is there no end to your talents? Now you are PB.com’s scoopmeister with the latest poll news.
Not sure if it has been mentioned in the previous threads, but Colin Breed (LD, South East Cornwall) has announced he will stand down at next GE
Why can’t people digest that Baxter HAS done a comparison of his method (the transition model) and traditional UNS (the additive model) over the 4 elections from 1987 to 2001 and found both models EQUALLY GOOD at predicting the number of seats.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/index.html
(Click on “Sitemap”, then “New Transition model”, then go to Section 4 - “Comparison and Backtesting”).
This point has been made many times before but people seem unable to digest this point.
84 - Why the hell did the Times commission two Populus polls in 4 days?
90 - EQUALLY BAD
90 But the 2 different models are not giving the same result now so they cannot now be both EQUALLY GOOD .
91 - Supress their profit and tax liability perhaps!
85 - the trend of all these polls is just justifying my suggestion in 14.
Implied turnout rising as Tory and Labour voters rachet up their certainty to vote. And it’s not just the LibDems who are suffering.
“Others” are disappearing back from whence they came.
87 Compared to 1979-1996 they were. In 2001 especially Labour were still massively strong but they were able to channel Labour voters in certain seats to them rather just blithely following UNS. Tory voters are human beings too, I’m sure in Islington South they know Cameron could win a Majority of 150+ and not take it. They know the score so why should they be different. How much do they want to hurt Labour maybe the real key
86. One thing we CAN safely say is that the Lib Dems are collapsing.
Which is no surprise, seeing as Ming has turned them into a slightly embarrassing appendage to Labour, like those little male angler fish that are umbilically attached to the massive female angler fish.
Come on Lib Dems, shape up. Ditch the old duffer, and get someone new. And get some policies that are different to Labour’s in IMPORTANT ways. Be prepared to scare or annoy Gordon - the man is a pathetic meringue anyway. Who cares what he thinks.
Start with calling for an EU Constitution referendum. It’s the only honourable course.
Let the people decide. How Lib Dem a motto is that?!
Do it.
80 So what seat figures did you get
Given the considerable amount of brainpower amongst LibDem supporters (and take that remark as the sincere compliment that is meant), I am amazed that no LibDem mathematician/computer programmer has produced a realistic model for turning projectd votes into seats that does not produce these silly results where the LD’s get reduced to zero seats.
93 - I wonder if that suggests that the underlying bedrock of electoral politics may have shifted.
I think you’re misunderstanding my argument. “Resurgent” does not mean “strong”. I’m not denying that Labour were still strong in 2001. However once Labour were in with their massive majority it would have been far easier in 2001 to encourage their voters to look elsewhere.
And yes, it’s only a theory.
93. They could well be equally good if the true result is halfway between the 2 different forecasts.
97 - I think that ditching Ming could be as much curse as blessing. I don’t think they could realistically get rid of the policy legacy. It was possible for Ming to ditch most of the previous policies because they were likely getting ditched anyway. I think changing leaders now would lead to accusations of lack of seriousness, to junk one leader in a parliament is a shame to junk two would be a shambles.
97 - I thought Ming had come out in favour of some sort of EU referendum?
Yes Andrea a new opportunity for Conservatives in Cornwall South East with sitting LD MP Colin Breed announcing he is standing down, Maj 6000 Vs strong local Conservative female candidate selected a year ago.
http://tinyurl.com/2hpr9h
Criticisms of Baxter almost always seem to relate to the Lib Dems. I don’t know but wonder if it is possible that Baxter is better at predicting seats switching between Lab and Con and this is offset by being worse at predicting Lib Dem gains/losses.
80 Mark Senior, all I know is that Lib Dems are close to their fewest % of councillors in many years and you keep waffling on about a few by elections. Step back and see the big picture.
104 - Yes a straight in or out vote. I think he has one eye on his South-Western flank where UKIPerry is strong and he hopes he can shore up his vote by naked opportunism like this.
97 - “And get some policies that are different to Labour’s in IMPORTANT ways.”
4p off basic rate of income tax
Scrap ID cards
Part-privatise the Post Office
That’s three for starters…
98 I was waiting for an estimate from HF , Punter , but the answer is less than 2% , a 2% increase in LibDem vote last May would have gained them 310 seats . Conversely a 2% decrease in the LibDem vote last May would have lost them a further 200 or so seats .
104. They decided to call for a stupid “in or out” referendum that no one believes would ever happen, certainly not under a Lib Dem “government”. (stop laughing at the back)
It’s juvenile politics like this that give the Lib Dems their fatal “studenty” image.
If I may venture a word of advice, the USP for Lib Dems should not be “a female leader”, but this: being the only totally honest party in the UK (as much as that is possible): the party that acts as the conscience of the nation. The party that tells it like it is.
This is the position the Lib Dems took on Iraq, to great effect. They should do the same on all other issues. I think it would work for them.
The EU Referendum would be a start. Calling for an in or out vote is just a silly stopgap to paper over divisions, and it is perceived as such. The honourable course it to hold Brown to his manifesto promise (and the Lib Dem promise for that matter) and to demand a Constitution plebiscite.
But that’s just one example. The Lib Dems have to take the high road - the moral path - the M25 of righteousness that leads to the Heston Service Station of political survival.
Otherwise they are doomed.
Well, on second thought, let’s not go to Electoral Calculus. It is a silly place.
Just in case anyone’s forgotten:
GORDON BROWN =
:lol: 
!!!
106 Good summary
110 I mean’t in terms of Westminster seats if extrapolated. Ming was boasting that in held and target seats you did very well. Is it possible to gauge a figure for a bit of fun as Peter Snow would say
90. Mike L, Baxter was much closer on Labour seats in 1997, but it was a complete fluke. The Conservative share did not fall proportionately, it was much closer to a uniform fall. The Labour and Lib Dem share in Con held marginals did not change in proportion to their national change, it went to the party best placed to kick out the Tory. The two errors cancelled each other out that time, but there is no reason to believe that the exceptional circumstances of 1997 will be repeated.
111 - One slight problem with your advice, they enjoy telling different audiences diametrically opposite things. They are totally dishonest and were caught out in Watford for a trick that is a LibDem trademark.
http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/localnews/display.var.1737678.0.lib_dems_say_sorry.php
Here’s a thought. If the Lib Dem poll ratings continue to plummet, is there a point where they will start campaigning for the retention of First Past the Post, on the grounds that an alternative voting system would see them wiped out?
Just wondering.
117 - That would never happen, they always want the opportunity to barter there policies for a morsel of power and the only price is an electoral system that entrenches their ability to barter there policies for a morsel of power.
107 That statement is simply false HF .
IIRC the LDs made their large rise in 1997 because of tactical voting which persists to this day. However, come 2010 the tactical voting may work the other way and Tories might elect LD MPs in preference to their current Lab one - for instance in my seat. Then the LDs would do better than the polls suggest and by building up votes in the marginals where they need them they will win more seats than UNS or Baxter predict.
120 - The main reason for LibDem gains in 1997 was Tory collapse (although there obviously was some tactical voting “under the radar” which doesn’t show up in the headline numbers) The main reason for LibDem gains in 2001 was tactical voting.
120 - Yes but you would see an anti-Tory tactical unwind and knowing Conservative activists they would rather disembowel themselves with a spoon than vote Lib Dem so they would hardly be going around suggesting it which would be the only way to guarantee the effect.
90. Ah yes, but it’s a strange set of figures he produces to justify his model. I giving this as an example only (I don’t know the true figures obviously) but Baxter’s figures might not be telling the whole story.
e.g. UNS 30 seats wrongly predicted
Baxter 30 seats wrongly predicted
Ergo, equal predictive power. Not quite.
The 30 wrong UNS seats could broadly cancel out, while the Baxter errors could all be one way!
There is some evidence to suggest this, as I think Baxter grossly overestimated the Labour majority in 2005. His method, if I am reading his figures correctly, forecast a majority of 132. Hill & Knowlton’s swingometer, which uses UNS forecast a majority of 92. The actual majority was 66, so while not close, H&K was a helluver lot closer than Baxter…
Surely it’s the aggregate seat totals that are of interest, not whether a particular seat happened to buck the trend?
We know that UNS should never be taken as gospel in forecasting a single (marginal) seat, but overall it should balance out.
I’d much rather see Baxter offer a comparison of average aggregate deviations from the two predictions. I suspect his method would be revealed as highy inferior to UNS….
99. I’m working on it…
re 106 that’s because it’s more sensitive to changes in the Lib Dem vote because they start at only about half the level of the other 2 parties.
over the past few days ive found that i can sum up brown in 8 words: All the spin of Blair without the flare.
It will be interesting to see what happens to Cameron’s ratings over the next few months. People have assumed they have nose dived as a result of Brown taking over Labour.
Supposing it is nothing to do with Brown but just that voters have had a good look and decided they don’t like what they see? He has been on show for two years now and the graph has been pretty consistant. It could be a very good time for the Libs.
123. I would be very surprised if Baxter hasn’t considered your point - why not ask him?
126. Good theory, but wrong. Cammo’s ratings have moved up sharply, along with the Tories’, in recent days.
Try again, my old papaya.
Are there direct orders going out from CCHQ to post things on here?
What are the orders for tomorrow? We have had a period of Brown bashing; today is mainly LD baiting; aha! perhaps the EU Referendum.
How about “Political Betting”?
126 - Hmm wouldn’t they have benefitted more recently if that theory was going to work?
Well, if he’s considered it, he’s shown a reluctance to publish the results!
129. I take orders from no one! Except my id, obviously.
re 122 but you’re forgetting Tories visceral hatred of Lab (well I can’t stand them either actually) and 13 years of opposition might even force them to consider tactical voting to get them out.
120 This must be a possibility see 65
122 That applies to all Party activists generally. But they are not representative of their own Party’s voters never mind the public generally
123 Get a move on then
If only electoral calculus was true. We can but dream of that happy day.
129 - I really don’t think that this is CCHQ’s target audience really.
122 The antipathy shown by Conservative activists towards LibDems is not shared by the vast majority of Conservative voters .
136 - yeah, but surely even Tories enjoy winding up the opposition!
132 - Sean, it’s pretty obvious you’re independent minded! I would never accuse YOU of being a Tory troll.
126.I think that safe Libdem incumbents like my MP will be in danger *if* voters decide they want a change at Westminster and they fancy a Conservative government will deliver it. I don’t even think a change of leader will stop the Libdems losing ground if change is the main issue on the agenda.
138 - Not as much as beating the opposition!
123. Agree entirely, Rod. All the expositions of UNS make it clear that it is not trying to predict individual seats. There will always be a Solihull, Withington or Blaenau Gwent to confound such predictions. UNS assumes that these deviations will cancel each other out. The rise in tactical voting and the skewed distribution of marginal seats challenges this assumption, but is still more robust and rational than Baxter’s model.
The lib dems now face a much more sustained challenge in the seats which are con - lib fights - do not underestimate this - i know lib dems on the ground are surprised to find a fight on their hands from local cons who were previously a push over
combined with tactical unwind - i see some huge upsets - 2005 was just the beginning of this .
From a betting perspective the number of lib dem seats looks to be a very interesting market but we will have to wait a couple of years unfortunately
138. Cool. I may be a ranting idiot, from time to time, but I’m not an apparatchik!
Bon nuit….
139 - who’s your MP?
Surely a change of leader can help a little bit. Unless it’s Lembit!
When Cameron said Brown was an analogue politician in a digital age, I though of Ming. The LDs need somebody with visibility, who can get on TV and get acrossa message, or soundbite, if you like. This is not happening at the moment, and it is not right to blame the media for ignoring us.
As D:ream sang in the mid 1990s…
142 - I agree there are seats such as Romsey and Torbay which should shift quite quickly. I see the south London Lib Dem insurgency being a ripe target too.
Peter Riddell article in the Times including latest populus poll
http://tinyurl.com/33xs6p
145 - yeah, those local election results in Richmond were quite something for the Tories this year!
145 you are hitting some of the right spots for con gains ……….
147 - Surely Richmond is a London borough, in which case the results would have been last year and things have moved on somewhat.
146. It’s pretty solid - Labour up one to 40. I think voters are actually pleased that there will be no election. It’s Black Wednesday territory only when voters are angry.
PS John Denham did well on Newsnight. He’s an experienced 1992 politician and perhaps should be sent on TV more.
If the Tories don’t win Romsey next time, they may as well give up!
Incidentally well done to Nick Cohen who hit the nail on the head here a couple of weeks ago when he said it would be Gordon who had the problem having boxed himself in. Also to StJohn a rare Labour supporter who spotted a minor flaw in the otherwise impeccable character of our dear Prime Minister when others saw only sweetness and light!
150. You dippy old heifer. The poll was 4/5 done BEFORE the Yellow Saturday climbdown, so it tells us nothing.
Sharpen up, Sargeant Snowflake.
I really don’t see how getting rid of the Liberal leader will help. I think people have an unrealisitc view of where the Liberals should be, based on what happened in the “glory days” of 2003-2005. That period where the Tories were still incredibly popular and because of Iraq, so was Labour, was never going to last. What we see now is politics reverting to a more typical scenario, and that means the Liberals are squeezed.
The Liberals will NOT be completely wiped out, because what things like opinion polls don’t take into account, is how liked and respected individual MP’s are in their constituancy. As long as an MP is a good and well liked MP, some will survive.
But the Lib’s fate at the next genral election, is to have a massive loss of seats, I’m afraid. No change in leader will stop this inevitable fate. The Liberals should hang on to Ming and take the hit, and then see who’s left to pick up the pieces after the election.
153. You sound a bit stressed SeanT!
As I’ve stated on here before it was the same method that Baxter uses that resulted in the ludicrous 1986 Guardian headline:- “Alliance zoom to 266 seats - on a computer”
I think they were on about 33% in the polls…
The method was baloney then, it’s baloney now…
144.Robert Smith, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. If there is a real tussle between Labour and the Conservatives like 92′ and the voters think that the outcome hangs in the balance, the Libdems will suffer.
148 - I know, I have a sneaking suspicion that Harrogate could be game on too. Southport, Cheadle, Taunton, Eastleigh and Portsmouth South I would be seriously looking at as well.
I really don’t see how getting rid of the Liberal leader will help. I think people have an unrealisitc view of where the Liberals should be, based on what happened in the “glory days” of 2003-2005. That period where the Tories were still incredibly unpopular and because of Iraq, so was Labour, was never going to last. What we see now is politics reverting to a more typical scenario, and that means the Liberals are squeezed.
The Liberals will NOT be completely wiped out, because what things like opinion polls don’t take into account, is how liked and respected individual MP’s are in their constituancy. As long as an MP is a good and well liked MP, some will survive.
But the Lib’s fate at the next genral election, is to have a massive loss of seats, I’m afraid. No change in leader will stop this inevitable fate. The Liberals should hang on to Ming and take the hit, and then see who’s left to pick up the pieces after the election.
150. As SeanT points out the majority of this poll was carried out before Brown’s announcement. So there might be some movement.
However, I suspect it will remain fairly stable after that with only a little drift over the next few weeks.
155. No, just mildly impatient with yr endless spinning, especially when it is so factually wrong on such a basic level. Come on, shape up!
This is pb.com. We expect a high standard of spinning, if you must spin. This isn’t Labourhome.
149 147 in the local elections in 2006 the conservatives won in the wards that make up the Richmond park parliamentary constituency
158 - “I know, I have a sneaking suspicion that Harrogate could be game on too. Southport, Cheadle, Taunton, Eastleigh and Portsmouth South”
Harrogate - Phil Willis (any relation Rik W) is popular, populist and retiring. You should certainly dent the majority, but it’s a biggie.
Taunton - I just doubt it. It was a good gain, but I think Browne will hang on.
Eastleigh - no chance!
154 I do not accept your prognosis , a charismatic and popular LibDem leader could quite easily transform the political outlook . Look in detail at the popularity ratings and even now immediately after an admittedly successful conference Camerons and the Conservative party ratings are not those of a party that can be described as incredibly popular . My view as I have stated ad nauseam for 18 months is that that LibDem leader should be a female .
160. I still think a big hit is coming for Labour, over this. Wait a few days for the reaction to trickle through the electorate. I reakon these bad headlines will cost Labour at least 3-4% and most interesting will be to see what damage has been done to Brown’s personal ratings. We’ll know more by the end of the week/weekend.
150 As Peter Riddel reminds us Black Wednesday was a survivable event; what did for John Major was breaking a manifesto commitment (sound familiar) - the growth after Black Wednesday would have caused it to be a blip had Major acted promptly rather than wasting months of inaction.
In Budget of 1993 (for all the right reasons) the Conservative Party elected a year before, warning of
the Labour Tax Bombshell and going to the country on tax cuts, broke their pledge and raised taxes. Once Major’s government had reversed that pledge there was no trust and the electorate was open to Labour’s messages. The media piled in to find the sex scandals and dishonesty.
Brown can survive this loss of trust provided there isn’t another event. While Europe isn’t as important as tax a row over a broken promise re-inforces the “he’s not being straight with us” message.
164.A popular charismatic female leader will not improve the Libdem performance, or transform the political outlook if the other two parties are neck and neck in the polls and the keys to No10 are up for grabs.
166. I second that point.
Is Andrea around to tell us how much, and how dramatically, the polls moved after Black Wednesday? Was it immediate, the Tory collapse, or was there a timelag?
Or is Riddell right and it was more the 1993 Major tax “betrayal”?
163 - Taunton majority 573. Puff of wind would take it.
Eastleigh majority 568. Similarl puff of wind territory.
And before you go on about the great Huhne, he is a beardy liberal and he doesn’t have the electoral advantage of an actual beard. He is one of the few people who makes the Chancellor look interesting and charismatic.
150 you are right about john denham. thats because he is a man of integrity compraed to that sham of a leader of yours. the labour party have some great MPs, shame they all support disgraceful leaders.
164. If your a Liberal supporter, then I’m sure you don’t accept my prognosis. However, I believe I’ll be proved right about this. The Liberals are the third party. They are the protest party. They are the party people turn to when they fall out with the others. The next election will be a classic, closely fought Tory Vs Labour contest, which will leave the Lib’s a bit-players, I’m afraid.
OK, change the leader if you want, but I just can’t see it making much differance. I guess time will reveal all.
168 - I think Riddell is correct, I think the Conservative Party recovered somewhat after Black Wednesday.
Re 137, Mark senior, “122 The antipathy shown by Conservative activists towards LibDems is not shared by the vast majority of Conservative voters .”
Likewise, the antipathy shown by Lib dems towards Conservatives is not shared by a similar portion of Lib Dem voters.
A charismatic leader would make a huge difference to the Lib dems. According to the Populus poll AFTER the conferences and the tax cuts Brown/Darling was preferred to Cameron/Osborne on the ecconomy by 43% to 28%. So whatever anyone thinks of Brown the Tories aren’t convincing anyone. It’s an open goal for the right Lib Dem.
167 The other 2 parties may be neck and neck in 2 years time but that may be because they are both equally unpopular .
174. Yet despite their lead on the economy, the party of Brown/Darling is just levelpegging with the Tories.
Now, imagine what’s gonna happen if the economy takes a tumble, as now seems inevitable. The economy is the one thing propping up Labour support. Without that…
No wonder some of the young guns wanted to go early.
173 The last polls I saw still showed LibDem voters 2nd choice was Labour rather thsn the Conservatives by nearly 2 to 1 .
174 - Yes but before the conference the economy question produced a rating of 56-18 so the gap has narrowed from 38 points to 15.
177 - Hardly surprising lefties stick together.
174. Unless the government gets themself into a huge mess on the economy, Brown/Darling will always score better on the economy, simply because they have been in power for ten years and the perception is that things have gone well. Theres very little Cameron/Osborne can do, other than hope things go wrong. The people that are in government always have that advantage.
I don’t see what thats got to do with the problem facing the Liberals, though?
173 - a fair point. However, the lower the LD vote share gets, the more diehard, and anti-Tory (and Labour) the supporters are.
177. Then how come the Lib Dem vote is collapsing, the Tories are rising, and Labour are treading water?
It makes sense to me that Cameron is closer to most Lib Dems, certainly in the south, than tubthumping BNP-quoting ID-card loving Gordon Brown.
177. That may well be because the Lib Dem types that might move to the Conservatives have already moved across since Cameron came in and are no longer included as “Lib Dem voters”
180 - “Theres very little Cameron/Osborne can do, other than hope things go wrong.” If they really hope the economy goes wrong, then it shows the Tories are still the nasty party.
172 Polls stayed OK until around the conference season, then a couple of bad months then a bit of a recovery in early 1993 (ICM even had a lead in January 93). After Spring 93 it was September 2000 until there was a very short Tory lead (something about petrol IIRC).
Think people would have accepted an emergency package of taxation straight after Black Wednesday if it had been directly tied to a forced change in economic policy - who knows - but the ERM exit was the trigger not the bullet, Maastricht and Tax broke Major’s government.
Re 177, Mark Senior, “173 The last polls I saw still showed LibDem voters 2nd choice was Labour rather thsn the Conservatives by nearly 2 to 1 .”
And how many Conservatives would vote Lib Dem? I think you will wind that at the most 1/3 might consider it. (I.E. 2 to 1)
184. Oh tish tish. Every party hopes things will go wrong for the opposition. Doesn’t make them nasty. I’m sure there were plenty of lefties gloating about Black Wednesday, when the country lost billions.
Re 181, SBS, Granted, yeas the smaller the number the few the breakers.
184 and Labour hasn’t wallowed in the economic downturn that gave them the opportunity?
It’s a fact that an opposition will not be judged more competent on the economy unless the economy goes wrong - hope isn’t the word to use but all oppositions wait the eventual downturn unless they can point to other failures. There is always a downturn.
I think the 43% to 28% makes a pretty good case that Labour would have won the election by a landslide. It’s always the ecconomy that decides things particularly if there aren’t internal party squabbles. It was stupid to have listened to polls taken at the height of the Tory Conference. They were bound to be misleading. The difficulty was that the polls themselves gave the Tories a momentum
189 - Yeah it looks like next year will be interesting.
187 - so what level of interest rates / inflation / unemployment would be an acceptable price to pay, so long as it would ensure a Tory victory? And how would it affect Messrs Osborne and Cameron.
I am glad Osborne wears a dark suit.
187. Exactly. I bet Labour MP’s were rubbing their hands with glee on September 14th 1992 (even though they had supported entry into the ERM) Thats the nature of politicians (Nick P exempted of course
)
190 - I don’t think it is always necessarily the economy. I think it was a great Clintonian soundbite but it isn’t the whole story. In fact 2 elections kind of prove it, 1992 econonmy crap. Govt re-elected. 1997 economy booming. Govt sacked.
193 - so it’s already to hope for economic meltdown because Labour did in 1992? Do you also hope for Armageddon in Iraq if it helps damage Labour?
re 168 ICM polls - quite right. The Tories recovered to be in the lead in Jan 93 in both voting intention and handling of the economy and thinks went downhill in Mar 93
Voting (C/Lab)
Sep 92 39/35
Oct 92 38/38
Nov 92 36/40
Dec 92 36/41
Jan 93 39/37
Feb 93 37/39
Mar 93 36/41
Apr 93 34/39
May 93 32/38
Jun 93 31/38
Sep 93 29/40
Dec 93 31/42
Economy (C/Lab)
Sep 92 28/24
Oct 92 24/24
Nov 92 19/25
Dec 92 not asked
Jan 93 24/23
Feb 93 24/25
Mar 93 21/28
Apr 93 22/29
May 93 19/24
Jun 93 not asked
Sep 93 not asked
Dec 93 19/27
192 - It isn’t necessarily high inflation, interest rates or unemployment that are indicators of a craply run economy. Massive overeliance on debt and ramping up spending levels when the income isn’t ramping up at the same rate is a bit idiotic and it is beginning to play on the mind of the electorate.
190. But we will never know. I think it could have been a lot closer, possibly a hung parliament. The marginals poll showed the Tories 6% ahead.
I think this is why Labour will lose the next election. The Tories have more money, they are more motivated, they are targetting the marginals, Brown is weak and already diminished.
There is a weariness to Labour these days. A great team in decline. The intelligence is still there, but the will power and energy has gone.
Even Wigan Athletic lost in the end.
185, 196. Ta!
195. ??????? What makes you think I’m hoping for economic trouble? I said;
On the economy, all Cameron and Osborne can do is hope things wrong for Labour. Which is an essential truth, because on the economy theres NOTHING an opposition can do to win trust, unless the government has trouble.
Last time I checked I was neither Cameron or Osborne (though I do wish I had their money in the bank account
)
“Even Wigan Athletic lost in the end.”
I’m sure there is something profound there but I can’t quite figure it.
190 Roger read this from the Times and imagine it repeated in 33 seats - all that were needed to change sides.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2615352.ece
201. Not sure it is profound. It’s not even accurate. I meant Wigan Rugby LEAGUE team, not the footie club. My bad.
But you get the general drift.
200 - sorry if I implied you were hoping for the economy for stuff up. But do Cameron and Osborne pray for really nasty economic news that will hit people hard and ruin their lives?
204 - No, obviously not.
204. I don’t want to get anybody sued, so I’ll just say, most politicans (particuarly opposition ones) generally want things to go wrong for their opponents, because it gives themselves an opportunity. You don’t make it to Prime Minister without being ruthless.
Obviously nobody wants to see their fellow citizens suffering, but if your David Cameron and you know the only way your going to be trusted by the electorate to run the economy os for the government to fail, then it would be foolish to deny that he would like everything to stay rosy forever.
Re 204, SBS, No, of course not, but generally that is the only way to change the economic competence figures.
having said that, there is another way…
Joyless growth.
That is where the economy may be growing but disposable income either is not or is in decline.
206 - I profoundly disagree. I think it is cynical think that politicians sit there wishing disaster on their opponents. Yes politicians will always wish to take advantage if the worst happens. However most politicians try to set out a convincing alternate narrative to the prevailing one regardless.
204. No they count, as Tories particularly always do, on the ‘have a little want a little mores’ to be enticed by the sweeties of maintaining their comfortable lives, whilst continually fearing that ‘dark forces’ are somehow going to snatch it away from them. These are two mottos that all campaign managers should have stapled to their eyelids lest they forget them - one is ‘fear’ and the other is ‘greed’. Dave and George are praying that circumstances can produce the right mix of these two factors.
Re 202, Ted, to be fair we are going to retake Crawley next time no matter what. We have gained the council for the first time ever, though only just and have since consolodated the position.
205-7 - cheering to get these replies.
I think Osborne would be well advised to curb his enthusiasm a little then. It may come across the wrong way if the economy does stuff up - as well it might. Perhaps a little of the serious “I’ve been warning of this for 3 years” character of Vince Cable, but without the “We’re all doomed” side of Mr Cable.
209 - I always prefer a more robust view of human nature and the possibility of running a campaign on optimism, hope and enlightened self interest.
208. I probably am too cynical about politicians. I’m a natural born cynic. I admit that.
204. As long as Cameron’s wife can flog her £950 handbags ( so in touch with ordinary people ) the Tories will be happy.
211 - I think he has been in terms of his economic brief. From what I have seen of him of late he has developed a much more weighty critique. It will be instructive to see him reply to Darling tomorrow unless it is the leader who replies as with the budget.
214 - If you looked you will probably find that it is in touch with where ordinary people want to be. Aspiration is a powerful motivator, it is pretty much the precursor to the envy that motivates left wing politics.
212. We would always like to think that. But compare Cameron at last year’s conference - all ‘hello trees, hello clouds’ - with Cameron this year when the prospect of an election was on - bang - straight back to aspirational ‘tax cuts’ and veiled attacks on single mothers and benefits scroungers. Sure you sweeten the medicine to make the swing voter feel less dirty, but you sure as hell make sure that everyone else is to blame for me not being that little bit richer, and feeling that little bit safer.
217 -
How are the polls looking in the South West, Paul?
So the Lib Dem slide continues - or is it a rout? To have your party’s support almost halve in a couple of years is nothing short of disastrous! It is especially relevant on the day that in Reading we unveiled our two Lib Dem defectors to the local press.
Incidentally PB.com is really proving to be THE organ of choice for so many politicians of all levels. After posting my teaser the other day about Lib Dem defectors the Reading Lib Dem group leader approached me at the weekend to ask who they are!
Is there anyone who DOESNT read PB.com? lol
Ted at 202. I’m not at all surprised. I heard the same thing from quite a few people. It was as though Osborne had offered them a guaranteed win on the lottery. Brown would certainly have had to do something about it. It’s ironic that Howard before the last election offered the same deal as Osborne on stamp duty and it counted for nothing. With IHT he hit the jackpot.
Re 220, Roger, Odd isn’t it?
Stamp duty has the power to affect the here and now, where as IHT is only relevant when people die.
However I think the key is this: A tax on death is offensive.
End of.
We don’t object to those with sacks and sacks of money paying it, just as long as it is the very few, not anybody we have ever heard of.
220. I wonder if Howard is thinking “if only”.
At the 2005 GE he offered tax cuts of £4billion. This related to stamp duty and 2 other things which I can’t remember (think one may have been pension contributions?).
Is he now thinking “if only I’d made it IHT and stamp duty as per last week” (cost only £3.5billion so he could have made the stamp duty change even more generous).
He might now be PM!
As aTory I do hope the LibDems do not replace Campbell. He is a worthy Scot but the image he gives for his party is not helpful.
We would have a much tougher time with a younger more dynamic personality at the top of that tree.
A younger person may be more willing to accept the old electoral model of tactical voting is changing, and simply trying to build anti-Tory alliances in all constituencies may not be the universal answer. It worked well in the past and may work well in particular constituencies in the future, but the polling shows it may be yesterday’s game plan overall.
While the Tories are making their USP more discernible the LibDems seem to have lost theirs and Labour, with the Mrs T stunt particularly , damaging theirs.
All the parties will have to readjust to the new realities and the one that does it quickest and best will be the winner.
219 - still haven’t heard about the identity your defectors. Tried googling, but it never works googling the word “Reading”.
Haven’t been following the goings on of local politics too much recently. Will I have heard of them?
The irony is that inheritance tax has become more of an issue because of increased house prices, a result largely of a 10 year sustained economic growth period, raising the number of houses that are potentially worth more than the threshold from 7% to 12% of homes. However this does not take into account the fact that many houses are sold before they become ‘inheritance’ as people downsize / move into old people’s homes etc. There are still only around 6% of estates that are liable for this tax, meaning that it is a tax that is probably, on balance, is not going to affect most of us. And even if it does, it merely means we are prospering. But as I said before, fear and greed are seemingly the strongest motivators, and it seems that regardless of the fact that it is a tax that only hits people who are in real terms very wealthy people, a policy that is aimed at that heart really does turn heads. Sad but true.
PS Alastair - no polls recently except internal ones - and as Gordon will tell you, no one puts much stall in them
Re 225, Paul Lloyd, “and it seems that regardless of the fact that it is a tax that only hits people who are in real terms very wealthy people”
With regret that is tosh as the really wealthy get away without paying any as they have advisers to help them avoid it.
221. It should be illegal for people to write “End of.” as if they somehow think that it makes it illegitimate for anybody to make any further contribution to the debate.
I saw Bob Wareing and Carole Vincent in Trafalgar Square yesterday. They weren’t eating treacle pudding.
Paul Lloyd I admit I find the whole enthusiasm for the IHT proposal a little confusing. It doesn’t grab me one iota.
Voters are often not strictly logical and while people may be happy at the perceived value of their houses, they might well be ungrateful if they feel they cannot hang on to it after their death - even when they are hale and hearty and in their 40’s.
Perhaps people may wonder why the threshold is so low when the housing boom has been allowed if not encouraged by the government, who use an inflation target indicator that omits all the key housing costs for home buyers.
We may have to accept that it is as it is.
Re 227, John Loony was not meant to be that much of end of.
However, people generally would find a tax on death as offensive.
Try this on:
A relative dies in a road accident, the estate pays £500 tax.
Good idea?
No.
So why do we tax estates? Where do we draw the lines?
Any way, this will end my part in the debate, I am off to bed.
G’nite!
DEFECTION ALERT!!
Meadowcroft joins the LibDems!!!
http://www.nigelashton.org.uk/news/000034/michael_meadowcroft_joins_lib_dems.html
Sensational!
Baxter’s numbers are music to my ears when you live in a Labour marginal where the Lib Dems are the challengers not the Tories, as I do, the City of Durham to be precise - if only.
230. Now if they could only “patch-up” in Liverpool West Derby they might give the ridiculous Twigg a run for his money in 2009…
224 - Thankfully we abolished paperclip officers at the time of merger. Not that it’ll stop the braying hordes of course - assuming none of it’s a figment of his imagination
214.
“As long as Cameron’s wife can flog her £950 handbags ( so in touch with ordinary people ) the Tories will be happy”
Some of us would be happier if she flogged her hubby with her handbag. Nothing an Old Etonian enjoys more than a good flogging. Oother than a good hanging - if the galleries are open in Bond Street!
202 A typical and cr*p report with false figures . The average house price in Crawley for house sold in July was just over £ 200,000 nowhere near the £ 400,000 mentioned in the article .