It is very amusing to see the bizarre logic of those opposing Cameron's right to buy policy. According to Labour supporters:
A lifetime subsidy of the rent is good. Even if the subsidy is to someone who no longer needs such a big property.
A one-off discount on the sale, freeing up capital to be reinvested in more housing for those on the waiting list, is bad.
You can see why we are such a mess when a large chunk of the population think like that!
And the logic for allowing people to buy social housing with extra rooms they do not at significantly reduced prices is what?
Money. To build smaller houses.
The average price of a plot of building land in London in 2012 was £430,000. Let's call that £500,000 now. Throw in building costs and you are probably looking at north of £650,000 at a minimum for a replacement property following a sell-off. With discounts offered to tenants, to begin to think about building one the open market price of the sold property will probably need to be around £800,000 to £900,000. The average price of a property in London is significantly lower than that. This may explain why council house sales have by far outstripped replacement builds over the last few years.
Can we have some citations for these figures please. £500k for a plot of land in London doesn't sound realistic at all. Maybe in some parts of Kensington it will go as high as that but there is no way that in places like Wood Green or Tottenham a plot would cost even half that figure.
"Land costs vary massively across the UK, from an average of £50,000 in Northern Ireland to a whopping £430,000 in London for a standard 1/15th-hectare sized plot."
Of course, there will be variations across London, but that applies also to selling properties. And for all acquisitions, councils will be competing against private developers, who will not be so constrained in terms of offering social housing. Land in London is scarce and expensive.
This is a great policy for people who currently live in social housing in London. Given the low proportion of builds to sales we have seen with council houses, I am not sure how it helps anyone else.
Mr. Grandiose, "It's deceitful. It's unfunded. I support it."
Doubling 'free' childcare will be popular, but seems crackers to me.
It's an excellent policy which will likely cost very little due to the income tax receipts that result from more parents being able to work.
Tax free minimum wage sounds very expensive though - if the MW rises to £8 an hour by the end of the parliament then that implies a personal allowance of £14,100 by 2020 (8 * 37.5 * 47). And presumably NI thresholds will not rise too.
I don't think it's a 37.5 multiple - I think it's 30. Or is for the moment, I don't know the plans that well.
Edit: Yes, 30. Or £11,280 overall. Not cheap though.
Mr. Grandiose, "It's deceitful. It's unfunded. I support it."
Doubling 'free' childcare will be popular, but seems crackers to me.
Tax free minimum wage sounds very expensive though - if the MW rises to £8 an hour by the end of the parliament then that implies a personal allowance of £14,100 by 2020 (8 * 37.5 * 47). And presumably NI thresholds will not rise too.
Reduction in working tax credits? i.e basically just people keeping their own money in the first place with a hefty load of spin.
The latest research also asked the British public for their predictions on the outcome of the election. Almost a third (30%) think there will be no overall majority but that the Conservatives will be the largest party with one in five (19%) saying Labour won’t have a majority but will be the largest party. Over a quarter don’t know (26%).
Did they really need to do this fox-hunting thing? I bet it nabs a lot of media attention from other pledges which are far more important. For those voters who really are keen on a return to hunting with hounds (and it is a lot more popular in rural constituencies than squeamish urbanites realise) it's not even a pledge to bring it back, just to have a free vote on it which may very well not pass anyway. It's not as if that kind of voter is likely itching to vote Miliband but the return of fox-hunting will lure them back to Team Blue. The rural constituencies don't even tend to be marginal, though admittedly there are a lot of very tight seats where rural and urban areas blend. Are the Tories worried about a UKIP surge in the countryside? Or just offering some (rather lame) red meat to get up core voter turnout, possibly in seats where they don't need it?
Another poll mirroring the big UKIP to Con swing. ICM not an outlier?
With Easter gone and the election getting close everything moving into line. Take two from UKIP and add to Con and that will be very close to the result.
UKIP -> Tory swing. Tories would still need to get UKIP down another 4-5%.
Here is a thought, with Cameron's manifestos pledges today, will that actually play well with the UKIP vote? I would imagine most UKIPers are older and believe in what Thatcher used to call "sound money".
The Tories promising to spend money like it is going out of fashion, will that actually play well with UKIPers, or will it be like so many of Cameron's attempts it plays well with people who will never vote Tory e.g his green policies.
Did they really need to do this fox-hunting thing? I bet it nabs a lot of media attention from other pledges which are far more important. For those voters who really are keen on a return to hunting with hounds (and it is a lot more popular in rural constituencies than squeamish urbanites realise) it's not even a pledge to bring it back, just to have a free vote on it which may very well not pass anyway. It's not as if that kind of voter is likely to itching to vote Miliband but the return of fox-hunting will lure them back to Team Blue. The rural constituencies don't even tend to be marginal, though admittedly there are a lot of very tight seats where rural and urban areas blend. Are the Tories worried about a UKIP surge in the countryside? Or just offering some (rather lame) red meat to get up core voter turnout, possibly in seats where they don't need it?
' They have presided over my wealth increasing between 35-40% in the last five years. Property stock market '
Instead of showing off & trying to impress us with your wealth,just donate the offensive wealth to charity ,it will make you less frustrated & you can wear it as a badge of honor.
Taking the last four rounds of Ashcroft marginal polling together, we get a swing of 3% from Con to Lab., and 4.8% from Lib Dem to Con.
If the swing were uniform, one would see 38 Conservative losses to Labour, and 17 Conservative gains from the Lib Dems. Assuming 4 Conservative losses to Others, that would result in 281 seats for the party.
In all likelihood, the Conservatives would be the largest party, on these numbers, but short of the numbers they need to remain in office.
My latest 'hunch' is that the Conservatives will drop 25-30 seats to Labour on the night itself, and your four other losses seem about right, and pick up a dozen from the LDs. Lab to pick up 9 from the LDs.
So i can see an election result of 285-290 Con seats, 255-265 Lab, and 26-28 LD seats on a 3% GB Con lead.
Could make for some very interesting negotiations.
Did they really need to do this fox-hunting thing? I bet it nabs a lot of media attention from other pledges which are far more important. For those voters who really are keen on a return to hunting with hounds (and it is a lot more popular in rural constituencies than squeamish urbanites realise) it's not even a pledge to bring it back, just to have a free vote on it which may very well not pass anyway. It's not as if that kind of voter is likely to itching to vote Miliband but the return of fox-hunting will lure them back to Team Blue. The rural constituencies don't even tend to be marginal, though admittedly there are a lot of very tight seats where rural and urban areas blend. Are the Tories worried about a UKIP surge in the countryside? Or just offering some (rather lame) red meat to get up core voter turnout, possibly in seats where they don't need it?
What's the strategy here? I'm not seeing it.
The Tories' ear has been hooked by the CA qua pressure group. Few voters in rural constituencies care about fox-hunting and even fewer care and want it made legal. (I expect the Free vote to struggle to get a majority of Tories.)
Under Labour the move was symbolic of what the Eye would call the "Department for the Elimination of Farming and Rural Affairs". But as one voter on Look East put it "we haven't had much change from the government (other than hens' beaks)" - and that's how most rural people like it.
Mr. Chestnut, interesting coincidence. Also very close to the 2010 result, although I'd expect quite a difference when it comes to seats, what with the SNP and UKIP, and the potential collapse of the Lib Dems.
Did they really need to do this fox-hunting thing? I bet it nabs a lot of media attention from other pledges which are far more important. For those voters who really are keen on a return to hunting with hounds (and it is a lot more popular in rural constituencies than squeamish urbanites realise) it's not even a pledge to bring it back, just to have a free vote on it which may very well not pass anyway. It's not as if that kind of voter is likely itching to vote Miliband but the return of fox-hunting will lure them back to Team Blue. The rural constituencies don't even tend to be marginal, though admittedly there are a lot of very tight seats where rural and urban areas blend. Are the Tories worried about a UKIP surge in the countryside? Or just offering some (rather lame) red meat to get up core voter turnout, possibly in seats where they don't need it?
What's the strategy here? I'm not seeing it.
Although the hunting ban has been more symbolic than real, it is resented by quite a lot of people. It's throwing some red meat to supporters.
It's interesting to compare the ban on hunting and the ban on smoking in pubs. Hunters see absolutely nothing wrong with what they do, so the ban has been ineffectual. Smokers are mostly ashamed of what they do, so the ban has been effective.
All this "locking stuff into law" talk has long become a nonsense, but this case provides the perfect example. They are modelling this change in law on the "Rooker-Wise" amendment that benefits increase by inflation.
That would be the link with inflation that Osborne broke with a two-year cap of 1%, then. Oh.
Absolutely and about time too. It should be locked in law too.
As someone who runs a small business I find it shocking for the government to be saying we should be constantly increasing our costs due to it being the minimum people need - but then taking that money off our employees. If its the minimum needed, it should be kept by them.
Taxing minimum wage employees is no better than paying less than minimum wage. It should never be tolerated and this should be locked into the minimum wage legislation so that a future Labour government would have to change the legislation to raise the minimum wage but not the tax free threshold.
Next step should be raising the NI threshold to the same rate.
Next step should be raising the NI threshold to the same rate.
While I can see the logic in your remarks, NI is of course a determinant for benefits and above all pensions. So to take those people who, as the poorest in society, would be most likely to need benefits if they lost their jobs, out of NI would require another radical overhaul of the benefits system and of the state pension system. That strikes me as a bad idea given the upheaval they have just gone through.
No it's not that link has long since been broken.
The NI threshold for pension and other issues is the "Lower Earnings Limit" of £111 a week but that has no NI deductions made. The NI threshold for charges actually being made is the "Primary Threshold" of £153 a week. Only after that rate will deductions be made.
The Primary Threshold should be raised to the same threshold as Income Tax. The Lower Earnings Limit could be kept the same.
UKIP -> Tory swing. Tories would still need to get UKIP down another 4-5%.
Here is a thought, with Cameron's manifestos pledges today, will that actually play well with the UKIP vote? I would imagine most UKIPers are older and believe in what Thatcher used to call "sound money".
The Tories promising to spend money like it is going out of fashion, will that actually play well with UKIPers, or will it be like so many of Cameron's attempts it plays well with people who will never vote Tory e.g his green policies.
Dave needs to hammer home in every speech that voting UKIP means putting Ed in No 10.
Clear, express, unambiguous terms. Every speech. Don't stop saying it every day from now till polling day.
It's so obvious that if the UKIP figure came down by 5 points it would go to the Tories, and get him over the line, probably in his own right. It's the one big thing he can do to get out of the hole he's still in.
It's such an obvious no-brainer.....
....that I can see why he's not doing it.
I am not a Tory, but I agree. If I was Cameron, I would forget all the personal attacks on Ed and focus on making it 100% clear if you vote for Farage then you get not just Red Ed, you get Red Ed propped up by Sturgeon. I would have thought that would put the fear of god into a lot of former Tory now UKIP voters.
Did they really need to do this fox-hunting thing? I bet it nabs a lot of media attention from other pledges which are far more important. For those voters who really are keen on a return to hunting with hounds (and it is a lot more popular in rural constituencies than squeamish urbanites realise) it's not even a pledge to bring it back, just to have a free vote on it which may very well not pass anyway. It's not as if that kind of voter is likely itching to vote Miliband but the return of fox-hunting will lure them back to Team Blue. The rural constituencies don't even tend to be marginal, though admittedly there are a lot of very tight seats where rural and urban areas blend. Are the Tories worried about a UKIP surge in the countryside? Or just offering some (rather lame) red meat to get up core voter turnout, possibly in seats where they don't need it?
What's the strategy here? I'm not seeing it.
Although the hunting ban has been more symbolic than real, it is resented by quite a lot of people. It's throwing some red meat to supporters.
It's interesting to compare the ban on hunting and the ban on smoking in pubs. Hunters see absolutely nothing wrong with what they do, so the ban has been ineffectual. Smokers are mostly ashamed of what they do, so the ban has been effective.
Symbolism goes both ways. I'm not a hunter and wouldn't want to do it either. But I'm fine with it in the manifesto. It was a direct attack and needs to be pushed back on.
I'd rename the May Day BHols to something patriotic - just for the crying on Twitter by Lefties.
Did they really need to do this fox-hunting thing? I bet it nabs a lot of media attention from other pledges which are far more important. For those voters who really are keen on a return to hunting with hounds (and it is a lot more popular in rural constituencies than squeamish urbanites realise) it's not even a pledge to bring it back, just to have a free vote on it which may very well not pass anyway. It's not as if that kind of voter is likely to itching to vote Miliband but the return of fox-hunting will lure them back to Team Blue. The rural constituencies don't even tend to be marginal, though admittedly there are a lot of very tight seats where rural and urban areas blend. Are the Tories worried about a UKIP surge in the countryside? Or just offering some (rather lame) red meat to get up core voter turnout, possibly in seats where they don't need it?
What's the strategy here? I'm not seeing it.
The Tories' ear has been hooked by the CA qua pressure group. Few voters in rural constituencies care about fox-hunting and even fewer care and want it made legal. (I expect the Free vote to struggle to get a majority of Tories.)
Under Labour the move was symbolic of what the Eye would call the "Department for the Elimination of Farming and Rural Affairs". But as one voter on Look East put it "we haven't had much change from the government (other than hens' beaks)" - and that's how most rural people like it.
UKIP -> Tory swing. Tories would still need to get UKIP down another 4-5%.
Here is a thought, with Cameron's manifestos pledges today, will that actually play well with the UKIP vote? I would imagine most UKIPers are older and believe in what Thatcher used to call "sound money".
The Tories promising to spend money like it is going out of fashion, will that actually play well with UKIPers, or will it be like so many of Cameron's attempts it plays well with people who will never vote Tory e.g his green policies.
Dave needs to hammer home in every speech that voting UKIP means putting Ed in No 10.
Clear, express, unambiguous terms. Every speech. Don't stop saying it every day from now till polling day.
It's so obvious that if the UKIP figure came down by 5 points it would go to the Tories, and get him over the line, probably in his own right. It's the one big thing he can do to get out of the hole he's still in.
Major was in a slightly different position in 1992, but there was an assumption then in that assumed dead-heat campaign that if the Tories could squeeze the LD vote a bit they'd get home with a majority, and so he made it a big part of his soapbox campaign if a phone was heard to ring "if that's Paddy, the answer's no"
It's such an obvious no-brainer for Dave to ram home the consequence of a UKIP vote in a Tory seat or target.....
Did they really need to do this fox-hunting thing? I bet it nabs a lot of media attention from other pledges which are far more important. For those voters who really are keen on a return to hunting with hounds (and it is a lot more popular in rural constituencies than squeamish urbanites realise) it's not even a pledge to bring it back, just to have a free vote on it which may very well not pass anyway. It's not as if that kind of voter is likely to itching to vote Miliband but the return of fox-hunting will lure them back to Team Blue. The rural constituencies don't even tend to be marginal, though admittedly there are a lot of very tight seats where rural and urban areas blend. Are the Tories worried about a UKIP surge in the countryside? Or just offering some (rather lame) red meat to get up core voter turnout, possibly in seats where they don't need it?
What's the strategy here? I'm not seeing it.
Vengeance is rarely sensible political strategy if you're trying to build an electoral coalition. Works better on the steppes, particularly if we replace the game of "who's got the thicker manifesto" with "who's got the best de-braining sword?"
I get what kind of voter they're pitching it to. But I can't see why now is a good time to be doing said pitching, when you're trying to reach out to other segments, many of whom are likely to be turned off by the policy, and even those neutral-to-apathetic about it are going to be distracted from the more substantial and wider-ranging pledges by the inevitable urban-centric media fixation about cute furry things.
Given that those who are very against hunting are likely to never vote Tory ever - I think it's moot. It's a tiny % of voters who give a damn - it costs the Tories nothing to roll it into the mix.
Did they really need to do this fox-hunting thing? I bet it nabs a lot of media attention from other pledges which are far more important. For those voters who really are keen on a return to hunting with hounds (and it is a lot more popular in rural constituencies than squeamish urbanites realise) it's not even a pledge to bring it back, just to have a free vote on it which may very well not pass anyway. It's not as if that kind of voter is likely to itching to vote Miliband but the return of fox-hunting will lure them back to Team Blue. The rural constituencies don't even tend to be marginal, though admittedly there are a lot of very tight seats where rural and urban areas blend. Are the Tories worried about a UKIP surge in the countryside? Or just offering some (rather lame) red meat to get up core voter turnout, possibly in seats where they don't need it?
What's the strategy here? I'm not seeing it.
Vengeance is rarely sensible political strategy if you're trying to build an electoral coalition. Works better on the steppes, particularly if we replace the game of "who's got the thicker manifesto" with "who's got the best de-braining sword?"
I get what kind of voter they're pitching it to. But I can't see why now is a good time to be doing said pitching, when you're trying to reach out to other segments, many of whom are likely to be turned off by the policy, and even those neutral-to-apathetic about it are going to be distracted from the more substantial and wider-ranging pledges by the inevitable urban-centric media fixation about cute furry things.
Yep - it's priority issue, though. If you can raise that amount by getting councils to do this, is the money best spent to help provide generous subsidies to people who already have life-long tenancies and pay low, affordable rents, or would it be better deployed elsewhere? Especially as there is no evidence of council house sales being replaced on a like for like basis by new social housing. Far from it, in fact.
Symbolism goes both ways. I'm not a hunter and wouldn't want to do it either. But I'm fine with it in the manifesto. It was a direct attack and needs to be pushed back on.
I'd rename the May Day BHols to something patriotic - just for the crying on Twitter by Lefties.
Did they really need to do this fox-hunting thing? I bet it nabs a lot of media attention from other pledges which are far more important. For those voters who really are keen on a return to hunting with hounds (and it is a lot more popular in rural constituencies than squeamish urbanites realise) it's not even a pledge to bring it back, just to have a free vote on it which may very well not pass anyway. It's not as if that kind of voter is likely to itching to vote Miliband but the return of fox-hunting will lure them back to Team Blue. The rural constituencies don't even tend to be marginal, though admittedly there are a lot of very tight seats where rural and urban areas blend. Are the Tories worried about a UKIP surge in the countryside? Or just offering some (rather lame) red meat to get up core voter turnout, possibly in seats where they don't need it?
What's the strategy here? I'm not seeing it.
The Tories' ear has been hooked by the CA qua pressure group. Few voters in rural constituencies care about fox-hunting and even fewer care and want it made legal. (I expect the Free vote to struggle to get a majority of Tories.)
Under Labour the move was symbolic of what the Eye would call the "Department for the Elimination of Farming and Rural Affairs". But as one voter on Look East put it "we haven't had much change from the government (other than hens' beaks)" - and that's how most rural people like it.
I don't really have a problem with a free vote, if people feel they were diddled out of it somehow. And Labour did give the impression rural voters were being stitched up.
Ref hunting. Clearly it will galvanise some of the country set/Kipper defectors and is easily dropped in the event of coalition negotiations. Cameron obviously wants droppable policy so he can be seen to 'compromise' as he knows 326 is probably out of reach. Cynical and clever.
Ref hunting. Clearly it will galvanise some of the country set/Kipper defectors and is easily dropped in the event of coalition negotiations. Cameron obviously wants droppable policy so he can be seen to 'compromise' as he knows 326 is probably out of reach. Cynical and clever.
UKIP -> Tory swing. Tories would still need to get UKIP down another 4-5%.
Here is a thought, with Cameron's manifestos pledges today, will that actually play well with the UKIP vote? I would imagine most UKIPers are older and believe in what Thatcher used to call "sound money".
The Tories promising to spend money like it is going out of fashion, will that actually play well with UKIPers, or will it be like so many of Cameron's attempts it plays well with people who will never vote Tory e.g his green policies.
Dave needs to hammer home in every speech that voting UKIP means putting Ed in No 10.
Clear, express, unambiguous terms. Every speech. Don't stop saying it every day from now till polling day.
It's so obvious that if the UKIP figure came down by 5 points it would go to the Tories, and get him over the line, probably in his own right. It's the one big thing he can do to get out of the hole he's still in.
Major was in a slightly different position in 1992, but there was an assumption then in that assumed dead-heat campaign that if the Tories could squeeze the LD vote a bit they'd get home with a majority, and so he made it a big part of his soapbox campaign if a phone was heard to ring "if that's Paddy, the answer's no"
It's such an obvious no-brainer for Dave to ram home the consequence of a UKIP vote in a Tory seat or target.....
....that I can see why he's not doing it.
No, it isn't obvious. Why appeal for just 9% of the vote (ICM) rather than also pitch your tent to the 91% of non-Kippers?
Voting UKIP does mean Ed and Salmond/Sturgeon calling the shots. The Tories are saying it. But that should not be all they are saying.
Ref hunting. Clearly it will galvanise some of the country set/Kipper defectors and is easily dropped in the event of coalition negotiations. Cameron obviously wants droppable policy so he can be seen to 'compromise' as he knows 326 is probably out of reach. Cynical and clever.
It's just a free vote though, right?
It's not ever going to pass.
It only passes if the Tories get 326 plus If not it's coalition and the pledge is dropped as a sop to whoever he is cosying (St Nicholas Clegg)
If the Blue Kippers come home Ed is toast. The problem will be for them to identify which seats they are doing well in and which ones they should abandon.
Ref hunting. Clearly it will galvanise some of the country set/Kipper defectors and is easily dropped in the event of coalition negotiations. Cameron obviously wants droppable policy so he can be seen to 'compromise' as he knows 326 is probably out of reach. Cynical and clever.
It's just a free vote though, right?
It's not ever going to pass.
Honestly it may well fail to gain a majority of Tories let alone overall.
Ref hunting. Clearly it will galvanise some of the country set/Kipper defectors and is easily dropped in the event of coalition negotiations. Cameron obviously wants droppable policy so he can be seen to 'compromise' as he knows 326 is probably out of reach. Cynical and clever.
I think he's serious about the pledge but it wouldn't pass the House anywhere south of a Conservative majority of about 50.
Ref hunting. Clearly it will galvanise some of the country set/Kipper defectors and is easily dropped in the event of coalition negotiations. Cameron obviously wants droppable policy so he can be seen to 'compromise' as he knows 326 is probably out of reach. Cynical and clever.
It's just a free vote though, right?
It's not ever going to pass.
It only passes if the Tories get 326 plus If not it's coalition and the pledge is dropped as a sop to whoever he is cosying (St Nicholas Clegg)
I doubt it'd pass even if the Tories got to 326 plus. As a free vote how many Tories would abstain or vote against?
By the way for those think ukip might only get one seat.. Thurrock prob value at 4/6
PB Shrewdies said Tim aker wouldn't get much help from ukip hierarchy
Rowena Mason (@rowenamason) April 13 Rapturous reception in Thurrock for Nigel Farage's speech - a packed out darts championships venue pic.twitter.com/lU76uFL17Y
Simon Dedman (@SiDedman) April 13 This is the largest audience for a political rally I've seen since the #SNP in Glasgow here in #thurrock #ukip pic.twitter.com/r9TuRsQq3g
John Stevens (@johnestevens) April 13 Nigel Farage going down a storm. Have genuinely never seen such an enthusiastic response to a political speech pic.twitter.com/H4DhmgFav0
UKIP -> Tory swing. Tories would still need to get UKIP down another 4-5%.
Here is a thought, with Cameron's manifestos pledges today, will that actually play well with the UKIP vote? I would imagine most UKIPers are older and believe in what Thatcher used to call "sound money".
The Tories promising to spend money like it is going out of fashion, will that actually play well with UKIPers, or will it be like so many of Cameron's attempts it plays well with people who will never vote Tory e.g his green policies.
Dave needs to hammer home in every speech that voting UKIP means putting Ed in No 10.
Clear, express, unambiguous terms. Every speech. Don't stop saying it every day from now till polling day.
It's so obvious that if the UKIP figure came down by 5 points it would go to the Tories, and get him over the line, probably in his own right. It's the one big thing he can do to get out of the hole he's still in.
It's such an obvious no-brainer.....
....that I can see why he's not doing it.
I am not a Tory, but I agree. If I was Cameron, I would forget all the personal attacks on Ed and focus on making it 100% clear if you vote for Farage then you get not just Red Ed, you get Red Ed propped up by Sturgeon. I would have thought that would put the fear of god into a lot of former Tory now UKIP voters.
I would expect that to be the line, especially in the last week.
Thought the Tory manifesto was a bit bolder than I'd thought, maybe Cameron is a bit more "arsed" about it all than I had believed last week.
Interesting "reverse" themes over the past two days, with Labour trying to go all Bundesbank on us ("we'll cut the deficit"), and the Tories trying to splash the cash on the social side. Who will the electorate believe least? Clearly the Tories are hoping that they have such a (relative to Labour) reputation for fiscal rectitude that it won't count against them if they promise some goodies. Labour sort of the opposite.
I must say the "no tax on minimum wage" line is a real cracker mind, in a good way.
Game on, but the maths still favours the reds and their Celtic "allies". Can the Tories drag enough Kippers into the fold and not leak too many to the L Dems at the same time? Will Labour's discipline hold (especially in Scotland where the light at the end of the tunnel is looking ever more like the oncoming train)?
If the Blue Kippers come home Ed is toast. The problem will be for them to identify which seats they are doing well in and which ones they should abandon.
Would be amusing to see a flood of returnees burying Carswell in Clacton, not much chance of that, but Reckless is in trouble now.
Ref hunting. Clearly it will galvanise some of the country set/Kipper defectors and is easily dropped in the event of coalition negotiations. Cameron obviously wants droppable policy so he can be seen to 'compromise' as he knows 326 is probably out of reach. Cynical and clever.
The pledge for a free vote doesn't need to be dropped. If the votes in the HoC aren't there, they aren't there.
Ref hunting. Clearly it will galvanise some of the country set/Kipper defectors and is easily dropped in the event of coalition negotiations. Cameron obviously wants droppable policy so he can be seen to 'compromise' as he knows 326 is probably out of reach. Cynical and clever.
Nah.
Lefties think Cameron is Harry Enfield's Toryboy when in fact he's Tim nice but Dim.
People on here are making the UKIP being just disaffected Tories mistake again..
I don't think anybody (well other than Cameron) thinks that, but a significant proportion are. If they get 15+ %, the Tories are stuffed. If they can get them down below 10%, it seems with the rise of the Greens and SNP eating into Labour's vote, that would put the Tories in a good position.
Are you seriously arguing that not even 1/3 of current UKIP polling aren't pi$$ed off former right wing Tory voters?
Ref hunting. Clearly it will galvanise some of the country set/Kipper defectors and is easily dropped in the event of coalition negotiations. Cameron obviously wants droppable policy so he can be seen to 'compromise' as he knows 326 is probably out of reach. Cynical and clever.
It's just a free vote though, right?
It's not ever going to pass.
It only passes if the Tories get 326 plus If not it's coalition and the pledge is dropped as a sop to whoever he is cosying (St Nicholas Clegg)
Even in a Coalition the pledge need not be dropped as in a free vote a return to fox hunting would be substantially defeated. Even a Con majority of 50+ might not be enough.
Election Forecast CON seat losses to Labour > 50% probability.
Lancaster and Fleetwood Hendon Dewsbury Cardiff North Wolverhampton South West Broxtowe Brentford and Isleworth Waveney Keighley Weaver Vale City of Chester Bedford Carlisle Stroud Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport Sherwood North Warwickshire Erewash Lincoln Wirral West Enfield North Morecambe and Lunesdale Bury North Amber Valley Finchley and Golders Green Hastings and Rye Warrington South Northampton North Hove Nuneaton Ipswich Ealing Central and Acton Croydon Central
If the Blue Kippers come home Ed is toast. The problem will be for them to identify which seats they are doing well in and which ones they should abandon.
Would be amusing to see a flood of returnees burying Carswell in Clacton, not much chance of that, but Reckless is in trouble now.
Farage is pushing those who are anti-labour to vote Tory. The best game plan for the Tories is to claim that every seat in which they are fighting (even those that need a 7% swing to/ from Labour) is a marginal.
UKIP -> Tory swing. Tories would still need to get UKIP down another 4-5%.
snip
Dave needs to hammer home in every speech that voting UKIP means putting Ed in No 10.
Clear, express, unambiguous terms. Every speech. Don't stop saying it every day from now till polling day.
It's so obvious that if the UKIP figure came down by 5 points it would go to the Tories, and get him over the line, probably in his own right. It's the one big thing he can do to get out of the hole he's still in.
It's such an obvious no-brainer.....
....that I can see why he's not doing it.
I am not a Tory, but I agree. If I was Cameron, I would forget all the personal attacks on Ed and focus on making it 100% clear if you vote for Farage then you get not just Red Ed, you get Red Ed propped up by Sturgeon. I would have thought that would put the fear of god into a lot of former Tory now UKIP voters.
I would expect that to be the line, especially in the last week.
Thought the Tory manifesto was a bit bolder than I'd thought, maybe Cameron is a bit more "arsed" about it all than I had believed last week.
Interesting "reverse" themes over the past two days, with Labour trying to go all Bundesbank on us ("we'll cut the deficit"), and the Tories trying to splash the cash on the social side. Who will the electorate believe least? Clearly the Tories are hoping that they have such a (relative to Labour) reputation for fiscal rectitude that it won't count against them if they promise some goodies. Labour sort of the opposite.
I must say the "no tax on minimum wage" line is a real cracker mind, in a good way.
Game on, but the maths still favours the reds and their Celtic "allies". Can the Tories drag enough Kippers into the fold and not leak too many to the L Dems at the same time? Will Labour's discipline hold (especially in Scotland where the light at the end of the tunnel is looking ever more like the oncoming train)?
Did they really need to do this fox-hunting thing? I bet it nabs a lot of media attention from other pledges which are far more important. For those voters who really are keen on a return to hunting with hounds (and it is a lot more popular in rural constituencies than squeamish urbanites realise) it's not even a pledge to bring it back, just to have a free vote on it which may very well not pass anyway. It's not as if that kind of voter is likely to itching to vote Miliband but the return of fox-hunting will lure them back to Team Blue. The rural constituencies don't even tend to be marginal, though admittedly there are a lot of very tight seats where rural and urban areas blend. Are the Tories worried about a UKIP surge in the countryside? Or just offering some (rather lame) red meat to get up core voter turnout, possibly in seats where they don't need it?
What's the strategy here? I'm not seeing it.
The Tories' ear has been hooked by the CA qua pressure group. Few voters in rural constituencies care about fox-hunting and even fewer care and want it made legal. (I expect the Free vote to struggle to get a majority of Tories.)
Under Labour the move was symbolic of what the Eye would call the "Department for the Elimination of Farming and Rural Affairs". But as one voter on Look East put it "we haven't had much change from the government (other than hens' beaks)" - and that's how most rural people like it.
Speak for yourself. I live in rural constituency, care about it and want it made legal.
Maybe CCHQ is also hoping for the groundworker army from CA, though, like last time.
I would expect that to be the line, especially in the last week.
Thought the Tory manifesto was a bit bolder than I'd thought, maybe Cameron is a bit more "arsed" about it all than I had believed last week.
Interesting "reverse" themes over the past two days, with Labour trying to go all Bundesbank on us ("we'll cut the deficit"), and the Tories trying to splash the cash on the social side. Who will the electorate believe least? Clearly the Tories are hoping that they have such a (relative to Labour) reputation for fiscal rectitude that it won't count against them if they promise some goodies. Labour sort of the opposite.
I must say the "no tax on minimum wage" line is a real cracker mind, in a good way.
Game on, but the maths still favours the reds and their Celtic "allies". Can the Tories drag enough Kippers into the fold and not leak too many to the L Dems at the same time? Will Labour's discipline hold (especially in Scotland where the light at the end of the tunnel is looking ever more like the oncoming train)?
Fascinating stuff (except in Wales!)
With postal voting, especially among the old, last week is probably too late to start firing the "think of the horror of Red Ed and Sturgeon" missile.
Ref hunting. Clearly it will galvanise some of the country set/Kipper defectors and is easily dropped in the event of coalition negotiations. Cameron obviously wants droppable policy so he can be seen to 'compromise' as he knows 326 is probably out of reach. Cynical and clever.
It's just a free vote though, right?
It's not ever going to pass.
It only passes if the Tories get 326 plus If not it's coalition and the pledge is dropped as a sop to whoever he is cosying (St Nicholas Clegg)
I doubt it'd pass even if the Tories got to 326 plus. As a free vote how many Tories would abstain or vote against?
Well, handcuffs Anne isn't there anymore. Matrons for foxes, but not sick detainees. The DUP might vote pro or abstain, any stray kippers that aren't Carswell would vote pro, Gisela and Frankie boy might well go pro...... Majoresque majority passes it probably
Ref hunting. Clearly it will galvanise some of the country set/Kipper defectors and is easily dropped in the event of coalition negotiations. Cameron obviously wants droppable policy so he can be seen to 'compromise' as he knows 326 is probably out of reach. Cynical and clever.
It's just a free vote though, right?
It's not ever going to pass.
It only passes if the Tories get 326 plus If not it's coalition and the pledge is dropped as a sop to whoever he is cosying (St Nicholas Clegg)
Even in a Coalition the pledge need not be dropped as in a free vote a return to fox hunting would be substantially defeated. Even a Con majority of 50+ might not be enough.
I see the Tories are back to 283-287 on Sporting index. Clearly some very jittery betting folks today. Reach for the vallium its only going to get worse.
Today from C,S and ER. Another leaflet from the Viscount and one from the Tory so running total is 11 LibDem, 2 Scon, 0 both SNP and SLAB
Comments
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-the-shaky-foundations-of-the-governments-latest-grand-design/10583
These are 2012 prices.
Of course, there will be variations across London, but that applies also to selling properties. And for all acquisitions, councils will be competing against private developers, who will not be so constrained in terms of offering social housing. Land in London is scarce and expensive.
This is a great policy for people who currently live in social housing in London. Given the low proportion of builds to sales we have seen with council houses, I am not sure how it helps anyone else.
Edit: Yes, 30. Or £11,280 overall. Not cheap though.
Housing benefit
Tax credits.
Three logicians walk into a bar.
The bartender asks, "Do you all want a drink?"
The first logician replies, "I don't know."
The second logician says, "I don't know."
The third logician says, "Yes."
However Ipsos Mori's phone poll will confirm whether ICM was an outlier or not
If however this general trend continues poor old Bob Sykes will be very unhappy on May 8th.
The latest research also asked the British public for their predictions on the outcome of the election. Almost a third (30%) think there will be no overall majority but that the Conservatives will be the largest party with one in five (19%) saying Labour won’t have a majority but will be the largest party. Over a quarter don’t know (26%).
What's the strategy here? I'm not seeing it.
Here is a thought, with Cameron's manifestos pledges today, will that actually play well with the UKIP vote? I would imagine most UKIPers are older and believe in what Thatcher used to call "sound money".
The Tories promising to spend money like it is going out of fashion, will that actually play well with UKIPers, or will it be like so many of Cameron's attempts it plays well with people who will never vote Tory e.g his green policies.
CON 36.9 LAB 29.4
ICM through the euro corrector
CON 36.9 LAB 29.4
' They have presided over my wealth increasing between 35-40% in the last five years. Property stock market '
Instead of showing off & trying to impress us with your wealth,just donate the offensive wealth to charity ,it will make you less frustrated & you can wear it as a badge of honor.
So i can see an election result of 285-290 Con seats, 255-265 Lab, and 26-28 LD seats on a 3% GB Con lead.
Could make for some very interesting negotiations.
If this trend continues then this is very bad news for Labour.
Go on, you know you want to
Under Labour the move was symbolic of what the Eye would call the "Department for the Elimination of Farming and Rural Affairs". But as one voter on Look East put it "we haven't had much change from the government (other than hens' beaks)" - and that's how most rural people like it.
It's interesting to compare the ban on hunting and the ban on smoking in pubs. Hunters see absolutely nothing wrong with what they do, so the ban has been ineffectual. Smokers are mostly ashamed of what they do, so the ban has been effective.
That would be the link with inflation that Osborne broke with a two-year cap of 1%, then. Oh.
Southwark auctioned a house recently that raised £3 million.
A council 'mansion'.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/28/london-council-house-3m-auction-borough
The NI threshold for pension and other issues is the "Lower Earnings Limit" of £111 a week but that has no NI deductions made.
The NI threshold for charges actually being made is the "Primary Threshold" of £153 a week. Only after that rate will deductions be made.
The Primary Threshold should be raised to the same threshold as Income Tax. The Lower Earnings Limit could be kept the same.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tax-and-tax-credit-rates-and-thresholds-for-2014-15/tax-and-tax-credit-rates-and-thresholds-for-2014-15
I'd rename the May Day BHols to something patriotic - just for the crying on Twitter by Lefties.
Clear, express, unambiguous terms. Every speech. Don't stop saying it every day from now till polling day.
It's so obvious that if the UKIP figure came down by 5 points it would go to the Tories, and get him over the line, probably in his own right. It's the one big thing he can do to get out of the hole he's still in.
Major was in a slightly different position in 1992, but there was an assumption then in that assumed dead-heat campaign that if the Tories could squeeze the LD vote a bit they'd get home with a majority, and so he made it a big part of his soapbox campaign if a phone was heard to ring "if that's Paddy, the answer's no"
It's such an obvious no-brainer for Dave to ram home the consequence of a UKIP vote in a Tory seat or target.....
....that I can see why he's not doing it.
Volatile polls, people staking money and opinions on the result, some people pretending to, it's like a very very long t20 match
I get what kind of voter they're pitching it to. But I can't see why now is a good time to be doing said pitching, when you're trying to reach out to other segments, many of whom are likely to be turned off by the policy, and even those neutral-to-apathetic about it are going to be distracted from the more substantial and wider-ranging pledges by the inevitable urban-centric media fixation about cute furry things.
My hunch would be more like 35-12.
Because two years ago, I ruled it out and well if there is a Tory majority, I'm going to look really silly.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/08/22/history-suggests-the-tories-will-see-their-share-of-the-vote-decline-in-2015-2/
*Hell yes, I want a Tory Majority
Cynical and clever.
It's not ever going to pass.
"Stop saying that!!"
It's Ed free and very little mention of national policy aside from NHS and promises to achieve things ten years down the line.
Voting UKIP does mean Ed and Salmond/Sturgeon calling the shots. The Tories are saying it. But that should not be all they are saying.
If not it's coalition and the pledge is dropped as a sop to whoever he is cosying (St Nicholas Clegg)
If nothing does, that's very bad news for Labour given how unenthusiastically their own policies have been received.
PB Shrewdies said Tim aker wouldn't get much help from ukip hierarchy
Rowena Mason (@rowenamason)
April 13
Rapturous reception in Thurrock for Nigel Farage's speech - a packed out darts championships venue pic.twitter.com/lU76uFL17Y
Simon Dedman (@SiDedman)
April 13
This is the largest audience for a political rally I've seen since the #SNP in Glasgow here in #thurrock #ukip pic.twitter.com/r9TuRsQq3g
John Stevens (@johnestevens)
April 13
Nigel Farage going down a storm. Have genuinely never seen such an enthusiastic response to a political speech pic.twitter.com/H4DhmgFav0
Thought the Tory manifesto was a bit bolder than I'd thought, maybe Cameron is a bit more "arsed" about it all than I had believed last week.
Interesting "reverse" themes over the past two days, with Labour trying to go all Bundesbank on us ("we'll cut the deficit"), and the Tories trying to splash the cash on the social side. Who will the electorate believe least? Clearly the Tories are hoping that they have such a (relative to Labour) reputation for fiscal rectitude that it won't count against them if they promise some goodies. Labour sort of the opposite.
I must say the "no tax on minimum wage" line is a real cracker mind, in a good way.
Game on, but the maths still favours the reds and their Celtic "allies". Can the Tories drag enough Kippers into the fold and not leak too many to the L Dems at the same time? Will Labour's discipline hold (especially in Scotland where the light at the end of the tunnel is looking ever more like the oncoming train)?
Fascinating stuff (except in Wales!)
Tories 34 +4
Labour 32 -1
LibDems 9 +1
UKIP 14 -5
Green 5 +1
Lefties think Cameron is Harry Enfield's Toryboy when in fact he's Tim nice but Dim.
I honestly can't think of any and they've published theirs. I confess that I haven't read it.
Are you seriously arguing that not even 1/3 of current UKIP polling aren't pi$$ed off former right wing Tory voters?
Lancaster and Fleetwood
Hendon
Dewsbury
Cardiff North
Wolverhampton South West
Broxtowe
Brentford and Isleworth
Waveney
Keighley
Weaver Vale
City of Chester
Bedford
Carlisle
Stroud
Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport
Sherwood
North Warwickshire
Erewash
Lincoln
Wirral West
Enfield North
Morecambe and Lunesdale
Bury North
Amber Valley
Finchley and Golders Green
Hastings and Rye
Warrington South
Northampton North
Hove
Nuneaton
Ipswich
Ealing Central and Acton
Croydon Central
IIRC IDS, May and Ozzie got a name check.
Maybe CCHQ is also hoping for the groundworker army from CA, though, like last time.
The DUP might vote pro or abstain, any stray kippers that aren't Carswell would vote pro, Gisela and Frankie boy might well go pro...... Majoresque majority passes it probably
Con 33% (275 seats), Lab 33% (281), LD 10% (20), UKIP 13% (2 ?)
twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/587893751072317440
Today from C,S and ER. Another leaflet from the Viscount and one from the Tory so running total is 11 LibDem, 2 Scon, 0 both SNP and SLAB