At a chess match last night one of the opposing team was talking about his politics.
He said he'd been a :Labour voter for over 30 years, but no longer. This time he'll be voting Lib Dem, despite the whole coalition experience, because he thinks they're the only party with a sane Europe policy. He lives in Sheffield Heeley.
Has anybody met a long time labour voter who just can't wait to rush to the ballot box and vote for a jezza*?
* Yes I know only the good residents of Islington get to vote for the supreme leader, but you know what I mean.
Spain is a much bigger country than the UK and has many more far-flung, remote corners. It usually gets its count done and dusted in the early hours. Maybe it's because they do the count at the polling stations rather than in central locations. Why don't we do that?
The standard map is so deceptive.
I had no idea its land area was more than twice that of the UK.
Gabon is slightly larger than the whole of the UK.
I see todays labour announcement is more shaking of the magic money tree with no answer how any of this will be balanced out.
Given The Tories no longer care about the deficit either, doesn't that mean they'll be shaking th magic money tree too, just not as hard?
Sky report was highly sceptical of the cost and its reporter said that the pay review body could make a recommendation of the same or even less of a pay rise. The whole think is another gimmick
Yes, but reports said Hammond was going to more slowly, the big drop this year was due to one off factors, so it won't be eliminated even by 2020.
I think Osborne reduced the monster deficit he inherited about as fast as the country could absorb financially and politically. In hindsight he might have gone a bit faster - but not alot. He did well and created alot of jobs. Hammond is likewise pushing it down at a financial/political goldilocks rate. I'd prefer faster but I'm a dry-as-dust sound-money Thatcherite. I recognise the political limits. The bottom line? This country will have needed about a decade to undo the effects of Gordo. Thanks Labour.
I always think it's best to catch a few hours' sleep between the exit poll and 2-3 am. Watching all the commentators desperately try to fill up time in the early hours is just annoying. However, clearly that may not be the thing to do this year.
It was pretty funny in 2015 as you had every commentator saying "I don't believe it", the academic going "our data is actually consistent with a Tory majority" and a vague sense of panic brewing.
Yes, but reports said Hammond was going to more slowly, the big drop this year was due to one off factors, so it won't be eliminated even by 2020.
I think Osborne reduced the monster deficit he inherited about as fast as the country could absorb financially and politically. In hindsight he might have gone a bit faster - but not alot. He did well and created alot of jobs. Hammond is likewise pushing it down at a financial/political goldilocks rate. I'd prefer faster but I'm a dry-as-dust sound-money Thatcherite. I recognise the political limits. The bottom line? This country will have needed about a decade to undo the effects of Gordo. Thanks Labour.
At a chess match last night one of the opposing team was talking about his politics.
He said he'd been a :Labour voter for over 30 years, but no longer. This time he'll be voting Lib Dem, despite the whole coalition experience, because he thinks they're the only party with a sane Europe policy. He lives in Sheffield Heeley.
Has anybody met a long time labour voter who just can't wait to rush to the ballot box and vote for a jezza*?
* Yes I know only the good residents of Islington get to vote for the supreme leader, but you know what I mean.
My FB is overwhelmingly lefty/liberal. In GE 2015 you couldn't move for political posts, all in support of Labour (2010 saw more of a mix of LD/Lab). This time, much more silent, and only 3 people are Corbyn supporters. One of those is an actual marxist. I've seen many others criticizing him. I think even among young people there is no enthusiasm for jezza. And why would there be, he doesn't actually offer anything specifically interesting to younger voters, I've seen nothing of that so far.
My sister only just turned 18 so will be voting for the first time, and it won't be for Labour (she will vote LD most likely). The seat is a Lab/Tory marginal.
At a chess match last night one of the opposing team was talking about his politics.
He said he'd been a :Labour voter for over 30 years, but no longer. This time he'll be voting Lib Dem, despite the whole coalition experience, because he thinks they're the only party with a sane Europe policy. He lives in Sheffield Heeley.
Obviously the Lib Dem European policy hasn't cut through yet. A parliamentary candidate of theirs who I vaguely know confirmed to me yesterday that their policy is for a referendum at the end of the A50 negotiations with the options being take the deal negotiated or remain on the status quo ante referendum I.
The number of senior BBC managers paid more than £150,000 has risen, despite assurances the figure would fall. A National Audit Office report says there were 98 people on that salary level last year, up from 89 in 2012."
That's a huge number for any organisation. They have what, a dozen heads of department, maybe a dozen deputies. Who are the other 74 people?
Anyone paid six figures from taxpayer money should have their title and salary published. No exceptions.
There are 24,000 employees, and there will be qualified accountants and lawyers in that mix (where the alternative is paying more for an external firm).
Oh sure there's some experienced professionals in there, but accountants and lawyers elsewhere in the civil service don't seem to be earning more than the PM.
They should publish the titles and salaries, let those who pay their wages know where their money goes.
Two things:
a) The Civil Service and the BBC are very different creatures.
b) A great many Civil Service roles are fulfilled by contractors on sky high day rates. Having slashed wages to a silly level the Government now gets around its own rules that way.
Civil Servants not earning more than the PM might be sensible if either the PM were paid a more sensible wage or we took in to account the real value of their package and/or their future earnings potential.
Yes, but reports said Hammond was going to more slowly, the big drop this year was due to one off factors, so it won't be eliminated even by 2020.
I think Osborne reduced the monster deficit he inherited about as fast as the country could absorb financially and politically. In hindsight he might have gone a bit faster - but not alot. He did well and created alot of jobs. Hammond is likewise pushing it down at a financial/political goldilocks rate. I'd prefer faster but I'm a dry-as-dust sound-money Thatcherite. I recognise the political limits. The bottom line? This country will have needed about a decade to undo the effects of Gordo. Thanks Labour.
I think they could and can have pushed harder, but it hardly matters - if that is the overwhelming reason to vote (and there are many others), it's not like the others are more hawkish on the deficit.
Though labour trying to set out its stall for the grey vote via promising, as the Tories have not yet done so, to retain the pensions triple lock, is interesting.
Sixth, like Arsenal? I've never understood how some places take six or seven hours to count the ballots, except for the most remote places in Cumbria and Scotland. If last week's experience in France is anything to go by, it's perfectly possible to do it within three.
Orkney and Shetland actually counts pretty quickly: they usually have a result by 230 or 3
They used to be the last to declare. I recall in Jo Grimond's day in the 1964 and 1966 elections Orkney & Shetland did not declare until Friday evening.
Yes, but reports said Hammond was going to more slowly, the big drop this year was due to one off factors, so it won't be eliminated even by 2020.
I think Osborne reduced the monster deficit he inherited about as fast as the country could absorb financially and politically. In hindsight he might have gone a bit faster - but not alot. He did well and created alot of jobs. Hammond is likewise pushing it down at a financial/political goldilocks rate. I'd prefer faster but I'm a dry-as-dust sound-money Thatcherite. I recognise the political limits. The bottom line? This country will have needed about a decade to undo the effects of Gordo. Thanks Labour.
A debate for another time is whether Mrs Thatcher (and her governments) were sound-money Thatcherites.
Yes, but reports said Hammond was going to more slowly, the big drop this year was due to one off factors, so it won't be eliminated even by 2020.
I think Osborne reduced the monster deficit he inherited about as fast as the country could absorb financially and politically. In hindsight he might have gone a bit faster - but not alot. He did well and created alot of jobs. Hammond is likewise pushing it down at a financial/political goldilocks rate. I'd prefer faster but I'm a dry-as-dust sound-money Thatcherite. I recognise the political limits. The bottom line? This country will have needed about a decade to undo the effects of Gordo. Thanks Labour.
The government has done an excellent job in reducing the deficit by £100bn a year, roughly 1/7th of all government spending with far less pain than might have been expected from such a huge fiscal rebalancing. It achieved this by a combination of higher taxes for the better off and keeping a firm grip on public spending. In the last year spending grew 1% in nominal terms, falling in real terms despite protected areas such as the NHS.
Labour's latest proposals of pay increases for the NHS and other public staff risk undermining this. Not only is it ridiculous to say that this would be paid for by extra CT (which may or may not raise any additional income in a world where tax bases are competitive between countries) but it ignores the contribution that public sector wage control has made to deficit reduction. We still need to rebalance to the tune of £50bn. Proposals such as Labour's today suggest the deficit will rapidly proceed back in the wrong direction.
I see todays labour announcement is more shaking of the magic money tree with no answer how any of this will be balanced out.
Given The Tories no longer care about the deficit either, doesn't that mean they'll be shaking th magic money tree too, just not as hard?
Given that they've pretty much eliminated the primary deficit, I'm not sure why you say they no longer care about it.
Indeed. They clearly do care about it because they talk about it - alot. There is much arguing and agonising over the right speed to get back into surplus. The issue of absolute levels of debt and/or debt/GDP is very much on the agenda. I tihnk only an ideologue or a deliberate liar can claim there is no government attention on this. Contrast with Miliband who, in the heat of a GE where public finances and the deficit were big issues, simply forgot to mention the deficit! 'No I don't think we overspent'!!! I'm not expecting Jezza to mention it once either. Labour gave up on economic sound management a long long time ago.
I see todays labour announcement is more shaking of the magic money tree with no answer how any of this will be balanced out.
Given The Tories no longer care about the deficit either, doesn't that mean they'll be shaking th magic money tree too, just not as hard?
Your statement is untrue.
Tories don't shake the magic money tree for their pet projects, and they haven't abandoned even the extended 2020 target for eliminating the deficit. Ookay, I apologise then.
Edit - people are, if i may be so bold, taking the phrase 'don't care about' a little too literally. I'm happy to substitute to 'no longer care about anywhere near as much, thus freeing up magic money tree allocation'.
It is a mystery that we have so many anecdotes of people moving from Lab to LibDem this time (and I have several friends who are the same) yet so far the LDs don't seem to be getting much of an uplift in the polls. I guess we all move in a small atypical circle of people who are too busy to talk to pollsters?
I see todays labour announcement is more shaking of the magic money tree with no answer how any of this will be balanced out.
Given The Tories no longer care about the deficit either, doesn't that mean they'll be shaking th magic money tree too, just not as hard?
Given that they've pretty much eliminated the primary deficit, I'm not sure why you say they no longer care about it.
Almost eliminated in the sense of getting it back down to the pre-crisis levels when Gordon Brown was Chancellor. Or nearly. Oh, and don't mention record debt.
I see todays labour announcement is more shaking of the magic money tree with no answer how any of this will be balanced out.
Given The Tories no longer care about the deficit either, doesn't that mean they'll be shaking th magic money tree too, just not as hard?
Given that they've pretty much eliminated the primary deficit, I'm not sure why you say they no longer care about it.
Because Hammond said so, if not in those precise words.
Your words are a distortion of what he said.
An interpretation, that's still allowed isn't it? If we stick just to what parties say, rather than what that really means, I'd believe Labour are still economically credible.
I'm beginning to feel very sorry for Labour canvassers when they try to explain their policy on Brexit to their Leave supporters.
On Brexit, the Tories say. We accept the result of the referendum. We are trying to get the best economic deal we can with the EU.
LDs say We don't accept the result of the referendum because we know better.
Labour says We accept the result of the referendum. The EU holds all the cards but we must make the best of it. So we demand that the Tories achieve exactly what We want even when we know it's impossible. When they don't, we will ensure we stay in the EU.
Even worse, is the sub-plot, WE know this is nonsense but we think you are stupid Neanderthals and won't see the contradiction.
Good luck lads with that one.
Labour desperately trying to balance on the fence whilst the Brexit war rages all around them. But there ain't no Switzerland in the 'hood....
Good morning troubadours. If the 10k majority maxim mooted by 'labour sources' comes to pass, Sunderland Central might well end up in recount territory and not be the first declaration.
Surprisingly it isn't... because of the bursary number of nurse places was capped by the budget available. With the removal of the bursary we get the removal of the cap...
I see todays labour announcement is more shaking of the magic money tree with no answer how any of this will be balanced out.
Given The Tories no longer care about the deficit either, doesn't that mean they'll be shaking th magic money tree too, just not as hard?
Your statement is untrue.
Tories don't shake the magic money tree for their pet projects, and they haven't abandoned even the extended 2020 target for eliminating the deficit. Ookay, I apologise then.
Edit - people are, if i may be so bold, taking the phrase 'don't care about' a little too literally. I'm happy to 'no longer care about anywhere near as much, thus freeing up magic money tree allocation'.
What is undoubtedly true is that the next government is going to have a very hard time producing a fiscally responsible policy. There are a number of areas, notably Social Care and the NHS which are currently underfunded to the extent that they are not meeting demand or expectations and efficiency drives are simply not going to cut it any longer. In addition there is quite a compelling case for additional capital infrastructure expenditure to support growth post Brexit.
These pressures combined with modest growth rates are going to make the Chancellor's job extremely challenging and it is hardly surprising that Hammond wants to drop the no new taxes pledge. It also means that promising give aways like increased wages for public sector employees is grossly irresponsible. But you knew that. Everyone knows that, hence the polling.
I imagine he, or Labour, commissioned this privately. It shows him in a tighter position than in 2015 with a rise in LibDem and UKIP vote and a significant dropping away of Green support.
Only two of the LD seats really look comfortable at present - how many are for sure safe? Amazing how many are clustered together in the middle there. I wish them good luck (if MarkS can believe that from a person like me)
I see todays labour announcement is more shaking of the magic money tree with no answer how any of this will be balanced out.
Given The Tories no longer care about the deficit either, doesn't that mean they'll be shaking th magic money tree too, just not as hard?
Given that they've pretty much eliminated the primary deficit, I'm not sure why you say they no longer care about it.
Almost eliminated in the sense of getting it back down to the pre-crisis levels when Gordon Brown was Chancellor. Or nearly. Oh, and don't mention record debt.
The debt is Brown's debt. He thought he had abolished boom and bust. He is ,an economic illiterate.
The number of senior BBC managers paid more than £150,000 has risen, despite assurances the figure would fall. A National Audit Office report says there were 98 people on that salary level last year, up from 89 in 2012."
That's a huge number for any organisation. They have what, a dozen heads of department, maybe a dozen deputies. Who are the other 74 people?
Anyone paid six figures from taxpayer money should have their title and salary published. No exceptions.
There are 24,000 employees, and there will be qualified accountants and lawyers in that mix (where the alternative is paying more for an external firm).
Oh sure there's some experienced professionals in there, but accountants and lawyers elsewhere in the civil service don't seem to be earning more than the PM.
They should publish the titles and salaries, let those who pay their wages know where their money goes.
Two things:
a) The Civil Service and the BBC are very different creatures.
b) A great many Civil Service roles are fulfilled by contractors on sky high day rates. Having slashed wages to a silly level the Government now gets around its own rules that way.
Civil Servants not earning more than the PM might be sensible if either the PM were paid a more sensible wage or we took in to account the real value of their package and/or their future earnings potential.
Oh, I don't contend at all that organisations find ways around these things and expensive consultants also need to be addressed. That said, the consultants won't be earning as much in retirement as they did in employment.
I would suggest that at the BBC, the high salaries don't come from senior lawyers and accountants as much as they come from 'assistant deputy director of equality and diversity in creativity' type roles.
Another thing I want to know from the BBC is how many people now in Manchester are being paid the same as they were when they were in London. Probably most of them.
I imagine he, or Labour, commissioned this privately. It shows him in a tighter position than in 2015 with a rise in LibDem and UKIP vote and a significant dropping away of Green support.
Well Labour's pollster is BMG, and if Clive Lewis is doing this off his own bat he's got a lot of money to hand and to do private polling whilst in the shadow cabinet implies he was/is up to something
I see todays labour announcement is more shaking of the magic money tree with no answer how any of this will be balanced out.
Given The Tories no longer care about the deficit either, doesn't that mean they'll be shaking th magic money tree too, just not as hard?
Your statement is untrue.
Tories don't shake the magic money tree for their pet projects, and they haven't abandoned even the extended 2020 target for eliminating the deficit. Ookay, I apologise then.
Edit - people are, if i may be so bold, taking the phrase 'don't care about' a little too literally. I'm happy to 'no longer care about anywhere near as much, thus freeing up magic money tree allocation'.
What is undoubtedly true is that the next government is going to have a very hard time producing a fiscally responsible policy. There are a number of areas, notably Social Care and the NHS which are currently underfunded to the extent that they are not meeting demand or expectations and efficiency drives are simply not going to cut it any longer. In addition there is quite a compelling case for additional capital infrastructure expenditure to support growth post Brexit.
These pressures combined with modest growth rates are going to make the Chancellor's job extremely challenging and it is hardly surprising that Hammond wants to drop the no new taxes pledge. It also means that promising give aways like increased wages for public sector employees is grossly irresponsible. But you knew that. Everyone knows that, hence the polling.
I do know that - that I pointed out they abandoned (in my view) their commitment doesn't change that I know that, and Labour's unfounded giveaways is therefore deeply irresponsible in my view. But to read the initial reactions this morning, express any hint of criticism that the Tories have not done as good a job in this admittedly difficult area as they might have, and you may as well be a Corbynista for the response you get!
I hope they do admit they need, or may need, to raise taxes a bit, and drop some other giveaways, but we've also seen how some Tories respond to that. They too want the magic money tree - it's just they don't shake it as much as Labour.
I see todays labour announcement is more shaking of the magic money tree with no answer how any of this will be balanced out.
Given The Tories no longer care about the deficit either, doesn't that mean they'll be shaking th magic money tree too, just not as hard?
Given that they've pretty much eliminated the primary deficit, I'm not sure why you say they no longer care about it.
Almost eliminated in the sense of getting it back down to the pre-crisis levels when Gordon Brown was Chancellor. Or nearly. Oh, and don't mention record debt.
The debt is Brown's debt. He thought he had abolished boom and bust. He is ,an economic illiterate.
I imagine he, or Labour, commissioned this privately. It shows him in a tighter position than in 2015 with a rise in LibDem and UKIP vote and a significant dropping away of Green support.
Well Labour's pollster is BMG, and if Clive Lewis is doing this off his bat he's got a lot of money to hand and to do private polling whilst in the shadow cabinet implies he was/is up to something
It will be delicious if he were polling and plotting a leadership bid that post-election he will be ineligible to contest.
At a chess match last night one of the opposing team was talking about his politics.
He said he'd been a :Labour voter for over 30 years, but no longer. This time he'll be voting Lib Dem, despite the whole coalition experience, because he thinks they're the only party with a sane Europe policy. He lives in Sheffield Heeley.
Obviously the Lib Dem European policy hasn't cut through yet. A parliamentary candidate of theirs who I vaguely know confirmed to me yesterday that their policy is for a referendum at the end of the A50 negotiations with the options being take the deal negotiated or remain on the status quo ante referendum I.
I imagine he, or Labour, commissioned this privately. It shows him in a tighter position than in 2015 with a rise in LibDem and UKIP vote and a significant dropping away of Green support.
Well Labour's pollster is BMG, and if Clive Lewis is doing this off his bat he's got a lot of money to hand and to do private polling whilst in the shadow cabinet implies he was/is up to something
I think the link to the poll is www.pollswotclivelewismadeup.com
Isn't it just the 2015 result with UNS based on January's national ICM poll? Misleading to say it's a Norwich South poll, but that's Clive Lewis for you.
I imagine he, or Labour, commissioned this privately. It shows him in a tighter position than in 2015 with a rise in LibDem and UKIP vote and a significant dropping away of Green support.
Well Labour's pollster is BMG, and if Clive Lewis is doing this off his bat he's got a lot of money to hand and to do private polling whilst in the shadow cabinet implies he was/is up to something
It will be delicious if he were polling and plotting a leadership bid that post-election he will be ineligible to contest.
I remember reading about how Sunderland did it .... posted something about the other day. Torbay used to be up there with Sunderland until a new Returning Officer said it wasn’t worth it. Short sighted in a way, because we used to be treated to a graphic of Torquay in the summer. Quite encouraged one to go there!
People DO go to Sunderland on holiday, incidentally, or certainly did 50 years ago.
We go to the Metro Centre for Christmas shopping if that counts.
When at Sunderland do stop to admire the new EU funded bridge over the River Wear! Or the nearby Nissan factory whilst it is still there.
I imagine he, or Labour, commissioned this privately. It shows him in a tighter position than in 2015 with a rise in LibDem and UKIP vote and a significant dropping away of Green support.
Well Labour's pollster is BMG, and if Clive Lewis is doing this off his bat he's got a lot of money to hand and to do private polling whilst in the shadow cabinet implies he was/is up to something
It will be delicious if he were polling and plotting a leadership bid that post-election he will be ineligible to contest.
If he was only 8% ahead in January he's in trouble.
I imagine he, or Labour, commissioned this privately. It shows him in a tighter position than in 2015 with a rise in LibDem and UKIP vote and a significant dropping away of Green support.
Well Labour's pollster is BMG, and if Clive Lewis is doing this off his bat he's got a lot of money to hand and to do private polling whilst in the shadow cabinet implies he was/is up to something
It will be delicious if he were polling and plotting a leadership bid that post-election he will be ineligible to contest.
The number of senior BBC managers paid more than £150,000 has risen, despite assurances the figure would fall. A National Audit Office report says there were 98 people on that salary level last year, up from 89 in 2012."
That's a huge number for any organisation. They have what, a dozen heads of department, maybe a dozen deputies. Who are the other 74 people?
Anyone paid six figures from taxpayer money should have their title and salary published. No exceptions.
There are 24,000 employees, and there will be qualified accountants and lawyers in that mix (where the alternative is paying more for an external firm).
Oh sure there's some experienced professionals in there, but accountants and lawyers elsewhere in the civil service don't seem to be earning more than the PM.
They should publish the titles and salaries, let those who pay their wages know where their money goes.
Two things:
a) The Civil Service and the BBC are very different creatures.
b) A great many Civil Service roles are fulfilled by contractors on sky high day rates. Having slashed wages to a silly level the Government now gets around its own rules that way.
Civil Servants not earning more than the PM might be sensible if either the PM were paid a more sensible wage or we took in to account the real value of their package and/or their future earnings potential.
Oh, I don't contend at all that organisations find ways around these things and expensive consultants also need to be addressed. That said, the consultants won't be earning as much in retirement as they did in employment.
I would suggest that at the BBC, the high salaries don't come from senior lawyers and accountants as much as they come from 'assistant deputy director of equality and diversity in creativity' type roles.
Another thing I want to know from the BBC is how many people now in Manchester are being paid the same as they were when they were in London. Probably most of them.
My guess is that this line of questioning very quickly gets you to the question of what the BBC is for. If we want it to directly compete with Sky and ITV then it follows that it probably has to pay the market rate, and that's what we see in these posts. Only a narrower public service remit could get you to Civil Service like pay rates, where a different dynamic is at play.
I'm fairly ambivalent, but I think we'll have to choose.
I imagine he, or Labour, commissioned this privately. It shows him in a tighter position than in 2015 with a rise in LibDem and UKIP vote and a significant dropping away of Green support.
Well Labour's pollster is BMG, and if Clive Lewis is doing this off his bat he's got a lot of money to hand and to do private polling whilst in the shadow cabinet implies he was/is up to something
It will be delicious if he were polling and plotting a leadership bid that post-election he will be ineligible to contest.
I imagine he, or Labour, commissioned this privately. It shows him in a tighter position than in 2015 with a rise in LibDem and UKIP vote and a significant dropping away of Green support.
Well Labour's pollster is BMG, and if Clive Lewis is doing this off his bat he's got a lot of money to hand and to do private polling whilst in the shadow cabinet implies he was/is up to something
It will be delicious if he were polling and plotting a leadership bid that post-election he will be ineligible to contest.
The leaflet might persuad Tories to come out - if they think they are that close to taking the constituency . . . Whether he should have been honest or tried the Lib Dem approach is a different matter.- bearing in mind the Tories have moved from 40 - 45% and Labour from 27 to 25% in the meantime. (Big UKIP vote there as well...)
I see todays labour announcement is more shaking of the magic money tree with no answer how any of this will be balanced out.
Given The Tories no longer care about the deficit either, doesn't that mean they'll be shaking th magic money tree too, just not as hard?
Given that they've pretty much eliminated the primary deficit, I'm not sure why you say they no longer care about it.
Almost eliminated in the sense of getting it back down to the pre-crisis levels when Gordon Brown was Chancellor. Or nearly. Oh, and don't mention record debt.
I imagine he, or Labour, commissioned this privately. It shows him in a tighter position than in 2015 with a rise in LibDem and UKIP vote and a significant dropping away of Green support.
Well Labour's pollster is BMG, and if Clive Lewis is doing this off his bat he's got a lot of money to hand and to do private polling whilst in the shadow cabinet implies he was/is up to something
It will be delicious if he were polling and plotting a leadership bid that post-election he will be ineligible to contest.
The leaflet might persuad Tories to come out - if they think they are that close to taking the constituency . . . Whether he should have been honest or tried the Lib Dem approach is a different matter.- bearing in mind the Tories have moved from 40 - 45% and Labour from 27 to 25% in the meantime.
Norwich South is a really tricky one, the city and golden triangle will as ever be rich labour and green territory but it does now include New Costessey (where I grew up and my parents still live) which will go Tory this time. There has, coincidentally, been an enormous amount of development in Costessey over the last couple of years which I believe falls into the constituency..........
I see todays labour announcement is more shaking of the magic money tree with no answer how any of this will be balanced out.
Given The Tories no longer care about the deficit either, doesn't that mean they'll be shaking th magic money tree too, just not as hard?
Given that they've pretty much eliminated the primary deficit, I'm not sure why you say they no longer care about it.
Almost eliminated in the sense of getting it back down to the pre-crisis levels when Gordon Brown was Chancellor. Or nearly. Oh, and don't mention record debt.
The debt is Brown's debt. He thought he had abolished boom and bust. He is ,an economic illiterate.
The debt is mainly Osborne's.
Err... no.. the debt was caused by Brown it was impossible to get it under control immediately. Another left of centre poster unable to accept the truth. Labour has never been able to manage the books.
I see todays labour announcement is more shaking of the magic money tree with no answer how any of this will be balanced out.
Given The Tories no longer care about the deficit either, doesn't that mean they'll be shaking th magic money tree too, just not as hard?
Given that they've pretty much eliminated the primary deficit, I'm not sure why you say they no longer care about it.
Almost eliminated in the sense of getting it back down to the pre-crisis levels when Gordon Brown was Chancellor. Or nearly. Oh, and don't mention record debt.
The debt is Brown's debt. He thought he had abolished boom and bust. He is ,an economic illiterate.
The debt is mainly Osborne's.
Yes - he has had to integrate that massive deficit over 6 years. And Labour had opposed every single attempt by him to reduce expenditure (or at least reign it in)
The deficit this year just ended was £56 billion - or £1500 for each taxpayer.
If I was a premier league footballer who'd just scored the winning goal at Wembley and lifted my shirt to reveal my latest tattoo written in Tengwar It would be a line written by Alastair last night;
Eek, quick correction to my previous post. The new development in Costessey does NOT fall into Norwich South, it's South Norfolk. The parts of Costessey in Clive's patch will still go blue but he doesn't have the swathe of new voters to contend with after all
I see todays labour announcement is more shaking of the magic money tree with no answer how any of this will be balanced out.
Given The Tories no longer care about the deficit either, doesn't that mean they'll be shaking th magic money tree too, just not as hard?
Given that they've pretty much eliminated the primary deficit, I'm not sure why you say they no longer care about it.
Almost eliminated in the sense of getting it back down to the pre-crisis levels when Gordon Brown was Chancellor. Or nearly. Oh, and don't mention record debt.
The debt is Brown's debt. He thought he had abolished boom and bust. He is ,an economic illiterate.
The debt is mainly Osborne's.
The debt is the consequence of accumulated deficits. It seems a little unfair to throw the toxic legacy of an annual £151 billion (9.9% ) which he turned around to a £52 billion (2.6%) deficit as his fault.
Are you not blaming the fire fighters for not putting out the fire quickly enough rather than the arsonists who set the thing alight?
Only two of the LD seats really look comfortable at present - how many are for sure safe? Amazing how many are clustered together in the middle there. I wish them good luck (if MarkS can believe that from a person like me)
Orkney and Shetland is ultra safe. Ceredigion on my welsh analysis was massively safe too, we'll gain Cardiff Central back too. England more mixed.
Surprisingly it isn't... because of the bursary number of nurse places was capped by the budget available. With the removal of the bursary we get the removal of the cap...
That assumes that more nurses will apply to take up the increased training places available, there may actually be a fall in applications because of the removal of the bursary though
I imagine he, or Labour, commissioned this privately. It shows him in a tighter position than in 2015 with a rise in LibDem and UKIP vote and a significant dropping away of Green support.
Well Labour's pollster is BMG, and if Clive Lewis is doing this off his own bat he's got a lot of money to hand and to do private polling whilst in the shadow cabinet implies he was/is up to something
I see todays labour announcement is more shaking of the magic money tree with no answer how any of this will be balanced out.
Given The Tories no longer care about the deficit either, doesn't that mean they'll be shaking th magic money tree too, just not as hard?
Given that they've pretty much eliminated the primary deficit, I'm not sure why you say they no longer care about it.
Almost eliminated in the sense of getting it back down to the pre-crisis levels when Gordon Brown was Chancellor. Or nearly. Oh, and don't mention record debt.
The debt is Brown's debt. He thought he had abolished boom and bust. He is ,an economic illiterate.
The debt is mainly Osborne's.
The debt is the consequence of accumulated deficits. It seems a little unfair to throw the toxic legacy of an annual £151 billion (9.9% ) which he turned around to a £52 billion (2.6%) deficit as his fault.
Are you not blaming the fire fighters for not putting out the fire quickly enough rather than the arsonists who set the thing alight?
I don't see the point of arguing this anymore. The battle was lost, by Labour, almost half a decade ago. The only guy who has fought on longer was Hiroo Onoda.
Surprisingly it isn't... because of the bursary number of nurse places was capped by the budget available. With the removal of the bursary we get the removal of the cap...
That assumes that more nurses will apply to take up the increased training places available, there may actually be a fall in applications because of the removal of the bursary though
There might be, but considering prior there was 4 applicants for every place... I think targeted bursaries would be a good idea rather than blanket. There was a Avery successful drive in nursing and teaching in 2000 that brought lots of women into the work place whose children had grown up/teens, the bursaries played an important part in that.
I could see a good argument for student loans for both teachers and nurses or other professions where we have difficulty recruiting getting wiped after a decade of service or some such thing. Imaginative and fair.
One of the implications of this is that it may be worth betting on Sunderland to beat their record - I assume that they are going to try again.
Did we ever verify the story from the other day that they don't actually count the Lab vote in Sunderland, rather they count all the other parties' votes and subtract from the total number of ballot papers?
One assumes that if the result is somewhat closer than usual, that method (if used) would be open to challenge by a candidate and replaced by a 'proper' count of the votes.
Surely if they did that Labour would be getting the benefit of any spoilt papers that should be eliminated? And surely we would have noticed if Sunderland had not had any spoilt papers in the last few elections?
Presumably the sorting process identifies the spoilt/disputed papers
The first thing that has to happen at a count is verifying that the right number of ballot papers have arrived at the count, which is done by counting them and comparing the totals to the number issued. Only after that has been successfully done do you start counting by candidate and putting aside the questionable ones for adjudication. Verification doesn't always produce an exact match. Being a couple under sometimes happens - because voters take them and then don't put them in the box. The problem comes if you have more ballot papers in the boxes than you think were issued.
The slowness with multiple elections is because all the verifications of the separate ballots have to be done before you starting counting by candidate. You have to do that in case you have lost a ballot box or for example, someone has put a GE vote in the local election box. Common sense really.
So I cannot believe Sunderland do anything like what's been described. Where is the evidence they do anything other than have lots of experienced counters who are very efficient? Oh, and having lowish turnout and a smallish voting population to start with probably help.
Latest Theakes poll Norwich South, Labout 31, Conservatives 30, Lib Dems 26, UKIP 7, Geens 6!!!!!!!! Anyone can say what they want including Clive Lewis it seems. Gosh wont the others make hay against him with this.
One of the implications of this is that it may be worth betting on Sunderland to beat their record - I assume that they are going to try again.
Did we ever verify the story from the other day that they don't actually count the Lab vote in Sunderland, rather they count all the other parties' votes and subtract from the total number of ballot papers?
One assumes that if the result is somewhat closer than usual, that method (if used) would be open to challenge by a candidate and replaced by a 'proper' count of the votes.
Surely if they did that Labour would be getting the benefit of any spoilt papers that should be eliminated? And surely we would have noticed if Sunderland had not had any spoilt papers in the last few elections?
Presumably the sorting process identifies the spoilt/disputed papers
The first thing that has to happen at a count is verifying that the right number of ballot papers have arrived at the count, which is done by counting them and comparing the totals to the number issued. Only after that has been successfully done do you start counting by candidate and putting aside the questionable ones for adjudication. Verification doesn't always produce an exact match. Being a couple under sometimes happens - because voters take them and then don't put them in the box. The problem comes if you have more ballot papers in the boxes than you think were issued.
The slowness with multiple elections is because all the verifications of the separate ballots have to be done before you starting counting by candidate. You have to do that in case you have lost a ballot box or for example, someone has put a GE vote in the local election box. Common sense really.
So I cannot believe Sunderland do anything like what's been described. Where is the evidence they do anything other than have lots of experienced counters who are very efficient? Oh, and having lowish turnout and a smallish voting population to start with probably help.
And the local authority counters are usually regular council staff normally on a combination of overtime and time off on the Friday. Since they have to be contracted for a minimum period it is more efficient to have fewer people and a slower count.
Surprisingly it isn't... because of the bursary number of nurse places was capped by the budget available. With the removal of the bursary we get the removal of the cap...
That assumes that more nurses will apply to take up the increased training places available, there may actually be a fall in applications because of the removal of the bursary though
A better approach would be to remove the need for nursing 'degrees' in the first place.
Surprisingly it isn't... because of the bursary number of nurse places was capped by the budget available. With the removal of the bursary we get the removal of the cap...
That assumes that more nurses will apply to take up the increased training places available, there may actually be a fall in applications because of the removal of the bursary though
There might be, but considering prior there was 4 applicants for every place... I think targeted bursaries would be a good idea rather than blanket. There was a Avery successful drive in nursing and teaching in 2000 that brought lots of women into the work place whose children had grown up/teens, the bursaries played an important part in that.
I could see a good argument for student loans for both teachers and nurses or other professions where we have difficulty recruiting getting wiped after a decade of service or some such thing. Imaginative and fair.
I hope the government at least considers targeted bursaries where there are particular shortages locally or in particular specialisms or a time limit on student loan repayment as you say, over to you Mr Hunt
Surprisingly it isn't... because of the bursary number of nurse places was capped by the budget available. With the removal of the bursary we get the removal of the cap...
That assumes that more nurses will apply to take up the increased training places available, there may actually be a fall in applications because of the removal of the bursary though
A better approach would be to remove the need for nursing 'degrees' in the first place.
You would still need to fund the training even if no degree was required
First one should be Sunderland South & Houghton, the one held by Bridget Philipson. Then the one held by Sharon Hodgson (Sunderland West and Washington?)
Surprisingly it isn't... because of the bursary number of nurse places was capped by the budget available. With the removal of the bursary we get the removal of the cap...
That assumes that more nurses will apply to take up the increased training places available, there may actually be a fall in applications because of the removal of the bursary though
A better approach would be to remove the need for nursing 'degrees' in the first place.
Nursing is primarily on the job training anyway. I don't see a need to downgrade (as it will be seen) the profession. Nursing isn't what it was. Much of the work that a nurse did in the past is now down by health care asssitants. Their medical training and specialism is much greater as medicine has developed.
I see todays labour announcement is more shaking of the magic money tree with no answer how any of this will be balanced out.
Given The Tories no longer care about the deficit either, doesn't that mean they'll be shaking th magic money tree too, just not as hard?
Your statement is untrue.
Tories don't shake the magic money tree for their pet projects, and they haven't abandoned even the extended 2020 target for eliminating the deficit. Ookay, I apologise then.
Edit - people are, if i may be so bold, taking the phrase 'don't care about' a little too literally. I'm happy to substitute to 'no longer care about anywhere near as much, thus freeing up magic money tree allocation'.
The belief is that Clive Lewis got the name of the pollster wrong or simply applied UNS from January's ICM national poll.
If he was to win, would this 'mistake' be enough to challenge the result?
On what grounds? The cost of printed but unused material can be deducted from the expenses return. Provided he doesn't continue to use stuff after he has been warned by ICM, they aren't going to do anything about it.
First one should be Sunderland South & Houghton, the one held by Bridget Philipson. Then the one held by Sharon Hodgson (Sunderland West and Washington?)
Comments
* Yes I know only the good residents of Islington get to vote for the supreme leader, but you know what I mean.
The bottom line? This country will have needed about a decade to undo the effects of Gordo. Thanks Labour.
My sister only just turned 18 so will be voting for the first time, and it won't be for Labour (she will vote LD most likely). The seat is a Lab/Tory marginal.
This is not only not sane, it's impossible.
a) The Civil Service and the BBC are very different creatures.
b) A great many Civil Service roles are fulfilled by contractors on sky high day rates. Having slashed wages to a silly level the Government now gets around its own rules that way.
Civil Servants not earning more than the PM might be sensible if either the PM were paid a more sensible wage or we took in to account the real value of their package and/or their future earnings potential.
Though labour trying to set out its stall for the grey vote via promising, as the Tories have not yet done so, to retain the pensions triple lock, is interesting.
Labour's latest proposals of pay increases for the NHS and other public staff risk undermining this. Not only is it ridiculous to say that this would be paid for by extra CT (which may or may not raise any additional income in a world where tax bases are competitive between countries) but it ignores the contribution that public sector wage control has made to deficit reduction. We still need to rebalance to the tune of £50bn. Proposals such as Labour's today suggest the deficit will rapidly proceed back in the wrong direction.
Contrast with Miliband who, in the heat of a GE where public finances and the deficit were big issues, simply forgot to mention the deficit! 'No I don't think we overspent'!!! I'm not expecting Jezza to mention it once either. Labour gave up on economic sound management a long long time ago.
Edit - people are, if i may be so bold, taking the phrase 'don't care about' a little too literally. I'm happy to substitute to 'no longer care about anywhere near as much, thus freeing up magic money tree allocation'.
https://twitter.com/labourlewis/status/856948100623212544
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39711133
If the 10k majority maxim mooted by 'labour sources' comes to pass, Sunderland Central might well end up in recount territory and not be the first declaration.
These pressures combined with modest growth rates are going to make the Chancellor's job extremely challenging and it is hardly surprising that Hammond wants to drop the no new taxes pledge. It also means that promising give aways like increased wages for public sector employees is grossly irresponsible. But you knew that. Everyone knows that, hence the polling.
I would suggest that at the BBC, the high salaries don't come from senior lawyers and accountants as much as they come from 'assistant deputy director of equality and diversity in creativity' type roles.
Another thing I want to know from the BBC is how many people now in Manchester are being paid the same as they were when they were in London. Probably most of them.
I hope they do admit they need, or may need, to raise taxes a bit, and drop some other giveaways, but we've also seen how some Tories respond to that. They too want the magic money tree - it's just they don't shake it as much as Labour.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-uk-change-mind-article-50-legal-expert-eu-referendum-a7150926.html
Isn't it just the 2015 result with UNS based on January's national ICM poll? Misleading to say it's a Norwich South poll, but that's Clive Lewis for you.
https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/857134683586428928
I'm fairly ambivalent, but I think we'll have to choose.
https://twitter.com/martinboon/status/857142981199106051
oh dear, oh dear.
Good to hear we'll get the result quickly on election and Jezza won't have long to wait to find out how badly he's done.
Any bet's on what time the first Labour politician will appear on telly calling for him to resign?
go Tory this time. There has, coincidentally, been an enormous amount of development in Costessey over the last couple of years which I believe falls into the constituency..........
The deficit this year just ended was £56 billion - or £1500 for each taxpayer.
https://twitter.com/labourlewis/status/856948100623212544
https://twitter.com/martinboon/status/857142725619142657
jnRrÈ y5^ wzRyE,É `C t1R7qYj^1T5# j$1TÉ 8z7E2$ @ y6Yzb% zjiE'iR y4% z|5$eHw^zT j`BiR
"Leave won because a metropolitan elite scared the working classes with xenophobic lies".
Are you not blaming the fire fighters for not putting out the fire quickly enough rather than the arsonists who set the thing alight?
Ceredigion on my welsh analysis was massively safe too, we'll gain Cardiff Central back too.
England more mixed.
I could see a good argument for student loans for both teachers and nurses or other professions where we have difficulty recruiting getting wiped after a decade of service or some such thing. Imaginative and fair.
Verification doesn't always produce an exact match. Being a couple under sometimes happens - because voters take them and then don't put them in the box. The problem comes if you have more ballot papers in the boxes than you think were issued.
The slowness with multiple elections is because all the verifications of the separate ballots have to be done before you starting counting by candidate. You have to do that in case you have lost a ballot box or for example, someone has put a GE vote in the local election box. Common sense really.
So I cannot believe Sunderland do anything like what's been described. Where is the evidence they do anything other than have lots of experienced counters who are very efficient? Oh, and having lowish turnout and a smallish voting population to start with probably help.
That would imply a polling score of at least 14 I think.
Blimey.
Whatever next?