politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Macron moves to a 90%+ chance as another day goes by and his 20% lead holds firm
Latest betting on the French Presidential elections has Macron moving to a 90% chance with the far right Marine Le Pen on 10%. There is not much time left for Le Pen’s hoped for surge to bring about victory.
While we have all been enjoying Dianne Abbott's terminal gormlessness, has anyone in public media actually questioned the basic claim that Labour will deliver 10k new policemen for £300 million?
It seems to be difficult to find in a written down form, however I have seen the claim repeated unquestioned by the BBC News channel reporters this morning.
ISTM that a basic police salary is not far from £30k per annum, and by the time that gold plated pension, overheads, NICs and so on are added, the cost is closer to £60-70k per policeman.
Which makes the cost to Labour approx £600-700 million per annum and the claim as cloud-cuckoo land or not very honest. That swallows there entire purported £2.7bn savings from messing about with CGT on its own, yet they have been claiming it will take 'some of the CGT money'.
Yet not a peep from the press or the factcheckers as far as I know.
The only semi-realistic path to victory for Le Pen now, barring a significant event like a widespread terror attack or major scandal for Macron, seems to be a massive amount of shy-Le Pen voters amongst the undecided.
Unlikely given the accuracy of the 1st round polling, but possible - as those polls would have been picking up each candidates' bedrock support which is less susceptible to shyness.
It is hard to see this breaching anything like a 20 point gap though.
While we have all been enjoying Dianne Abbott's terminal gormlessness, has anyone in public media actually questioned the basic claim that Labour will deliver 10k new policemen for £300 million?
It seems to be difficult to find in a written down form, however I have seen the claim repeated unquestioned by the BBC News channel reporters this morning.
ISTM that a basic police salary is not far from £30k per annum, and by the time that gold plated pension, overheads, NICs and so on are added, the cost is closer to £60-70k per policeman.
Which makes the cost to Labour approx £600-700 million per annum and the claim as cloud-cuckoo land or not very honest. That swallows there entire purported £2.7bn savings from messing about with CGT on its own, yet they have been claiming it will take 'some of the CGT money'.
Yet not a peep from the press or the factcheckers as far as I know.
Employer NI is net neutral for the treasury. Surely the pensions are DC these days.... surely....
So continuity Hollande it is. Hope it works out better for France than the genuine article. Wonder how Macron will do with Mutti? Is he a 'mummy's boy'? We shall find out.
While we have all been enjoying Dianne Abbott's terminal gormlessness, has anyone in public media actually questioned the basic claim that Labour will deliver 10k new policemen for £300 million?
I saw BBC coverage yesterday that estimated the cost (confirmed by a senior police interviewee) of recruiting, training and equipping a new police officer at £13k.
So that's £130m - which Labour say will come out of current expenditure, not from the £300m. Net impact though, is the £300m is actually only £170m. Then there's all the employer's on-costs...
Not only was the presentation of the policy chaotic, but the economics of it are too.
Ask someone their opinion about Alex Salmond and they will almost certainly have a strong one, either for or against. This is at least one thing Mr Salmond has in common with goats’ cheese.
A very different electoral system though. In a two-horse FPTP race, a 20-point gap with a week to go is surely more secure than a 3-point gap in an electoral college system as complex as the USA's.
Yes, but France is a very different election. Clinton lost by virtue of a spectacularly inefficient distribution of her vote. No EC in France to save MLP.
A very different electoral system though. In a two-horse FPTP race, a 20-point gap with a week to go is surely more secure than a 3-point gap in an electoral college system as complex as the USA's.
Macron can win by piling up the votes on Paris. Doesn't matter elwhere his votes are unlike ourselves and the USA
A very different electoral system though. In a two-horse FPTP race, a 20-point gap with a week to go is surely more secure than a 3-point gap in an electoral college system as complex as the USA's.
It's this misunderstanding that's holding up Macron's price, IMHO.
Brexit had several chunky Leave leads before the vote. Trump was close in the popular vote, and piled it on in the states that mattered on the day to maximise his ECVs (and still lost the popular vote).
On topic, it's incredible that Macron is still available at 1.11 on Betfair.
That's simply a gift.
Agreed. I think it's because the volume of money at current prices is just too big. Incidentally, Betfair STILL hasn't settled the "year of next General Election" market.
"Time's running out for Le Pen"? Non non non... Time is running out for the EU. Macron is a fanatical supporter of the EU, therefore he is anti-European, therefore he is anti-France. The EU is gradually rapidly inexorably approaching its doom like a moth in a firestorm. The EU will be swept away in the whirlwind of history, and France will go down the plughole with it... unless the people of France rise up and seize control of their country before it's too late.
That doesn't mean that Le Pen will win on Sunday (she won't), nor that she will win in 2022; but one day, sooner or later, a party or person like her, or similar, will grasp the nettle by the horns and be flung into the Elysee Palace by the will of the people just as surely as a lump of poo being flung in all directions by a flatulent hippopotamus.
While we have all been enjoying Dianne Abbott's terminal gormlessness, has anyone in public media actually questioned the basic claim that Labour will deliver 10k new policemen for £300 million?
It seems to be difficult to find in a written down form, however I have seen the claim repeated unquestioned by the BBC News channel reporters this morning.
ISTM that a basic police salary is not far from £30k per annum, and by the time that gold plated pension, overheads, NICs and so on are added, the cost is closer to £60-70k per policeman.
Which makes the cost to Labour approx £600-700 million per annum and the claim as cloud-cuckoo land or not very honest. That swallows there entire purported £2.7bn savings from messing about with CGT on its own, yet they have been claiming it will take 'some of the CGT money'.
Yet not a peep from the press or the factcheckers as far as I know.
Why bother providing any detailed analysis of a policy that will never be implemented? Resources are finite. They need to be allocated where they matter.
A very different electoral system though. In a two-horse FPTP race, a 20-point gap with a week to go is surely more secure than a 3-point gap in an electoral college system as complex as the USA's.
Macron can win by piling up the votes on Paris. Doesn't matter elwhere his votes are unlike ourselves and the USA
Worth bearing in mind that the reporting on the evening of the first round Le Pen had a lead over Macton of a couple of percent, but this reversed to give Macron a couple of percentage lead by the final score.
So we should expect Le Pen to be better than 40% initially, before dropping back. assuming the reporting districts follow the same pattern.
I reckon the BF margin bands could be quite interesting on the night, if there is enough liquidity. The 35-40% band looks the best bet to me.
The key for Macron is getting a supportive assembly without much of a party organisation, but I think his reformism will prove successful, helped by the increasing strength of the French economy.
The high percentages in the Abstention/Protest vote/Spoilt vote column should worry teacher's pet and media darling Macron.
That's mainly disgruntled Melanchon backers. Lots are declining to vote for either, but few will vote Le Pen. With a 20-point lead, Macron doesn't need to worry about it.
While we have all been enjoying Dianne Abbott's terminal gormlessness, has anyone in public media actually questioned the basic claim that Labour will deliver 10k new policemen for £300 million?
It seems to be difficult to find in a written down form, however I have seen the claim repeated unquestioned by the BBC News channel reporters this morning.
ISTM that a basic police salary is not far from £30k per annum, and by the time that gold plated pension, overheads, NICs and so on are added, the cost is closer to £60-70k per policeman.
Which makes the cost to Labour approx £600-700 million per annum and the claim as cloud-cuckoo land or not very honest. That swallows there entire purported £2.7bn savings from messing about with CGT on its own, yet they have been claiming it will take 'some of the CGT money'.
Yet not a peep from the press or the factcheckers as far as I know.
Why bother providing any detailed analysis of a policy that will never be implemented? Resources are finite. They need to be allocated where they matter.
We could be kind and pay to put Diane Abbott thro' Maths common entrance.
The Midlands is a hard thing to pin down, but if you want its personification look at snooker world champ Mark Selby. He could not be from anywhere else.
The article itself is brilliant - by far the best I've ever read from John Crace. It was a straight down the line factual report and yet much funnier than his sketches.
But it's the comments that are the killer. I don't think this story will have much traction among the general public TBH. Politician is useless moron shock. But the humiliation and despair among Labour members and former diehards is palpable.
This may seriously harm activist motivation and depress turnout among core voters - both of which were off the scale at the bottom already.
IF the remain and LeAve %s were flipped in all areas with say ith the same 52 leave 48 remain result (And say make up the remaining leave% in central London) then this GE would be seriously risky for May
A very different electoral system though. In a two-horse FPTP race, a 20-point gap with a week to go is surely more secure than a 3-point gap in an electoral college system as complex as the USA's.
Macron can win by piling up the votes on Paris. Doesn't matter elwhere his votes are unlike ourselves and the USA
The key for Macron is getting a supportive assembly without much of a party organisation, but I think his reformism will prove successful, helped by the increasing strength of the French economy.
It would be good if that happened too - but Hollande failed, why do you think Macron will be different, with less experience & less support?
A very different electoral system though. In a two-horse FPTP race, a 20-point gap with a week to go is surely more secure than a 3-point gap in an electoral college system as complex as the USA's.
Macron can win by piling up the votes on Paris. Doesn't matter elwhere his votes are unlike ourselves and the USA
It will be interesting to see if Le Pen manages to win a few departments. That would be a breakthrough for her and the FN. The north-east and the south-east look the best bets. But it would not be a surprise if she did not win any.
A very different electoral system though. In a two-horse FPTP race, a 20-point gap with a week to go is surely more secure than a 3-point gap in an electoral college system as complex as the USA's.
Macron can win by piling up the votes on Paris. Doesn't matter elwhere his votes are unlike ourselves and the USA
It will be interesting to see if Le Pen manages to win a few departments. That would be a breakthrough for her and the FN. The north-east and the south-east look the best bets. But it would not be a surprise if she did not win any.
On topic, it's incredible that Macron is still available at 1.11 on Betfair.
That's simply a gift.
Agreed. I think it's because the volume of money at current prices is just too big. Incidentally, Betfair STILL hasn't settled the "year of next General Election" market.
I know, I posted the response they gave me to my complaint yesterday. Basically they won't risk the small chance it might be cancelled.
The high percentages in the Abstention/Protest vote/Spoilt vote column should worry teacher's pet and media darling Macron.
That's mainly disgruntled Melanchon backers. Lots are declining to vote for either, but few will vote Le Pen. With a 20-point lead, Macron doesn't need to worry about it.
The transfers in the first round in 2002 were nearly all against Le Pen snr. In the end his second round vote was barely a percent higher than his first. I wouldn't expect it to be quite so one sided (Communists transferred to Chirac in preference then!), nonetheless the value looks to be on the downside for Marine.
A very different electoral system though. In a two-horse FPTP race, a 20-point gap with a week to go is surely more secure than a 3-point gap in an electoral college system as complex as the USA's.
Macron can win by piling up the votes on Paris. Doesn't matter elwhere his votes are unlike ourselves and the USA
The key for Macron is getting a supportive assembly without much of a party organisation, but I think his reformism will prove successful, helped by the increasing strength of the French economy.
It would be good if that happened too - but Hollande failed, why do you think Macron will be different, with less experience & less support?
I always feel there is an oxymoron involved when the words France and reform are used without a negative applying to reform.
A very different electoral system though. In a two-horse FPTP race, a 20-point gap with a week to go is surely more secure than a 3-point gap in an electoral college system as complex as the USA's.
Macron can win by piling up the votes on Paris. Doesn't matter elwhere his votes are unlike ourselves and the USA
It will be interesting to see if Le Pen manages to win a few departments. That would be a breakthrough for her and the FN. The north-east and the south-east look the best bets. But it would not be a surprise if she did not win any.
It's reassuring to see you convinced of Macron's success, just as it was alarming to have you predicting his inevitable failure in the first round.
A very different electoral system though. In a two-horse FPTP race, a 20-point gap with a week to go is surely more secure than a 3-point gap in an electoral college system as complex as the USA's.
Macron can win by piling up the votes on Paris. Doesn't matter elwhere his votes are unlike ourselves and the USA
The key for Macron is getting a supportive assembly without much of a party organisation, but I think his reformism will prove successful, helped by the increasing strength of the French economy.
It would be good if that happened too - but Hollande failed, why do you think Macron will be different, with less experience & less support?
Hollande made ridiculous promises that he could not possibly keep. He beat himself. Macron has not done the same. His programme is pragmatic and the reforms he wants to introduce should win the support of the Republicains - even if they may not go as far as the ones that Fillon promised. Macron will have problems if the left win a majority in June. Something which is highly unlikely.
A very different electoral system though. In a two-horse FPTP race, a 20-point gap with a week to go is surely more secure than a 3-point gap in an electoral college system as complex as the USA's.
Macron can win by piling up the votes on Paris. Doesn't matter elwhere his votes are unlike ourselves and the USA
It will be interesting to see if Le Pen manages to win a few departments. That would be a breakthrough for her and the FN. The north-east and the south-east look the best bets. But it would not be a surprise if she did not win any.
Pas De Calais maybe. I think she will win a few
Just think; if it hadn’t been for Mary I that might have been part of UK!
On topic, it's incredible that Macron is still available at 1.11 on Betfair.
That's simply a gift.
Agreed. I think it's because the volume of money at current prices is just too big. Incidentally, Betfair STILL hasn't settled the "year of next General Election" market.
I know, I posted the response they gave me to my complaint yesterday. Basically they won't risk the small chance it might be cancelled.
Is that even possible? Parliament can't be "undissolved". It would mean a return to monarchical rule.
Am I missing something? When have Labour's sums ever added up?
Can't remember when exactly, but sometimes their numbers add up, however they’ve usual already spent the money on something else. For instance, the money to pay for their flagship policing policy is to come from reversing cuts to capital gains tax, which they have already spent on reversing cuts to education, social care and the arts. It's an old Gordon Brown trick.
On topic, it's incredible that Macron is still available at 1.11 on Betfair.
That's simply a gift.
Agreed. I think it's because the volume of money at current prices is just too big. Incidentally, Betfair STILL hasn't settled the "year of next General Election" market.
Cheeky, but strictly speaking they could justify not doing so until the morning of the 9th June.
Try dropping them an email. That's what I did last year when May became PM.
On topic, it's incredible that Macron is still available at 1.11 on Betfair.
That's simply a gift.
Agreed. I think it's because the volume of money at current prices is just too big. Incidentally, Betfair STILL hasn't settled the "year of next General Election" market.
Cheeky, but strictly speaking they could justify not doing so until the morning of the 9th June.
Try dropping them an email. That's what I did last year when May became PM.
I have already made a formal complaint and posted the reply here. Although I guess lots more people complaining might help them along a little?..
A very different electoral system though. In a two-horse FPTP race, a 20-point gap with a week to go is surely more secure than a 3-point gap in an electoral college system as complex as the USA's.
Macron can win by piling up the votes on Paris. Doesn't matter elwhere his votes are unlike ourselves and the USA
The key for Macron is getting a supportive assembly without much of a party organisation, but I think his reformism will prove successful, helped by the increasing strength of the French economy.
It would be good if that happened too - but Hollande failed, why do you think Macron will be different, with less experience & less support?
Hollande made ridiculous promises that he could not possibly keep. He beat himself. Macron has not done the same. His programme is pragmatic and the reforms he wants to introduce should win the support of the Republicains - even if they may not go as far as the ones that Fillon promised. Macron will have problems if the left win a majority in June. Something which is highly unlikely.
The other big difference is favourable winds. Hollande took charge at a time of considerable problems over the Euro, but now the winds have shifted.
Brexit does alter things, in that turning Picardy into a lorry park may be as much a problem as turning Kent into one. Inevitably the need to balance the books in the EU will lead to a degree of structural reform of EU finances too. That will drive other reforms.
The recent conflicts over Juncker's comments and rapidly increasing Brexit bill, are influenced more I think by the continental elections than our own. One effective way of getting FN voters back on side is blaming perfidious Albion for French problems. SeanT's jingoism in reverse. With German elections this autumn, there is only a short interval for sanity before the Italian elections next year.
A very different electoral system though. In a two-horse FPTP race, a 20-point gap with a week to go is surely more secure than a 3-point gap in an electoral college system as complex as the USA's.
Macron can win by piling up the votes on Paris. Doesn't matter elwhere his votes are unlike ourselves and the USA
It will be interesting to see if Le Pen manages to win a few departments. That would be a breakthrough for her and the FN. The north-east and the south-east look the best bets. But it would not be a surprise if she did not win any.
I would be extremely surprised if she did not win the departements where she had more than 30% of the vote in the first round or some of the right-wing strongholds where le pen + dupont iagnan + fillon had around 60%: I would bet on around 20 départements such as: Aisne, Alpes maritimes, Ardennes, Aube, North and South Corsica, Haute Marne, Meuse, Oise, Pas de Calais, Pyrénées orientales, Haut Rhin, Haute Saone, Somme, Var, Vaucluse, Vosges, Yonne + French Polynesia and New Caledonia.
At the regional level, she has a decent chance in 3 metropolitan régions: PACA(Provence Alpes Cotes d'Azur), Hauts de France and Grand Est. However I don't see her winning more than one.
While we have all been enjoying Dianne Abbott's terminal gormlessness, has anyone in public media actually questioned the basic claim that Labour will deliver 10k new policemen for £300 million?
It seems to be difficult to find in a written down form, however I have seen the claim repeated unquestioned by the BBC News channel reporters this morning.
ISTM that a basic police salary is not far from £30k per annum, and by the time that gold plated pension, overheads, NICs and so on are added, the cost is closer to £60-70k per policeman.
Which makes the cost to Labour approx £600-700 million per annum and the claim as cloud-cuckoo land or not very honest. That swallows there entire purported £2.7bn savings from messing about with CGT on its own, yet they have been claiming it will take 'some of the CGT money'.
Yet not a peep from the press or the factcheckers as far as I know.
Why bother providing any detailed analysis of a policy that will never be implemented? Resources are finite. They need to be allocated where they matter.
Yes. blindingly obvious yesterday that even at the highest leve3ls no-one in the party foresees any prospect of actually governing.
IF the remain and LeAve %s were flipped in all areas with say ith the same 52 leave 48 remain result (And say make up the remaining leave% in central London) then this GE would be seriously risky for May
Hmmm. Not a lot to say about that. Hypothetical rules ok?
A very different electoral system though. In a two-horse FPTP race, a 20-point gap with a week to go is surely more secure than a 3-point gap in an electoral college system as complex as the USA's.
Macron can win by piling up the votes on Paris. Doesn't matter elwhere his votes are unlike ourselves and the USA
The key for Macron is getting a supportive assembly without much of a party organisation, but I think his reformism will prove successful, helped by the increasing strength of the French economy.
It would be good if that happened too - but Hollande failed, why do you think Macron will be different, with less experience & less support?
Hollande made ridiculous promises that he could not possibly keep. He beat himself. Macron has not done the same. His programme is pragmatic and the reforms he wants to introduce should win the support of the Republicains - even if they may not go as far as the ones that Fillon promised. Macron will have problems if the left win a majority in June. Something which is highly unlikely.
Looks to me like the Tory campaign on Corbyn is just about to open fire. DM has details of a new bombshell poster: "No Bombs for the Army, One big bombshell for your family"
It can only get nastier once the locals are out of the way.
IF the remain and Leave %s were flipped in all areas with say with the same 52 leave 48 remain result (And say make up the remaining leave% in central London) then this GE would be seriously risky for May
Hmmm. Not a lot to say about that. Hypothetical rules ok?
My main point is that more the geography of the leave/remain vote rather than the actual numbers that create SUCH a strong position for May in this GE. Normally a geographical election is rather less certain than a straight vote count - however the risk is pretty much all skewed onto Labour in this one, in addition to the big poll lead.
Looks to me like the Tory campaign on Corbyn is just about to open fire. DM has details of a new bombshell poster: "No Bombs for the Army, One big bombshell for your family"
It can only get nastier once the locals are out of the way.
The French presidential election does look surprisingly boring. However, thanks once again to the various people here who tipped Macron. Though hedging has reduced my greenness, I did get on at 13 (I'd be in great shape had the weasel Fillon stood down, but there we are).
Looks to me like the Tory campaign on Corbyn is just about to open fire. DM has details of a new bombshell poster: "No Bombs for the Army, One big bombshell for your family"
It can only get nastier once the locals are out of the way.
Part of me wonders whether a certain L. Crosby was waiting for an in - it was inevitable that one of the quarterwits would balls up on numbers at some point. Politics is timing. And boy does Crosby have it in spades...
While we have all been enjoying Dianne Abbott's terminal gormlessness, has anyone in public media actually questioned the basic claim that Labour will deliver 10k new policemen for £300 million?
It seems to be difficult to find in a written down form, however I have seen the claim repeated unquestioned by the BBC News channel reporters this morning.
ISTM that a basic police salary is not far from £30k per annum, and by the time that gold plated pension, overheads, NICs and so on are added, the cost is closer to £60-70k per policeman.
Which makes the cost to Labour approx £600-700 million per annum and the claim as cloud-cuckoo land or not very honest. That swallows there entire purported £2.7bn savings from messing about with CGT on its own, yet they have been claiming it will take 'some of the CGT money'.
Yet not a peep from the press or the factcheckers as far as I know.
Why bother providing any detailed analysis of a policy that will never be implemented? Resources are finite. They need to be allocated where they matter.
Yes. blindingly obvious yesterday that even at the highest leve3ls no-one in the party foresees any prospect of actually governing.
The fact that this election sprang unexpectedly means that all manifestos are going to be rather half baked. Labour fluffed it yesterday, but the idea of rolling policy announcements each day (today is hospital STP plans and closures) is a good one. Meanwhile the Tories have just a reactive strategy, and a concentration on the Dear Leader.
Bit of a shame I missed the last thread as Labour Truth Team is one of the most wonderful mental abstractions I have ever, EVER read. Don Brind, can we chat about you doing Edinburgh?
IF the remain and Leave %s were flipped in all areas with say with the same 52 leave 48 remain result (And say make up the remaining leave% in central London) then this GE would be seriously risky for May
Hmmm. Not a lot to say about that. Hypothetical rules ok?
My main point is that more the geography of the leave/remain vote rather than the actual numbers that create SUCH a strong position for May in this GE. Normally a geographical election is rather less certain than a straight vote count - however the risk is pretty much all skewed onto Labour in this one, in addition to the big poll lead.
I very much agree with this. My model shows how hard it is for the Tories to get a majority on these boundaries - even with eg. UKIP vote down massively and Tory vote up a chunk the Con seats wouldn't stack up to 400 without the added complication of Brexit...
While we have all been enjoying Dianne Abbott's terminal gormlessness, has anyone in public media actually questioned the basic claim that Labour will deliver 10k new policemen for £300 million?
It seems to be difficult to find in a written down form, however I have seen the claim repeated unquestioned by the BBC News channel reporters this morning.
ISTM that a basic police salary is not far from £30k per annum, and by the time that gold plated pension, overheads, NICs and so on are added, the cost is closer to £60-70k per policeman.
Which makes the cost to Labour approx £600-700 million per annum and the claim as cloud-cuckoo land or not very honest. That swallows there entire purported £2.7bn savings from messing about with CGT on its own, yet they have been claiming it will take 'some of the CGT money'.
Yet not a peep from the press or the factcheckers as far as I know.
Why bother providing any detailed analysis of a policy that will never be implemented? Resources are finite. They need to be allocated where they matter.
Yes. blindingly obvious yesterday that even at the highest leve3ls no-one in the party foresees any prospect of actually governing.
The fact that this election sprang unexpectedly means that all manifestos are going to be rather half baked. Labour fluffed it yesterday, but the idea of rolling policy announcements each day (today is hospital STP plans and closures) is a good one. Meanwhile the Tories have just a reactive strategy, and a concentration on the Dear Leader.
The Tories are doing exactly what is needed to win: lots of controlled May and plenty of Corbyn & Co triumphantly shooting themselves in the foot. It's a shame that the opposition is not up to the task of getting the government to talk seriously about the biggest peacetime issue this country has faced for many a long year - especially as the Tory right continues to press for the hardest of all Brexits. But we are where we are.
One of the few joys of current events is the far left holding up a mirror to the anti-BBC right, which can now see how ridiculous it has looked to most people all these years.
While we have all been enjoying Dianne Abbott's terminal gormlessness, has anyone in public media actually questioned the basic claim that Labour will deliver 10k new policemen for £300 million?
It seems to be difficult to find in a written down form, however I have seen the claim repeated unquestioned by the BBC News channel reporters this morning.
ISTM that a basic police salary is not far from £30k per annum, and by the time that gold plated pension, overheads, NICs and so on are added, the cost is closer to £60-70k per policeman.
Which makes the cost to Labour approx £600-700 million per annum and the claim as cloud-cuckoo land or not very honest. That swallows there entire purported £2.7bn savings from messing about with CGT on its own, yet they have been claiming it will take 'some of the CGT money'.
Yet not a peep from the press or the factcheckers as far as I know.
Why bother providing any detailed analysis of a policy that will never be implemented? Resources are finite. They need to be allocated where they matter.
Yes. blindingly obvious yesterday that even at the highest leve3ls no-one in the party foresees any prospect of actually governing.
The fact that this election sprang unexpectedly means that all manifestos are going to be rather half baked. Labour fluffed it yesterday, but the idea of rolling policy announcements each day (today is hospital STP plans and closures) is a good one. Meanwhile the Tories have just a reactive strategy, and a concentration on the Dear Leader.
Allows us flexibility and is also straight out of the Leave playbook. Let the opposition wear themselves out and issue all policies. Then hit them with the 1-2-3-4 whammy of policy releases that have been focus grouped to within an inch of their lives....
While we have all been enjoying Dianne Abbott's terminal gormlessness, has anyone in public media actually questioned the basic claim that Labour will deliver 10k new policemen for £300 million?
It seems to be difficult to find in a written down form, however I have seen the claim repeated unquestioned by the BBC News channel reporters this morning.
ISTM that a basic police salary is not far from £30k per annum, and by the time that gold plated pension, overheads, NICs and so on are added, the cost is closer to £60-70k per policeman.
Which makes the cost to Labour approx £600-700 million per annum and the claim as cloud-cuckoo land or not very honest. That swallows there entire purported £2.7bn savings from messing about with CGT on its own, yet they have been claiming it will take 'some of the CGT money'.
Yet not a peep from the press or the factcheckers as far as I know.
Yes. Furthermore, as mentioned yesterday, you can't just pay for 10k PCs and keep the existing management structure without overloading at least the junior ranks. You'd need more sergeants, inspectors and chief inspectors too. They cost more.
On top of that, you need the resources to enable them to do their job: cars, computers, riot gear and other specialist clothing, office space and so on - and the consumables that these capital items use to keep them going. I'd be surprised if that didn't come to £50m or so a year as well.
IF the remain and Leave %s were flipped in all areas with say with the same 52 leave 48 remain result (And say make up the remaining leave% in central London) then this GE would be seriously risky for May
Hmmm. Not a lot to say about that. Hypothetical rules ok?
My main point is that more the geography of the leave/remain vote rather than the actual numbers that create SUCH a strong position for May in this GE. Normally a geographical election is rather less certain than a straight vote count - however the risk is pretty much all skewed onto Labour in this one, in addition to the big poll lead.
It does seem that Labour remainers are mostly sticking with Labour, and Tory Remainers sticking with the Tories, while the Tories hoover up UKIP Leavers.
The LDs best prospects are if Tory Remainers can be pursuaded to go LD. Not much sign of that at present, at least to the extent needed. A fair bit of Remania is in SE and SW England.
IF the remain and Leave %s were flipped in all areas with say with the same 52 leave 48 remain result (And say make up the remaining leave% in central London) then this GE would be seriously risky for May
Hmmm. Not a lot to say about that. Hypothetical rules ok?
My main point is that more the geography of the leave/remain vote rather than the actual numbers that create SUCH a strong position for May in this GE. Normally a geographical election is rather less certain than a straight vote count - however the risk is pretty much all skewed onto Labour in this one, in addition to the big poll lead.
I very much agree with this. My model shows how hard it is for the Tories to get a majority on these boundaries - even with eg. UKIP vote down massively and Tory vote up a chunk the Con seats wouldn't stack up to 400 without the added complication of Brexit...
Also if Remain had won 52-48 with the same vote share distribution geography (Just -4 leave everywhere), UKIP would be going absolubtely gangbusters by now and on ~20% methinks
IF the remain and Leave %s were flipped in all areas with say with the same 52 leave 48 remain result (And say make up the remaining leave% in central London) then this GE would be seriously risky for May
Hmmm. Not a lot to say about that. Hypothetical rules ok?
My main point is that more the geography of the leave/remain vote rather than the actual numbers that create SUCH a strong position for May in this GE. Normally a geographical election is rather less certain than a straight vote count - however the risk is pretty much all skewed onto Labour in this one, in addition to the big poll lead.
I very much agree with this. My model shows how hard it is for the Tories to get a majority on these boundaries - even with eg. UKIP vote down massively and Tory vote up a chunk the Con seats wouldn't stack up to 400 without the added complication of Brexit...
Am I missing something? When have Labour's sums ever added up?
Can't remember when exactly, but sometimes their numbers add up, however they’ve usual already spent the money on something else. For instance, the money to pay for their flagship policing policy is to come from reversing cuts to capital gains tax, which they have already spent on reversing cuts to education, social care and the arts. It's an old Gordon Brown trick.
The only recent time Labour's numbers added up was in Blair's first term, and that doesn't count because:
1. Brown stuck more-or-less to the existing Tory plans, so they weren't Labour numbers, and 2. The government got an unexpectedly huge windfall from the 3G licence auction.
IF the remain and Leave %s were flipped in all areas with say with the same 52 leave 48 remain result (And say make up the remaining leave% in central London) then this GE would be seriously risky for May
Hmmm. Not a lot to say about that. Hypothetical rules ok?
My main point is that more the geography of the leave/remain vote rather than the actual numbers that create SUCH a strong position for May in this GE. Normally a geographical election is rather less certain than a straight vote count - however the risk is pretty much all skewed onto Labour in this one, in addition to the big poll lead.
I very much agree with this. My model shows how hard it is for the Tories to get a majority on these boundaries - even with eg. UKIP vote down massively and Tory vote up a chunk the Con seats wouldn't stack up to 400 without the added complication of Brexit...
Shows how good the Posh Boys were....
:-) Not really - 2015 was more a consequence of The Hague coalition deal than anything else.
While we have all been enjoying Dianne Abbott's terminal gormlessness, has anyone in public media actually questioned the basic claim that Labour will deliver 10k new policemen for £300 million?
It seems to be difficult to find in a written down form, however I have seen the claim repeated unquestioned by the BBC News channel reporters this morning.
ISTM that a basic police salary is not far from £30k per annum, and by the time that gold plated pension, overheads, NICs and so on are added, the cost is closer to £60-70k per policeman.
Which makes the cost to Labour approx £600-700 million per annum and the claim as cloud-cuckoo land or not very honest. That swallows there entire purported £2.7bn savings from messing about with CGT on its own, yet they have been claiming it will take 'some of the CGT money'.
Yet not a peep from the press or the factcheckers as far as I know.
Why bother providing any detailed analysis of a policy that will never be implemented? Resources are finite. They need to be allocated where they matter.
Yes. blindingly obvious yesterday that even at the highest leve3ls no-one in the party foresees any prospect of actually governing.
The fact that this election sprang unexpectedly means that all manifestos are going to be rather half baked. Labour fluffed it yesterday, but the idea of rolling policy announcements each day (today is hospital STP plans and closures) is a good one. Meanwhile the Tories have just a reactive strategy, and a concentration on the Dear Leader.
The Tories are doing exactly what is needed to win: lots of controlled May and plenty of Corbyn & Co triumphantly shooting themselves in the foot. It's a shame that the opposition is not up to the task of getting the government to talk seriously about the biggest peacetime issue this country has faced for many a long year - especially as the Tory right continues to press for the hardest of all Brexits. But we are where we are.
The Labour strategy is right, to concentrate on policy, but the execution and spokespersons are appalling. Executing the spokespersons may be better.
Concentrating on police, hospitals etc is correct for the locals on Thursday. Brexit will follow.
Looks to me like the Tory campaign on Corbyn is just about to open fire. DM has details of a new bombshell poster: "No Bombs for the Army, One big bombshell for your family"
It can only get nastier once the locals are out of the way.
Yes, but France is a very different election. Clinton lost by virtue of a spectacularly inefficient distribution of her vote. No EC in France to save MLP.
More to the point, that report about Clinton being a 90% shot was a pile of pants. The betting markets thought it was more like 75%, and it's quite weird to assume a 90% win probability based on a 3% lead.
Looks to me like the Tory campaign on Corbyn is just about to open fire. DM has details of a new bombshell poster: "No Bombs for the Army, One big bombshell for your family"
It can only get nastier once the locals are out of the way.
While we have all been enjoying Dianne Abbott's terminal gormlessness, has anyone in public media actually questioned the basic claim that Labour will deliver 10k new policemen for £300 million?
It seems to be difficult to find in a written down form, however I have seen the claim repeated unquestioned by the BBC News channel reporters this morning.
ISTM that a basic police salary is not far from £30k per annum, and by the time that gold plated pension, overheads, NICs and so on are added, the cost is closer to £60-70k per policeman.
Which makes the cost to Labour approx £600-700 million per annum and the claim as cloud-cuckoo land or not very honest. That swallows there entire purported £2.7bn savings from messing about with CGT on its own, yet they have been claiming it will take 'some of the CGT money'.
Yet not a peep from the press or the factcheckers as far as I know.
Why bother providing any detailed analysis of a policy that will never be implemented? Resources are finite. They need to be allocated where they matter.
If 'senior' subject specialist journalists eg Graun Home Affairs Editor Alan Travis are writing articles saying that "Labour numbers make sense" then I would have expected said senior journalists to have done the sums. Instead he just swallowed the claim.
"The detailed figures published by the Labour party do show that the pledge has been costed and could be funded by reversing the cuts in capital gains tax rates announced by George Osborne in April 2016.
Labour’s figures show that in 2017-18 its police recruitment drive would cost £64.3m, £139.1m in 2018-19, £217.2m in 2019-20 and £298.8m in 2020-21, making a total of £771m or nearly £800m over the life of the next parliament."
IF the remain and Leave %s were flipped in all areas with say with the same 52 leave 48 remain result (And say make up the remaining leave% in central London) then this GE would be seriously risky for May
Hmmm. Not a lot to say about that. Hypothetical rules ok?
My main point is that more the geography of the leave/remain vote rather than the actual numbers that create SUCH a strong position for May in this GE. Normally a geographical election is rather less certain than a straight vote count - however the risk is pretty much all skewed onto Labour in this one, in addition to the big poll lead.
I very much agree with this. My model shows how hard it is for the Tories to get a majority on these boundaries - even with eg. UKIP vote down massively and Tory vote up a chunk the Con seats wouldn't stack up to 400 without the added complication of Brexit...
Shows how good the Posh Boys were....
Events have shown the posh boys were awful, their majority was purely down to the SNP/Miliband poster. Less than a year after standing down the tory majority is going to be multiplied many times, so many people just wouldn't vote for Cameron, but they will May.
While we have all been enjoying Dianne Abbott's terminal gormlessness, has anyone in public media actually questioned the basic claim that Labour will deliver 10k new policemen for £300 million?
It seems to be difficult to find in a written down form, however I have seen the claim repeated unquestioned by the BBC News channel reporters this morning.
ISTM that a basic police salary is not far from £30k per annum, and by the time that gold plated pension, overheads, NICs and so on are added, the cost is closer to £60-70k per policeman.
Which makes the cost to Labour approx £600-700 million per annum and the claim as cloud-cuckoo land or not very honest. That swallows there entire purported £2.7bn savings from messing about with CGT on its own, yet they have been claiming it will take 'some of the CGT money'.
Yet not a peep from the press or the factcheckers as far as I know.
Sky pointed out it was a crock of shit.
I believe they also referred to the plans as austerity max as it allowed for no pay increases for four years and of course no budget for training or even equipment
On topic, it's incredible that Macron is still available at 1.11 on Betfair.
That's simply a gift.
Agreed. I think it's because the volume of money at current prices is just too big. Incidentally, Betfair STILL hasn't settled the "year of next General Election" market.
I know, I posted the response they gave me to my complaint yesterday. Basically they won't risk the small chance it might be cancelled.
Is that even possible? Parliament can't be "undissolved". It would mean a return to monarchical rule.
I suppose it might be theoretically possible under the Civil Contingencies Act but even that Act places a limit on what a government can do without parliamentary sanction - and as there isn't a parliament, it couldn't give that sanction.
While we have all been enjoying Dianne Abbott's terminal gormlessness, has anyone in public media actually questioned the basic claim that Labour will deliver 10k new policemen for £300 million?
It seems to be difficult to find in a written down form, however I have seen the claim repeated unquestioned by the BBC News channel reporters this morning.
ISTM that a basic police salary is not far from £30k per annum, and by the time that gold plated pension, overheads, NICs and so on are added, the cost is closer to £60-70k per policeman.
Which makes the cost to Labour approx £600-700 million per annum and the claim as cloud-cuckoo land or not very honest. That swallows there entire purported £2.7bn savings from messing about with CGT on its own, yet they have been claiming it will take 'some of the CGT money'.
Yet not a peep from the press or the factcheckers as far as I know.
Employer NI is net neutral for the treasury. Surely the pensions are DC these days.... surely....
Company's still contribute on top of your salary do they not
While we have all been enjoying Dianne Abbott's terminal gormlessness, has anyone in public media actually questioned the basic claim that Labour will deliver 10k new policemen for £300 million?
It seems to be difficult to find in a written down form, however I have seen the claim repeated unquestioned by the BBC News channel reporters this morning.
ISTM that a basic police salary is not far from £30k per annum, and by the time that gold plated pension, overheads, NICs and so on are added, the cost is closer to £60-70k per policeman.
Which makes the cost to Labour approx £600-700 million per annum and the claim as cloud-cuckoo land or not very honest. That swallows there entire purported £2.7bn savings from messing about with CGT on its own, yet they have been claiming it will take 'some of the CGT money'.
Yet not a peep from the press or the factcheckers as far as I know.
Why bother providing any detailed analysis of a policy that will never be implemented? Resources are finite. They need to be allocated where they matter.
Yes. blindingly obvious yesterday that even at the highest leve3ls no-one in the party foresees any prospect of actually governing.
The fact that this election sprang unexpectedly means that all manifestos are going to be rather half baked. Labour fluffed it yesterday, but the idea of rolling policy announcements each day (today is hospital STP plans and closures) is a good one. Meanwhile the Tories have just a reactive strategy, and a concentration on the Dear Leader.
The Tories are doing exactly what is needed to win: lots of controlled May and plenty of Corbyn & Co triumphantly shooting themselves in the foot. It's a shame that the opposition is not up to the task of getting the government to talk seriously about the biggest peacetime issue this country has faced for many a long year - especially as the Tory right continues to press for the hardest of all Brexits. But we are where we are.
The Labour strategy is right, to concentrate on policy, but the execution and spokespersons are appalling. Executing the spokespersons may be better.
Concentrating on police, hospitals etc is correct for the locals on Thursday. Brexit will follow.
If labour continue to bleat on about Brexit they'll get annihilated.
There's nothing we dislike more than sore losers in this country.
Amazing to hear a prominent Labour man talk this way...- I know he's had his differences, but you'd never hear such a visceral full fronted demolition from say Osborne on May.
Stable door, while you're saying goodby to horse let me introduce you to bolt.
'Labour covers up its candidates' pro-independence internet history
SCOTTISH Labour have been forcing new candidates to delete their internet history and wipe any positive reference to independence from their social media.'
Perhaps Ruth's Kippertories should have done the same with the racist, Islamophobic & Sturgeon kidnap fantasy stuff from their merry bunch of roasters.
While we have all been enjoying Dianne Abbott's terminal gormlessness, has anyone in public media actually questioned the basic claim that Labour will deliver 10k new policemen for £300 million?
It seems to be difficult to find in a written down form, however I have seen the claim repeated unquestioned by the BBC News channel reporters this morning.
ISTM that a basic police salary is not far from £30k per annum, and by the time that gold plated pension, overheads, NICs and so on are added, the cost is closer to £60-70k per policeman.
Which makes the cost to Labour approx £600-700 million per annum and the claim as cloud-cuckoo land or not very honest. That swallows there entire purported £2.7bn savings from messing about with CGT on its own, yet they have been claiming it will take 'some of the CGT money'.
Yet not a peep from the press or the factcheckers as far as I know.
Employer NI is net neutral for the treasury. Surely the pensions are DC these days.... surely....
Company's still contribute on top of your salary do they not
As a legal requirement.
Building on the NI point, when costing new government funded jobs one could arguably deduct the employees' projected income tax payments as net neutral to the treasury, also, reducing the cost 10% or so.
Amazing to hear a prominent Labour man talk this way...- I know he's had his differences, but you'd never hear such a visceral full fronted demolition from say Osborne on May.
While we have all been enjoying Dianne Abbott's terminal gormlessness, has anyone in public media actually questioned the basic claim that Labour will deliver 10k new policemen for £300 million?
It seems to be difficult to find in a written down form, however I have seen the claim repeated unquestioned by the BBC News channel reporters this morning.
ISTM that a basic police salary is not far from £30k per annum, and by the time that gold plated pension, overheads, NICs and so on are added, the cost is closer to £60-70k per policeman.
Which makes the cost to Labour approx £600-700 million per annum and the claim as cloud-cuckoo land or not very honest. That swallows there entire purported £2.7bn savings from messing about with CGT on its own, yet they have been claiming it will take 'some of the CGT money'.
Yet not a peep from the press or the factcheckers as far as I know.
Sky pointed out it was a crock of shit.
I believe they also referred to the plans as austerity max as it allowed for no pay increases for four years and of course no budget for training or even equipment
That is Labour to a T - team truth my arse
Though arguing about the cost is like arguing about the size of the brexit bonus from contributions.
Police and fire service cuts over recent years have not been popular, and maintaining rural presence for both is a popular doorstep policy. Saving the Hinckley firestation and Cottage Hospital were central themes to our campaigning last weekend. No one asked how they would be funded.
Macron will certainly win but 40 or even 41% for Le Pen will still be a big shot across the bows of the French and EU establishment and hence even the normally Europhile Macron said that if the EU does not reform even Frexit could soon be on the cards. Meanwhile Merkel and Juncker still have their heads firmly in the sand and as recent statements show are as uncompromising as ever
While we have all been enjoying Dianne Abbott's terminal gormlessness, has anyone in public media actually questioned the basic claim that Labour will deliver 10k new policemen for £300 million?
It seems to be difficult to find in a written down form, however I have seen the claim repeated unquestioned by the BBC News channel reporters this morning.
ISTM that a basic police salary is not far from £30k per annum, and by the time that gold plated pension, overheads, NICs and so on are added, the cost is closer to £60-70k per policeman.
Which makes the cost to Labour approx £600-700 million per annum and the claim as cloud-cuckoo land or not very honest. That swallows there entire purported £2.7bn savings from messing about with CGT on its own, yet they have been claiming it will take 'some of the CGT money'.
Yet not a peep from the press or the factcheckers as far as I know.
Why bother providing any detailed analysis of a policy that will never be implemented? Resources are finite. They need to be allocated where they matter.
Yes. blindingly obvious yesterday that even at the highest leve3ls no-one in the party foresees any prospect of actually governing.
The fact that this election sprang unexpectedly means that all manifestos are going to be rather half baked. Labour fluffed it yesterday, but the idea of rolling policy announcements each day (today is hospital STP plans and closures) is a good one. Meanwhile the Tories have just a reactive strategy, and a concentration on the Dear Leader.
The Tories are doing exactly what is needed to win: lots of controlled May and plenty of Corbyn & Co triumphantly shooting themselves in the foot. It's a shame that the opposition is not up to the task of getting the government to talk seriously about the biggest peacetime issue this country has faced for many a long year - especially as the Tory right continues to press for the hardest of all Brexits. But we are where we are.
The Labour strategy is right, to concentrate on policy, but the execution and spokespersons are appalling. Executing the spokespersons may be better.
Concentrating on police, hospitals etc is correct for the locals on Thursday. Brexit will follow.
If labour continue to bleat on about Brexit they'll get annihilated.
There's nothing we dislike more than sore losers in this country.
Labour have not been emphasising Brexit yet, except locally in pro Remain seats.
Macron will certainly win but 40 or even 41% for Le Pen will still be a big shot across the bows of the French and EU establishment and hence even the normally Europhile Macron said that if the EU does not reform even Frexit could soon be on the cards. Meanwhile Merkel and Juncker still have their heads firmly in the sand and as recent statements show are as uncompromising as ever
If they say 'Please give me E100bn' what they are really saying is 'I expect to get E0bn'. Just Walk Theresa.
Comments
While we have all been enjoying Dianne Abbott's terminal gormlessness, has anyone in public media actually questioned the basic claim that Labour will deliver 10k new policemen for £300 million?
It seems to be difficult to find in a written down form, however I have seen the claim repeated unquestioned by the BBC News channel reporters this morning.
ISTM that a basic police salary is not far from £30k per annum, and by the time that gold plated pension, overheads, NICs and so on are added, the cost is closer to £60-70k per policeman.
Which makes the cost to Labour approx £600-700 million per annum and the claim as cloud-cuckoo land or not very honest. That swallows there entire purported £2.7bn savings from messing about with CGT on its own, yet they have been claiming it will take 'some of the CGT money'.
Yet not a peep from the press or the factcheckers as far as I know.
Unlikely given the accuracy of the 1st round polling, but possible - as those polls would have been picking up each candidates' bedrock support which is less susceptible to shyness.
It is hard to see this breaching anything like a 20 point gap though.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKBN1322J1
So that's £130m - which Labour say will come out of current expenditure, not from the £300m. Net impact though, is the £300m is actually only £170m. Then there's all the employer's on-costs...
Not only was the presentation of the policy chaotic, but the economics of it are too.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/euan-mccolm-salmond-taking-a-pop-at-me-is-fair-play-1-4435380
That's simply a gift.
Brexit had several chunky Leave leads before the vote. Trump was close in the popular vote, and piled it on in the states that mattered on the day to maximise his ECVs (and still lost the popular vote).
Le Pen has none of those.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-grpwftFUw
That doesn't mean that Le Pen will win on Sunday (she won't), nor that she will win in 2022; but one day, sooner or later, a party or person like her, or similar, will grasp the nettle by the horns and be flung into the Elysee Palace by the will of the people just as surely as a lump of poo being flung in all directions by a flatulent hippopotamus.
So we should expect Le Pen to be better than 40% initially, before dropping back. assuming the reporting districts follow the same pattern.
I reckon the BF margin bands could be quite interesting on the night, if there is enough liquidity. The 35-40% band looks the best bet to me.
The key for Macron is getting a supportive assembly without much of a party organisation, but I think his reformism will prove successful, helped by the increasing strength of the French economy.
Jon Ashworth: Hold my beer...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/02/diane-abbott-has-several-numbers-on-police-costs-sadly-they-are-all-wrong
The article itself is brilliant - by far the best I've ever read from John Crace. It was a straight down the line factual report and yet much funnier than his sketches.
But it's the comments that are the killer. I don't think this story will have much traction among the general public TBH. Politician is useless moron shock. But the humiliation and despair among Labour members and former diehards is palpable.
This may seriously harm activist motivation and depress turnout among core voters - both of which were off the scale at the bottom already.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election,_2002
They never seem to have much stomach for reform.
Try dropping them an email. That's what I did last year when May became PM.
Brexit does alter things, in that turning Picardy into a lorry park may be as much a problem as turning Kent into one. Inevitably the need to balance the books in the EU will lead to a degree of structural reform of EU finances too. That will drive other reforms.
The recent conflicts over Juncker's comments and rapidly increasing Brexit bill, are influenced more I think by the continental elections than our own. One effective way of getting FN voters back on side is blaming perfidious Albion for French problems. SeanT's jingoism in reverse. With German elections this autumn, there is only a short interval for sanity before the Italian elections next year.
I would bet on around 20 départements such as:
Aisne, Alpes maritimes, Ardennes, Aube, North and South Corsica, Haute Marne, Meuse, Oise, Pas de Calais, Pyrénées orientales, Haut Rhin, Haute Saone, Somme, Var, Vaucluse, Vosges, Yonne + French Polynesia and New Caledonia.
At the regional level, she has a decent chance in 3 metropolitan régions: PACA(Provence Alpes Cotes d'Azur), Hauts de France and Grand Est. However I don't see her winning more than one.
It can only get nastier once the locals are out of the way.
Normally a geographical election is rather less certain than a straight vote count - however the risk is pretty much all skewed onto Labour in this one, in addition to the big poll lead.
The French presidential election does look surprisingly boring. However, thanks once again to the various people here who tipped Macron. Though hedging has reduced my greenness, I did get on at 13 (I'd be in great shape had the weasel Fillon stood down, but there we are).
On top of that, you need the resources to enable them to do their job: cars, computers, riot gear and other specialist clothing, office space and so on - and the consumables that these capital items use to keep them going. I'd be surprised if that didn't come to £50m or so a year as well.
The LDs best prospects are if Tory Remainers can be pursuaded to go LD. Not much sign of that at present, at least to the extent needed. A fair bit of Remania is in SE and SW England.
1. Brown stuck more-or-less to the existing Tory plans, so they weren't Labour numbers, and
2. The government got an unexpectedly huge windfall from the 3G licence auction.
Concentrating on police, hospitals etc is correct for the locals on Thursday. Brexit will follow.
The higher taxes and more debt that we'll be getting whoever wins must be in the small print?
"The detailed figures published by the Labour party do show that the pledge has been costed and could be funded by reversing the cuts in capital gains tax rates announced by George Osborne in April 2016.
Labour’s figures show that in 2017-18 its police recruitment drive would cost £64.3m, £139.1m in 2018-19, £217.2m in 2019-20 and £298.8m in 2020-21, making a total of £771m or nearly £800m over the life of the next parliament."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/02/beneath-diane-abbott-police-funding-gaffes-labour-numbers-make-sense
I believe they also referred to the plans as austerity max as it allowed for no pay increases for four years and of course no budget for training or even equipment
That is Labour to a T - team truth my arse
There's nothing we dislike more than sore losers in this country.
http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/jeremy-corbyn-dangerous-for-britain-simon-danczuk/
Danczuk is right.
'Labour covers up its candidates' pro-independence internet history
SCOTTISH Labour have been forcing new candidates to delete their internet history and wipe any positive reference to independence from their social media.'
http://tinyurl.com/jwkrtp7
Perhaps Ruth's Kippertories should have done the same with the racist, Islamophobic & Sturgeon kidnap fantasy stuff from their merry bunch of roasters.
Building on the NI point, when costing new government funded jobs one could arguably deduct the employees' projected income tax payments as net neutral to the treasury, also, reducing the cost 10% or so.
Police and fire service cuts over recent years have not been popular, and maintaining rural presence for both is a popular doorstep policy. Saving the Hinckley firestation and Cottage Hospital were central themes to our campaigning last weekend. No one asked how they would be funded.
Just Walk Theresa.