So that's 30 million people paying an extra penny each = £300,000.
Nowhere near £6bn.
Where did he get his figures? Abbott?
1p in the pound?
Oh 1%. Strange - why didn't he type that instead? The 'p' & '%' keys aren't anywhere near each other.
So say someone earns £30,000. The extra 1% is £300.
And they pay that on top of existing taxes, with the costs of mortgage/rent, food, heat & light, vehicle(s) & fuel, and everything else they need to live.
Then out of the little that remains for themselves, they have to pay another £300 - with no guarantee it will be spent efficiently or wisely.
No wonder the LibDems use "penny in the pound" so it doesn't sound like much.
It is 1p on the rate of income tax
So 20p in the pound goes to 21p. 40p goes to 41p
Someone on £30,000pa pays tax on £18,500 so 1p equals £185pa about £3.55 a week.
So that's 30 million people paying an extra penny each = £300,000.
Nowhere near £6bn.
Where did he get his figures? Abbott?
1p in the pound?
Oh 1%. Strange - why didn't he type that instead? The 'p' & '%' keys aren't anywhere near each other.
So say someone earns £30,000. The extra 1% is £300.
And they pay that on top of existing taxes, with the costs of mortgage/rent, food, heat & light, vehicle(s) & fuel, and everything else they need to live.
Then out of the little that remains for themselves, they have to pay another £300 - with no guarantee it will be spent efficiently or wisely.
No wonder the LibDems use "penny in the pound" so it doesn't sound like much.
It's an annoying but common trick, messing around with the way numbers are presented like that; cf. "Well I think 39p a day is really good value for the licence fee, what with all those fascinating wildlife documentaries and of course Dr Who." It's what you'd expect from an LD barchartist, of course.though.
Additionally the maths is wrong, a 1% tax rise on the basic rate raises £5bn not £6bn, the erosion of the tax base via the higher personal allowance means a 1% rise raises a lot less than it used to.
A more detailed analysis of LD results in places like Somerset, Surrey and Cornwall reveal a patchwork quilt of gains and losses. A net loss of two might disguise five gains and seven defeats.
Oh if only someone had collated all this information into one place... https://goo.gl/uzcozl
It's not really that much use - you need to see the percentage movements in each Division to get a real understanding of what's going on.
I cited two examples from Surrey and that's the kind of detail you need to be looking at not just party names on a spreadsheet.
I think historically the Lib Dems have done well when the Tories are weak. Their glory days were under Blair when the Tories were getting the kind of pasting that Labour now looks set for.
In Scotland it was the former Tory shire seats that formed the backbone of their strength and indeed the starting point for the SNP surge which is obviously another complication for them in seeking to recover.
When the Tories are rampant then life gets tough for Lib Dems who always seem more attractive to disaffected moderates than lefties. What we saw on Thursday is the Lib Dem vote going up but the Tory vote going up more on the back of the UKIP collapse. It is quite hard to see the GE being that different and I expect them to recover no more than a small handful of the seats they lost to Cameron with real possibilities of losses the other way.
The Lib Dems will recover when the Tories start to falter. Until then they need to just hang in there and hope. 10-15 is a narrow range and for me the risk is more on the downside than the up.
Lib Dems need to win over the middle class bourgeoisie champagne socialists. The type that pretends to fight for the working class, but mainly looks down on them most of the time as being racists.
If they do that, then Labour is finished.
I suppose these middle class bourgeoisie champagne socialists you talk about must exist somewhere - BBC executives maybe - but I have never met one. I can't imagine that they are a big enough demographic to have any impact on a general election.
A more detailed analysis of LD results in places like Somerset, Surrey and Cornwall reveal a patchwork quilt of gains and losses. A net loss of two might disguise five gains and seven defeats.
Oh if only someone had collated all this information into one place... https://goo.gl/uzcozl
It's not really that much use - you need to see the percentage movements in each Division to get a real understanding of what's going on.
I cited two examples from Surrey and that's the kind of detail you need to be looking at not just party names on a spreadsheet.
But it does let you look beyond a simple net loss, which you alluded to in your post.
Someone on £30,000pa pays tax on £18,500 so 1p equals £185pa about £3.55 a week.
It's an interesting idea and as with Paddy's 1p to fund education in 1992 it will have some traction. I do think the issues of funding health and especially social care need some serious debate but if we start from a view that any proposed increase in taxes is taboo we'll get precisely nowhere.
I'm still trying to get my head around the idea of a Conservative mayor of Teesside.
Trade union membership in the North East has dropped from 43% in 1995 to 30% in 2015. That, coupled with a larger block of post-retirement voters, likely means that the average northeastern voter has significantly less daily contact with organised pro-left/labour elements than they would have done a generation or two ago.
LOL indeed, I have as much chance of losing as Labour have of winning in England or Brexit being a good deal.
wee Mrs McTurnip cant have much longer before the party is over
?
During the next Tory UK midterm, in Scotland the Cons will struggle to make more progress.
I notice that huge Tory surge across Ayrshire and challenge malcolm to tell us truthfully which party he voted for.
Must be soft in the head Alan, mind you the sheeple voted labour for many years so missing the self flagellation and noe some returning to doing same with Tories. Unbelievable the idiots just amaze me.
A more detailed analysis of LD results in places like Somerset, Surrey and Cornwall reveal a patchwork quilt of gains and losses. A net loss of two might disguise five gains and seven defeats.
Oh if only someone had collated all this information into one place... https://goo.gl/uzcozl
It's not really that much use - you need to see the percentage movements in each Division to get a real understanding of what's going on.
I cited two examples from Surrey and that's the kind of detail you need to be looking at not just party names on a spreadsheet.
But it does let you look beyond a simple net loss, which you alluded to in your post.
My point was the bare results often disguise something far more complex. Your spreadsheet is only part of the solution.
That's misleading. The NHS was built on the basis of cottage hospitals, which were introduced by the Conservatives, and the Conservatives would probably have introduced something similar had they won the 1945 election. The 1944 Health White Paper leaves little doubt about that. The NHS was an idea whose time had come.
Also, we probably couldn't have afforded it without the American loan. So direct your thanks to the Americans and the Conservatives as much as to Labour.
Cottage hospitals were not introduced by the Conservatives. The pre-NHS healthcare provision in the UK was a mixture of private, voluntary and state sector hospitals from time immemorial. The pre NHS state sector was in the workhouse hospitals, which combined hospitals with social care. The Leicester General Hospital was built in late Victorian times by the parishes of Leicester as a workhouse hospital, while Leicester Royal Infirmary was a voluntary hospital, essentially a not for profit private hosital. General Practice was largely private, until "panel doctors" were introduced by the Liberals.
British Hospitals were effectively nationalised, commencing in 1938 in London, as part of the mobilisattion for war and expected bombing casualties (projections were for 300 000 bombing casualties in the first year). It was not a coincidence that the NHS was created immediately post war, as at that point the sector was like most of the country skint, but also almost all British doctors had been working for the government, either in uniform or in the wartime measures. It was that alignment with a Labour government that made the NHS possible. The NHS has been dealing with legacy estate issues ever since.
SNP up/down 1.5%, (depending on if you use the wrong or right numbers) Tories up 150%.
1.5% of a lot is still much more than 150% of hee-haw. You need a refresher on arithmetic Rob.
7 is much more than 164?
Have you been studying Abborithmetic?
Another loser trying to use anything but the real numbers. Just for man who cannot make up his mind what his name is , 431 is a bigger number by far than 276. 155 highe ror 56% higher if you prefer. By all measures LOSERS.
I'm still trying to get my head around the idea of a Conservative mayor of Teesside.
Trade union membership in the North East has dropped from 43% in 1995 to 30% in 2015. That, coupled with a larger block of post-retirement voters, likely means that the average northeastern voter has significantly less daily contact with organised pro-left/labour elements than they would have done a generation or two ago.
Even so, I heard that the average salary in the area is £14k. That should never in normal times be even remotely Conservative.
Here is the result of the Scottish Council Elections:
SNP 431 seats Tories 276 seats Labour 266 seats
Far from seriously challenging the SNP, the Tories barely managed to edge out the Labour party. The Carlotta Vances, the Scott Ps, and let's not forget the Alanbrooke's ought to get a grip of reality :-)
So that's 30 million people paying an extra penny each = £300,000.
Nowhere near £6bn.
Where did he get his figures? Abbott?
1p in the pound?
Oh 1%. Strange - why didn't he type that instead? The 'p' & '%' keys aren't anywhere near each other.
So say someone earns £30,000. The extra 1% is £300.
And they pay that on top of existing taxes, with the costs of mortgage/rent, food, heat & light, vehicle(s) & fuel, and everything else they need to live.
Then out of the little that remains for themselves, they have to pay another £300 - with no guarantee it will be spent efficiently or wisely.
No wonder the LibDems use "penny in the pound" so it doesn't sound like much.
It is 1p on the rate of income tax
So 20p in the pound goes to 21p. 40p goes to 41p
Someone on £30,000pa pays tax on £18,500 so 1p equals £185pa about £3.55 a week.
And the bottom line is that there are inexorable pressures on the NHS, on social care, on education, and on pensions. We're going to be paying more tax, whoever wins the election. Why else have the Tories ditched most of their promises on tax? At least the LibDems are being honest about it, and putting forward a straighftforward, transparent and fair approach for raising the extra money. The Tories are going to spend the next five years dreaming up every flavour of stealth tax they can,
A more detailed analysis of LD results in places like Somerset, Surrey and Cornwall reveal a patchwork quilt of gains and losses. A net loss of two might disguise five gains and seven defeats.
Oh if only someone had collated all this information into one place... https://goo.gl/uzcozl
It's not really that much use - you need to see the percentage movements in each Division to get a real understanding of what's going on.
I cited two examples from Surrey and that's the kind of detail you need to be looking at not just party names on a spreadsheet.
But it does let you look beyond a simple net loss, which you alluded to in your post.
My point was the bare results often disguise something far more complex. Your spreadsheet is only part of the solution.
As much as I love this sort of stuff, I simply don't have time to ingest all those figures to do more detailed comparisons. You are right it would be interesting to look at correlation between remain/leave and LD performance, for example. Probably easier to do that on a case by case basis than trying to work out what the leave/remain vote was in each ward, and ingesting all the vote figures.
2017 is a good election to lose. When Brexit takes shape someone is going to be very angry and that will be directed at the government
No doubt the remainers will be unhappy.
Freggles is 100% correct , when reality hits the pitchforks will be out big time.
Not on this one. People in general and voters in particular are usually very unwilling to accept adverse outcomes are the result of their own decisions.
We will see buyers regret in a few years time
You'll see it sooner than that in Scotland....June 9th, at a guess.....
Care to bet that Tories are not massive losers on June 8th,
I'm still trying to get my head around the idea of a Conservative mayor of Teesside.
Trade union membership in the North East has dropped from 43% in 1995 to 30% in 2015. That, coupled with a larger block of post-retirement voters, likely means that the average northeastern voter has significantly less daily contact with organised pro-left/labour elements than they would have done a generation or two ago.
It 's certainly a surprise but the Labour Party need an coherent answer to what they would spend / cut due to austerity. The era of solving any problem by spending more and more money is over, and voters know that. Labour incoherently oppose every cut in every place, they have their heads in the sand.
2017 is a good election to lose. When Brexit takes shape someone is going to be very angry and that will be directed at the government
No doubt the remainers will be unhappy.
Freggles is 100% correct , when reality hits the pitchforks will be out big time.
Not on this one. People in general and voters in particular are usually very unwilling to accept adverse outcomes are the result of their own decisions.
We will see buyers regret in a few years time
You'll see it sooner than that in Scotland....June 9th, at a guess.....
Care to bet that Tories are not massive losers on June 8th,
I take it you think the SNPs were massive losers up until a few years ago?
2017 is a good election to lose. When Brexit takes shape someone is going to be very angry and that will be directed at the government
No doubt the remainers will be unhappy.
Freggles is 100% correct , when reality hits the pitchforks will be out big time.
Not on this one. People in general and voters in particular are usually very unwilling to accept adverse outcomes are the result of their own decisions.
We will see buyers regret in a few years time
You'll see it sooner than that in Scotland....June 9th, at a guess.....
Care to bet that Tories are not massive losers on June 8th,
You think the Tories will lose seats - well seat - in Scotland?
18% just a few weeks before a GE.... overall the oranges cant be that badly off - back in 2015 they would have taken your arm off for a national vote of 18%, 100,000 plus members means that actually the cup is probably half full on reflection for the LibDems, I think around 20 seems a fair target for MPs, I think all the parties will need to get up and start campaigning again, I sense an air of acceptance (defeatism and complacency) about the result which means some surprises still lie on store
I'm still trying to get my head around the idea of a Conservative mayor of Teesside.
Trade union membership in the North East has dropped from 43% in 1995 to 30% in 2015. That, coupled with a larger block of post-retirement voters, likely means that the average northeastern voter has significantly less daily contact with organised pro-left/labour elements than they would have done a generation or two ago.
Even so, I heard that the average salary in the area is £14k. That should never in normal times be even remotely Conservative.
Only 21% turnout though, and only just over half voted Tory. The vast majority on median wages there didnt vote at all.
Low turnout is as much the Tories friend as the absorbtion of the kippers*, low turnout is not good for democracy though.
As much as I love this sort of stuff, I simply don't have time to ingest all those figures to do more detailed comparisons. You are right it would be interesting to look at correlation between remain/leave and LD performance, for example. Probably easier to do that on a case by case basis than trying to work out what the leave/remain vote was in each ward, and ingesting all the vote figures.
No, it would be a herculean task. My point is simply that detailed analysis of the results requires much more information.
I'll offer you an example - the "Surrey Opposition Forum" was a meaningless bit of political posturing by the non-Conservative Councillors. Hazel Watson never stopped being an LD so it's not really worth putting that in.
Here is the result of the Scottish Council Elections:
SNP 431 seats Tories 276 seats Labour 266 seats
Far from seriously challenging the SNP, the Tories barely managed to edge out the Labour party. The Carlotta Vances, the Scott Ps, and let's not forget the Alanbrooke's ought to get a grip of reality :-)
JPJ2
you big jock spoilsport
nobody has been commenting on reality here for years , why pick on me ?
At last, some straightforward analysis on the Lib Dems other than talking about their 'ground game'.
I was posting at the beginning of the week that so far the story of GE2017 was the failure of the Lib Dems to move forward. On paper circumstances should offer more fertile ground but it just isn't happening.
One key issue, again, I suspect, is the leader. Nick Clegg came across alright to the public, Farron not so much. The Conservatives may be focussing on one issue but you basically know where you stand with Conservative outlook overall beyond Brexit. They have also angled the line of attack on Brexit, its about who is going to run that show, not the show itself.
With the Lib Dems, they talk about Brexit as an issue. I think for a large swathe of the public, Brexit is done, its happening. The Lib Dems haven't angled the line of presuasion.
Do they go down the line of Labour by talking more about policy outside of Brexit? Maybe, and I notice this morning they are out of the blocks overt NHS & tax. Whatever, they need to do something different
Having said that, I think they have an opportunity to rise above 15, I can see late teens if things go right. Woeful as that result would still be.
18% just a few weeks before a GE.... overall the oranges cant be that badly off - back in 2015 they would have taken your arm off for a national vote of 18%, 100,000 plus members means that actually the cup is probably half full on reflection for the LibDems, I think around 20 seems a fair target for MPs, I think all the parties will need to get up and start campaigning again, I sense an air of acceptance (defeatism and complacency) about the result which means some surprises still lie on store
Considering that the Cons are increasing their vote shares in most areas, LDs outperform in local elections and this increase in VS is likely to be fairly even across the country then I think that an excellent night for them is getting above 16.
Don't see much on here re SNP increasing their vote share and number of councillors , already at an all time high, yesterday. Media as ever trying to make out Tories won , they are almost as biased as PB. Did the tide stop at Berwick.
They were down slightly in terms of numbers based on the notional results on the new boundaries. SNP won, but SCON were the biggest gainers of the night.
Commiserations to the Scottish Notional Party on losing 7 seats. Congrats to the Scottish National Party on gaining 6 seats.
I'm pretty sure using notional values is the way these are always reported.
Notional as in made up lies, even Scott would struggle to make +6 into -7.
But isn't it normal for elections to be reported in terms of notional holds, gains and losses? It isn't a case of Tory rampers, even if they are the ones saying it, I am sure I've seen all manner of elections reported that way.
You mean bollox, how can you lose 7 seats you never held, against the laws of physics I am afraid.
Jeez, that's why they are called notional, because they represent what the result would have been had the previous election been contested on the new boundaries.
LOL, lets make up some seats to kid on we did better than we actually did, what a wheeze.
Boundary changes are real not made up. If you can't get your head around boundary changes that says more about you than anyone else.
So that's 30 million people paying an extra penny each = £300,000.
Nowhere near £6bn.
Where did he get his figures? Abbott?
1p in the pound?
Oh 1%. Strange - why didn't he type that instead? The 'p' & '%' keys aren't anywhere near each other.
So say someone earns £30,000. The extra 1% is £300.
And they pay that on top of existing taxes, with the costs of mortgage/rent, food, heat & light, vehicle(s) & fuel, and everything else they need to live.
Then out of the little that remains for themselves, they have to pay another £300 - with no guarantee it will be spent efficiently or wisely.
No wonder the LibDems use "penny in the pound" so it doesn't sound like much.
? It is standard practice to describe increases or decreases in income tax as a penny.
So that's 30 million people paying an extra penny each = £300,000.
Nowhere near £6bn.
Where did he get his figures? Abbott?
1p in the pound?
Oh 1%. Strange - why didn't he type that instead? The 'p' & '%' keys aren't anywhere near each other.
So say someone earns £30,000. The extra 1% is £300.
And they pay that on top of existing taxes, with the costs of mortgage/rent, food, heat & light, vehicle(s) & fuel, and everything else they need to live.
Then out of the little that remains for themselves, they have to pay another £300 - with no guarantee it will be spent efficiently or wisely.
No wonder the LibDems use "penny in the pound" so it doesn't sound like much.
It is 1p on the rate of income tax
So 20p in the pound goes to 21p. 40p goes to 41p
Someone on £30,000pa pays tax on £18,500 so 1p equals £185pa about £3.55 a week.
And the bottom line is that there are inexorable pressures on the NHS, on social care, on education, and on pensions. We're going to be paying more tax, whoever wins the election. Why else have the Tories ditched most of their promises on tax? At least the LibDems are being honest about it, and putting forward a straighftforward, transparent and fair approach for raising the extra money. The Tories are going to spend the next five years dreaming up every flavour of stealth tax they can,
What we need is to respray the bus orange, and tour the country promising £350 million per week extra for the NHS.
Rather than the Tory approach of caring so much about the working class when it comes to immigration, then cutting their benefits?
People like you seem to think the working class are all on benefits. That may be Labour's long-term goal but it hasn't been achieved yet. Working people want work. The clue's in the name.
2017 is a good election to lose. When Brexit takes shape someone is going to be very angry and that will be directed at the government
No doubt the remainers will be unhappy.
Freggles is 100% correct , when reality hits the pitchforks will be out big time.
Not on this one. People in general and voters in particular are usually very unwilling to accept adverse outcomes are the result of their own decisions.
We will see buyers regret in a few years time
You'll see it sooner than that in Scotland....June 9th, at a guess.....
Care to bet that Tories are not massive losers on June 8th,
You think the Tories will lose seats - well seat - in Scotland?
I am saying that SNP will be the winners in Scotland and will have most of teh seats, whethr the tories need a tandem or not is NOT winning. Tories will be massive losers in the Scottish vote. Carlotta's warped thinking that being a massiv eloser but ahead of the next massive loser is winning is pretty pathetic. No matter how you cut it the Tories are nowhere in Scotland.
All of the wards in Edinburgh are multi member, and in most SNP and SLAB were standing 2 candidates. Therefore, single first preference doesn't tell you very much - overall first preferences for parties would give you an accurate picture.
(Before everyone goes chucking money on SCON to win ENL).
I love the matching of elections to historic areas of division in the country (recent examples - suggesting that the French election mirrors the division of France during the 100 years war, and, yesterday, the alignment of Scotland along civil war lines). One can imagine in hundreds of year's time people still corraliting UK election results with the Referendum.
Is this showing the party that had the largest increase in first preference vote share?
No I think it is showing before and after pics of who won the first preference vote in each ward. A fair few wards (especially but not just those blue in 2012) are the same colours in both.
So that's 30 million people paying an extra penny each = £300,000.
Nowhere near £6bn.
Where did he get his figures? Abbott?
1p in the pound?
Oh 1%. Strange - why didn't he type that instead? The 'p' & '%' keys aren't anywhere near each other.
So say someone earns £30,000. The extra 1% is £300.
And they pay that on top of existing taxes, with the costs of mortgage/rent, food, heat & light, vehicle(s) & fuel, and everything else they need to live.
Then out of the little that remains for themselves, they have to pay another £300 - with no guarantee it will be spent efficiently or wisely.
No wonder the LibDems use "penny in the pound" so it doesn't sound like much.
It is 1p on the rate of income tax
So 20p in the pound goes to 21p. 40p goes to 41p
Someone on £30,000pa pays tax on £18,500 so 1p equals £185pa about £3.55 a week.
Thanks for debunking Mr Hopkins fail at 'O' level maths.
Rather than the Tory approach of caring so much about the working class when it comes to immigration, then cutting their benefits?
People like you seem to think the working class are all on benefits. That may be Labour's long-term goal but it hasn't been achieved yet. Working people want work. The clue's in the name.
A high percentage of working people are on benefits, either in the form of tax credits or child benefit, even before we get into housing benefit or social housing.
The raising of allowances by the LDs in coalition helps as well.
So that's 30 million people paying an extra penny each = £300,000.
Nowhere near £6bn.
Where did he get his figures? Abbott?
1p in the pound?
Oh 1%. Strange - why didn't he type that instead? The 'p' & '%' keys aren't anywhere near each other.
So say someone earns £30,000. The extra 1% is £300.
And they pay that on top of existing taxes, with the costs of mortgage/rent, food, heat & light, vehicle(s) & fuel, and everything else they need to live.
Then out of the little that remains for themselves, they have to pay another £300 - with no guarantee it will be spent efficiently or wisely.
No wonder the LibDems use "penny in the pound" so it doesn't sound like much.
It is 1p on the rate of income tax
So 20p in the pound goes to 21p. 40p goes to 41p
Someone on £30,000pa pays tax on £18,500 so 1p equals £185pa about £3.55 a week.
Thanks for debunking Mr Hopkins fail at 'O' level maths.
I was making a point. Calculating it to the exact penny for each week doesn't change that point.
I'm still trying to get my head around the idea of a Conservative mayor of Teesside.
Trade union membership in the North East has dropped from 43% in 1995 to 30% in 2015. That, coupled with a larger block of post-retirement voters, likely means that the average northeastern voter has significantly less daily contact with organised pro-left/labour elements than they would have done a generation or two ago.
Even so, I heard that the average salary in the area is £14k. That should never in normal times be even remotely Conservative.
This income map/statistics shows it as poor, but not as poor as some of the traditionally tory voting rural areas just south.
As much as I love this sort of stuff, I simply don't have time to ingest all those figures to do more detailed comparisons. You are right it would be interesting to look at correlation between remain/leave and LD performance, for example. Probably easier to do that on a case by case basis than trying to work out what the leave/remain vote was in each ward, and ingesting all the vote figures.
No, it would be a herculean task. My point is simply that detailed analysis of the results requires much more information.
I'll offer you an example - the "Surrey Opposition Forum" was a meaningless bit of political posturing by the non-Conservative Councillors. Hazel Watson never stopped being an LD so it's not really worth putting that in.
Ah, thanks - I had them as Independent but I see the BBC are reporting them as LD holds.
So that's 30 million people paying an extra penny each = £300,000.
Nowhere near £6bn.
Where did he get his figures? Abbott?
1p in the pound?
Oh 1%. Strange - why didn't he type that instead? The 'p' & '%' keys aren't anywhere near each other.
So say someone earns £30,000. The extra 1% is £300.
And they pay that on top of existing taxes, with the costs of mortgage/rent, food, heat & light, vehicle(s) & fuel, and everything else they need to live.
Then out of the little that remains for themselves, they have to pay another £300 - with no guarantee it will be spent efficiently or wisely.
No wonder the LibDems use "penny in the pound" so it doesn't sound like much.
It is 1p on the rate of income tax
So 20p in the pound goes to 21p. 40p goes to 41p
Someone on £30,000pa pays tax on £18,500 so 1p equals £185pa about £3.55 a week.
Thanks for debunking Mr Hopkins fail at 'O' level maths.
Oh look, aftertiming. And the error wasn't mathematical.
The Conservative increase in Scotland is obviously potentially important - not because they can claim to be "winners" but simply because it puts them in a position in many areas as "main challengers". Once you are established as main challengers you will attract votes because opponents of the leading party will see you as a viable prospect to replace them. That is just elections 101, even more so under FPTP.
The question that needs to be asked though is whether increases in votes allow the genuine prospect of future growth, or whether (especially when from a very low base) if the increase in the result of maxing out on the floating c10-20% of "protest votes" that are around in every electorate. That for example is the real LibDem issue. When they talk of revival they are thinking they can return to the heights of the early 2000s. But a huge part of that rise was from voters that would inevitably drift away once they obtained any element of genuine power.
Just worked out what they've done. They've taken the single candidate with the highest vote to produce the maps which is total bollocks.
In most the SNP were standing 2 candidates, in Leith Walk the SNP got 35% of the vote over 2 candidates and the single green got 20% so the ward is coloured green on the map.
So that's 30 million people paying an extra penny each = £300,000.
Nowhere near £6bn.
Where did he get his figures? Abbott?
1p in the pound?
Oh 1%. Strange - why didn't he type that instead? The 'p' & '%' keys aren't anywhere near each other.
So say someone earns £30,000. The extra 1% is £300.
And they pay that on top of existing taxes, with the costs of mortgage/rent, food, heat & light, vehicle(s) & fuel, and everything else they need to live.
Then out of the little that remains for themselves, they have to pay another £300 - with no guarantee it will be spent efficiently or wisely.
No wonder the LibDems use "penny in the pound" so it doesn't sound like much.
It is 1p on the rate of income tax
So 20p in the pound goes to 21p. 40p goes to 41p
Someone on £30,000pa pays tax on £18,500 so 1p equals £185pa about £3.55 a week.
Thanks for debunking Mr Hopkins fail at 'O' level maths.
Oh look, aftertiming. And the error wasn't mathematical.
Lets never forget that Logical Song said "Buying opportunity" when the Lib Dems were 10/1 in Stoke, and then said that phrase didn't mean he thought it was a value bet (when they had drifted to about 50/1)
I think historically the Lib Dems have done well when the Tories are weak. Their glory days were under Blair when the Tories were getting the kind of pasting that Labour now looks set for.
In Scotland it was the former Tory shire seats that formed the backbone of their strength and indeed the starting point for the SNP surge which is obviously another complication for them in seeking to recover.
When the Tories are rampant then life gets tough for Lib Dems who always seem more attractive to disaffected moderates than lefties. What we saw on Thursday is the Lib Dem vote going up but the Tory vote going up more on the back of the UKIP collapse. It is quite hard to see the GE being that different and I expect them to recover no more than a small handful of the seats they lost to Cameron with real possibilities of losses the other way.
The Lib Dems will recover when the Tories start to falter. Until then they need to just hang in there and hope. 10-15 is a narrow range and for me the risk is more on the downside than the up.
Lib Dems need to win over the middle class bourgeoisie champagne socialists. The type that pretends to fight for the working class, but mainly looks down on them most of the time as being racists.
If they do that, then Labour is finished.
Rather than the Tory approach of caring so much about the working class when it comes to immigration, then cutting their benefits?
A massive difference exists between the working class and the benefits class, it's quite clear when you live amoungst them. For the sneerers looking down obviously not.
2017 is a good election to lose. When Brexit takes shape someone is going to be very angry and that will be directed at the government
No doubt the remainers will be unhappy.
Freggles is 100% correct , when reality hits the pitchforks will be out big time.
Not on this one. People in general and voters in particular are usually very unwilling to accept adverse outcomes are the result of their own decisions.
We will see buyers regret in a few years time
You'll see it sooner than that in Scotland....June 9th, at a guess.....
Care to bet that Tories are not massive losers on June 8th,
You think the Tories will lose seats - well seat - in Scotland?
I am saying that SNP will be the winners in Scotland and will have most of teh seats, whethr the tories need a tandem or not is NOT winning. Tories will be massive losers in the Scottish vote. Carlotta's warped thinking that being a massiv eloser but ahead of the next massive loser is winning is pretty pathetic. No matter how you cut it the Tories are nowhere in Scotland.
I'd say the Tories did pretty well, at least compared to the last 25 years. They're back to the kind of support they had in 1992.
Just worked out what they've done. They've taken the single candidate with the highest vote to produce the maps which is total bollocks.
In most the SNP were standing 2 candidates, in Leith Walk the SNP got 35% of the vote over 2 candidates and the single green got 20% so the ward is coloured green on the map.
Bonkers visualisation
I swear there was a more accurate version ciculated before with the most vote colour (on a party not candidate basis) and little rings for the 3/4 members.
All of the wards in Edinburgh are multi member, and in most SNP and SLAB were standing 2 candidates. Therefore, single first preference doesn't tell you very much - overall first preferences for parties would give you an accurate picture.
(Before everyone goes chucking money on SCON to win ENL).
True and on that interpretation of the Council results, the Tories look to be in a good position to take Edinburgh South West and Labour to take Midlothian. Astonishing given the SNP margins just two years ago.
The difference between May and her predecssors is that they actually did pretend to be drinking pints of stuff they don't drink for staged "real" photo opps. She also hasn't started pretending to support West Ham Villa like Dave or thrown in an bit of faux cockney yet like Glottal Stop Gideon, which is probably why normal people from all parties seem to be ok w her
LOL and really good photoshopping, but not an attack - could be a votewinner in some key demographics. I'm sure someone will do an 80 shilling version for your neck of the woods.
Just worked out what they've done. They've taken the single candidate with the highest vote to produce the maps which is total bollocks.
In most the SNP were standing 2 candidates, in Leith Walk the SNP got 35% of the vote over 2 candidates and the single green got 20% so the ward is coloured green on the map.
Bonkers visualisation
If you are right then these maps are rubbish.
Since each voter has a single vote, what they should have done is totalled the first prefs for each party. Are you absolutely sure they have not done this?
"In medicine, the natural order is generally diagnosis, treatment and then a prognosis. The Labour party haven't agreed on the first yet.
The diagnosis is an inoperable tumour - one Jeremy Corbyn. There may be other minor ailments but they are irrelevant to life expectancy. However, the labour Party members are in denial still. It's the fault of the media, the Blairites, the idiot electors. Change them and all is well.
Jezza will go nowhere until the members reach the correct diagnosis or the patient dies. Prognosis - not good."
Nah. Corbyn is just a metasis and an operable one at that.
It's the lymphoma (disconnection from the vast majority of the population) that will kill them eventually
Just worked out what they've done. They've taken the single candidate with the highest vote to produce the maps which is total bollocks.
In most the SNP were standing 2 candidates, in Leith Walk the SNP got 35% of the vote over 2 candidates and the single green got 20% so the ward is coloured green on the map.
Bonkers visualisation
If you are right then these maps are rubbish.
Since each voter has a single vote, what they should have done is totalled the first prefs for each party. Are you absolutely sure they have not done this?
100% positive. They just taken the individual candidate with the highest vote share to colour the ward. Checked across a bunch of wards.
"In medicine, the natural order is generally diagnosis, treatment and then a prognosis. The Labour party haven't agreed on the first yet.
The diagnosis is an inoperable tumour - one Jeremy Corbyn. There may be other minor ailments but they are irrelevant to life expectancy. However, the labour Party members are in denial still. It's the fault of the media, the Blairites, the idiot electors. Change them and all is well.
Jezza will go nowhere until the members reach the correct diagnosis or the patient dies. Prognosis - not good."
Nah. Corbyn is just a metasis and an operable one at that.
It's the lymphoma (disconnection from the vast majority of the population) that will kill them eventually
Hey Charles, did you read that article on the Garden Bridge from onlondon.co.uk?
I'm still trying to get my head around the idea of a Conservative mayor of Teesside.
Trade union membership in the North East has dropped from 43% in 1995 to 30% in 2015. That, coupled with a larger block of post-retirement voters, likely means that the average northeastern voter has significantly less daily contact with organised pro-left/labour elements than they would have done a generation or two ago.
Even so, I heard that the average salary in the area is £14k. That should never in normal times be even remotely Conservative.
This income map/statistics shows it as poor, but not as poor as some of the traditionally tory voting rural areas just south.
It also needs to be looked at in terms of Gross Disposeable Income per Head, allowing for lower living costs. Incidentally Leicester has the lowest GDI in the UK.
Just worked out what they've done. They've taken the single candidate with the highest vote to produce the maps which is total bollocks.
In most the SNP were standing 2 candidates, in Leith Walk the SNP got 35% of the vote over 2 candidates and the single green got 20% so the ward is coloured green on the map.
Bonkers visualisation
Standard Tory tactics used by their tame media, BBC reported Tories won Glasgow with them getting 8 seats out of 85.
Pretty despondent after the football last night, what a soulless place to watch football.
I hope you took my advice and laid Spurs @ 2/5
Most of my West Ham mates backed the 8/1, cant believe I didn't really, that was an amazing price.
I backed them at 7-1. Put me back at level after my previous round of bets. Also got a 250-1 on Man City finishing 2nd and Spurs finishing 3rd. Can't find odds on a Chelsea, City, Liverpool top 3, though. Have asked Paddy Power for a price and am hoping they oblige.
LOL and really good photoshopping, but not an attack - could be a votewinner in some key demographics. I'm sure someone will do an 80 shilling version for your neck of the woods.
Showing your age with 80 shilling, all craft beers nowadays. I have not seen or heard of 80 shilling for ages, a blast from the past. Photo is just funny and well done.
LOL and really good photoshopping, but not an attack - could be a votewinner in some key demographics. I'm sure someone will do an 80 shilling version for your neck of the woods.
What's wrong with 80 shilling? Lots of decent Scottish beermakers do a version.
Hauf bottle o' Buckie would be the Scottish jakie equivalent.
LOL and really good photoshopping, but not an attack - could be a votewinner in some key demographics. I'm sure someone will do an 80 shilling version for your neck of the woods.
Left wing satirists, infatuated by their own brilliance, falling into the trap that led to "Super Mac" and "The Iron Lady".
Sounds like my Scottish* boss. It's pure shellshock.
He's amazed there were ten Tory voters in Glasgow, let alone ten Tory councillors.
A Tory councillor in Shettleston???
He assumes either the voters are trolling us all, were either pissed when they voted, or didn't understand the voting system or all three.
And he's a Tory.
*Well he's lived in England since 1987
Well he's lived in England since 1987
So 30 years out of date then.
I am a boss in Glasgow area and I was still surprised as were my staff who live in east Glasgow. The tories are now the protest vote in Scotland and especially loved by young guys who support rangers. In Glasgow it is like being a millwall fan.
The difference between May and her predecssors is that they actually did pretend to be drinking pints of stuff they don't drink for staged "real" photo opps. She also hasn't started pretending to support West Ham Villa like Dave or thrown in an bit of faux cockney yet like Glottal Stop Gideon, which is probably why normal people from all parties seem to be ok w her
I suspect TM doesn't eat takeaway chips very often. She is a Type 1 diabetic. It is as fake as any photo stunt.
Our bet on UKIP this election looks good for me! This election is an extinction event for UKIP.
Just worked out what they've done. They've taken the single candidate with the highest vote to produce the maps which is total bollocks.
In most the SNP were standing 2 candidates, in Leith Walk the SNP got 35% of the vote over 2 candidates and the single green got 20% so the ward is coloured green on the map.
Bonkers visualisation
If you are right then these maps are rubbish.
Since each voter has a single vote, what they should have done is totalled the first prefs for each party. Are you absolutely sure they have not done this?
SNP up/down 1.5%, (depending on if you use the wrong or right numbers) Tories up 150%.
1.5% of a lot is still much more than 150% of hee-haw. You need a refresher on arithmetic Rob.
7 is much more than 164?
Have you been studying Abborithmetic?
Another loser trying to use anything but the real numbers. Just for man who cannot make up his mind what his name is , 431 is a bigger number by far than 276. 155 highe ror 56% higher if you prefer. By all measures LOSERS.
You lost the only vote that actually mattered to you. And if you're unfortunate enough to have endure another, you'll lose that too.
Comments
So 20p in the pound goes to 21p. 40p goes to 41p
Someone on £30,000pa pays tax on £18,500 so 1p equals £185pa about £3.55 a week.
I cited two examples from Surrey and that's the kind of detail you need to be looking at not just party names on a spreadsheet.
Those Nationalists who have only latterly taken an interest in working class people should avoid 'it's just the Orange vote' canard.
It's comforting if your politics is based on Scottish moral superiority ("we don't vote Tory") but it's not true
These people aren't voting for the Union Jack. They're telling the SNP to put down the Saltire and get on with governing
You can't abandon folk to poverty while you pursue your constitutional fixation then be shocked when they vote Tory
Glasgow SNP has a good leader but failed to take a majority of GCC seats, which they should have done handily. Why do you think that is?
'Get on with the day job' isn't an anti-SNP slogan. It's how people sincerely feel. Don't insult them; listen to them
https://twitter.com/thoughtland/status/860655619690418176
British Hospitals were effectively nationalised, commencing in 1938 in London, as part of the mobilisattion for war and expected bombing casualties (projections were for 300 000 bombing casualties in the first year). It was not a coincidence that the NHS was created immediately post war, as at that point the sector was like most of the country skint, but also almost all British doctors had been working for the government, either in uniform or in the wartime measures. It was that alignment with a Labour government that made the NHS possible. The NHS has been dealing with legacy estate issues ever since.
SNP 431 seats Tories 276 seats Labour 266 seats
Far from seriously challenging the SNP, the Tories barely managed to edge out the Labour party. The Carlotta Vances, the Scott Ps, and let's not forget the Alanbrooke's ought to get a grip of reality :-)
I hope you took my advice and laid Spurs @ 2/5
Low turnout is as much the Tories friend as the absorbtion of the kippers*, low turnout is not good for democracy though.
* 1/7 for no kipper seats is surely free money!?
https://twitter.com/Glenn_Kitson/status/860771000396468224
I'll offer you an example - the "Surrey Opposition Forum" was a meaningless bit of political posturing by the non-Conservative Councillors. Hazel Watson never stopped being an LD so it's not really worth putting that in.
you big jock spoilsport
nobody has been commenting on reality here for years , why pick on me ?
I was posting at the beginning of the week that so far the story of GE2017 was the failure of the Lib Dems to move forward. On paper circumstances should offer more fertile ground but it just isn't happening.
One key issue, again, I suspect, is the leader. Nick Clegg came across alright to the public, Farron not so much. The Conservatives may be focussing on one issue but you basically know where you stand with Conservative outlook overall beyond Brexit. They have also angled the line of attack on Brexit, its about who is going to run that show, not the show itself.
With the Lib Dems, they talk about Brexit as an issue. I think for a large swathe of the public, Brexit is done, its happening. The Lib Dems haven't angled the line of presuasion.
Do they go down the line of Labour by talking more about policy outside of Brexit? Maybe, and I notice this morning they are out of the blocks overt NHS & tax. Whatever, they need to do something different
Having said that, I think they have an opportunity to rise above 15, I can see late teens if things go right. Woeful as that result would still be.
No matter how you cut it the Tories are nowhere in Scotland.
I know, I know, I really ought to ignore you :-)
(Before everyone goes chucking money on SCON to win ENL).
The raising of allowances by the LDs in coalition helps as well.
I was making a point. Calculating it to the exact penny for each week doesn't change that point.
the Hammer of the Hots
https://twitter.com/KINGofJOCKISTAN/status/859679250756009984/photo/1
The question that needs to be asked though is whether increases in votes allow the genuine prospect of future growth, or whether (especially when from a very low base) if the increase in the result of maxing out on the floating c10-20% of "protest votes" that are around in every electorate. That for example is the real LibDem issue. When they talk of revival they are thinking they can return to the heights of the early 2000s. But a huge part of that rise was from voters that would inevitably drift away once they obtained any element of genuine power.
In most the SNP were standing 2 candidates, in Leith Walk the SNP got 35% of the vote over 2 candidates and the single green got 20% so the ward is coloured green on the map.
Bonkers visualisation
https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/859728239568277504
It was the richer end of he spectrum voting Tory.
He's amazed there were ten Tory voters in Glasgow, let alone ten Tory councillors.
A Tory councillor in Shettleston???
He assumes either the voters are trolling us all, were either pissed when they voted, or didn't understand the voting system or all three.
And he's a Tory.
*Well he's lived in England since 1987
Since each voter has a single vote, what they should have done is totalled the first prefs for each party. Are you absolutely sure they have not done this?
It's the lymphoma (disconnection from the vast majority of the population) that will kill them eventually
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3099541/Westminster-residents-highest-disposable-income-head-Britain-Leicester-foot-table.html
Well he's lived in England since 1987
So his experience is 30 years out of date then.
Yeah, that's not helpful for the upcoming GE AT ALL...
Except there is a clear correlation between social deprivation and the SNP vote.
vote SNP and we'll keep you in poverty ?
Poor quality trolling.
Hauf bottle o' Buckie would be the Scottish jakie equivalent.
I has a big red next to Le Pen on Betfair.
Our bet on UKIP this election looks good for me! This election is an extinction event for UKIP.
'There is only one winner today'
McLOSER
growing number of senior turkish civil servants seeking political asylum in Germany
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/tuerkei/nach-gescheitertem-putsch-steigende-zahl-tuerkischer-staatsdiener-wollen-asyl-in-deutschland-15002902.html