The comment drew agreement from two former MPs, Paul Holmes and Adrian Sanders.
Certainly think it's time to move on - more people probably know the LDs are pro-Remain now than have so far heard 'strong and stable'. Launch of the 1% tax for NHS policy was welcome, and puts the other parties on the spot, particularly the Tories.
But the LibDems want us to Remain in the EU if they won. So the LDs are actually proposing 1% on income tax to stay in the EU.
When we leave the EU, we can spend that money on the NHS instead. No extra tax needed.
"That money" doesn't exist, and will be more than cancelled out by the costs of leaving, direct and indirect.
Cameron's still got the knack: "David Cameron showed his face at the Oval last week for a fundraising dinner for a new cricket stadium in Rwanda. With guests still reeling from the news that he spent £25,000 on a garden shed, the forgotten man of Tory politics thanked them for “getting me out of my shepherd hut”. Cameron risked the wrath of his successor by explaining the purchase thus: “I know Theresa talks about strong and stable leadership but I only heard the first part about getting a strong stable.”" S.T.
He seems like a pretty fun chap. The idea even as a joke that TMay would get wrathful over that is silly I hope, and I love the overblown 'guests still reeling'. Dear gods, rich man overspends on garden shed, what horror. Good over the top tone.
Not really the most rib-tickling gag of all time, though, is it? It's not like the thing is actually a stable.
At £25,000 it's probably not your average shed either.
I saw one at Badminton on Wednesday; I'd say it was £8,000 of shed and £17,000 of magical marketing fairy dust. For starters, I know what it costs to exhibit at Badminton, and that needs recouping.
There is a non-zero possibility that DC paid well under the list price, of course.
He'll certainly get the next one gratis, plus a couple for Sam & the kids if he wants them I'm sure.
Get the family done up in shepherd & shepherdess costumes for the full arcadian experience.
The comment drew agreement from two former MPs, Paul Holmes and Adrian Sanders.
Does sanders' comment say he thought the LDs had been on a slow but steady course to eventually become largest party? M I reading that right?
Yes - before Clegg blew it, he says.
Optimistic man.
I spoke to a LD in 2014 who was convinced the party would replace labour within 10-15 years. Still time for that to happen, although given it seemed predicated on the assumption they would hold nearly all seats in 2015' maybe even gain some, I won't hold my breath.
Right at the risk of looking a fool in a month's time, let me address why the Tories won't win Westmorland and Lonsdale, and furthermore why £50 @ 8-1 is a poor bet.
1) The newspaper buy doesn't mean so much, it covers John Woodcock's constituency - who will go, though I suspect will have a substantial personal vote hence the swing will be lower than last time. Barrow is a seat the Tories want to make sure of, the fact the advert crosses into Tim's seat is a nice bonus but this is essentially a free ad against Tim. It'll also allow any costs incurred on that to be split over the two seats as it affects both.
2) Kendall is a Liberal Democrat stronghold, this does not mean Tim will be complacent however - but there are simply very few Lib Dem targets elsewhere for miles around. Activists will be able to work the seat hard. In contrast the Tories have Barrow, Copeland, Workington?, and all manner of Labour seats to attack round here. With Labour's slumping in the polls it would be a severe waste of effective resources and manpower to try to oust Tim here.
3) Tim Farron is the leader, and it is well known that party leaders do receive a small boost in the polls. Who will the people of Westmorland want to represent them - a party leader or simply lobby fodder. Similiarly Corbyn in London is safer than Thornberry for instance for precisely this reason.
4) On the betting front, sub 10 seats is around 8-1 or perhaps slightly shorter. If the Lib Dems are losing Westmorland then quite frankly only Ceredigion and Orkney are being held. It is difficult to get the Lib Dems to 10 seats without Westmorland so this is the better bet.
5) The seat voted to remain, and is also Lib Dem held. The Lib Dem vote is heading north in the polls (Remember the base was 8% last time), and there is only 6.2% UKIP vote for the Tories to munch into. The Labour vote in this constituency is unlikely to change much either, it is at a natural bedrock.
6) Tim Farron achieved over 50% of the the last time here (No other Lib Dem seat has this dynamic), and the Lib Dems are increasing in the polls. We know that the votes the Lib Dems are losing are mostly leave facing, and since this was a 44% remain seat with alot of Tory/UKIP votes already (39.4%) those are overwhemingly likely to have been the leavers and are so baked in.
In short, this is a very very tough target and the 1-14 price that the bookie is offering is far more correct than the 8-1 in my opinion.
Cameron's still got the knack: "David Cameron showed his face at the Oval last week for a fundraising dinner for a new cricket stadium in Rwanda. With guests still reeling from the news that he spent £25,000 on a garden shed, the forgotten man of Tory politics thanked them for “getting me out of my shepherd hut”. Cameron risked the wrath of his successor by explaining the purchase thus: “I know Theresa talks about strong and stable leadership but I only heard the first part about getting a strong stable.”" S.T.
He seems like a pretty fun chap. The idea even as a joke that TMay would get wrathful over that is silly I hope, and I love the overblown 'guests still reeling'. Dear gods, rich man overspends on garden shed, what horror. Good over the top tone.
Not really the most rib-tickling gag of all time, though, is it? It's not like the thing is actually a stable.
At £25,000 it's probably not your average shed either.
Idk, when is a shed not a shed?
The tories really struggle with this stuff.
When is a mobile campaign team targeting marginal constituencies, handing out leaflets for local candidates - actually a national campaign expense?
Watching Marr I'm starting to loathe this cult of personality that every Tory spokesman is pushing at the moment. Watching Jeremy Hunt (with an H) is embarrassing. Every sentence is 'Theresa' and 'getting the best deal' It's even turning Andrew Marrs stomache. You can tell. He seems to be trying to avoid vomiting.
Its called politics Roger
If Labour didn't want the Tories playing up their leader, they shouldn't have picked Corbyn.
Or Ed Miliband or Gordon Brown or Tony Blair. Ad hominem attacks are standard operating procedure for CCHQ.
Just as they were for Labour when the Tories were led by Hague, IDS and Howard.
I do not recall Hague, IDS or Howard having their fathers' wartime records traduced, and even right wing commentators complained about the personal abuse levelled at Brown.
Right at the risk of looking a fool in a month's time, let me address why the Tories won't win Westmorland and Lonsdale, and furthermore why £50 @ 8-1 is a poor bet.
1) The newspaper buy doesn't mean so much, it covers John Woodcock's constituency - who will go, though I suspect will have a substantial personal vote hence the swing will be lower than last time. Barrow is a seat the Tories want to make sure of, the fact the advert crosses into Tim's seat is a nice bonus but this is essentially a free ad against Tim. It'll also allow any costs incurred on that to be split over the two seats as it affects both.
2) Kendall is a Liberal Democrat stronghold, this does not mean Tim will be complacent however - but there are simply very few Lib Dem targets elsewhere for miles around. Activists will be able to work the seat hard. In contrast the Tories have Barrow, Copeland, Workington?, and all manner of Labour seats to attack round here. With Labour's slumping in the polls it would be a severe waste of effective resources and manpower to try to oust Tim here.
3) Tim Farron is the leader, and it is well known that party leaders do receive a small boost in the polls. Who will the people of Westmorland want to represent them - a party leader or simply lobby fodder. Similiarly Corbyn in London is safer than Thornberry for instance for precisely this reason.
4) On the betting front, sub 10 seats is around 8-1 or perhaps slightly shorter. If the Lib Dems are losing Westmorland then quite frankly only Ceredigion and Orkney are being held. It is difficult to get the Lib Dems to 10 seats without Westmorland so this is the better bet.
5) The seat voted to remain, and is also Lib Dem held. The Lib Dem vote is heading north in the polls (Remember the base was 8% last time), and there is only 6.2% UKIP vote for the Tories to munch into. The Labour vote in this constituency is unlikely to change much either, it is at a natural bedrock.
6) Tim Farron achieved over 50% of the the last time here (No other Lib Dem seat has this dynamic), and the Lib Dems are increasing in the polls. We know that the votes the Lib Dems are losing are mostly leave facing, and since this was a 44% remain seat with alot of Tory/UKIP votes already (39.4%) those are overwhemingly likely to have been the leavers and are so baked in.
In short, this is a very very tough target and the 1-14 price that the bookie is offering is far more correct than the 8-1 in my opinion.
Agreed.
Its also a target rich area for the Conservatives - Barrow, Workington, Lancaster, keeping Copeland.
The comment drew agreement from two former MPs, Paul Holmes and Adrian Sanders.
Certainly think it's time to move on - more people probably know the LDs are pro-Remain now than have so far heard 'strong and stable'. Launch of the 1% tax for NHS policy was welcome, and puts the other parties on the spot, particularly the Tories.
But the LibDems want us to Remain in the EU if they won. So the LDs are actually proposing 1% on income tax to stay in the EU.
When we leave the EU, we can spend that money on the NHS instead. No extra tax needed.
"That money" doesn't exist, and will be more than cancelled out by the costs of leaving, direct and indirect.
You cannot bring hypotheticals into this. Leaving may well bring a boost to the economy that, after any initial bump, actually brings more tax revenue in.
Indeed, the LD proposal of taking 1% from the private sector and giving to the public sector may harm the economy and reduce the tax take.
So, sticking to the simple numbers (as the LDs want to do about the tax impact), the end result of the LD policy is to increase the tax of everyone by 1% so we can stay in the EU.
The comment drew agreement from two former MPs, Paul Holmes and Adrian Sanders.
The media are also obsessed by leave vs remain for each seat and then were very confused when locals didn't go that way. Perhaps just perhaps people are voting on something slightly wider range of issues.
The largest increase in the Lib Dem vote last Thursday compared to the GE was in Herts , Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire , Cornwall would probably also be at the top except for the very high Independent vote in local elections there . Somerset and Glos also had very large increases . The lowest increases were Notts , Lincs and North Yorks . The differences are clearly more geographical than related to Leave/Remain
Cameron's still got the knack: "David Cameron showed his face at the Oval last week for a fundraising dinner for a new cricket stadium in Rwanda. With guests still reeling from the news that he spent £25,000 on a garden shed, the forgotten man of Tory politics thanked them for “getting me out of my shepherd hut”. Cameron risked the wrath of his successor by explaining the purchase thus: “I know Theresa talks about strong and stable leadership but I only heard the first part about getting a strong stable.”" S.T.
He seems like a pretty fun chap. The idea even as a joke that TMay would get wrathful over that is silly I hope, and I love the overblown 'guests still reeling'. Dear gods, rich man overspends on garden shed, what horror. Good over the top tone.
Not really the most rib-tickling gag of all time, though, is it? It's not like the thing is actually a stable.
At £25,000 it's probably not your average shed either.
I saw one at Badminton on Wednesday; I'd say it was £8,000 of shed and £17,000 of magical marketing fairy dust. For starters, I know what it costs to exhibit at Badminton, and that needs recouping.
There is a non-zero possibility that DC paid well under the list price, of course.
He'll certainly get the next one gratis, plus a couple for Sam & the kids if he wants them I'm sure.
Get the family done up in shepherd & shepherdess costumes for the full arcadian experience.
He could get Osborne to erect them - he likes putting on his Bob the Builder outfit.
Watching Marr I'm starting to loathe this cult of personality that every Tory spokesman is pushing at the moment. Watching Jeremy Hunt (with an H) is embarrassing. Every sentence is 'Theresa' and 'getting the best deal' It's even turning Andrew Marrs stomache. You can tell. He seems to be trying to avoid vomiting.
Its called politics Roger
If Labour didn't want the Tories playing up their leader, they shouldn't have picked Corbyn.
Or Ed Miliband or Gordon Brown or Tony Blair. Ad hominem attacks are standard operating procedure for CCHQ.
Just as they were for Labour when the Tories were led by Hague, IDS and Howard.
I do not recall Hague, IDS or Howard having their fathers' wartime records traduced, and even right wing commentators complained about the personal abuse levelled at Brown.
You think it wouldn't have been mentioned if one of their fathers had written this;
"The Englishman is a rabid nationalist. They are perhaps the most nationalist people in the world ... When you hear the English talk of this war you sometimes almost want them to lose it to show them how things are. They have the greatest contempt for the continent in general and for the French in particular. They didn't like the French before the defeat ... Since the defeat, they have the greatest contempt for the French Army ... England first. This slogan is taken for granted by the English people as a whole. To lose their empire would be the worst possible humiliation."?
Of course, the council elections were about independence. Everything is about independence these days.
This being so, Thursday’s result – which saw the SNP lose just seven seats – was not good news for Sturgeon.
The First Minister’s reputation for caution was shattered in March when she announced, despite polls continually showing no increase in support for independence since the Yes campaign was defeated in 2014, plans to stage a second referendum either late in 2018 or early the following year.
The First Minister’s audacious plan for a second referendum has collided with a Scottish electorate that doesn’t want it. Increasingly, it appears that Nicola Sturgeon is about to gamble her political career on a battle she’s unlikely to win.
Watching Marr I'm starting to loathe this cult of personality that every Tory spokesman is pushing at the moment. Watching Jeremy Hunt (with an H) is embarrassing. Every sentence is 'Theresa' and 'getting the best deal' It's even turning Andrew Marrs stomache. You can tell. He seems to be trying to avoid vomiting.
Its called politics Roger
If Labour didn't want the Tories playing up their leader, they shouldn't have picked Corbyn.
Or Ed Miliband or Gordon Brown or Tony Blair. Ad hominem attacks are standard operating procedure for CCHQ.
Just as they were for Labour when the Tories were led by Hague, IDS and Howard.
I do not recall Hague, IDS or Howard having their fathers' wartime records traduced, and even right wing commentators complained about the personal abuse levelled at Brown.
The comment drew agreement from two former MPs, Paul Holmes and Adrian Sanders.
Certainly think it's time to move on - more people probably know the LDs are pro-Remain now than have so far heard 'strong and stable'. Launch of the 1% tax for NHS policy was welcome, and puts the other parties on the spot, particularly the Tories.
But the LibDems want us to Remain in the EU if they won. So the LDs are actually proposing 1% on income tax to stay in the EU.
When we leave the EU, we can spend that money on the NHS instead. No extra tax needed.
"That money" doesn't exist, and will be more than cancelled out by the costs of leaving, direct and indirect.
You cannot bring hypotheticals into this. Leaving may well bring a boost to the economy that, after any initial bump, actually brings more tax revenue in.
Indeed, the LD proposal of taking 1% from the private sector and giving to the public sector may harm the economy and reduce the tax take.
So, sticking to the simple numbers (as the LDs want to do about the tax impact), the end result of the LD policy is to increase the tax of everyone by 1% so we can stay in the EU.
With respect, mention of the purported "money" is a hypothetical to begin with, which was my point.
The LD policy is to raise money for the NHS, and could be implemented whatever happens with the EU. Indeed, such is the inexorable rise in pressures on (and costs of) health, and its political sensitivity, any party will have to raise the money one way or the other. The difference with the Tories - as Norman Lamb has just said on bbcsp - is that they won't say up front how they'll pay.
The LD policy is to raise money for the NHS, and could be implemented whatever happens with the EU. Indeed, such is the inexorable rise in pressures on (and costs of) health, and its political sensitivity, any party will have to raise the money one way or the other. The difference with the Tories - as Norman Lamb has just said on bbcsp - is that they won't say up front how they'll pay.
More employer National Insurance ?
One of the most dishonest and unfair taxes ever, introduced (Or raised alot) by Brown - loved by politicians of all stripes everywhere. A penny on income tax is small beer compared to the true cost of that monstrosity.
4) On the betting front, sub 10 seats is around 8-1 or perhaps slightly shorter. If the Lib Dems are losing Westmorland then quite frankly only Ceredigion and Orkney are being held. It is difficult to get the Lib Dems to 10 seats without Westmorland so this is the better bet.
Great post.
Generally I agree the sub-10 seats bet is better.
However, there's a danger the LD's get substantial urban/rural churn within their vote - ie, LD's take two or three or more london seats off labour, while Farron & Lamb get slaughtered.
The comment drew agreement from two former MPs, Paul Holmes and Adrian Sanders.
Certainly think it's time to move on - more people probably know the LDs are pro-Remain now than have so far heard 'strong and stable'. Launch of the 1% tax for NHS policy was welcome, and puts the other parties on the spot, particularly the Tories.
But the LibDems want us to Remain in the EU if they won. So the LDs are actually proposing 1% on income tax to stay in the EU.
When we leave the EU, we can spend that money on the NHS instead. No extra tax needed.
"That money" doesn't exist, and will be more than cancelled out by the costs of leaving, direct and indirect.
Absolutely false.
You are taking a known quantity - the £8 billion to £10 billion net we pay to the EU each year - and comparing it with a hypothetical amount of money based on nothing more than your own bias. It is a very poor way to frame an argument.
'how much will you raise by taxing the £80,000 earners more'
'I don't know'
The most refreshingly honest answer I've heard from a politician in a long time.
When you are trying to get 35% of the voters to vote for you, telling 95% of them that they won't pay more tax sounds like a good idea to me.
That part is a good idea. Though the people need to believe you can deliver on that policy. Ed m had some good policies. A few numbers on what will be raised would make me feel better.
Fair play to the LibDems, they are being up-front about wanting to increase taxes for low and average earners. The Tories will use weasel words until election day, and then shaft everyone with tax rises.
Right at the risk of looking a fool in a month's time, let me address why the Tories won't win Westmorland and Lonsdale, and furthermore why £50 @ 8-1 is a poor bet.
1) The newspaper buy doesn't mean so much, it covers John Woodcock's constituency - who will go, though I suspect will have a substantial personal vote hence the swing will be lower than last time. Barrow is a seat the Tories want to make sure of, the fact the advert crosses into Tim's seat is a nice bonus but this is essentially a free ad against Tim. It'll also allow any costs incurred on that to be split over the two seats as it affects both.
2) Kendall is a Liberal Democrat stronghold, this does not mean Tim will be complacent however - but there are simply very few Lib Dem targets elsewhere for miles around. Activists will be able to work the seat hard. In contrast the Tories have Barrow, Copeland, Workington?, and all manner of Labour seats to attack round here. With Labour's slumping in the polls it would be a severe waste of effective resources and manpower to try to oust Tim here.
3) Tim Farron is the leader, and it is well known that party leaders do receive a small boost in the polls. Who will the people of Westmorland want to represent them - a party leader or simply lobby fodder. Similiarly Corbyn in London is safer than Thornberry for instance for precisely this reason.
4) On the betting front, sub 10 seats is around 8-1 or perhaps slightly shorter. If the Lib Dems are losing Westmorland then quite frankly only Ceredigion and Orkney are being held. It is difficult to get the Lib Dems to 10 seats without Westmorland so this is the better bet.
5) The seat voted to remain, and is also Lib Dem held. The Lib Dem vote is heading north in the polls (Remember the base was 8% last time), and there is only 6.2% UKIP vote for the Tories to munch into. The Labour vote in this constituency is unlikely to change much either, it is at a natural bedrock.
6) Tim Farron achieved over 50% of the the last time here (No other Lib Dem seat has this dynamic), and the Lib Dems are increasing in the polls. We know that the votes the Lib Dems are losing are mostly leave facing, and since this was a 44% remain seat with alot of Tory/UKIP votes already (39.4%) those are overwhemingly likely to have been the leavers and are so baked in.
In short, this is a very very tough target and the 1-14 price that the bookie is offering is far more correct than the 8-1 in my opinion.
Great post.
Generally I agree the sub-10 seats bet is better.
However, there's a danger the LD's get substantial urban/rural churn within their vote - ie, LD's take two or three or more london seats off labour, while Farron & Lamb get slaughtered.
They still get 10 or 11 seats.
Hope for one or two more in Scotland would help, though it still looks tough to me.
Fair play to the LibDems, they are being up-front about wanting to increase taxes for low and average earners. The Tories will use weasel words until election day, and then shaft everyone with tax rises.
And if Labour had a clue, they'd put Tory tax rises front and centre.
Edit: forget Crosby; go with Karl Rove and attack your opponent's strengths.
Fair play to the LibDems, they are being up-front about wanting to increase taxes for low and average earners. The Tories will use weasel words until election day, and then shaft everyone with tax rises.
And if Labour had a clue, they'd put Tory tax rises front and centre.
Both labour and LD seem to think the pensions lock will not be commmitted to by the Tories and have planned to go on that point.
'how much will you raise by taxing the £80,000 earners more'
'I don't know'
The most refreshingly honest answer I've heard from a politician in a long time.
When you are trying to get 35% of the voters to vote for you, telling 95% of them that they won't pay more tax sounds like a good idea to me.
But other than spite there isn't much point if it doesn't bring in significant amounts.
I mean, there is only so many times you can spend each tax increase, even for these serial incompetents
The announcement is all about the assurance to the 95%, not how much extra will be raised.
Since the proposed rises have not yet been announced, how could Thornberry say what would be raised?
Why announce part of it and not all of it at once? To get the good bit out the way first to make the impression before the bad bit sneaks out. Some in labour still try smart politics.
The comment drew agreement from two former MPs, Paul Holmes and Adrian Sanders.
Certainly think it's time to move on - more people probably know the LDs are pro-Remain now than have so far heard 'strong and stable'. Launch of the 1% tax for NHS policy was welcome, and puts the other parties on the spot, particularly the Tories.
But the LibDems want us to Remain in the EU if they won. So the LDs are actually proposing 1% on income tax to stay in the EU.
When we leave the EU, we can spend that money on the NHS instead. No extra tax needed.
"That money" doesn't exist, and will be more than cancelled out by the costs of leaving, direct and indirect.
You cannot bring hypotheticals into this. Leaving may well bring a boost to the economy that, after any initial bump, actually brings more tax revenue in.
Indeed, the LD proposal of taking 1% from the private sector and giving to the public sector may harm the economy and reduce the tax take.
So, sticking to the simple numbers (as the LDs want to do about the tax impact), the end result of the LD policy is to increase the tax of everyone by 1% so we can stay in the EU.
With respect, mention of the purported "money" is a hypothetical to begin with, which was my point.
The LD policy is to raise money for the NHS, and could be implemented whatever happens with the EU. Indeed, such is the inexorable rise in pressures on (and costs of) health, and its political sensitivity, any party will have to raise the money one way or the other. The difference with the Tories - as Norman Lamb has just said on bbcsp - is that they won't say up front how they'll pay.
That money is not hypothetical. We really do pay it to the EU.
Whilst I appreciate this country needs a proper answer to health and social care and how to fund it, that's not the point here.
If the LDs got into power they would remain in the EU, we would not get our money back, and they would raise tax by 1% instead. You cannot say it is "for the NHS", when the net effect is a 1% tax increase to stay in the EU.
TSE's articles are normally very good, but this is just a silly. Farron got 51% of the vote even in 2015, and the newspaper spend is plainly targeted at Barrow.
I have been becoming more concerned about this site that the articles are increasingly just trolling (Leave voters "supporting" Le Pen etc) and less and less analysis and betting tips.
4) On the betting front, sub 10 seats is around 8-1 or perhaps slightly shorter. If the Lib Dems are losing Westmorland then quite frankly only Ceredigion and Orkney are being held. It is difficult to get the Lib Dems to 10 seats without Westmorland so this is the better bet.
Great post.
Generally I agree the sub-10 seats bet is better.
However, there's a danger the LD's get substantial urban/rural churn within their vote - ie, LD's take two or three or more london seats off labour, while Farron & Lamb get slaughtered.
They still get 10 or 11 seats.
Tricky to see Southport/Carshalton being held if Westmorland goes though.
10 without Westmorland potentially:
Sheffield Hallam Leeds NW Cambridge Ceredigion Orkney & Shetland Bermondsey & Old Southwark Dunbartonshire East Edinburgh West Twickenham Fife North East or Richmond
It's a stretch though.
Lamb is definitely vulnerable, I'll grant that as are Southport and Brake and of course Olney.
'how much will you raise by taxing the £80,000 earners more'
'I don't know'
The most refreshingly honest answer I've heard from a politician in a long time.
When you are trying to get 35% of the voters to vote for you, telling 95% of them that they won't pay more tax sounds like a good idea to me.
But other than spite there isn't much point if it doesn't bring in significant amounts.
I mean, there is only so many times you can spend each tax increase, even for these serial incompetents
The announcement is all about the assurance to the 95%, not how much extra will be raised.
Since the proposed rises have not yet been announced, how could Thornberry say what would be raised?
Why announce part of it and not all of it at once? To get the good bit out the way first to make the impression before the bad bit sneaks out. Some in labour still try smart politics.
Because there was all sorts of nonsense being thrown around that anyone on the higher rate of income tax would pay more.
The LD policy is to raise money for the NHS, and could be implemented whatever happens with the EU. Indeed, such is the inexorable rise in pressures on (and costs of) health, and its political sensitivity, any party will have to raise the money one way or the other. The difference with the Tories - as Norman Lamb has just said on bbcsp - is that they won't say up front how they'll pay.
More employer National Insurance ?
One of the most dishonest and unfair taxes ever, introduced (Or raised alot) by Brown - loved by politicians of all stripes everywhere. A penny on income tax is small beer compared to the true cost of that monstrosity.
The Tories have run out of road as far as significant further cuts are concerned - the pressures on pensions, social care, education and health are all growing, and these account for the large majority of public spending. Thus they need to drop, as quietly as they can, previous commitments on tax, and we will be in for five years of stealth taxes, which will certainly include NI. Indeed they could raise a lot of money by raising tax under the cloak of IT/NI "integration". They'll also be after tax reliefs such as that on pension contributions.
'how much will you raise by taxing the £80,000 earners more'
'I don't know'
The most refreshingly honest answer I've heard from a politician in a long time.
When you are trying to get 35% of the voters to vote for you, telling 95% of them that they won't pay more tax sounds like a good idea to me.
But other than spite there isn't much point if it doesn't bring in significant amounts.
I mean, there is only so many times you can spend each tax increase, even for these serial incompetents
The announcement is all about the assurance to the 95%, not how much extra will be raised.
Since the proposed rises have not yet been announced, how could Thornberry say what would be raised?
Why announce part of it and not all of it at once? To get the good bit out the way first to make the impression before the bad bit sneaks out. Some in labour still try smart politics.
Because there was all sorts of nonsense being thrown around that anyone on the higher rate of income tax would pay more.
You misunderstand - I was saying this approach by labour was smart. I want more info, but as a tactic this was not poorly done even if 'I don't know' was a silly response and 'we'll reveal shortly' would be better.
Whoever was leading Labour would be facing an annihilation, because the Party has no coherent position on the main issue, Brexit. Labour have been caught up in a firestorm.
Yvette would have been as unequal to the task as Jeremy. In fact, I suspect Yvette might be worse as she has a very clear-cut position on freedom of movement and the EU, whereas Corbyn's is more ambiguous.
The only advice to give to those facing electoral annihilation is ... remember McGovern.
Nixon annihilated McGovern in the most devastating 49-1 defeat. A year later, it all looked very different. And Nixon was dragged from office.
The name of Nixon still gives off a malodorous smell, but McGovern is now thought of as a principled politician.
A more effective pre-Roman leader would have won the referendum. In that case:
Cameron would still be leading the Tories, who would be horribly divided in Parliament, in the membership and in the voter Base. Cameron's own leadership rating was dreadful by the end.
Ukip would be massively fired up, led by Garage and appealing to one more heave.
The Lib Dems would not have gone ultra-remain and would be charging ahead in the SW.
Labour would be at least ten points clear, possibly a good deal more.
Far-fetched though it sounds, I think that's probably right, and further reinforces what a catastrophic choice Corbyn was. I know that the anger towards him that I sense in London comes particularly from the view that he was responsible for losing the referendum.
Well, that is unfair. Corbyn didn’t lose the referendum.
If you want a scapegoat, how about the Labour MPs who were solidly Remain, but were so ineffectual at campaigning that they were not even able to carry their own constituencies?
Yvette Cooper, Dan Jarvis, Owen Smith, Stephen Kinnock ...
They couldn’t even make the case and persuade their own constituents.
No wonder it is convenient for them to blame Jeremy Corbyn.
'how much will you raise by taxing the £80,000 earners more'
'I don't know'
The most refreshingly honest answer I've heard from a politician in a long time.
When you are trying to get 35% of the voters to vote for you, telling 95% of them that they won't pay more tax sounds like a good idea to me.
But other than spite there isn't much point if it doesn't bring in significant amounts.
I mean, there is only so many times you can spend each tax increase, even for these serial incompetents
The announcement is all about the assurance to the 95%, not how much extra will be raised.
Since the proposed rises have not yet been announced, how could Thornberry say what would be raised?
Why announce part of it and not all of it at once? To get the good bit out the way first to make the impression before the bad bit sneaks out. Some in labour still try smart politics.
Because there was all sorts of nonsense being thrown around that anyone on the higher rate of income tax would pay more.
But it's not nonsense as Corbyn and McDonnell if they somehow got in would have no choice but to implement those tax rises to fund their uncosted fiscal incontinence. Theyd end up raising basic rate let alone higher rate.
'how much will you raise by taxing the £80,000 earners more'
'I don't know'
The most refreshingly honest answer I've heard from a politician in a long time.
When you are trying to get 35% of the voters to vote for you, telling 95% of them that they won't pay more tax sounds like a good idea to me.
But other than spite there isn't much point if it doesn't bring in significant amounts.
I mean, there is only so many times you can spend each tax increase, even for these serial incompetents
The announcement is all about the assurance to the 95%, not how much extra will be raised.
Since the proposed rises have not yet been announced, how could Thornberry say what would be raised?
Why announce part of it and not all of it at once? To get the good bit out the way first to make the impression before the bad bit sneaks out. Some in labour still try smart politics.
Because there was all sorts of nonsense being thrown around that anyone on the higher rate of income tax would pay more.
You misunderstand - I was saying this approach by labour was smart. I want more info, but as a tactic this was not poorly done even if 'I don't know' was a silly response and 'we'll reveal shortly' would be better.
Now I understand!
Certainly 'Wait for the manifesto' is a better answer that 'I don't know'.
'how much will you raise by taxing the £80,000 earners more'
'I don't know'
The most refreshingly honest answer I've heard from a politician in a long time.
When you are trying to get 35% of the voters to vote for you, telling 95% of them that they won't pay more tax sounds like a good idea to me.
But other than spite there isn't much point if it doesn't bring in significant amounts.
I mean, there is only so many times you can spend each tax increase, even for these serial incompetents
The announcement is all about the assurance to the 95%, not how much extra will be raised.
Since the proposed rises have not yet been announced, how could Thornberry say what would be raised?
Why announce part of it and not all of it at once? To get the good bit out the way first to make the impression before the bad bit sneaks out. Some in labour still try smart politics.
Because there was all sorts of nonsense being thrown around that anyone on the higher rate of income tax would pay more.
You misunderstand - I was saying this approach by labour was smart. I want more info, but as a tactic this was not poorly done even if 'I don't know' was a silly response and 'we'll reveal shortly' would be better.
Now I understand!
Certainly 'Wait for the manifesto' is a better answer that 'I don't know'.
"That would be an ecumenical matter" would have worked better tbh
TSE's articles are normally very good, but this is just a silly. Farron got 51% of the vote even in 2015, and the newspaper spend is plainly targeted at Barrow.
I have been becoming more concerned about this site that the articles are increasingly just trolling (Leave voters "supporting" Le Pen etc) and less and less analysis and betting tips.
I don't think its quite as stupid as the Conservative gain Sheffield Hallam idea floated last week.
The comment drew agreement from two former MPs, Paul Holmes and Adrian Sanders.
Certainly think it's time to move on - more people probably know the LDs are pro-Remain now than have so far heard 'strong and stable'. s.
But the LibDems want us to Remain in the EU if they won. So the LDs are actually proposing 1% on income tax to stay in the EU.
When we leave the EU, we can spend that money on the NHS instead. No extra tax needed.
"That money" doesn't exist, and will be more than cancelled out by the costs of leaving, direct and indirect.
You cannot bring hypotheticals into this. Leaving may well bring a boost to the economy that, after any initial bump, actually brings more tax revenue in.
Indeed, the LD proposal of taking 1% from the private sector and giving to the public sector may harm the economy and reduce the tax take.
So, sticking to the simple numbers (as the LDs want to do about the tax impact), the end result of the LD policy is to increase the tax of everyone by 1% so we can stay in the EU.
With respect, mention of the purported "money" is a hypothetical to begin with, which was my point.
The LD policy is to raise money for the NHS, and could be implemented whatever happens with the EU. Indeed, such is the inexorable rise in pressures on (and costs of) health, and its political sensitivity, any party will have to raise the money one way or the other. The difference with the Tories - as Norman Lamb has just said on bbcsp - is that they won't say up front how they'll pay.
That money is not hypothetical. We really do pay it to the EU.
Whilst I appreciate this country needs a proper answer to health and social care and how to fund it, that's not the point here.
If the LDs got into power they would remain in the EU, we would not get our money back, and they would raise tax by 1% instead. You cannot say it is "for the NHS", when the net effect is a 1% tax increase to stay in the EU.
Sorry, but this is just nonsense. The annual EU contributions are already in the government's budget, and the LibDems haven't taken this money and earmarked it for anything else. The extra income tax is clearly just that - extra, and would be spent on the NHS and social care, in addition to the already budgeted amounts.
'how much will you raise by taxing the £80,000 earners more'
'I don't know'
The most refreshingly honest answer I've heard from a politician in a long time.
When you are trying to get 35% of the voters to vote for you, telling 95% of them that they won't pay more tax sounds like a good idea to me.
But other than spite there isn't much point if it doesn't bring in significant amounts.
I mean, there is only so many times you can spend each tax increase, even for these serial incompetents
The announcement is all about the assurance to the 95%, not how much extra will be raised.
Since the proposed rises have not yet been announced, how could Thornberry say what would be raised?
Why announce part of it and not all of it at once? To get the good bit out the way first to make the impression before the bad bit sneaks out. Some in labour still try smart politics.
Because there was all sorts of nonsense being thrown around that anyone on the higher rate of income tax would pay more.
But it's not nonsense as Corbyn and McDonnell if they somehow got in would have no choice but to implement those tax rises to fund their uncosted fiscal incontinence. Theyd end up raising basic rate let alone higher rate.
If you want fiscal incontinence look at George Osborne's record at eliminating the deficit. How much extra did he have to borrow?
John McDonnell hints that he and Jeremy Corbyn could STAY on even if they lose the General Election - and says world has much to learn from communist revolutionary Karl Marx
The keepers of PB's conscience seem to be proposing a compromise for a an honest and fair election: the Tories should not mention Corbyn and McDonnell's IRA past connections and Labour will not harp on about Theresa May's popularity.
Buying wrap rounds in local papers is an indicator of local activist weakness. You pay because you haven't got the foot soldiers to deliver.
If you want to see an example of ground game vs air war vs tribal vote from the locals, Clay Cross North provides it:
Labour 1263 votes 39.6% Liberal Democrats 980 votes 30.8% Conservative 732 votes 22.9% UK Independence Party 211 6.6%
2013: Labour 1,737 73.4% Conservative 630 26.6%
These seats will not just fall into Conservative laps, they'll need to pound the pavements too. Westmorland would be a waste of resources with so many juicy Labour targets around.
The LD policy is to raise money for the NHS, and could be implemented whatever happens with the EU. Indeed, such is the inexorable rise in pressures on (and costs of) health, and its political sensitivity, any party will have to raise the money one way or the other. The difference with the Tories - as Norman Lamb has just said on bbcsp - is that they won't say up front how they'll pay.
More employer National Insurance ?
One of the most dishonest and unfair taxes ever, introduced (Or raised alot) by Brown - loved by politicians of all stripes everywhere. A penny on income tax is small beer compared to the true cost of that monstrosity.
The Tories have run out of road as far as significant further cuts are concerned - the pressures on pensions, social care, education and health are all growing, and these account for the large majority of public spending. Thus they need to drop, as quietly as they can, previous commitments on tax, and we will be in for five years of stealth taxes, which will certainly include NI. Indeed they could raise a lot of money by raising tax under the cloak of IT/NI "integration". They'll also be after tax reliefs such as that on pension contributions.
The claimed funds raised from the Lib Dem tax hike proposal (as discussed - hard to say how much it will raise in reality) could be matched with the (real) cash we will get back from leaving the EU (our net contribution) with some billions to spare.
And the LDs want to continue handing over that net contribution anyway by (somehow) staying in the EU. So their tax rise is more than swallowed up straight away. Great.
When's the Tory manifesto out? About time they had some new policies of their own - should not be difficult to trump the ones we have so far heard from their opponents though.
Sorry, but this is just nonsense. The annual EU contributions are already in the government's budget, and the LibDems haven't taken this money and earmarked it for anything else. The extra income tax is clearly just that - extra, and would be spent on the NHS and social care, in addition to the already budgeted amounts.
I am sorry you do not understand, but it is not nonsense.
The LDs have taken the EU money and earmarked it for staying in the EU. So we cannot use it for anything else. They would not need the extra tax if the LDs did not want to remain in the EU, but they do.
There was a time when Brian Tatton's vote would have been a dead cert for Labour. He was a miner “until Thatcher sold the pits off”, then worked as a builder before he retired.
The 76-year-old lives in Newcastle-under-Lyme, a Staffordshire seat that has been Labour for nearly a century.
Now, for the first time, Tatton is considering the unthinkable: voting Conservative. “I’ve always been a Labour man. Always,” says Tatton. “My family were Labour, but I can’t see what they’re doing; they’re going down.”
“I may vote Conservative,” he admits sheepishly. “I wouldn’t have dared vote Conservative before.”
'how much will you raise by taxing the £80,000 earners more'
'I don't know'
The most refreshingly honest answer I've heard from a politician in a long time.
When you are trying to get 35% of the voters to vote for you, telling 95% of them that they won't pay more tax sounds like a good idea to me.
But other than spite there isn't much point if it doesn't bring in significant amounts.
I mean, there is only so many times you can spend each tax increase, even for these serial incompetents
The announcement is all about the assurance to the 95%, not how much extra will be raised.
Since the proposed rises have not yet been announced, how could Thornberry say what would be raised?
Why announce part of it and not all of it at once? To get the good bit out the way first to make the impression before the bad bit sneaks out. Some in labour still try smart politics.
Because there was all sorts of nonsense being thrown around that anyone on the higher rate of income tax would pay more.
But it's not nonsense as Corbyn and McDonnell if they somehow got in would have no choice but to implement those tax rises to fund their uncosted fiscal incontinence. Theyd end up raising basic rate let alone higher rate.
If you want fiscal incontinence look at George Osborne's record at eliminating the deficit. How much extra did he have to borrow?
A lot more than he said, but since Labour wanted to eliminate it more slowly, the criticism when they do it sounds weird.
Buying wrap rounds in local papers is an indicator of local activist weakness. You pay because you haven't got the foot soldiers to deliver.
If you want to see an example of ground game vs air war vs tribal vote from the locals, Clay Cross North provides it:
Labour 1263 votes 39.6% Liberal Democrats 980 votes 30.8% Conservative 732 votes 22.9% UK Independence Party 211 6.6%
2013: Labour 1,737 73.4% Conservative 630 26.6%
These seats will not just fall into Conservative laps, they'll need to pound the pavements too. Westmorland would be a waste of resources with so many juicy Labour targets around.
Indeed. You get the feeling that the Tories are making the mistake of LAB in Yorkshire at GE2015. They flung resources into trying to unseat Clegg in Hallam and suffered elsewhere in battles with CON.
TSE's articles are normally very good, but this is just a silly. Farron got 51% of the vote even in 2015, and the newspaper spend is plainly targeted at Barrow.
I have been becoming more concerned about this site that the articles are increasingly just trolling (Leave voters "supporting" Le Pen etc) and less and less analysis and betting tips.
We need more articles from all ends of the political spectra. The idea that alot of articles get rejected is a nonsense (Unless they're a complete nonsense I suppose)
On topic: Westmorland & Lonsdale is the safest Liberal Democrat seat, by a stretch. If the swing against them is enough to threaten that one then they could be completely wiped out. I don't see that happening.
Buying wrap rounds in local papers is an indicator of local activist weakness. You pay because you haven't got the foot soldiers to deliver.
The Tories will be fighting in seats they haven't won in thirty years, potentially ever. Organsation always going to be a problem.
Exactly.
It's alright for the Liberal Democrats to make a lot of their ground game, as they are entitled to do, but when you only have nine seats to defend and realistic hopes in not much more than a dozen others, then allocating the available resources isn't such a tall order.
The LD policy is to raise money for the NHS, and could be implemented whatever happens with the EU. Indeed, such is the inexorable rise in pressures on (and costs of) health, and its political sensitivity, any party will have to raise the money one way or the other. The difference with the Tories - as Norman Lamb has just said on bbcsp - is that they won't say up front how they'll pay.
More employer National Insurance ?
One of the most dishonest and unfair taxes ever, introduced (Or raised alot) by Brown - loved by politicians of all stripes everywhere. A penny on income tax is small beer compared to the true cost of that monstrosity.
David Cameron described it correctly. It's quite literally a tax on jobs.
But a penny on it raises something like £12bn, can see why Brown loved it so much.
Of course, the council elections were about independence. Everything is about independence these days.
This being so, Thursday’s result – which saw the SNP lose just seven seats – was not good news for Sturgeon.
The First Minister’s reputation for caution was shattered in March when she announced, despite polls continually showing no increase in support for independence since the Yes campaign was defeated in 2014, plans to stage a second referendum either late in 2018 or early the following year.
The First Minister’s audacious plan for a second referendum has collided with a Scottish electorate that doesn’t want it. Increasingly, it appears that Nicola Sturgeon is about to gamble her political career on a battle she’s unlikely to win.
There was a time when Brian Tatton's vote would have been a dead cert for Labour. He was a miner “until Thatcher sold the pits off”, then worked as a builder before he retired.
The 76-year-old lives in Newcastle-under-Lyme, a Staffordshire seat that has been Labour for nearly a century.
Now, for the first time, Tatton is considering the unthinkable: voting Conservative. “I’ve always been a Labour man. Always,” says Tatton. “My family were Labour, but I can’t see what they’re doing; they’re going down.”
“I may vote Conservative,” he admits sheepishly. “I wouldn’t have dared vote Conservative before.”
Right at the risk of looking a fool in a month's time, let me address why the Tories won't win Westmorland and Lonsdale, and furthermore why £50 @ 8-1 is a poor bet.
[ had to cut for length ]
In short, this is a very very tough target and the 1-14 price that the bookie is offering is far more correct than the 8-1 in my opinion.
1) Factually incorrect - Westmorland Gazette hardly covers Barrow and Furness at all
2) Kendal, not Kendall, was a relatively late convert to the Liberal cause. Kendal South was Tory until 8 years ago. Two seats had Labour CCs 12 years ago. Sorry to repeat myself but a Tory got over 700 votes in Kendal Castle with no campaigning at all
3) Farron got to where he is by saying black is white to the first elector, black is yellow to the second and black is green to the third. When Andrew Neil points out inconsistencies he looks shocked at the suggestion that he should say the same thing twice in the same sentence. But normally you are right. Tim Collins thought 30 secs on the national media was worth 500 leaflets. I'm not sure what Lembit Opik thought.
4 ) My original post 5 weeks ago was the LDs would have fewer than 10 MPs and W&L would not be one of them. I think the first part of my prediction is difficult to disagree with. I now know Farron will be allowed to pull resource into W&L no matter if it costs 3 or 4 seats elsewhere. Will it save him ?
5 ) The seat as a whole scarcely voted Remain in spite of Farron putting 6 leaflets out in his safer areas. The small towns voted 2 to 1 Leave. BUT, not getting some of these leavers out last Thursday was my nemesis. Will they come out for James Airey ? some but not all.
6 ) I think TSE answered this in the thread header about Black Widows
The fact I can provide what I consider plausible answers to each of your points is revealing to me as you summarise well the reasons for believing Farron will still be an MP on June 8.
You cannot believe how toxic BREXIT is to Farron here in W&L.
Also, certainly some of the LD election material against me, as well as the usually nasty was also wrong-headed. Their knocking up leaflet was vote for Tim or the evil Tory will shoot your mother before breakfast and then some. But, they were putting this through the doors of Tory / LD waiverers. I know of 30 who came out for me because of it.
Their essense is vote Tim or else the evil Tory wins. - This in a constituency which had Tory majorities in excess of 10,000 in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992.
Also previously Farron borrowed votes from Labour - some of these will be among the extra votes for the Cons in the Kendal seats.
Rod Liddle in the Sunday Times reckons after a straw poll that the Conservatives will hoover up ex-UKIP votes in the south, where they don't need them, but only 20% of them in the north, where they do. Reckons Mrs May will end up no better than she is now.
I can see the piling up votes in safe seats thing being part of what is happening, which might argue against a massive landslide, but there seemsvtoo much going on in places they havevstruggled in the past for that to solely be it.
And has the polling to date not indicated the exact opposite, namely that the Tories are doing much better in Labour held seats than they are in their own?
And the actual results this week in Northumberland, Tees Valley, Cumbria and Derbyshire ie where the medium sized towns are.
Labour are likely to do better than average within the conurbations but we knew that already.
But most of Labour's remaining seats, as of 2015, ARE in conurbations.
The people on VoteUK doing the number-crunching have said there are actually very few Labour-held seats where the Tories beat Labour on Thursday. Even ultra-marginals like Lancaster had Labour marginally ahead. The flipside is that they fell much further behind in Tory-held marginal territory like Stockton South.
Of course, the council elections were about independence. Everything is about independence these days.
This being so, Thursday’s result – which saw the SNP lose just seven seats – was not good news for Sturgeon.
The First Minister’s reputation for caution was shattered in March when she announced, despite polls continually showing no increase in support for independence since the Yes campaign was defeated in 2014, plans to stage a second referendum either late in 2018 or early the following year.
The First Minister’s audacious plan for a second referendum has collided with a Scottish electorate that doesn’t want it. Increasingly, it appears that Nicola Sturgeon is about to gamble her political career on a battle she’s unlikely to win.
The 9/4 on a Labour hold in Gedling looks like good value - the Labour vote was very solid at the local elections and the Conservatives have been in decline there for over two decades.
TSE's articles are normally very good, but this is just a silly. Farron got 51% of the vote even in 2015, and the newspaper spend is plainly targeted at Barrow.
I have been becoming more concerned about this site that the articles are increasingly just trolling (Leave voters "supporting" Le Pen etc) and less and less analysis and betting tips.
So you spend the money on a Newspaper which isn't read in Barrow ?????
Buying wrap rounds in local papers is an indicator of local activist weakness. You pay because you haven't got the foot soldiers to deliver.
If you want to see an example of ground game vs air war vs tribal vote from the locals, Clay Cross North provides it:
Labour 1263 votes 39.6% Liberal Democrats 980 votes 30.8% Conservative 732 votes 22.9% UK Independence Party 211 6.6%
2013: Labour 1,737 73.4% Conservative 630 26.6%
These seats will not just fall into Conservative laps, they'll need to pound the pavements too. Westmorland would be a waste of resources with so many juicy Labour targets around.
Indeed. You get the feeling that the Tories are making the mistake of LAB in Yorkshire at GE2015. They flung resources into trying to unseat Clegg in Hallam and suffered elsewhere in battles with CON.
But are they pouring a lot of resources into Westmorland & Lonsdale? Buried within the commentary above is the (quite obvious, on the face if it) observation that the Tories are targeting the almost certainly doomed John Woodcock in Barrow and Furness, and not taking his imminent defenestration by the voters for granted. They may not even be interested in the effect upon opinion in Farron's seat, beyond discomfiting him a little and perhaps persuading him to spend just a little more time at home, and a little less boring about Europe on national television.
I thought the old mining towns would be quite good territory for Tory gains in this election, like Durham, Nottinghamshire, South Yorkshire - however, they seem to be places where much of the UKIP vote has gone to Labour rather than the Tories.
Labour had a solid lead in Don Valley, too, for the people tipping Tissue Price to become an MP.
TSE's articles are normally very good, but this is just a silly. Farron got 51% of the vote even in 2015, and the newspaper spend is plainly targeted at Barrow.
I have been becoming more concerned about this site that the articles are increasingly just trolling (Leave voters "supporting" Le Pen etc) and less and less analysis and betting tips.
So you spend the money on a Newspaper which isn't read in Barrow ?????
Wow
The link suggests it is read in Barrow and Furness - and 795 isn't the largest majority that a few votes swung couldn't change it.
Though that does beg the question if under a thousand Labour lead is the right thing to be targeting either. Barrow should be in the bag for the Tories, but I suppose it will only be in the bag if they put the effort in.
Talking of unlikely topplings, is there any reason to believe Momentum types are going to take it upon themselves to stand against anti-Corbynite Labour MPs, if nothing else in order to make the 15pct barrier a little more surmountable?
Rod Liddle in the Sunday Times reckons after a straw poll that the Conservatives will hoover up ex-UKIP votes in the south, where they don't need them, but only 20% of them in the north, where they do. Reckons Mrs May will end up no better than she is now.
I can see the piling up votes in safe seats thing being part of what is happening, which might argue against a massive landslide, but there seemsvtoo much going on in places they havevstruggled in the past for that to solely be it.
And has the polling to date not indicated the exact opposite, namely that the Tories are doing much better in Labour held seats than they are in their own?
And the actual results this week in Northumberland, Tees Valley, Cumbria and Derbyshire ie where the medium sized towns are.
Labour are likely to do better than average within the conurbations but we knew that already.
But most of Labour's remaining seats, as of 2015, ARE in conurbations.
The people on VoteUK doing the number-crunching have said there are actually very few Labour-held seats where the Tories beat Labour on Thursday. Even ultra-marginals like Lancaster had Labour marginally ahead. The flipside is that they fell much further behind in Tory-held marginal territory like Stockton South.
I certainly don't think the likes of the West Bromwich seats are at risk but there's no shortage of Grimsbys, Darlingtons, Workingtons and Wrexhams for Labour to lose.
And even in conurbations there are plenty of Labour marginal - nine in London alone which will be lost on any swing over 3%.
Buying wrap rounds in local papers is an indicator of local activist weakness. You pay because you haven't got the foot soldiers to deliver.
Not entirely. The local paper carries a weight of independence which party leaflets can't have.
This is an attempt to campaign in a different way. It has clearly blindsided the LDs up here. Perhaps their fury is worth something in itself. Clearly such spending is part of the national campaign and is an alternative to battle buses.
For me, it would have been better if it had been done a week earlier.
I am surprised the Westmorland Gazette did it though. It proves they are just part of a national conglomerate. And whilst I actually bought a copy for the first time in over a year I guess if it became a regular thing LD voters would cancel thier subscriptions.
There was a time when Brian Tatton's vote would have been a dead cert for Labour. He was a miner “until Thatcher sold the pits off”, then worked as a builder before he retired.
The 76-year-old lives in Newcastle-under-Lyme, a Staffordshire seat that has been Labour for nearly a century.
Now, for the first time, Tatton is considering the unthinkable: voting Conservative. “I’ve always been a Labour man. Always,” says Tatton. “My family were Labour, but I can’t see what they’re doing; they’re going down.”
“I may vote Conservative,” he admits sheepishly. “I wouldn’t have dared vote Conservative before.”
Does that not just represent the fact that the gentleman is 76 and people become more Conservative with age? How are his children and grandchildren voting, that could reveal more.
BBC Daily Politics just released hidden camera footage of John McDonnell saying 'Yes, I am a Marxist' after his skirting the question this morning on Marr. Coming to a Tory PPB soon
I think you are right that taxes will have to go up and I have no problem with increasing income tax across the board. What I find reduces the Lib Dem plan to a gimmick is their implication that a 1% rise would make any significant difference to the problems of funding health and social care.
A 1% increase in income tax would raise, I think, somewhere between £5bn and £6bn per annum across the entire UK. The budget from NHS England alone currently stands at £120bn p.a.. I do not know what the costs of social care are but I would suspect that it is at least another £10bn on top. Then add on the relevant costs for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In round figures we are probably looking at a total bill of something approaching £200bn p.a. plus or minus £20bn or so. The money raised by the extra 1% is not going to go very far. In fact once you take out the proportion that will inevitably be lost to the inefficiencies in the system, I doubt any health or social care provider will notice the difference.
How we provide and fund a 1st world health and social care system in the 21st century needs proper debate and a cross-party consensus. It does not need gimmicks dreamed up on the back of a fag packet in advance of an election.
The 9/4 on a Labour hold in Gedling looks like good value - the Labour vote was very solid at the local elections and the Conservatives have been in decline there for over two decades.
1. General elections and local elections are clean different things. If it were otherwise then Labour would still hold Stevenage and not be 5,000 votes adrift, for example. 2. The Tories need a swing of only just over 3% to take the seat, and the 2015 Ukip vote there was more than double the size of the Labour majority.
You *might* be correct, but if Labour does rescue Gedling it looks almost certainly as if it will be against a tide of other results. Personally, I think that the Tories are in pole position in every Labour seat in their target list down at least as far as Bishop Auckland, save perhaps for a couple of high Remain/low Ukip hold-outs in London, and possibly Hove.
Rod Liddle in the Sunday Times reckons after a straw poll that the Conservatives will hoover up ex-UKIP votes in the south, where they don't need them, but only 20% of them in the north, where they do. Reckons Mrs May will end up no better than she is now.
I can see the piling up votes in safe seats thing being part of what is happening, which might argue against a massive landslide, but there seemsvtoo much going on in places they havevstruggled in the past for that to solely be it.
And has the polling to date not indicated the exact opposite, namely that the Tories are doing much better in Labour held seats than they are in their own?
And the actual results this week in Northumberland, Tees Valley, Cumbria and Derbyshire ie where the medium sized towns are.
Labour are likely to do better than average within the conurbations but we knew that already.
But most of Labour's remaining seats, as of 2015, ARE in conurbations.
The people on VoteUK doing the number-crunching have said there are actually very few Labour-held seats where the Tories beat Labour on Thursday. Even ultra-marginals like Lancaster had Labour marginally ahead. The flipside is that they fell much further behind in Tory-held marginal territory like Stockton South.
I certainly don't think the likes of the West Bromwich seats are at risk but there's no shortage of Grimsbys, Darlingtons, Workingtons and Wrexhams for Labour to lose.
And even in conurbations there are plenty of Labour marginal - nine in London alone which will be lost on any swing over 3%.
You think there will be a 3% swing to the Tories in London ?
The 9/4 on a Labour hold in Gedling looks like good value - the Labour vote was very solid at the local elections and the Conservatives have been in decline there for over two decades.
1. General elections and local elections are clean different things. If it were otherwise then Labour would still hold Stevenage and not be 5,000 votes adrift, for example. 2. The Tories need a swing of only just over 3% to take the seat, and the 2015 Ukip vote there was more than double the size of the Labour majority.
You *might* be correct, but if Labour does rescue Gedling it looks almost certainly as if it will be against a tide of other results. Personally, I think that the Tories are in pole position in every Labour seat in their target list down at least as far as Bishop Auckland, save perhaps for a couple of high Remain/low Ukip hold-outs in London, and possibly Hove.
4 ) My original post 5 weeks ago was the LDs would have fewer than 10 MPs and W&L would not be one of them. I think the first part of my prediction is difficult to disagree with. I now know Farron will be allowed to pull resource into W&L no matter if it costs 3 or 4 seats elsewhere. Will it save him ?
5 ) The seat as a whole scarcely voted Remain in spite of Farron putting 6 leaflets out in his safer areas. The small towns voted 2 to 1 Leave. BUT, not getting some of these leavers out last Thursday was my nemesis. Will they come out for James Airey ? some but not all.
6 ) I think TSE answered this in the thread header about Black Widows
The fact I can provide what I consider plausible answers to each of your points is revealing to me as you summarise well the reasons for believing Farron will still be an MP on June 8.
You cannot believe how toxic BREXIT is to Farron here in W&L.
Also, certainly some of the LD election material against me, as well as the usually nasty was also wrong-headed. Their knocking up leaflet was vote for Tim or the evil Tory will shoot your mother before breakfast and then some. But, they were putting this through the doors of Tory / LD waiverers. I know of 30 who came out for me because of it.
Their essense is vote Tim or else the evil Tory wins. - This in a constituency which had Tory majorities in excess of 10,000 in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992.
Also previously Farron borrowed votes from Labour - some of these will be among the extra votes for the Cons in the Kendal seats.
I've just been looking through the council results for Cumbria, specifically Westmoreland and Lonsdale. Before the election, you were pretty vocal that there would be substantial council losses for the LDs in the area, which would make it clear how precarious Farron's position would be.
Instead the LDs, while they lost two seats to the Conservatives, held onto 11 seats and increased their total number of votes by 13%. The Conservatives successfully hoovered up the UKIP vote (which enabled them to take High Furness, for example) but the LD vote numbers held up everywhere.
The situation in the locals in W&L was pretty much identical to elsewhere in the country: the LDs increased their vote total somewhat, while the Conservative Party hoovered up the vast majority of UKIP votes. It's hard to see - from votes in ballot boxes - anything other than a fairly comfortable hold for Mr Farron.
There was a time when Brian Tatton's vote would have been a dead cert for Labour. He was a miner “until Thatcher sold the pits off”, then worked as a builder before he retired.
The 76-year-old lives in Newcastle-under-Lyme, a Staffordshire seat that has been Labour for nearly a century.
Now, for the first time, Tatton is considering the unthinkable: voting Conservative. “I’ve always been a Labour man. Always,” says Tatton. “My family were Labour, but I can’t see what they’re doing; they’re going down.”
“I may vote Conservative,” he admits sheepishly. “I wouldn’t have dared vote Conservative before.”
And his reason for holding open the possibility of voting Tory is what, exactly? Because he "can't see what (Labour) are doing" and because "Labour are going down"?
Which side was this guy on in the strike? That's the big question.
Farron will hold his seat comfortably, it voted Remain and he is a good local MP with a personal vote and as a largely rural area it is likely to be more sympathetic to his relative social conservatism than more urban LD areas and as party leader the LDs will also put money into it to ensure it stays yellow, though of course there is nothing wrong with the Tories having a pot shot at it
I thought the old mining towns would be quite good territory for Tory gains in this election, like Durham, Nottinghamshire, South Yorkshire - however, they seem to be places where much of the UKIP vote has gone to Labour rather than the Tories.
Labour had a solid lead in Don Valley, too, for the people tipping Tissue Price to become an MP.
Check the North East Derbyshire local swings (Except Clay Cross North where a massive Lib Dem effort was put in) to see the ex-mining Lab - Tory swing.
Protectionism and subsidies? Yes. And we are already in that world, except the EU runs CAP and tariffs for us. The idea that everyone (or even anyone) is committed to free trade, least of all the United States, is laughable.
Comments
Get the family done up in shepherd & shepherdess costumes for the full arcadian experience.
I spoke to a LD in 2014 who was convinced the party would replace labour within 10-15 years. Still time for that to happen, although given it seemed predicated on the assumption they would hold nearly all seats in 2015' maybe even gain some, I won't hold my breath.
1) The newspaper buy doesn't mean so much, it covers John Woodcock's constituency - who will go, though I suspect will have a substantial personal vote hence the swing will be lower than last time. Barrow is a seat the Tories want to make sure of, the fact the advert crosses into Tim's seat is a nice bonus but this is essentially a free ad against Tim. It'll also allow any costs incurred on that to be split over the two seats as it affects both.
2) Kendall is a Liberal Democrat stronghold, this does not mean Tim will be complacent however - but there are simply very few Lib Dem targets elsewhere for miles around. Activists will be able to work the seat hard. In contrast the Tories have Barrow, Copeland, Workington?, and all manner of Labour seats to attack round here. With Labour's slumping in the polls it would be a severe waste of effective resources and manpower to try to oust Tim here.
3) Tim Farron is the leader, and it is well known that party leaders do receive a small boost in the polls. Who will the people of Westmorland want to represent them - a party leader or simply lobby fodder. Similiarly Corbyn in London is safer than Thornberry for instance for precisely this reason.
4) On the betting front, sub 10 seats is around 8-1 or perhaps slightly shorter. If the Lib Dems are losing Westmorland then quite frankly only Ceredigion and Orkney are being held. It is difficult to get the Lib Dems to 10 seats without Westmorland so this is the better bet.
5) The seat voted to remain, and is also Lib Dem held. The Lib Dem vote is heading north in the polls (Remember the base was 8% last time), and there is only 6.2% UKIP vote for the Tories to munch into. The Labour vote in this constituency is unlikely to change much either, it is at a natural bedrock.
6) Tim Farron achieved over 50% of the the last time here (No other Lib Dem seat has this dynamic), and the Lib Dems are increasing in the polls. We know that the votes the Lib Dems are losing are mostly leave facing, and since this was a 44% remain seat with alot of Tory/UKIP votes already (39.4%) those are overwhemingly likely to have been the leavers and are so baked in.
In short, this is a very very tough target and the 1-14 price that the bookie is offering is far more correct than the 8-1 in my opinion.
The tories really struggle with this stuff.
When is a mobile campaign team targeting marginal constituencies, handing out leaflets for local candidates - actually a national campaign expense?
When is £102,483 actually £38,996?
http://www.markpack.org.uk/wp-content/plugins/google-document-embedder/load.php?d=http://www.markpack.org.uk/files/2017/03/Electoral-Commission-report-into-Conservative-Party-election-expenses.pdf
(page 28)
https://order-order.com/2017/05/07/mcdonnell-lies-marxist-marr/
When did you change your mind John?
This might be useful for your attack ads
http://hurryupharry.org/2017/05/05/john-mcdonnell-and-plan-b/
Apparently this was in 2013
When you are trying to get 35% of the voters to vote for you, telling 95% of them that they won't pay more tax sounds like a good idea to me.
Its also a target rich area for the Conservatives - Barrow, Workington, Lancaster, keeping Copeland.
You cannot bring hypotheticals into this. Leaving may well bring a boost to the economy that, after any initial bump, actually brings more tax revenue in.
Indeed, the LD proposal of taking 1% from the private sector and giving to the public sector may harm the economy and reduce the tax take.
So, sticking to the simple numbers (as the LDs want to do about the tax impact), the end result of the LD policy is to increase the tax of everyone by 1% so we can stay in the EU.
"Ok, is Diane Abbott doing any press today?"
"No, it's Emily Thornberry"
"Damn. Better get the rebuttal team on standby in case she says anything sensible"
2 hours pass...
"Stand down. I repeat, stand down. Take the rest of the day off. Again"
"The Englishman is a rabid nationalist. They are perhaps the most nationalist people in the world ... When you hear the English talk of this war you sometimes almost want them to lose it to show them how things are. They have the greatest contempt for the continent in general and for the French in particular. They didn't like the French before the defeat ... Since the defeat, they have the greatest contempt for the French Army ... England first. This slogan is taken for granted by the English people as a whole. To lose their empire would be the worst possible humiliation."?
This being so, Thursday’s result – which saw the SNP lose just seven seats – was not good news for Sturgeon.
The First Minister’s reputation for caution was shattered in March when she announced, despite polls continually showing no increase in support for independence since the Yes campaign was defeated in 2014, plans to stage a second referendum either late in 2018 or early the following year.
The First Minister’s audacious plan for a second referendum has collided with a Scottish electorate that doesn’t want it. Increasingly, it appears that Nicola Sturgeon is about to gamble her political career on a battle she’s unlikely to win.
Read more at: http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/euan-mccolm-indyref2-mandate-eludes-victorious-sturgeon-1-4439168
The LD policy is to raise money for the NHS, and could be implemented whatever happens with the EU. Indeed, such is the inexorable rise in pressures on (and costs of) health, and its political sensitivity, any party will have to raise the money one way or the other. The difference with the Tories - as Norman Lamb has just said on bbcsp - is that they won't say up front how they'll pay.
One of the most dishonest and unfair taxes ever, introduced (Or raised alot) by Brown - loved by politicians of all stripes everywhere. A penny on income tax is small beer compared to the true cost of that monstrosity.
Generally I agree the sub-10 seats bet is better.
However, there's a danger the LD's get substantial urban/rural churn within their vote - ie, LD's take two or three or more london seats off labour, while Farron & Lamb get slaughtered.
They still get 10 or 11 seats.
I mean, there is only so many times you can spend each tax increase, even for these serial incompetents
You are taking a known quantity - the £8 billion to £10 billion net we pay to the EU each year - and comparing it with a hypothetical amount of money based on nothing more than your own bias. It is a very poor way to frame an argument.
'It never ceases to impress me how people who never gave a toss about NI suddenly see it as their main concern when thy put their brexit goggles on.'
It sure is a sight to behold.
Edit: forget Crosby; go with Karl Rove and attack your opponent's strengths.
Since the proposed rises have not yet been announced, how could Thornberry say what would be raised?
That money is not hypothetical. We really do pay it to the EU.
Whilst I appreciate this country needs a proper answer to health and social care and how to fund it, that's not the point here.
If the LDs got into power they would remain in the EU, we would not get our money back, and they would raise tax by 1% instead. You cannot say it is "for the NHS", when the net effect is a 1% tax increase to stay in the EU.
I have been becoming more concerned about this site that the articles are increasingly just trolling (Leave voters "supporting" Le Pen etc) and less and less analysis and betting tips.
10 without Westmorland potentially:
Sheffield Hallam
Leeds NW
Cambridge
Ceredigion
Orkney & Shetland
Bermondsey & Old Southwark
Dunbartonshire East
Edinburgh West
Twickenham
Fife North East or Richmond
It's a stretch though.
Lamb is definitely vulnerable, I'll grant that as are Southport and Brake and of course Olney.
If you want a scapegoat, how about the Labour MPs who were solidly Remain, but were so ineffectual at campaigning that they were not even able to carry their own constituencies?
Yvette Cooper, Dan Jarvis, Owen Smith, Stephen Kinnock ...
They couldn’t even make the case and persuade their own constituents.
No wonder it is convenient for them to blame Jeremy Corbyn.
Certainly 'Wait for the manifesto' is a better answer that 'I don't know'.
https://twitter.com/europeelects/status/861163148962824192
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4481578/John-McDonnell-hints-Jeremy-Corbyn-stay.html
Cancer in the labour party....Do your due, vote, vote for anybody else so these scumbags get their marching orders.
Labour 1263 votes 39.6%
Liberal Democrats 980 votes 30.8%
Conservative 732 votes 22.9%
UK Independence Party 211 6.6%
2013:
Labour 1,737 73.4%
Conservative 630 26.6%
These seats will not just fall into Conservative laps, they'll need to pound the pavements too.
Westmorland would be a waste of resources with so many juicy Labour targets around.
And the LDs want to continue handing over that net contribution anyway by (somehow) staying in the EU. So their tax rise is more than swallowed up straight away. Great.
When's the Tory manifesto out? About time they had some new policies of their own - should not be difficult to trump the ones we have so far heard from their opponents though.
I am sorry you do not understand, but it is not nonsense.
The LDs have taken the EU money and earmarked it for staying in the EU. So we cannot use it for anything else. They would not need the extra tax if the LDs did not want to remain in the EU, but they do.
That means extra tax for staying the EU.
There was a time when Brian Tatton's vote would have been a dead cert for Labour. He was a miner “until Thatcher sold the pits off”, then worked as a builder before he retired.
The 76-year-old lives in Newcastle-under-Lyme, a Staffordshire seat that has been Labour for nearly a century.
Now, for the first time, Tatton is considering the unthinkable: voting Conservative. “I’ve always been a Labour man. Always,” says Tatton. “My family were Labour, but I can’t see what they’re doing; they’re going down.”
“I may vote Conservative,” he admits sheepishly. “I wouldn’t have dared vote Conservative before.”
And he’s not alone.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilydugan/this-town-has-been-labour-since-1919-its-about-to-switch-to
It's alright for the Liberal Democrats to make a lot of their ground game, as they are entitled to do, but when you only have nine seats to defend and realistic hopes in not much more than a dozen others, then allocating the available resources isn't such a tall order.
But a penny on it raises something like £12bn, can see why Brown loved it so much.
'Westminster would be insane to refuse'
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/861169810381647872
2) Kendal, not Kendall, was a relatively late convert to the Liberal cause. Kendal South was Tory until 8 years ago. Two seats had Labour CCs 12 years ago. Sorry to repeat myself but a Tory got over 700 votes in Kendal Castle with no campaigning at all
3) Farron got to where he is by saying black is white to the first elector, black is yellow to the second and black is green to the third. When Andrew Neil points out inconsistencies he looks shocked at the suggestion that he should say the same thing twice in the same sentence. But normally you are right. Tim Collins thought 30 secs on the national media was worth 500 leaflets. I'm not sure what Lembit Opik thought.
4 ) My original post 5 weeks ago was the LDs would have fewer than 10 MPs and W&L would not be one of them. I think the first part of my prediction is difficult to disagree with. I now know Farron will be allowed to pull resource into W&L no matter if it costs 3 or 4 seats elsewhere. Will it save him ?
5 ) The seat as a whole scarcely voted Remain in spite of Farron putting 6 leaflets out in his safer areas. The small towns voted 2 to 1 Leave. BUT, not getting some of these leavers out last Thursday was my nemesis. Will they come out for James Airey ? some but not all.
6 ) I think TSE answered this in the thread header about Black Widows
The fact I can provide what I consider plausible answers to each of your points is revealing to me as you summarise well the reasons for believing Farron will still be an MP on June 8.
You cannot believe how toxic BREXIT is to Farron here in W&L.
Also, certainly some of the LD election material against me, as well as the usually nasty was also wrong-headed. Their knocking up leaflet was vote for Tim or the evil Tory will shoot your mother before breakfast and then some. But, they were putting this through the doors of Tory / LD waiverers. I know of 30 who came out for me because of it.
Their essense is vote Tim or else the evil Tory wins. - This in a constituency which had Tory majorities in excess of 10,000 in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992.
Also previously Farron borrowed votes from Labour - some of these will be among the extra votes for the Cons in the Kendal seats.
The people on VoteUK doing the number-crunching have said there are actually very few Labour-held seats where the Tories beat Labour on Thursday. Even ultra-marginals like Lancaster had Labour marginally ahead. The flipside is that they fell much further behind in Tory-held marginal territory like Stockton South.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/07/john-mcdonnell-refuses-rule-60-top-tax-rate-suggests-lot-learn/
Speaking this morning on the BBC’s Andrew Marr show, Mr McDonnell said there was a "lot to learn" from Karl Marx's political theory.
The gift that keeps on giving
Venezuela anyone?
Wow
Labour had a solid lead in Don Valley, too, for the people tipping Tissue Price to become an MP.
Though that does beg the question if under a thousand Labour lead is the right thing to be targeting either. Barrow should be in the bag for the Tories, but I suppose it will only be in the bag if they put the effort in.
All confusing.
Do the polling stations give out blank ballots to those who want them?
2012 figures: positive votes: 75.7%; blank or spoiled: 4.7%.
Turnout (positive votes) could be well under 70% this time, maybe even under 65%.
And even in conurbations there are plenty of Labour marginal - nine in London alone which will be lost on any swing over 3%.
This is an attempt to campaign in a different way. It has clearly blindsided the LDs up here. Perhaps their fury is worth something in itself. Clearly such spending is part of the national campaign and is an alternative to battle buses.
For me, it would have been better if it had been done a week earlier.
I am surprised the Westmorland Gazette did it though. It proves they are just part of a national conglomerate. And whilst I actually bought a copy for the first time in over a year I guess if it became a regular thing LD voters would cancel thier subscriptions.
E. MACRON 100 635 voix soit 75,13%
M. LE PEN 33 310 voix soit 24,87%
Hollande polled 72% in 2012.
Is this the world we are getting into ?
I think you are right that taxes will have to go up and I have no problem with increasing income tax across the board. What I find reduces the Lib Dem plan to a gimmick is their implication that a 1% rise would make any significant difference to the problems of funding health and social care.
A 1% increase in income tax would raise, I think, somewhere between £5bn and £6bn per annum across the entire UK. The budget from NHS England alone currently stands at £120bn p.a.. I do not know what the costs of social care are but I would suspect that it is at least another £10bn on top. Then add on the relevant costs for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In round figures we are probably looking at a total bill of something approaching £200bn p.a. plus or minus £20bn or so. The money raised by the extra 1% is not going to go very far. In fact once you take out the proportion that will inevitably be lost to the inefficiencies in the system, I doubt any health or social care provider will notice the difference.
How we provide and fund a 1st world health and social care system in the 21st century needs proper debate and a cross-party consensus. It does not need gimmicks dreamed up on the back of a fag packet in advance of an election.
2. The Tories need a swing of only just over 3% to take the seat, and the 2015 Ukip vote there was more than double the size of the Labour majority.
You *might* be correct, but if Labour does rescue Gedling it looks almost certainly as if it will be against a tide of other results. Personally, I think that the Tories are in pole position in every Labour seat in their target list down at least as far as Bishop Auckland, save perhaps for a couple of high Remain/low Ukip hold-outs in London, and possibly Hove.
https://twitter.com/mllesosso/status/861163286372470784
I calculated that Macron SHOULD have got 76.2% from the polls by the way (Based off the first round transfers) in Martinique.
Instead the LDs, while they lost two seats to the Conservatives, held onto 11 seats and increased their total number of votes by 13%. The Conservatives successfully hoovered up the UKIP vote (which enabled them to take High Furness, for example) but the LD vote numbers held up everywhere.
The situation in the locals in W&L was pretty much identical to elsewhere in the country: the LDs increased their vote total somewhat, while the Conservative Party hoovered up the vast majority of UKIP votes. It's hard to see - from votes in ballot boxes - anything other than a fairly comfortable hold for Mr Farron.
Which side was this guy on in the strike? That's the big question.