Scrapping universal free school meals for infants is a vote loser for the Tories. Bad move . Stupid, in fact. Pointless penny pinching.
Universal free school meals is good policy. I can't think of a justification for scraping it (as opposed to the other things that are rumoured for the chop which I can construct an agreement for)
It means that poorer families, who would get FSM anyway, are effectively subsidising richer families who don't need FSM.
There are other arguments for the policy, the most persuasive I heard when it was introduced was that it might reduce the stigma of being on FSM in the non universal years, but the subsidy argument is certainly one for removing it.
It also depends on what the money will be used for instead.
Here's a report on the cost of means testing. If only 20% of pensioners received the means tested benefit, any cost less than £400 per claimant is a saving (underestimating it because I assumed each pensioner received £100).
"The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that maintaining existing claims for Pension Credit cost £47 per claim in 2010-11, compared to £14 per claim for the non- means-tested State Pension"
New claims cost more than existing.
So if we assume £40/pensioner extra expense and 12.5m pensioners then means testing all costs about £500m. Presumably many who are too wealthy won't bother to apply so that's an overestimate.
Either way - definitely looks like savings can be made.
I don't want my old dad, who had a stroke and spends most of his day desperately remembering to take his 530 pills having to worry about filling in a bloody form to get something he is entitled to.
What will happen is his anxiety will win, he won't fill in the form and he will lose out. Meanwhile a bean counter will see that as a success rather than the dismal failure it is.
I appreciate I'm going to be called names but I'm not sure what your poor old Dad is entitled to. I have enormous sympathy with your family but it isn't just govt responsibility to look after him.
We are all entitled to what the govt of the day decides to give us, its an arbitrary thing.
Here's a report on the cost of means testing. If only 20% of pensioners received the means tested benefit, any cost less than £400 per claimant is a saving (underestimating it because I assumed each pensioner received £100).
"The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that maintaining existing claims for Pension Credit cost £47 per claim in 2010-11, compared to £14 per claim for the non- means-tested State Pension"
New claims cost more than existing.
So if we assume £40/pensioner extra expense and 12.5m pensioners then means testing all costs about £500m. Presumably many who are too wealthy won't bother to apply so that's an overestimate.
Either way - definitely looks like savings can be made.
Scrapping universal free school meals for infants is a vote loser for the Tories. Bad move . Stupid, in fact.
Totally agree - we've been down this divisive and highly contentious route before - shades in fact of Thatcher, the milk snatcher! Scrap free school meals, scrap the triple lock, scrap the Winter Fuel Allowance., etc, etc. Is Theresa May actually targeting a majority of under 50 seats, perhaps based on the theory that it will somehow make the parliamentary party more manageable?
Fortunately, nothing like a majority of the public think money grows on trees. This will not be nearly as damaging as you suggest.
Thatcher won 2 landslides, btw
Mrs Thatcher did have a magic money tree; two, in fact. North Sea Oil and privatisation receipts.
Scrapping universal free school meals for infants is a vote loser for the Tories. Bad move . Stupid, in fact. Pointless penny pinching.
Universal free school meals is good policy. I can't think of a justification for scraping it (as opposed to the other things that are rumoured for the chop which I can construct an agreement for)
How about: those who can pay, should pay; and also, UFSM has resulted in a skewing of the actual FSM applicaions, meaning that many schools in deprived areas miss out on funding they'dotherwise be entitled to.
This Tory obsession with means testing is weird. They love making people jump through hoops even when it costs them more overall . It's almost a fetishism to make anyone requiring help to feel second class.
You think it will cost more to means-test winter fuel allowance than to give it to everyone?
Means tests are hugely expensive particularly for the old and infirm who will need help to jump through hoops.
Here's an analysis on it. Looks like it could save quite a bit, unless the cost of means testing exceeds £1.5bn
Wonders how much you would save if you stripped out civil service bureaucracy, ATOS, capita and complex IT systems and the assessment centres and now home help required to help old folk fill in chappy forms.
Means testing is a multi billion pound industry.
You think means testing this will add on another billion?
Given the efficiency of the civil service, government it procurement and the specific difficulties of means testing elderly people who can't fill in online forms I wouldn't put it past them.
What if it is added to an existing means tested benefit?
A pensioner who ‘doesn’t need them’, like me, is likely to be paying tax, so just reduce my tax allowance, surely.
Scrapping universal free school meals for infants is a vote loser for the Tories. Bad move . Stupid, in fact. Pointless penny pinching.
Universal free school meals is good policy. I can't think of a justification for scraping it (as opposed to the other things that are rumoured for the chop which I can construct an agreement for)
How about: those who can pay, should pay; and also, UFSM has resulted in a skewing of the actual FSM applicaions, meaning that many schools in deprived areas miss out on funding they'dotherwise be entitled to.
This Tory obsession with means testing is weird. They love making people jump through hoops even when it costs them more overall . It's almost a fetishism to make anyone requiring help to feel second class.
The undeserving poor must be reminded of their undeservingness at every opportunity.
The mood music does seem to have changed overnight in respect of the Tory Manifesto. Yesterday the suggestion that this was going to be higher spending and higher taxes with a surprising degree of government activism. The leaks this morning suggest a Manifesto which looks realistically at what a country with a £50bn deficit heading into uncertain times can afford. This is inevitably going to result in a lot of hard and unpopular choices. It will certainly be radically different from what Labour is offering and it will be interesting to see how much of a taste for realism the UK has.
It is long past time that some of the freebies showered on pensioners were ended but the challenge is to find simple and cost effective ways of doing this. In respect of the winter fuel allowance one way would be to require pensioners who pay higher rate tax to repay it in the same way as I do with my CB in their tax returns. This would not hit a lot of pensioners but would affect those with generous index linked pensions.
There was some evidence that Universal Free School Meals helped overall performance but this always struck me as surprising. Why does poor Jonny do better at school because rich Frank is not paying for his lunch anymore and does Frank not insist on Mummy providing a packed lunch with his fois gras anyway? It will be interesting to see if the evidence has moved on from the pilots.
Being serious about people contributing to their care, even if only on death, seems inevitable. The priority of taxpayers is to ensure that there is a decent level of care available for everyone, not to ensure that people receive huge inheritances after the State has picked up the tab.
Selling this as a grown up approach is not going to be easy. We have too many politicians telling us what is or should be "free". It will be an interesting experiment.
Distinct lack of rejoicing from the PB Tories on here this morning.
How about a sing-song to cheer everyone up?
"Don't be stupid, be a smarty, Come and join the Nasty party"
The Nasty Party are the ones to want to borrow tens of billions more every year, and load our children and their children with unsustainable debts in order to pay for their fantasy world where only 5% of the population pay for the other 95%.
Despite poor media coverage, internal splits and poor leader ratings, Labour’s support is currently at around the same level it was in 2015. This is down to a combination of adding people who will vote Labour because of Jeremy Corbyn and holding on to previous Labour voters despite of him. But the current coalition is unstable and might not hold
It's a tricky one. Corbyn certainly pulls in some, and repels others. The dilemma is that getting rid of him will certainly lose some or all of the people who like him. But the people he alienates are quite likely to be alienated by any replacement as well. I am glad I don't have to solve that one.
Distinct lack of rejoicing from the PB Tories on here this morning.
How about a sing-song to cheer everyone up?
"Don't be stupid, be a smarty, Come and join the Nasty party"
The Nasty Party are the ones to want to borrow tens of billions more every year, and load our children and their children with unsustainable debts in order to pay for their fantasy world where only 5% of the population pay for the other 95%.
I have collated polling histories, separated by company, for the period from 1 April to present. Labour VI and deficit vs. the Conservatives is shown. I have selected ICM and YouGov, as they have published the largest number of polls at the most regular intervals throughout the relevant period.
As you can see, ICM have shown no meaningful change in Labour's position throughout the campaign, whereas YouGov's numbers jumped early on, and have risen further since.
Both may be, but one must be, wrong. Labour cannot be both improving and flat-lining at the same time.
Good analysis. YouGov possibly more urban in its sampling? Or (as I saw suggested) seriously infiltrated by new Momentum members who have signed up for their panels?
UKIP doubling is vote between YouGov polls does lead me thinking "Hmmm.....summats not right" as it doesn't fit with what is being seen on the doorstep.
Once again Carlotta conflates public opinion with what is right/wrong/necessary/unnecessary. No doubt the public would favour a return of hanging. Doesn't make it right.
I have collated polling histories, separated by company, for the period from 1 April to present. Labour VI and deficit vs. the Conservatives is shown. I have selected ICM and YouGov, as they have published the largest number of polls at the most regular intervals throughout the relevant period.
As you can see, ICM have shown no meaningful change in Labour's position throughout the campaign, whereas YouGov's numbers jumped early on, and have risen further since.
Both may be, but one must be, wrong. Labour cannot be both improving and flat-lining at the same time.
Good analysis. YouGov possibly more urban in its sampling? Or (as I saw suggested) seriously infiltrated by new Momentum members who have signed up for their panels?
UKIP doubling is vote between YouGov polls does lead me thinking "Hmmm.....summats not right" as it doesn't fit with what is being seen on the doorstep.
Especially as this YouGov only allowed people to state UKIP who are in constituencies where they are standing.
Once again Carlotta conflates public opinion with what is right/wrong/necessary/unnecessary. No doubt the public would favour a return of hanging. Doesn't make it right.
Will be a joy to watch the PB Tories enthusiastically embrace policies they once bitterly opposed. Presumably the true believers were up at dawn this morning reading their hymn sheet from Central Office.
Will be a joy to watch the PB Tories enthusiastically embrace policies they once bitterly opposed. Presumably the true believers were up at dawn this morning reading their hymn sheet from Central Office.
Not seen much enthusiastic embracing from PB Tories either today or yesterday.
Will be a joy to watch the PB Tories enthusiastically embrace policies they once bitterly opposed. Presumably the true believers were up at dawn this morning reading their hymn sheet from Central Office.
As someone on here once said, you praised the policy, now praise the U Turn.
Distinct lack of rejoicing from the PB Tories on here this morning.
How about a sing-song to cheer everyone up?
"Don't be stupid, be a smarty, Come and join the Nasty party"
The Nasty Party are the ones to want to borrow tens of billions more every year, and load our children and their children with unsustainable debts in order to pay for their fantasy world where only 5% of the population pay for the other 95%.
Yeah, whatever.
Which is the response given by the vast majority of the people, when asked if they want to vote for a terrorist sympathising Marxist as their prime minister, accompanied by a bunch of 1970s throwbacks who can't do sums.
There was some evidence that Universal Free School Meals helped overall performance but this always struck me as surprising. Why does poor Jonny do better at school because rich Frank is not paying for his lunch anymore and does Frank not insist on Mummy providing a packed lunch with his fois gras anyway? It will be interesting to see if the evidence has moved on from the pilots.
It wouldn't actually surprise me. The issue with means-tested FSM is that a lot of people don't claim them. I used to work at a school in South Wales where about 20% were entitled to them - but barely half the cohort actually did claim them. This had all sorts of knock-on effects. For one thing, it meant that around 10% were cash strapped and/or suffering from poor nutritional standards. That had a very bad effect on their concentration and as you can imagine, led to some tough classroom control situations. For another, it meant the school was put in the top bracket in Wales for income, when it should have been about halfway down. Its results were compared to Radyr and Penglais rather than Whitchurch. That meant ESTYN were always slating it.
I've always been in favour of UFSM after that, but the snag is they're not cheap and it's hard to see how to pay for them at present (Labour's proposal on the subject may be politely described as Fascist nonsense put forward by someone with no grasp of the real situation, the intellectual capacity of a particularly dense moron and a deep loathing of anyone slightly richer than they are). It is, counterintuitively, one of the reasons I am such a hawk on deficits. If we weren't sending tens of billions a year to rich oil sheikhs and bankers in interest payments we could spend that money feeding our children instead.
Are the headline figures are based on Q1 (who will you vote for in the GE on 8th June) or Q3 (these are the candidates in your constituency, which will you vote for)?
I don't want my old dad, who had a stroke and spends most of his day desperately remembering to take his 530 pills having to worry about filling in a bloody form to get something he is entitled to.
What will happen is his anxiety will win, he won't fill in the form and he will lose out. Meanwhile a bean counter will see that as a success rather than the dismal failure it is.
My father won't go to see a doc at the best of times. Anything that makes his health more bureaucratic to maintain will lead to his becoming even more sloppy. For crying out loud Labour, get a decent leader and bring these meddling, form-obsessed, curtain-twitching, penny pinching bureaucrats down. May is a dullard.
Are the headline figures are based on Q1 (who will you vote for in the GE on 8th June) or Q3 (these are the candidates in your constituency, which will you vote for)?
Do you have a link to the tables? Couldn't see them on the YG website.
Scrapping universal free school meals for infants is a vote loser for the Tories. Bad move . Stupid, in fact. Pointless penny pinching.
Universal free school meals is good policy. I can't think of a justification for scraping it (as opposed to the other things that are rumoured for the chop which I can construct an agreement for)
It means that poorer families, who would get FSM anyway, are effectively subsidising richer families who don't need FSM.
There are other arguments for the policy, the most persuasive I heard when it was introduced was that it might reduce the stigma of being on FSM in the non universal years, but the subsidy argument is certainly one for removing it.
It also depends on what the money will be used for instead.
Scrapping universal free school meals for infants is a vote loser for the Tories. Bad move . Stupid, in fact. Pointless penny pinching.
Universal free school meals is good policy. I can't think of a justification for scraping it (as opposed to the other things that are rumoured for the chop which I can construct an agreement for)
It means that poorer families, who would get FSM anyway, are effectively subsidising richer families who don't need FSM.
There are other arguments for the policy, the most persuasive I heard when it was introduced was that it might reduce the stigma of being on FSM in the non universal years, but the subsidy argument is certainly one for removing it.
It also depends on what the money will be used for instead.
Distinct lack of rejoicing from the PB Tories on here this morning.
How about a sing-song to cheer everyone up?
"Don't be stupid, be a smarty, Come and join the Nasty party"
The Nasty Party are the ones to want to borrow tens of billions more every year, and load our children and their children with unsustainable debts in order to pay for their fantasy world where only 5% of the population pay for the other 95%.
Yeah, whatever.
Which is the response given by the vast majority of the people, when asked if they want to vote for a terrorist sympathising Marxist as their prime minister, accompanied by a bunch of 1970s throwbacks who can't do sums.
Sorry fat fingers. There is no money to spend elsewhere. It is borrowed.
Will be interesting to see if this is a spending neutral budget, or if the cuts are going to reduce the deficit. Unlikely, given the new target of mid-2020s (grumble).
I have collated polling histories, separated by company, for the period from 1 April to present. Labour VI and deficit vs. the Conservatives is shown. I have selected ICM and YouGov, as they have published the largest number of polls at the most regular intervals throughout the relevant period.
As you can see, ICM have shown no meaningful change in Labour's position throughout the campaign, whereas YouGov's numbers jumped early on, and have risen further since.
Both may be, but one must be, wrong. Labour cannot be both improving and flat-lining at the same time.
Good analysis. YouGov possibly more urban in its sampling? Or (as I saw suggested) seriously infiltrated by new Momentum members who have signed up for their panels?
UKIP doubling is vote between YouGov polls does lead me thinking "Hmmm.....summats not right" as it doesn't fit with what is being seen on the doorstep.
It's just normal variation, around a lead of about 17% for the Conservatives. The very best numbers for Labour still give a result like 1997 in reverse.
Distinct lack of rejoicing from the PB Tories on here this morning.
How about a sing-song to cheer everyone up?
"Don't be stupid, be a smarty, Come and join the Nasty party"
The Nasty Party are the ones to want to borrow tens of billions more every year, and load our children and their children with unsustainable debts in order to pay for their fantasy world where only 5% of the population pay for the other 95%.
Yeah, whatever.
You are right to be sceptical. We are gonna introduce an inverse IHT whereby for every £ you leave over £2m the government adds a £. Fully costed, you ask? It'll be funded by a levy on the sale of wheelchairs. And obviously it'll be higher if your executors can demonstrate that you have hunted the required minimum number of foxes.
Enjoy the next five years, and the five after that. Thereafter, some tweaks to the constitution will make 5 year periods a bit irrelevant.
I think that might be a slightly leading question!
Not a leading question at all. We'll* be seeing many photos and videos in the next few weeks of Corbyn and McDonnell shaking hands with various despots, and of the lovely Diane trying to decide if a policeman costs £30 a year or £500,000 a year, and if she wants to hire 250 of them or 250,000 of them!
*We might not see them, but voters in the top 100 Labour-held targets certainly will.
Here's a report on the cost of means testing. If only 20% of pensioners received the means tested benefit, any cost less than £400 per claimant is a saving (underestimating it because I assumed each pensioner received £100).
"The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that maintaining existing claims for Pension Credit cost £47 per claim in 2010-11, compared to £14 per claim for the non- means-tested State Pension"
New claims cost more than existing.
So if we assume £40/pensioner extra expense and 12.5m pensioners then means testing all costs about £500m. Presumably many who are too wealthy won't bother to apply so that's an overestimate.
Either way - definitely looks like savings can be made.
Don't know if the Tories have decided yet? May have missed it though...
There was some evidence that Universal Free School Meals helped overall performance but this always struck me as surprising. Why does poor Jonny do better at school because rich Frank is not paying for his lunch anymore and does Frank not insist on Mummy providing a packed lunch with his fois gras anyway? It will be interesting to see if the evidence has moved on from the pilots.
It wouldn't actually surprise me. The issue with means-tested FSM is that a lot of people don't claim them. I used to work at a school in South Wales where about 20% were entitled to them - but barely half the cohort actually did claim them. This had all sorts of knock-on effects. For one thing, it meant that around 10% were cash strapped and/or suffering from poor nutritional standards. That had a very bad effect on their concentration and as you can imagine, led to some tough classroom control situations. For another, it meant the school was put in the top bracket in Wales for income, when it should have been about halfway down. Its results were compared to Radyr and Penglais rather than Whitchurch. That meant ESTYN were always slating it.
I've always been in favour of UFSM after that, but the snag is they're not cheap and it's hard to see how to pay for them at present (Labour's proposal on the subject may be politely described as Fascist nonsense put forward by someone with no grasp of the real situation, the intellectual capacity of a particularly dense moron and a deep loathing of anyone slightly richer than they are). It is, counterintuitively, one of the reasons I am such a hawk on deficits. If we weren't sending tens of billions a year to rich oil sheikhs and bankers in interest payments we could spend that money feeding our children instead.
I bow to your hands on experience but I really struggle to understand why there was a reluctance to claim FSMs. Other than possibly the elderly we don't seem to have such inhibitions for other benefits. And for all the reasons you set out the schools themselves have positive incentives to encourage the take up.
It just seems a very expensive solution to a genuine problem. If schools sold FSMs as an educational imperative for the good of the children entitled would it get a better response?
Once again Carlotta conflates public opinion with what is right/wrong/necessary/unnecessary.
Since the rest of the post proceeded from the assumption that the public viewed the GE as 'unnecessary" I think we may safely dismiss it as at odds with the facts. Like most of your posts.
Distinct lack of rejoicing from the PB Tories on here this morning.
How about a sing-song to cheer everyone up?
"Don't be stupid, be a smarty, Come and join the Nasty party"
The Nasty Party are the ones to want to borrow tens of billions more every year, and load our children and their children with unsustainable debts in order to pay for their fantasy world where only 5% of the population pay for the other 95%.
Yeah, whatever.
Which is the response given by the vast majority of the people, when asked if they want to vote for a terrorist sympathising Marxist as their prime minister, accompanied by a bunch of 1970s throwbacks who can't do sums.
You're a bit rattled this morning, aren't you?
LOL, not at all. Quite happy in fact, to see the price on a Labour majority move from 45 to 65 overnight.
Once again Carlotta conflates public opinion with what is right/wrong/necessary/unnecessary. No doubt the public would favour a return of hanging. Doesn't make it right.
I think that might be a slightly leading question!
Not a leading question at all. We'll* be seeing many photos and videos in the next few weeks of Corbyn and McDonnell shaking hands with various despots, and of the lovely Diane trying to decide if a policeman costs £30 a year or £500,000 a year, and if she wants to hire 250 of them or 250,000 of them!
*We might not see them, but voters in the top 100 Labour-held targets certainly will.
So the polls narrowing have had some effect and the Tories are not going after Bootle? That's a bit sad!
Also means I have to resign myself to a third election on the spin where nobody will ask me nicely for my vote. Last person to do so was Williams in Ceredigion. Incidentally he's a nice guy, good constituency MP, hard worker, would expect him to hold on. But in my experience of him he hasn't got the personality or drive to be an effective leader (which I thought was rather odd given he's a former headmaster).
Despite poor media coverage, internal splits and poor leader ratings, Labour’s support is currently at around the same level it was in 2015. This is down to a combination of adding people who will vote Labour because of Jeremy Corbyn and holding on to previous Labour voters despite of him. But the current coalition is unstable and might not hold
It's a tricky one. Corbyn certainly pulls in some, and repels others. The dilemma is that getting rid of him will certainly lose some or all of the people who like him. But the people he alienates are quite likely to be alienated by any replacement as well. I am glad I don't have to solve that one.
As the analysis points out, many of those Corbyn pulls in are those who didn't vote last time - so the question must remain open whether they will vote this time.....
Does yougov pick up more non voters than other pollsters. I recently filled in a survey with voting intention but it didn't ask the scale on which I was likely to vote or specifically if I voted before?
Are the headline figures are based on Q1 (who will you vote for in the GE on 8th June) or Q3 (these are the candidates in your constituency, which will you vote for)?
Do you have a link to the tables? Couldn't see them on the YG website.
Don't think they're up yet.....time was they'd go up at 6am regular as clockwork...I blame 'the cuts'.....
The mood music does seem to have changed overnight in respect of the Tory Manifesto. Yesterday the suggestion that this was going to be higher spending and higher taxes with a surprising degree of government activism. The leaks this morning suggest a Manifesto which looks realistically at what a country with a £50bn deficit heading into uncertain times can afford. This is inevitably going to result in a lot of hard and unpopular choices. It will certainly be radically different from what Labour is offering and it will be interesting to see how much of a taste for realism the UK has.
It is long past time that some of the freebies showered on pensioners were ended but the challenge is to find simple and cost effective ways of doing this. In respect of the winter fuel allowance one way would be to require pensioners who pay higher rate tax to repay it in the same way as I do with my CB in their tax returns. This would not hit a lot of pensioners but would affect those with generous index linked pensions.
There was some evidence that Universal Free School Meals helped overall performance but this always struck me as surprising. Why does poor Jonny do better at school because rich Frank is not paying for his lunch anymore and does Frank not insist on Mummy providing a packed lunch with his fois gras anyway? It will be interesting to see if the evidence has moved on from the pilots.
Being serious about people contributing to their care, even if only on death, seems inevitable. The priority of taxpayers is to ensure that there is a decent level of care available for everyone, not to ensure that people receive huge inheritances after the State has picked up the tab.
Selling this as a grown up approach is not going to be easy. We have too many politicians telling us what is or should be "free". It will be an interesting experiment.
Have there been any schoolkids called Frank in the last 50 years?
It wouldn't actually surprise me. The issue with means-tested FSM is that a lot of people don't claim them. I used to work at a school in South Wales where about 20% were entitled to them - but barely half the cohort actually did claim them. ... I've always been in favour of UFSM after that, but the snag is they're not cheap and it's hard to see how to pay for them at present (Labour's proposal on the subject may be politely described as Fascist nonsense put forward by someone with no grasp of the real situation, the intellectual capacity of a particularly dense moron and a deep loathing of anyone slightly richer than they are). It is, counterintuitively, one of the reasons I am such a hawk on deficits. If we weren't sending tens of billions a year to rich oil sheikhs and bankers in interest payments we could spend that money feeding our children instead.
I bow to your hands on experience but I really struggle to understand why there was a reluctance to claim FSMs. Other than possibly the elderly we don't seem to have such inhibitions for other benefits. And for all the reasons you set out the schools themselves have positive incentives to encourage the take up.
It just seems a very expensive solution to a genuine problem. If schools sold FSMs as an educational imperative for the good of the children entitled would it get a better response?
I think you underestimate how much of a stigma it still comes with in some areas. The town was working in had only just lost its steelworks and work, and self-reliance, was still seen as very important. Seeking help was seen as shameful. Some on minimum wage jobs didn't even realise that help didn't just come to the unemployed. Cannock is very similar.
Had I been teaching in Merthyr I expect it would have been different!
Edit - and to answer your last question yes, I think it would. Good food is more important than textbooks or iBoards. But it's not seen that way.
Means testing the pensioners' Winter Fuel Payment is very easy because it will be aligned to the existing Pension Credit system. If they had any sense they would incorporate the Xmas Bonus and Cold Weather Payments into a single Winter Grant.
May's potential problem with universality and means testing is that there are a big rump of people who fall between means test beneficiaries and 'middle class freeloaders'.
Would it not be possible to use the income tax system? If you pay tax you don't get the winter grant, if you don't, you do
The downward drift feels a bit 2010, but the range of possible outcomes is still from workably large to eye-poppingly humongous majority. The really interesting focus is on what happens to Labour afterwards, so even a downward drift in the lead has its merits.
The downward drift feels a bit 2010, but the range of possible outcomes is still from workably large to eye-poppingly humongous majority. The really interesting focus is on what happens to Labour afterwards, so even a downward drift in the lead has its merits.
I bow to your hands on experience but I really struggle to understand why there was a reluctance to claim FSMs. Other than possibly the elderly we don't seem to have such inhibitions for other benefits. And for all the reasons you set out the schools themselves have positive incentives to encourage the take up.
It just seems a very expensive solution to a genuine problem. If schools sold FSMs as an educational imperative for the good of the children entitled would it get a better response?
I think you underestimate how much of a stigma it still comes with in some areas. The town was working in had only just lost its steelworks and work, and self-reliance, was still seen as very important. Seeking help was seen as shameful. Some on minimum wage jobs didn't even realise that help didn't just come to the unemployed. Cannock is very similar.
Had I been teaching in Merthyr I expect it would have been different!
Then its the stigma that is the problem and what needs to be challenged. And almost all of those working on minimum wage with school age children will already be claiming WFTCs. Add it into that.
The mood music does seem to have changed overnight in respect of the Tory Manifesto. Yesterday the suggestion that this was going to be higher spending and higher taxes with a surprising degree of government activism. The leaks this morning suggest a Manifesto which looks realistically at what a country with a £50bn deficit heading into uncertain times can afford. This is inevitably going to result in a lot of hard and unpopular choices. It will certainly be radically different from what Labour is offering and it will be interesting to see how much of a taste for realism the UK has.
It is long past time that some of the freebies showered on pensioners were ended but the challenge is to find simple and cost effective ways of doing this. In respect of the winter fuel allowance one way would be to require pensioners who pay higher rate tax to repay it in the same way as I do with my CB in their tax returns. This would not hit a lot of pensioners but would affect those with generous index linked pensions.
There was some evidence that Universal Free School Meals helped overall performance but this always struck me as surprising. Why does poor Jonny do better at school because rich Frank is not paying for his lunch anymore and does Frank not insist on Mummy providing a packed lunch with his fois gras anyway? It will be interesting to see if the evidence has moved on from the pilots.
Being serious about people contributing to their care, even if only on death, seems inevitable. The priority of taxpayers is to ensure that there is a decent level of care available for everyone, not to ensure that people receive huge inheritances after the State has picked up the tab.
Selling this as a grown up approach is not going to be easy. We have too many politicians telling us what is or should be "free". It will be an interesting experiment.
Have there been any schoolkids called Frank in the last 50 years?
Not too many - but 'Frankie' has made a recent appearance:
The mood music does seem to have changed overnight in respect of the Tory Manifesto. Yesterday the suggestion that this was going to be higher spending and higher taxes with a surprising degree of government activism. The leaks this morning suggest a Manifesto which looks realistically at what a country with a £50bn deficit heading into uncertain times can afford. This is inevitably going to result in a lot of hard and unpopular choices. It will certainly be radically different from what Labour is offering and it will be interesting to see how much of a taste for realism the UK has.
It is long past time that some of the freebies showered on pensioners were ended but the challenge is to find simple and cost effective ways of doing this. In respect of the winter fuel allowance one way would be to require pensioners who pay higher rate tax to repay it in the same way as I do with my CB in their tax returns. This would not hit a lot of pensioners but would affect those with generous index linked pensions.
There was some evidence that Universal Free School Meals helped overall performance but this always struck me as surprising. Why does poor Jonny do better at school because rich Frank is not paying for his lunch anymore and does Frank not insist on Mummy providing a packed lunch with his fois gras anyway? It will be interesting to see if the evidence has moved on from the pilots.
Being serious about people contributing to their care, even if only on death, seems inevitable. The priority of taxpayers is to ensure that there is a decent level of care available for everyone, not to ensure that people receive huge inheritances after the State has picked up the tab.
Selling this as a grown up approach is not going to be easy. We have too many politicians telling us what is or should be "free". It will be an interesting experiment.
Have there been any schoolkids called Frank in the last 50 years?
My great nephew, just like his dad and his granddad. But I think you are missing the point...
The mood music does seem to have changed overnight in respect of the Tory Manifesto. Yesterday the suggestion that this was going to be higher spending and higher taxes with a surprising degree of government activism. The leaks this morning suggest a Manifesto which looks realistically at what a country with a £50bn deficit heading into uncertain times can afford. This is inevitably going to result in a lot of hard and unpopular choices. It will certainly be radically different from what Labour is offering and it will be interesting to see how much of a taste for realism the UK has.
It is long past time that some of the freebies showered on pensioners were ended but the challenge is to find simple and cost effective ways of doing this. In respect of the winter fuel allowance one way would be to require pensioners who pay higher rate tax to repay it in the same way as I do with my CB in their tax returns. This would not hit a lot of pensioners but would affect those with generous index linked pensions.
There was some evidence that Universal Free School Meals helped overall performance but this always struck me as surprising. Why does poor Jonny do better at school because rich Frank is not paying for his lunch anymore and does Frank not insist on Mummy providing a packed lunch with his fois gras anyway? It will be interesting to see if the evidence has moved on from the pilots.
Being serious about people contributing to their care, even if only on death, seems inevitable. The priority of taxpayers is to ensure that there is a decent level of care available for everyone, not to ensure that people receive huge inheritances after the State has picked up the tab.
Selling this as a grown up approach is not going to be easy. We have too many politicians telling us what is or should be "free". It will be an interesting experiment.
Have there been any schoolkids called Frank in the last 50 years?
Not too many - but 'Frankie' has made a recent appearance:
I think that might be a slightly leading question!
Not a leading question at all. We'll* be seeing many photos and videos in the next few weeks of Corbyn and McDonnell shaking hands with various despots, and of the lovely Diane trying to decide if a policeman costs £30 a year or £500,000 a year, and if she wants to hire 250 of them or 250,000 of them!
*We might not see them, but voters in the top 100 Labour-held targets certainly will.
So the polls narrowing have had some effect and the Tories are not going after Bootle? That's a bit sad!
Also means I have to resign myself to a third election on the spin where nobody will ask me nicely for my vote. Last person to do so was Williams in Ceredigion. Incidentally he's a nice guy, good constituency MP, hard worker, would expect him to hold on. But in my experience of him he hasn't got the personality or drive to be an effective leader (which I thought was rather odd given he's a former headmaster).
I worked in a local authority in the education department and FSM had been a stigma, but each year we made a push to get people to register and year on year the stigma reduced and the take up increased. This was two ish years ago in a poor city.
The downward drift feels a bit 2010, but the range of possible outcomes is still from workably large to eye-poppingly humongous majority. The really interesting focus is on what happens to Labour afterwards, so even a downward drift in the lead has its merits.
It looks to me that Corbyn has now solidifies Ed Miliband 2015 voters behind him after his manifesto and Farron is polling the same as Clegg, the main change as confirmed by yougov is over half the 2015 UKIP voters are now voting Tory
The downward drift feels a bit 2010, but the range of possible outcomes is still from workably large to eye-poppingly humongous majority. The really interesting focus is on what happens to Labour afterwards, so even a downward drift in the lead has its merits.
I bow to your hands on experience but I really struggle to understand why there was a reluctance to claim FSMs. Other than possibly the elderly we don't seem to have such inhibitions for other benefits. And for all the reasons you set out the schools themselves have positive incentives to encourage the take up.
It just seems a very expensive solution to a genuine problem. If schools sold FSMs as an educational imperative for the good of the children entitled would it get a better response?
I think you underestimate how much of a stigma it still comes with in some areas. The town was working in had only just lost its steelworks and work, and self-reliance, was still seen as very important. Seeking help was seen as shameful. Some on minimum wage jobs didn't even realise that help didn't just come to the unemployed. Cannock is very similar.
Had I been teaching in Merthyr I expect it would have been different!
Then its the stigma that is the problem and what needs to be challenged. And almost all of those working on minimum wage with school age children will already be claiming WFTCs. Add it into that.
Quite. The 'means testing' is already in place for other benefits, things like free school meals and winter allowances could be incorporated into the existing system (especially the new Universal Benefit) for very little extra cost.
We do need to be careful to ensure we don't catch people like @Jonathan's father from any more form filling though.
Despite poor media coverage, internal splits and poor leader ratings, Labour’s support is currently at around the same level it was in 2015. This is down to a combination of adding people who will vote Labour because of Jeremy Corbyn and holding on to previous Labour voters despite of him. But the current coalition is unstable and might not hold
The (unspecified %) slice of voters going Labour this time who weren't Labour last time yet still don't like Corbyn must be rather suspect. Those who will forgive Corbyn being an IRA supporter and give him their vote, but couldn't bear the sight of Ed Miliband eating a bacon sandwich? Hmmmmm.....
The 15% who voted Labour last time and will this time but don't like Corbyn are surely going to be the target of Sir Lynton's character assassination of Corbyn in the next three weeks - how many will stick with actually voting, and how many will come to think "you know what..." and sit on their hands. Hmmmmm.....
The 11% who didn't vote Labour last time but like Corbyn look to be the flakiest segment - how many old Communists can there be? And how many will actually get off their arses on the day (how many are actually eligible to vote?) Hmmmmmm.....
Lots of potential for Labour not to deliver anything like the YouGov vote share.
Tory manifesto will say nobody will have to sell their homes in their lifetimes to pay for care only after death and only from assets above £100 000, migrant numbers will be cut and firms charged for hiring migrants and migrants charged for using the NHS and winter fuel payments means tested and universal free school meals ended http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39956541
The mood music does seem to have changed overnight in respect of the Tory Manifesto. Yesterday the suggestion that this was going to be higher spending and higher taxes with a surprising degree of government activism. The leaks this morning suggest a Manifesto which looks realistically at what a country with a £50bn deficit heading into uncertain times can afford. This is inevitably going to result in a lot of hard and unpopular choices. It will certainly be radically different from what Labour is offering and it will be interesting to see how much of a taste for realism the UK has.
It is long past time that some of the freebies showered on pensioners were ended but the challenge is to find simple and cost effective ways of doing this. In respect of the winter fuel allowance one way would be to require pensioners who pay higher rate tax to repay it in the same way as I do with my CB in their tax returns. This would not hit a lot of pensioners but would affect those with generous index linked pensions.
There was some evidence that Universal Free School Meals helped overall performance but this always struck me as surprising. Why does poor Jonny do better at school because rich Frank is not paying for his lunch anymore and does Frank not insist on Mummy providing a packed lunch with his fois gras anyway? It will be interesting to see if the evidence has moved on from the pilots.
Being serious about people contributing to their care, even if only on death, seems inevitable. The priority of taxpayers is to ensure that there is a decent level of care available for everyone, not to ensure that people receive huge inheritances after the State has picked up the tab.
Selling this as a grown up approach is not going to be easy. We have too many politicians telling us what is or should be "free". It will be an interesting experiment.
Have there been any schoolkids called Frank in the last 50 years?
Our CEO's 8 year old is called Frank. His five year old is called Ray. The mother is American!
I have collated polling histories, separated by company, for the period from 1 April to present. Labour VI and deficit vs. the Conservatives is shown. I have selected ICM and YouGov, as they have published the largest number of polls at the most regular intervals throughout the relevant period.
As you can see, ICM have shown no meaningful change in Labour's position throughout the campaign, whereas YouGov's numbers jumped early on, and have risen further since.
Both may be, but one must be, wrong. Labour cannot be both improving and flat-lining at the same time.
Good analysis. YouGov possibly more urban in its sampling? Or (as I saw suggested) seriously infiltrated by new Momentum members who have signed up for their panels?
UKIP doubling is vote between YouGov polls does lead me thinking "Hmmm.....summats not right" as it doesn't fit with what is being seen on the doorstep.
Especially as this YouGov only allowed people to state UKIP who are in constituencies where they are standing.
That is electrifying news surely? It makes it not like-for-like with previous polls - not necessarily a criticism, when circumstances change polling has to change too. But it means that kippers in ukip-free constituencies are stating a second choice, so less likely to convert into actually going and voting.
The other thing is, infiltrating yougov is so easy and effective and momentum have so few options, I would be astonished if they weren't doing it.
I bow to your hands on experience but I really struggle to understand why there was a reluctance to claim FSMs. Other than possibly the elderly we don't seem to have such inhibitions for other benefits. And for all the reasons you set out the schools themselves have positive incentives to encourage the take up.
It just seems a very expensive solution to a genuine problem. If schools sold FSMs as an educational imperative for the good of the children entitled would it get a better response?
I think you underestimate how much of a stigma it still comes with in some areas. The town was working in had only just lost its steelworks and work, and self-reliance, was still seen as very important. Seeking help was seen as shameful. Some on minimum wage jobs didn't even realise that help didn't just come to the unemployed. Cannock is very similar.
Had I been teaching in Merthyr I expect it would have been different!
Then its the stigma that is the problem and what needs to be challenged. And almost all of those working on minimum wage with school age children will already be claiming WFTCs. Add it into that.
Quite. The 'means testing' is already in place for other benefits, things like free school meals and winter allowances could be incorporated into the existing system (especially the new Universal Benefit) for very little extra cost.
We do need to be careful to ensure we don't catch people like @Jonathan's father from any more form filling though.
It's a tricky one - I see the objections to means testing, but my view is that all adult benefits should be means tested, not least because it is the common weal that is being distributed, and a more realistic reflection of every other part of life. Engaging the population with their own financial future is much more sensible than showering them with goodies.
The mood music does seem to have changed overnight in respect of the Tory Manifesto. Yesterday the suggestion that this was going to be higher spending and higher taxes with a surprising degree of government activism. The leaks this morning suggest a Manifesto which looks realistically at what a country with a £50bn deficit heading into uncertain times can afford. This is inevitably going to result in a lot of hard and unpopular choices. It will certainly be radically different from what Labour is offering and it will be interesting to see how much of a taste for realism the UK has.
It is long past time that some of the freebies showered on pensioners were ended but the challenge is to find simple and cost effective ways of doing this. In respect of the winter fuel allowance one way would be to require pensioners who pay higher rate tax to repay it in the same way as I do with my CB in their tax returns. This would not hit a lot of pensioners but would affect those with generous index linked pensions.
There was some evidence that Universal Free School Meals helped overall performance but this always struck me as surprising. Why does poor Jonny do better at school because rich Frank is not paying for his lunch anymore and does Frank not insist on Mummy providing a packed lunch with his fois gras anyway? It will be interesting to see if the evidence has moved on from the pilots.
Being serious about people contributing to their care, even if only on death, seems inevitable. The priority of taxpayers is to ensure that there is a decent level of care available for everyone, not to ensure that people receive huge inheritances after the State has picked up the tab.
Selling this as a grown up approach is not going to be easy. We have too many politicians telling us what is or should be "free". It will be an interesting experiment.
If the price of ensuring poor kids get a good meal each day is giving well-off kids a free one, then it looks like money well spent to me.
. . . Being serious about people contributing to their care, even if only on death, seems inevitable. The priority of taxpayers is to ensure that there is a decent level of care available for everyone, not to ensure that people receive huge inheritances after the State has picked up the tab.
Selling this as a grown up approach is not going to be easy. We have too many politicians telling us what is or should be "free". It will be an interesting experiment.
This is the big one. It looks like much more than an "experiment" to me. It includes housing in personal assets. Wow! This contradicts the Conservatives' positive IHT moves under Osborne. I think it will have major effects on the personal savings rate (pushing it up) and upper-end house prices (pushing them down).
Despite poor media coverage, internal splits and poor leader ratings, Labour’s support is currently at around the same level it was in 2015. This is down to a combination of adding people who will vote Labour because of Jeremy Corbyn and holding on to previous Labour voters despite of him. But the current coalition is unstable and might not hold
Oh god oh god oh god. I agree with the measures proposed.
Why should Alan Sugar get a winter fuel allowance? Why should Simon Cowell's son get free school meals? Why shouldn't people who own houses use some of that wealth to pay for their own well-being? Why shouldn't there be a nudge to find home-grown talent?
It is realistic and hard-headed (not hearted). And right for the times we are in. Asking why it wasn't done earlier is conceding its merit.
The Tories are suffering a little from complacency. Given their manifesto will have fewer goodies than labours massive spending, I don't see how it will lead to a boost, and labour are consistently improving. A well off majority now looks most plausible, not a landslide. The only reason it won't be is if Tory attacks finally hit home harder (obviously the overall message has already worked, that's why they're in the lead) because they've 'barely started' yet, but they've been saying that for weeks, views are fixed now, if you've gone back to labour why switch now?
Unless people believe we're headed for another polling disaster, which is possible, all that stuff about sub 25 scores will just have been laughable. Look out for the guest sub 10 lead. I'd expect 12 or so as the final lead.
Despite poor media coverage, internal splits and poor leader ratings, Labour’s support is currently at around the same level it was in 2015. This is down to a combination of adding people who will vote Labour because of Jeremy Corbyn and holding on to previous Labour voters despite of him. But the current coalition is unstable and might not hold
Lots of potential for Labour not to deliver anything like the YouGov vote share.
Half a mile wide and a quarter of an inch deep, to borrow a phrase.....
I am not so sure, if you voted for Ed Miliband you are likely to vote for Corbyn and Labour is about where it was in 2015, the big shift has been UKIP 2015 voters becoming Tory 2017 voters, UKIP acted as a gateway for pre 2015 Labour voters to now become Tories
I bow to your hands on experience but I really struggle to understand why there was a reluctance to claim FSMs. Other than possibly the elderly we don't seem to have such inhibitions for other benefits. And for all the reasons you set out the schools themselves have positive incentives to encourage the take up.
It just seems a very expensive solution to a genuine problem. If schools sold FSMs as an educational imperative for the good of the children entitled would it get a better response?
I think you underestimate how much of a stigma it still comes with in some areas. The town was working in had only just lost its steelworks and work, and self-reliance, was still seen as very important. Seeking help was seen as shameful. Some on minimum wage jobs didn't even realise that help didn't just come to the unemployed. Cannock is very similar.
Had I been teaching in Merthyr I expect it would have been different!
Then its the stigma that is the problem and what needs to be challenged. And almost all of those working on minimum wage with school age children will already be claiming WFTCs. Add it into that.
Quite. The 'means testing' is already in place for other benefits, things like free school meals and winter allowances could be incorporated into the existing system (especially the new Universal Benefit) for very little extra cost.
We do need to be careful to ensure we don't catch people like @Jonathan's father from any more form filling though.
It's a tricky one - I see the objections to means testing, but my view is that all adult benefits should be means tested, not least because it is the common weal that is being distributed, and a more realistic reflection of every other part of life. Engaging the population with their own financial future is much more sensible than showering them with goodies.
The problem I have is that with means testing is that there has to be a cut off point: I earn £99pw and get free school meals, you earn £100pw and don't, hence you're worse off despite earning more. It brings into question exactly why and how govt dishes out "benefits" in their multitude of guises.
The answer is always straightforward, if we tax people less they have more money and govt has less paperwork, rather than taxing them and giving it back.
I bow to your hands on experience but I really struggle to understand why there was a reluctance to claim FSMs. Other than possibly the elderly we don't seem to have such inhibitions for other benefits. And for all the reasons you set out the schools themselves have positive incentives to encourage the take up.
It just seems a very expensive solution to a genuine problem. If schools sold FSMs as an educational imperative for the good of the children entitled would it get a better response?
I think you underestimate how much of a stigma it still comes with in some areas. The town was working in had only just lost its steelworks and work, and self-reliance, was still seen as very important. Seeking help was seen as shameful. Some on minimum wage jobs didn't even realise that help didn't just come to the unemployed. Cannock is very similar.
Had I been teaching in Merthyr I expect it would have been different!
Then its the stigma that is the problem and what needs to be challenged. And almost all of those working on minimum wage with school age children will already be claiming WFTCs. Add it into that.
Quite. The 'means testing' is already in place for other benefits, things like free school meals and winter allowances could be incorporated into the existing system (especially the new Universal Benefit) for very little extra cost.
We do need to be careful to ensure we don't catch people like @Jonathan's father from any more form filling though.
It's a tricky one - I see the objections to means testing, but my view is that all adult benefits should be means tested, not least because it is the common weal that is being distributed, and a more realistic reflection of every other part of life. Engaging the population with their own financial future is much more sensible than showering them with goodies.
The problem I have is that with means testing is that there has to be a cut off point: I earn £99pw and get free school meals, you earn £100pw and don't, hence you're worse off despite earning more. It brings into question exactly why and how govt dishes out "benefits" in their multitude of guises.
The answer is always straightforward, if we tax people less they have more money and govt has less paperwork, rather than taxing them and giving it back.
Could be folded into tax returns, that way there can be a taper? I agree with your last point in general though.
Am I right in saying that polls, especially leading up to elections generally understate the Conservatives?
Shy tories and all that.
Not universally, though often. But with Corbyn so disliked and the Tories so high in the polls, shy labour seems fairly plausible this time. It might explain why labour support has picked up as they were shy before but now admitting they will vote labour again.
Much will be made of the popularity of parties’ manifesto pledges, but ultimately they are much less important to how people vote than other factors like leadership and core values.
Baxterising YouGov's latest numbers suggests the following possible outcome:
Con .................. 371 Lab ................... 197 SNP .................... 55 (Sturgeon must love Baxter!) LibDem ................. 5 (Yes, just the one Black Cab!) Plaid ..................... 3 Green ................... 1 (Yes, just the one push bike!) N.I. ..................... 18
Total (incl Spkr): 650
Con Majority ....... 92
Not altogether surprising post wannacry's impact on the NHS and post Labour being very much centre stage with their manifesto, resulting in support for both the Tories and LibDems being knocked back. The Tories launch their plans today; it will be interesting to see how the polls have moved overall by the weekend.
I think heavy targeting of Labour marginals by May and Crosby and CCHQ and Corbyn's going all over the place should see the Tories scrape the 100+ majority May wants but it will be more a Thatcher 1987 majority than a Thatcher 1983 or Blair 1997 or 2001
The downward drift feels a bit 2010, but the range of possible outcomes is still from workably large to eye-poppingly humongous majority. The really interesting focus is on what happens to Labour afterwards, so even a downward drift in the lead has its merits.
The ground game is there in the mix also.
Paging IOS!!
All jokes aside, they do have a much larger membership, even if most of the new ones don't help out, if even some do the ground game will npbe more intense.
The downward drift feels a bit 2010, but the range of possible outcomes is still from workably large to eye-poppingly humongous majority. The really interesting focus is on what happens to Labour afterwards, so even a downward drift in the lead has its merits.
The ground game is there in the mix also.
Paging IOS!!
All jokes aside, they do have a much larger membership, even if most of the new ones don't help out, if even some do the ground game will npbe more intense.
Baxterising YouGov's latest numbers suggests the following possible outcome:
Con .................. 371 Lab ................... 197 SNP .................... 55 (Sturgeon must love Baxter!) LibDem ................. 5 (Yes, just the one Black Cab!) Plaid ..................... 3 Green ................... 1 (Yes, just the one push bike!) N.I. ..................... 18
Total (incl Spkr): 650
Con Majority ....... 92
Not altogether surprising post wannacry's impact on the NHS and post Labour being very much centre stage with their manifesto, resulting in support for both the Tories and LibDems being knocked back. The Tories launch their plans today; it will be interesting to see how the polls have moved overall by the weekend.
I think heavy targeting of Labour marginals by May and Crosby and CCHQ and Corbyn's going all over the place should see the Tories scrape the 100+ majority May wants but it will be more a Thatcher 1987 majority than a Thatcher 1983 or Blair 1997 or 2001
Betting on Tory wins in some of the more unlikely places touted here on PB looks braver now than it did a fortnight ago.
Oh god oh god oh god. I agree with the measures proposed.
Why should Alan Sugar get a winter fuel allowance? Why should Simon Cowell's son get free school meals? Why shouldn't people who own houses use some of that wealth to pay for their own well-being? Why shouldn't there be a nudge to find home-grown talent?
It is realistic and hard-headed (not hearted). And right for the times we are in. Asking why it wasn't done earlier is conceding its merit.
Oh god oh god oh god. I agree with the measures proposed.
Why should Alan Sugar get a winter fuel allowance? Why should Simon Cowell's son get free school meals? Why shouldn't people who own houses use some of that wealth to pay for their own well-being? Why shouldn't there be a nudge to find home-grown talent?
It is realistic and hard-headed (not hearted). And right for the times we are in. Asking why it wasn't done earlier is conceding its merit.
We all know why subsidies for well off pensioners and Death Taxes were not tackled earlier, but Corbyn has gifted the elderly vote to the Tories and so now it does not have to be subsidised. Means testing for adult and using equity in homes to pay for care are both essential and could and should have been in place years ago.
I am less convinced on school meals. Giving well-off kids a free lunch to ensure less well-off kids get one too is worth it in my view.
Much will be made of the popularity of parties’ manifesto pledges, but ultimately they are much less important to how people vote than other factors like leadership and core values.
Yep. People aren't swayed massively by promises to hold inquiries into the raid on the golden temp,e in Amritsar.
But the manifestos can affect the mood music, what people think of the core values.
Labours was scattered but with a heavy focus on spending and workers rights. The lds was pretty realistic with a focus on many things, but it didn't even get paper headlines on the day it was launched, and insofar as anyone will hear, all it was was trying to overturn Brexit.
Morning all. Anyone know when postal votes go out?
In theory they can go out now (with further small batches for late applicants posted subsequently). In practice I would expect most EROs to be finalising their arrangements for a posting early next week (I have seen a few councils suggesting Tuesday for the main mailing)
The downward drift feels a bit 2010, but the range of possible outcomes is still from workably large to eye-poppingly humongous majority. The really interesting focus is on what happens to Labour afterwards, so even a downward drift in the lead has its merits.
The ground game is there in the mix also.
Paging IOS!!
All jokes aside, they do have a much larger membership, even if most of the new ones don't help out, if even some do the ground game will npbe more intense.
That was true in 15 too.
I don't think it will impact things too much - but the membership is hundreds of thousands larger was what I meant, not merely larger than the Tories. There are more people to use even if most of the half million do t help.
Morning all. Anyone know when postal votes go out?
In theory they can go out now (with further small batches for late applicants posted subsequently). In practice I would expect most EROs to be finalising their arrangements for a posting early next week.
As ever, with hardly any time for overseas electors to get their ballots back in time.
It looks to me that Corbyn has now solidifies Ed Miliband 2015 voters behind him after his manifesto and Farron is polling the same as Clegg, the main change as confirmed by yougov is over half the 2015 UKIP voters are now voting Tory
Comments
Under 10 seats, get on it....
DYOR.
"The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that maintaining existing claims for
Pension Credit cost £47 per claim in 2010-11, compared to £14 per claim for the non-
means-tested State Pension"
New claims cost more than existing.
So if we assume £40/pensioner extra expense and 12.5m pensioners then means testing all costs about £500m. Presumably many who are too wealthy won't bother to apply so that's an overestimate.
Either way - definitely looks like savings can be made.
https://twitter.com/ktumulty/status/864966156616118272
We are all entitled to what the govt of the day decides to give us, its an arbitrary thing.
It is long past time that some of the freebies showered on pensioners were ended but the challenge is to find simple and cost effective ways of doing this. In respect of the winter fuel allowance one way would be to require pensioners who pay higher rate tax to repay it in the same way as I do with my CB in their tax returns. This would not hit a lot of pensioners but would affect those with generous index linked pensions.
There was some evidence that Universal Free School Meals helped overall performance but this always struck me as surprising. Why does poor Jonny do better at school because rich Frank is not paying for his lunch anymore and does Frank not insist on Mummy providing a packed lunch with his fois gras anyway? It will be interesting to see if the evidence has moved on from the pilots.
Being serious about people contributing to their care, even if only on death, seems inevitable. The priority of taxpayers is to ensure that there is a decent level of care available for everyone, not to ensure that people receive huge inheritances after the State has picked up the tab.
Selling this as a grown up approach is not going to be easy. We have too many politicians telling us what is or should be "free". It will be an interesting experiment.
UKIP doubling is vote between YouGov polls does lead me thinking "Hmmm.....summats not right" as it doesn't fit with what is being seen on the doorstep.
No doubt the public would favour a return of hanging. Doesn't make it right.
I've always been in favour of UFSM after that, but the snag is they're not cheap and it's hard to see how to pay for them at present (Labour's proposal on the subject may be politely described as Fascist nonsense put forward by someone with no grasp of the real situation, the intellectual capacity of a particularly dense moron and a deep loathing of anyone slightly richer than they are). It is, counterintuitively, one of the reasons I am such a hawk on deficits. If we weren't sending tens of billions a year to rich oil sheikhs and bankers in interest payments we could spend that money feeding our children instead.
I think that might be a slightly leading question!
There is no m
It's still early.
There is no money to spend elsewhere. It is borrowed.
Enjoy the next five years, and the five after that. Thereafter, some tweaks to the constitution will make 5 year periods a bit irrelevant.
*We might not see them, but voters in the top 100 Labour-held targets certainly will.
May have missed it though...
It just seems a very expensive solution to a genuine problem. If schools sold FSMs as an educational imperative for the good of the children entitled would it get a better response?
because bob knows best....obvs....
Also means I have to resign myself to a third election on the spin where nobody will ask me nicely for my vote. Last person to do so was Williams in Ceredigion. Incidentally he's a nice guy, good constituency MP, hard worker, would expect him to hold on. But in my experience of him he hasn't got the personality or drive to be an effective leader (which I thought was rather odd given he's a former headmaster).
Had I been teaching in Merthyr I expect it would have been different!
Edit - and to answer your last question yes, I think it would. Good food is more important than textbooks or iBoards. But it's not seen that way.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/how-popular-is-my-name-new-ons-tool-shows-how-many-other-people-share-your-name-a7221551.html
We do need to be careful to ensure we don't catch people like @Jonathan's father from any more form filling though.
The 15% who voted Labour last time and will this time but don't like Corbyn are surely going to be the target of Sir Lynton's character assassination of Corbyn in the next three weeks - how many will stick with actually voting, and how many will come to think "you know what..." and sit on their hands. Hmmmmm.....
The 11% who didn't vote Labour last time but like Corbyn look to be the flakiest segment - how many old Communists can there be? And how many will actually get off their arses on the day (how many are actually eligible to vote?) Hmmmmmm.....
Lots of potential for Labour not to deliver anything like the YouGov vote share.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39956541
The other thing is, infiltrating yougov is so easy and effective and momentum have so few options, I would be astonished if they weren't doing it.
Shy tories and all that.
Why should Alan Sugar get a winter fuel allowance? Why should Simon Cowell's son get free school meals? Why shouldn't people who own houses use some of that wealth to pay for their own well-being? Why shouldn't there be a nudge to find home-grown talent?
It is realistic and hard-headed (not hearted). And right for the times we are in. Asking why it wasn't done earlier is conceding its merit.
Unless people believe we're headed for another polling disaster, which is possible, all that stuff about sub 25 scores will just have been laughable. Look out for the guest sub 10 lead. I'd expect 12 or so as the final lead.
The answer is always straightforward, if we tax people less they have more money and govt has less paperwork, rather than taxing them and giving it back.
Much will be made of the popularity of parties’ manifesto pledges, but ultimately they are much less important to how people vote than other factors like leadership and core values.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/12/do-manifestos-matter/
I see Mr. Topping is being assimilated. His distinctiveness will be added to the strong stable cube. Resistance is futile.
Possibly.
Housing benefits, tax credits, FSMs, fuel allowance, I'm sure I've missed some, let's just all pay less tax and let the market take its course.
Housing benefits grossly distort the property market and as usual its the less well off that lose out in the long run.
She's really starting to grate. I'm not surprised Corbyn is catching up.
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-it-s-time-to-scrap-the-tory-migration-cap-a3541346.html
I am less convinced on school meals. Giving well-off kids a free lunch to ensure less well-off kids get one too is worth it in my view.
But the manifestos can affect the mood music, what people think of the core values.
Labours was scattered but with a heavy focus on spending and workers rights. The lds was pretty realistic with a focus on many things, but it didn't even get paper headlines on the day it was launched, and insofar as anyone will hear, all it was was trying to overturn Brexit.