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.
Isn't that making the assumptions that school meals are good and are eaten.
Another YouGov that raises an eyebrow, UKiP +3, Con -4? - OK, I was prepared to see Labour benefit from a manifesto launch and extensive media coverage, but a UKiP surge that goes against every other pollster is odd. The obvious questions is, is this comparing like for like, or has YouGov fiddled with their methodology again?
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 don't see how Baxter arrives at those figures - there are only 26 Labour seats vulnerable to the 3.2% swing implied by this Yougov poll. That would give Labour 206 seats plus any clawed back from the SNP.
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).
Probably why no one has floated his name as a future leader even though if the LDs are reduced to 4 (which seems more likely than 15) he would probably, though not definitely, be one of them.
The key on this poll in terms of the final result wouldn't seem to be the lead but the Tories dipping under that 46-48 band. That's the figure to watch to see if it trends. If it doesn't then this poll is just white noise, if it does, a few bets are going to fall short!
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.
Perhaps. I see the challenge but nevertheless that is one for the implementation. Being heartless (I am a Tory, after all), one could say that while the system should try to make people feel good about themselves and avoid stigma, that should end when there is a bill to pay to do so.
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.
More time than they used to get, and should be enough for anyone living in a major city, or in Europe, as most ex pats do; more than a week to go each way.
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. [da snippety]
Have there been any schoolkids called Frank in the last 50 years?
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)
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).
What did you expect? Brexit has to be paid for - extra borrowing is just a variation of the Punishment budget
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.
Perhaps. I see the challenge but nevertheless that is one for the implementation. Being heartless (I am a Tory, after all), one could say that while the system should try to make people feel good about themselves and avoid stigma, that should end when there is a bill to pay to do so.
It's not just a fear of stigma. Unfortunately, a lot of children live in households in which the adults cannot be arsed.
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.....
If it turns out, after the election, that the polls were skewed by a bunch of hardcore Corbynites trying to game the polling panels, I'll laugh my head off.
I also think we are going to see a huge disconnect between vote share and seat totals, Labour are going to weigh the votes in Islington and Manchester but lose seats in the WM and NE.
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.
Because children who would benefit from free school meals don't eat them when they are conditional. Either because the child shuns them as they don't want to be stigmatised by their peers or the parents don't take up the offer as they are too proud to accept help.
Making them universal frees both parent and child from that stigmatisation and increases uptake.
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.
I expect the Tories to win c.400. It's the regional swings, and swings in Labour Leave seats, that are so good for the Conservatives.
I'd be angry that the Tories are 10 years late on the deficit, because either their initial promise was unrealistic guff or they've failed, but it's not like anyone cares now, the others will go after the deficit on day to day spending, and the Tories are barely the austerity party on this.
The 2 manifestos illustrate a party who knows what it promises will be thrown back at it when it comes to running the next Government versus one who knows it can say what it likes as it won't have to implement any of it.
I can't see many 'doorstep' easy sale messages for Tory candidates based on what we know so far... it's about giving room for the Tories in power rather than helping them win votes to get power.
I guess they think that's worth losing some votes over this and that its ok to do so when the alternative is so feeble.
Fascinating and not a little scary that Corbyn can do better than Miliband.
is it non-voters being engaged by his populism?
Tories really need to let these inattentive types know exactly what they might be letting themselves in for. I fear that the tory manifesto with its eminently sensible removal of some freebies for undeserving (free school meals for rich kids? daft, rightly ditched) will lead to a further hardening of support for an uncosted lefty freebie handouts policy offer.
If Corbyn can hang on with a half decent result he could win in 2022. That would be the worst thing the Tories had ever managed to achieve. He must be beaten so badly that he and his acolytes are gone forever. That is what this election is about for me
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.
Because children who would benefit from free school meals don't eat them when they are conditional. Either because the child shuns them as they don't want to be stigmatised by their peers or the parents don't take up the offer as they are too proud to accept help.
Making them universal frees both parent and child from that stigmatisation and increases uptake.
Plus "rich Frank" is relative - this is about state schools.
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?
There is/was a stigma attached to claiming them. This boy or that girl is "on free school meals" - it's a poverty indicator. UFSM has been a great success, from what we can see. My boy gets them along with all the other children in his class (many of whom come from low income families). There is no division and all the children get a nutritious lunch.
It's starting to look very unlikely the Tories will get near 50%, which isn't particularly surprising given previous history.
Most people seemed to think mid 40s was more probable after the sudden jump to late 40s and that seems about right, 45 is possible, but maybe a little lower. I think most assumed labour would struggle to breach 30 but they're comfortably over at the moment and still going up. I'll say 200 is still a challenge for labour, though they'd be ecstatic to get it.
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.
Yep, the overseas ballots could have gone out already once the nominations closed. Not that I'm too massively worried this time.
Fascinating and not a little scary that Corbyn can do better than Miliband.
is it non-voters being engaged by his populism?
Tories really need to let these inattentive types know exactly what they might be letting themselves in for. I fear that the tory manifesto with its eminently sensible removal of some freebies for undeserving (free school meals for rich kids? daft, rightly ditched) will lead to a further hardening of support for an uncosted lefty freebie handouts policy offer.
If Corbyn can hang on with a half decent result he could win in 2022. That would be the worst thing the Tories had ever managed to achieve. He must be beaten so badly that he and his acolytes are gone forever. That is what this election is about for me
Signed up 70 new registrations at JCP and local College yesterday.
Almost all Lab. nearly all had never voted before.
It's starting to look very unlikely the Tories will get near 50%, which isn't particularly surprising given previous history.
Most people seemed to think mid 40s was more probable after the sudden jump to late 40s and that seems about right, 45 is possible, but maybe a little lower. I think most assumed labour would struggle to breach 30 but they're comfortably over at the moment and still going up. I'll say 200 is still a challenge for labour, though they'd be ecstatic to get it.
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. [da snippety]
Have there been any schoolkids called Frank in the last 50 years?
3256 new "Frank"s named from 2015 to 1996
So rare, but they do exist.
I don't know anyone called Frank under the age of 68.
Fascinating and not a little scary that Corbyn can do better than Miliband.
is it non-voters being engaged by his populism?
Tories really need to let these inattentive types know exactly what they might be letting themselves in for. I fear that the tory manifesto with its eminently sensible removal of some freebies for undeserving (free school meals for rich kids? daft, rightly ditched) will lead to a further hardening of support for an uncosted lefty freebie handouts policy offer.
If Corbyn can hang on with a half decent result he could win in 2022. That would be the worst thing the Tories had ever managed to achieve. He must be beaten so badly that he and his acolytes are gone forever. That is what this election is about for me
There are still people, left and right, who want him beaten really badly so a lesson is learned. Sadly, those who adore him, those who hate the Tories, and those who want to protect the brand, may make that impossible. Why would they learn lessons if he does better than ed m, and loses seats but only so many he really can blame thstvthe party MPs divided them?
It's starting to look very unlikely the Tories will get near 50%, which isn't particularly surprising given previous history.
Yes, a good 30% of the population just can't help themselves.
Having said that, if we didn't have FPTP, I suspect Corbyn's voteshare would be going through the floor to sub 20% and the balance to a mix of other soft-left parties.
It's starting to look very unlikely the Tories will get near 50%, which isn't particularly surprising given previous history.
Most people seemed to think mid 40s was more probable after the sudden jump to late 40s and that seems about right, 45 is possible, but maybe a little lower. I think most assumed labour would struggle to breach 30 but they're comfortably over at the moment and still going up. I'll say 200 is still a challenge for labour, though they'd be ecstatic to get it.
morning len
The difference is I would not call it a success, it's still a big loss, but he was right and realistic for once.
Fascinating and not a little scary that Corbyn can do better than Miliband.
is it non-voters being engaged by his populism?
Tories really need to let these inattentive types know exactly what they might be letting themselves in for. I fear that the tory manifesto with its eminently sensible removal of some freebies for undeserving (free school meals for rich kids? daft, rightly ditched) will lead to a further hardening of support for an uncosted lefty freebie handouts policy offer.
If Corbyn can hang on with a half decent result he could win in 2022. That would be the worst thing the Tories had ever managed to achieve. He must be beaten so badly that he and his acolytes are gone forever. That is what this election is about for me
Signed up 70 new registrations at JCP and local College yesterday.
Almost all Lab. nearly all had never voted before.
...and hardly any of them will this time either. Call me a cynic, many have.
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).
What did you expect? Brexit has to be paid for - extra borrowing is just a variation of the Punishment budget
Fascinating and not a little scary that Corbyn can do better than Miliband.
is it non-voters being engaged by his populism?
Tories really need to let these inattentive types know exactly what they might be letting themselves in for. I fear that the tory manifesto with its eminently sensible removal of some freebies for undeserving (free school meals for rich kids? daft, rightly ditched) will lead to a further hardening of support for an uncosted lefty freebie handouts policy offer.
If Corbyn can hang on with a half decent result he could win in 2022. That would be the worst thing the Tories had ever managed to achieve. He must be beaten so badly that he and his acolytes are gone forever. That is what this election is about for me
It's starting to look very unlikely the Tories will get near 50%, which isn't particularly surprising given previous history.
Yes, a good 30% of the population just can't help themselves.
Having said that, if we didn't have FPTP, I suspect Corbyn's voteshare would be going through the floor to sub 20% and the balance to a mix of other soft-left parties.
@JournoStephen: Tories running Aberdeen. Labour in civil war. The SNP attacked for not being pro-independence enough. It's not even 9am in Scotland.
And yet overall Corbyn could end up only 30 or so seats behind ed m. Yesterday's events in Scotland could undermine tactical voting all over, harming Tory and labour chances there too.
Maybe I am becoming like King Canute* or something, but I just refuse to believe these Labour numbers. Just refuse. Corbyn is pure poison as far as i can see to vast swathes of the electorate and particularly C and D class voters.
Where are these 32%? Not in marginal seats.
The only explanation that makes any sense is he is piling them up in Bootle.
* Canute as popularly imagined. Yes I know what really happened - no need to trouble PB with that again.
Fascinating and not a little scary that Corbyn can do better than Miliband.
is it non-voters being engaged by his populism?
Tories really need to let these inattentive types know exactly what they might be letting themselves in for. I fear that the tory manifesto with its eminently sensible removal of some freebies for undeserving (free school meals for rich kids? daft, rightly ditched) will lead to a further hardening of support for an uncosted lefty freebie handouts policy offer.
If Corbyn can hang on with a half decent result he could win in 2022. That would be the worst thing the Tories had ever managed to achieve. He must be beaten so badly that he and his acolytes are gone forever. That is what this election is about for me
Signed up 70 new registrations at JCP and local College yesterday.
Almost all Lab. nearly all had never voted before.
...and hardly any of them will this time either. Call me a cynic, many have.
Your a cynic!!
JCP a good place to register as most have to know their NI number.
Some seemed very enthusiastic (Jezza is different) others not so sure
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.
Perhaps. I see the challenge but nevertheless that is one for the implementation. Being heartless (I am a Tory, after all), one could say that while the system should try to make people feel good about themselves and avoid stigma, that should end when there is a bill to pay to do so.
It's not just a fear of stigma. Unfortunately, a lot of children live in households in which the adults cannot be arsed.
Spot on. One of the many "real" problems facing this (and other) countries which are not tackled because they are too difficult.
Means testing is expensive. Are these proposals a Trojan Horse for a snoopers' charter reporting all bank account activity to HM Treasury? Fully automated, real-time means testing is cheap (for some values of cheap).
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.
Of course, this is not all immigration, but it shows just how complex it is. Targets and black and white rules are not going to help us post-Brexit. We have to understand talented, entrepreneurial people have choices. And we are going to need them more than ever in the years to come.
Maybe I am becoming like King Canute* or something, but I just refuse to believe these Labour numbers. Just refuse. Corbyn is pure poison as far as i can see to vast swathes of the electorate and particularly C and D class voters.
Where are these 32%? Not in marginal seats.
The only explanation that makes any sense is he is piling them up in Bootle.
* Canute as popularly imagined. Yes I know what really happened - no need to trouble PB with that again.
30-32% is nothing to boast about when your opponent gets 47-48%.
Maybe I am becoming like King Canute* or something, but I just refuse to believe these Labour numbers. Just refuse. Corbyn is pure poison as far as i can see to vast swathes of the electorate and particularly C and D class voters.
Where are these 32%? Not in marginal seats.
The only explanation that makes any sense is he is piling them up in Bootle.
* Canute as popularly imagined. Yes I know what really happened - no need to trouble PB with that again.
It's hard to believe, but where do you think both parties really are in that case?
Just had a punt on Trump going in 2017. If you think he's a goner, then the Betfair odds aren't bad, and you can cover the possibility of it dragging on until the beginning of 2018 with another small stake. If there is anything in this: http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/edva-mashals-trump/2901/ then the odds ought to shorten soon.
Maybe I am becoming like King Canute* or something, but I just refuse to believe these Labour numbers. Just refuse. Corbyn is pure poison as far as i can see to vast swathes of the electorate and particularly C and D class voters.
Where are these 32%? Not in marginal seats.
The only explanation that makes any sense is he is piling them up in Bootle.
* Canute as popularly imagined. Yes I know what really happened - no need to trouble PB with that again.
I agree Lab are piling up where they need it least hence.
Means testing is expensive. Are these proposals a Trojan Horse for a snoopers' charter reporting all bank account activity to HM Treasury? Fully automated, real-time means testing is cheap (for some values of cheap).
May has form from the Home Office. She loves snooping, and tutting at others lifestyles.
Think of her as the Daily Mail in human form. The future looks like having a tabloid whacking a human face forever.
I'd imagine the MSM have their leaders written for the week run in to the GE. I'm thinking not so much vote Jeremy amongst them
Vote to save labour/limit Tory domination probably will, and the public know that means vote labour, not ld, judging by the polls.
Indeed that is what is happening. Labour people reluctantly backing Corbyn to keep the party in contention as a political force. My worry is that sympathy votes will be interpreted as a vote for Corbyn. That all said, if the Tories run home with a majority of 80+, I doubt even he will withstand the pressure to quit. The naive millennial who support him are too young to remember the 1980s - they need to taste defeat.
Fascinating and not a little scary that Corbyn can do better than Miliband.
is it non-voters being engaged by his populism?
Tories really need to let these inattentive types know exactly what they might be letting themselves in for. I fear that the tory manifesto with its eminently sensible removal of some freebies for undeserving (free school meals for rich kids? daft, rightly ditched) will lead to a further hardening of support for an uncosted lefty freebie handouts policy offer.
If Corbyn can hang on with a half decent result he could win in 2022. That would be the worst thing the Tories had ever managed to achieve. He must be beaten so badly that he and his acolytes are gone forever. That is what this election is about for me
Signed up 70 new registrations at JCP and local College yesterday.
Almost all Lab. nearly all had never voted before.
...and hardly any of them will this time either. Call me a cynic, many have.
Your a cynic!!
JCP a good place to register as most have to know their NI number.
Some seemed very enthusiastic (Jezza is different) others not so sure
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.
You don't have to tell anyone you're claiming!
a few years ago we would regularly get letters from school telling us to PLEASE claim for free meals if we were entitled as it also got the school other linked funding, and it explained how to do it fully confidentially
If people still don't do it, well it's hard to know how to help those who won't help themselves :-/
Taxpayers funding free meals for people who can perfectly well afford it is a waste of money. Ditto universal winter fuel payments. Rightly ditched.
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. [da snippety]
Have there been any schoolkids called Frank in the last 50 years?
3256 new "Frank"s named from 2015 to 1996
So rare, but they do exist.
I don't know anyone called Frank under the age of 68.
Of course, this is not all immigration, but it shows just how complex it is. Targets and black and white rules are not going to help us post-Brexit. We have to understand talented, entrepreneurial people have choices. And we are going to need them more than ever in the years to come.
It's not complex at all, immigration rules should be based on criteria, plenty of other countries manage it perfectly well.
I'd imagine the MSM have their leaders written for the week run in to the GE. I'm thinking not so much vote Jeremy amongst them
Vote to save labour/limit Tory domination probably will, and the public know that means vote labour, not ld, judging by the polls.
Indeed that is what is happening. Labour people reluctantly backing Corbyn to keep the party in contention as a political force. My worry is that sympathy votes will be interpreted as a vote for Corbyn. That all said, if the Tories run home with a majority of 80+, I doubt even he will withstand the pressure to quit. The naive millennial who support him are too young to remember the 1980s - they need to taste defeat.
If Corbyn gets 30% or so then even if May gets a majority of around 100 I think the membership would re elect him
This latest YouGov has UKIP doubling its vote share. I am not sure that has really happened.
It's always important to remember that the polls in 2015 systematically overstated the Labour vote. Miliband was generally getting more than 32% vote shares in the run-up to polling day.
Means testing is expensive. Are these proposals a Trojan Horse for a snoopers' charter reporting all bank account activity to HM Treasury? Fully automated, real-time means testing is cheap (for some values of cheap).
May has form from the Home Office. She loves snooping, and tutting at others lifestyles.
Think of her as the Daily Mail in human form. The future looks like having a tabloid whacking a human face forever.
Quite right. She is like a parish council chairwoman - a fully fledged curtain-twitching chief of the busybodyocracy.
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.
The "milk snatcher" attacks, of course, came long before that when she was a minister in Heath's government and was scrapping free school milk for 7-11 year olds. Edward Short, Labour's shadow minister, said it was "the meanest and most unworthy thing" he had seen in 20 years, quietly ignoring the fact that he had personally scrapped free milk for secondary school pupils 3 years previously. Provision for infants was scrapped by Shirley Williams in the next Labour government.
This latest YouGov has UKIP doubling its vote share. I am not sure that has really happened.
It's always important to remember that the polls in 2015 systematically overstated the Labour vote. Miliband was generally getting more than 32% vote shares in the run-up to polling day.
6% for UKIP would mean about 12% in the seats they're contesting which is almost the same as at GE2015. Definitely looks wrong.
I'd imagine the MSM have their leaders written for the week run in to the GE. I'm thinking not so much vote Jeremy amongst them
Vote to save labour/limit Tory domination probably will, and the public know that means vote labour, not ld, judging by the polls.
Indeed that is what is happening. Labour people reluctantly backing Corbyn to keep the party in contention as a political force. My worry is that sympathy votes will be interpreted as a vote for Corbyn. That all said, if the Tories run home with a majority of 80+, I doubt even he will withstand the pressure to quit. The naive millennial who support him are too young to remember the 1980s - they need to taste defeat.
If Corbyn gets 30% or so then even if May gets a majority of around 100 I think the membership would re elect him
I'd imagine the MSM have their leaders written for the week run in to the GE. I'm thinking not so much vote Jeremy amongst them
Vote to save labour/limit Tory domination probably will, and the public know that means vote labour, not ld, judging by the polls.
Indeed that is what is happening. Labour people reluctantly backing Corbyn to keep the party in contention as a political force. My worry is that sympathy votes will be interpreted as a vote for Corbyn. That all said, if the Tories run home with a majority of 80+, I doubt even he will withstand the pressure to quit. The naive millennial who support him are too young to remember the 1980s - they need to taste defeat.
If Corbyn gets 30% or so then even if May gets a majority of around 100 I think the membership would re elect him
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.
You don't have to tell anyone you're claiming!
a few years ago we would regularly get letters from school telling us to PLEASE claim for free meals if we were entitled as it also got the school other linked funding, and it explained how to do it fully confidentially
If people still don't do it, well it's hard to know how to help those who won't help themselves :-/
Taxpayers funding free meals for people who can perfectly well afford it is a waste of money. Ditto universal winter fuel payments. Rightly ditched.
The teachers/staff mention it. There's a stigma - not rational but there it is.
Maybe I am becoming like King Canute* or something, but I just refuse to believe these Labour numbers. Just refuse. Corbyn is pure poison as far as i can see to vast swathes of the electorate and particularly C and D class voters.
Where are these 32%? Not in marginal seats.
The only explanation that makes any sense is he is piling them up in Bootle.
* Canute as popularly imagined. Yes I know what really happened - no need to trouble PB with that again.
30-32% is nothing to boast about when your opponent gets 47-48%.
I'm surprised the Greens seem to be holding up. I'd be willing to accept Lab on 32% if the Greens are on 1%
I'd imagine the MSM have their leaders written for the week run in to the GE. I'm thinking not so much vote Jeremy amongst them
Vote to save labour/limit Tory domination probably will, and the public know that means vote labour, not ld, judging by the polls.
Indeed that is what is happening. Labour people reluctantly backing Corbyn to keep the party in contention as a political force. My worry is that sympathy votes will be interpreted as a vote for Corbyn. That all said, if the Tories run home with a majority of 80+, I doubt even he will withstand the pressure to quit. The naive millennial who support him are too young to remember the 1980s - they need to taste defeat.
Labour's long-term problem is that the taste of victory is no better than the taste of defeat.
I expect the Tories to win c.400. It's the regional swings, and swings in Labour Leave seats, that are so good for the Conservatives.
I'm pitching in the same ballpark.
Con 400 - 420 Lab 160 - 180 SNP 45 - 50 LibDem 8 - 12 Others 20 - 22
I think this time we are very much aligned on SNP and LibDems, Jack! Tories possibly a tad high/Labour a tad low - reckon there are going to be a raft of Tory near-misses, Labour with a raft of super-marginals (many of which will structurally be moving away from Labour). Which will make the balancing act for Labour of defending these super-marginals/looking to make gains in 2022 quite tricky.
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. [da snippety]
Have there been any schoolkids called Frank in the last 50 years?
3256 new "Frank"s named from 2015 to 1996
So rare, but they do exist.
I don't know anyone called Frank under the age of 68.
Not a football fan then?
I know nothing about football whatosever, and can't stand the sport.
Needless to say, the Conservative manifesto has attracted plenty of interest not least on the issue of the funding of social care. I've written about this on here before as I have some knowledge so a few thoughts/questions:
1) The actual number of people requiring care is still small as a proportion of the general elderly population and "care" comes in many shapes and sizes from home based care to placement in an alternative residential facility.
2) Within the latter, you have the "general" care homes for those requiring less care right through to the dementia facilities and homes for those with severely restricted mobility and other issues. These specialised homes are the areas of largest expense but perhaps going forward those of highest increasing demand.
3) I don't quite see how this will work from a local authority perspective. If a person's property is sold for £500k now to fund care provision, that money is available now, while the person is alive. Will authorities have to "borrow" against the value of that property asset to fund the person's care while they are alive - fine, if the value of the asset outstrips the rise in the cost of the care but what happens if it doesn't ?
4) More and more people will seek to reduce the actual assets owned by the person requiring care by transferring property and other assets into trusts or directly transferring them to children or grandchildren leaving the person requiring care with "nothing" and the State having to pick up the entire cost.
I'm also concerned about the bureaucracy and the "care industry" seeing this as a licence to make money and for the more unscrupulous to profit from confusion. Until we can put in place a system whereby individuals, from an early age, can make adequate financial provision for later life (including pensions as well as care costs), it may just have to be the State will have to pick up the tab with the costs funded via general taxation.
Fascinating and not a little scary that Corbyn can do better than Miliband.
is it non-voters being engaged by his populism?
Tories really need to let these inattentive types know exactly what they might be letting themselves in for. I fear that the tory manifesto with its eminently sensible removal of some freebies for undeserving (free school meals for rich kids? daft, rightly ditched) will lead to a further hardening of support for an uncosted lefty freebie handouts policy offer.
If Corbyn can hang on with a half decent result he could win in 2022. That would be the worst thing the Tories had ever managed to achieve. He must be beaten so badly that he and his acolytes are gone forever. That is what this election is about for me
Signed up 70 new registrations at JCP and local College yesterday.
Almost all Lab. nearly all had never voted before.
...and hardly any of them will this time either. Call me a cynic, many have.
Your a cynic!!
JCP a good place to register as most have to know their NI number.
Some seemed very enthusiastic (Jezza is different) others not so sure
If May wants to cut immigration I would clamp down on family reunion visas, or, if you prefer, be slightly more liberal on highly skilled worker visas at the same time.
I think family visas are a bit of scam. You should be able to marry whomever you want to worldwide, but that should carry no automatic right of entry into the UK. It should be capped, priced, or outright restricted, and spouses should qualify on their own merits or not at all.
Of course, this might need qualifying via a British Bill of Rights lest the Right to Family Life allow every Auntie, Uncle and Brother going free admittance.
This latest YouGov has UKIP doubling its vote share. I am not sure that has really happened.
It's always important to remember that the polls in 2015 systematically overstated the Labour vote. Miliband was generally getting more than 32% vote shares in the run-up to polling day.
Needless to say, the Conservative manifesto has attracted plenty of interest not least on the issue of the funding of social care. I've written about this on here before as I have some knowledge so a few thoughts/questions:
1) The actual number of people requiring care is still small as a proportion of the general elderly population and "care" comes in many shapes and sizes from home based care to placement in an alternative residential facility.
2) Within the latter, you have the "general" care homes for those requiring less care right through to the dementia facilities and homes for those with severely restricted mobility and other issues. These specialised homes are the areas of largest expense but perhaps going forward those of highest increasing demand.
3) I don't quite see how this will work from a local authority perspective. If a person's property is sold for £500k now to fund care provision, that money is available now, while the person is alive. Will authorities have to "borrow" against the value of that property asset to fund the person's care while they are alive - fine, if the value of the asset outstrips the rise in the cost of the care but what happens if it doesn't ?
4) More and more people will seek to reduce the actual assets owned by the person requiring care by transferring property and other assets into trusts or directly transferring them to children or grandchildren leaving the person requiring care with "nothing" and the State having to pick up the entire cost.
I'm also concerned about the bureaucracy and the "care industry" seeing this as a licence to make money and for the more unscrupulous to profit from confusion. Until we can put in place a system whereby individuals, from an early age, can make adequate financial provision for later life (including pensions as well as care costs), it may just have to be the State will have to pick up the tab with the costs funded via general taxation.
4) is quite right. I intend to be near broke by age 80, and fox jr to have my assets. You can't take it with you.
Maybe I am becoming like King Canute* or something, but I just refuse to believe these Labour numbers. Just refuse. Corbyn is pure poison as far as i can see to vast swathes of the electorate and particularly C and D class voters.
Where are these 32%? Not in marginal seats.
The only explanation that makes any sense is he is piling them up in Bootle.
* Canute as popularly imagined. Yes I know what really happened - no need to trouble PB with that again.
It's hard to believe, but where do you think both parties really are in that case?
I guess I am not being very scientific, in not believing polls. But personally I cannot see Labour getting above 25. No way on God's green earth.
One explanation is possibly that voters are disregarding Corbyn as they know he will not be PM and so are starting to be persuaded by their local Lab MP saying - "I'm a decent guy, I've done good things, don't blame me for Corbyn' etc etc.
The other (and the one I am inclined to go for) is that the polls are (obviously) just telling us what people might do. When faced with an actual ballot box and the prospect of Corbyn then they will desert on masse. A bit like '92.
Mind you I was completely wrong on Trump and Le Pen so DYOR :-)
I'd imagine the MSM have their leaders written for the week run in to the GE. I'm thinking not so much vote Jeremy amongst them
Vote to save labour/limit Tory domination probably will, and the public know that means vote labour, not ld, judging by the polls.
Indeed that is what is happening. Labour people reluctantly backing Corbyn to keep the party in contention as a political force. My worry is that sympathy votes will be interpreted as a vote for Corbyn. That all said, if the Tories run home with a majority of 80+, I doubt even he will withstand the pressure to quit. The naive millennial who support him are too young to remember the 1980s - they need to taste defeat.
If Corbyn gets 30% or so then even if May gets a majority of around 100 I think the membership would re elect him
I wouldnt
He would have delivered a thumping Tory Majority
Only because the UKIP vote went Tory, he would have kept the Labour vote intact and members will say he deserves another go
I'd imagine the MSM have their leaders written for the week run in to the GE. I'm thinking not so much vote Jeremy amongst them
Vote to save labour/limit Tory domination probably will, and the public know that means vote labour, not ld, judging by the polls.
Indeed that is what is happening. Labour people reluctantly backing Corbyn to keep the party in contention as a political force. My worry is that sympathy votes will be interpreted as a vote for Corbyn. That all said, if the Tories run home with a majority of 80+, I doubt even he will withstand the pressure to quit. The naive millennial who support him are too young to remember the 1980s - they need to taste defeat.
If Corbyn gets 30% or so then even if May gets a majority of around 100 I think the membership would re elect him
Unlikely, but possible. The key thing is that he looks like losing most of his union support.
I was about to say that we're getting so many of these polls with Labour trending upwards that I'm starting to wonder if I'm reading this entire election all wrong - until I reminded myself that the pollsters are starting to diverge; we don't know, of course, which of them is right (or, at any rate, least wrong); and the reasons to suppose that Labour won't do as well as is being suggested are just as good now as they were 24 hours ago. All in all, it's a mystery worthy of Toyah.
One thing is clear: *IF* Labour comes out of this election with at, or very close to, 30% of the vote then we will know its absolute floor for future reference. If somebody as transparently unfit for office as Corbyn (to say nothing of the utterly repulsive McDonnell) can get that close to power then it will demonstrate that Labour could do similarly well under quite literally anybody. Nearly a third of the country would back a future reincarnation of Pol Pot or the Emperor Nero quite willingly, just so long as he wore a red rosette. It's quite enough to make one wonder if democracy has a long-term future.
Not true. Tony Blair would not get 30%
He probably would.
And now, more numbers...
Conservative leads over the past week: 14, 15, 18, 18, 18, 20, 20, 14, 18, 20, 13
Up and down like a yo-yo.
He wouldn't. Polls show that Blair is even more unpopular than Corbyn.
You're comparing apples with cider.
Corbyn is leader of the party today with all the prestige and hate that comes with it. Blair is history with all that comes with that. People who are partisans of every single colour can hate on Blair without it affecting anything but all the reasons people hold their nose and vote for Corbyn would still exist with Blair if he was magically party leader again. But since he isn't people have no need to hold their nose with him.
There are many who wouldn't hold their noses and vote for Blair.
A lot of Corbyn's base is made up of political purists who will only vote for a Labour Party that is well to the left.
I'd imagine the MSM have their leaders written for the week run in to the GE. I'm thinking not so much vote Jeremy amongst them
Vote to save labour/limit Tory domination probably will, and the public know that means vote labour, not ld, judging by the polls.
Indeed that is what is happening. Labour people reluctantly backing Corbyn to keep the party in contention as a political force. My worry is that sympathy votes will be interpreted as a vote for Corbyn. That all said, if the Tories run home with a majority of 80+, I doubt even he will withstand the pressure to quit. The naive millennial who support him are too young to remember the 1980s - they need to taste defeat.
If Corbyn gets 30% or so then even if May gets a majority of around 100 I think the membership would re elect him
I wouldnt
He would have delivered a thumping Tory Majority
Hang on. I thought you voted for him, and loved the guy?
I expect the Tories to win c.400. It's the regional swings, and swings in Labour Leave seats, that are so good for the Conservatives.
I'm pitching in the same ballpark.
Con 400 - 420 Lab 160 - 180 SNP 45 - 50 LibDem 8 - 12 Others 20 - 22
There's plenty of evidence that Labour are holding up best in London and the South, where it doesn't help them, while suffering big swings in Wales, West Midlands, Yorkshire, the North East, where there are lots of vulnerable seats.
Maybe I am becoming like King Canute* or something, but I just refuse to believe these Labour numbers. Just refuse. Corbyn is pure poison as far as i can see to vast swathes of the electorate and particularly C and D class voters.
Where are these 32%? Not in marginal seats.
The only explanation that makes any sense is he is piling them up in Bootle.
* Canute as popularly imagined. Yes I know what really happened - no need to trouble PB with that again.
It's hard to believe, but where do you think both parties really are in that case?
I guess I am not being very scientific, in not believing polls. But personally I cannot see Labour getting above 25. No way on God's green earth.
One explanation is possibly that voters are disregarding Corbyn as they know he will not be PM and so are starting to be persuaded by their local Lab MP saying - "I'm a decent guy, I've done good things, don't blame me for Corbyn' etc etc.
The other (and the one I am inclined to go for) is that the polls are (obviously) just telling us what people might do. When faced with an actual ballot box and the prospect of Corbyn then they will desert on masse. A bit like '92.
Mind you I was completely wrong on Trump and Le Pen so DYOR :-)
And we shouldn't project the antipathy the majority have for Corbyn onto the minority for whom he is a big positive....?
@joncstone: The Tory care plan is basically inheritance tax on £100k+ homes (fair) but levied at random on those unlucky enough to get dementia (unfair)
Needless to say, the Conservative manifesto has attracted plenty of interest not least on the issue of the funding of social care. I've written about this on here before as I have some knowledge so a few thoughts/questions:
1) The actual number of people requiring care is still small as a proportion of the general elderly population and "care" comes in many shapes and sizes from home based care to placement in an alternative residential facility.
2) Within the latter, you have the "general" care homes for those requiring less care right through to the dementia facilities and homes for those with severely restricted mobility and other issues. These specialised homes are the areas of largest expense but perhaps going forward those of highest increasing demand.
3) I don't quite see how this will work from a local authority perspective. If a person's property is sold for £500k now to fund care provision, that money is available now, while the person is alive. Will authorities have to "borrow" against the value of that property asset to fund the person's care while they are alive - fine, if the value of the asset outstrips the rise in the cost of the care but what happens if it doesn't ?
4) More and more people will seek to reduce the actual assets owned by the person requiring care by transferring property and other assets into trusts or directly transferring them to children or grandchildren leaving the person requiring care with "nothing" and the State having to pick up the entire cost.
I'm also concerned about the bureaucracy and the "care industry" seeing this as a licence to make money and for the more unscrupulous to profit from confusion. Until we can put in place a system whereby individuals, from an early age, can make adequate financial provision for later life (including pensions as well as care costs), it may just have to be the State will have to pick up the tab with the costs funded via general taxation.
4) is quite right. I intend to be near broke by age 80, and fox jr to have my assets. You can't take it with you.
Any majority north of 40 gives May a healthy working position which she should easily get. Corbyn still in place is a dream scenario for her. Apart from anything else, Labour sensible heads will have to split for their own sanity and should become the official opposition
Needless to say, the Conservative manifesto has attracted plenty of interest not least on the issue of the funding of social care. I've written about this on here before as I have some knowledge so a few thoughts/questions:
1) The actual number of people requiring care is still small as a proportion of the general elderly population and "care" comes in many shapes and sizes from home based care to placement in an alternative residential facility.
2) Within the latter, you have the "general" care homes for those requiring less care right through to the dementia facilities and homes for those with severely restricted mobility and other issues. These specialised homes are the areas of largest expense but perhaps going forward those of highest increasing demand.
3) I don't quite see how this will work from a local authority perspective. If a person's property is sold for £500k now to fund care provision, that money is available now, while the person is alive. Will authorities have to "borrow" against the value of that property asset to fund the person's care while they are alive - fine, if the value of the asset outstrips the rise in the cost of the care but what happens if it doesn't ?
4) More and more people will seek to reduce the actual assets owned by the person requiring care by transferring property and other assets into trusts or directly transferring them to children or grandchildren leaving the person requiring care with "nothing" and the State having to pick up the entire cost.
I'm also concerned about the bureaucracy and the "care industry" seeing this as a licence to make money and for the more unscrupulous to profit from confusion. Until we can put in place a system whereby individuals, from an early age, can make adequate financial provision for later life (including pensions as well as care costs), it may just have to be the State will have to pick up the tab with the costs funded via general taxation.
4) is quite right. I intend to be near broke by age 80, and fox jr to have my assets. You can't take it with you.
Needless to say, the Conservative manifesto has attracted plenty of interest not least on the issue of the funding of social care. I've written about this on here before as I have some knowledge so a few thoughts/questions:
1) The actual number of people requiring care is still small as a proportion of the general elderly population and "care" comes in many shapes and sizes from home based care to placement in an alternative residential facility.
2) Within the latter, you have the "general" care homes for those requiring less care right through to the dementia facilities and homes for those with severely restricted mobility and other issues. These specialised homes are the areas of largest expense but perhaps going forward those of highest increasing demand.
3) I don't quite see how this will work from a local authority perspective. If a person's property is sold for £500k now to fund care provision, that money is available now, while the person is alive. Will authorities have to "borrow" against the value of that property asset to fund the person's care while they are alive - fine, if the value of the asset outstrips the rise in the cost of the care but what happens if it doesn't ?
4) More and more people will seek to reduce the actual assets owned by the person requiring care by transferring property and other assets into trusts or directly transferring them to children or grandchildren leaving the person requiring care with "nothing" and the State having to pick up the entire cost.
I'm also concerned about the bureaucracy and the "care industry" seeing this as a licence to make money and for the more unscrupulous to profit from confusion. Until we can put in place a system whereby individuals, from an early age, can make adequate financial provision for later life (including pensions as well as care costs), it may just have to be the State will have to pick up the tab with the costs funded via general taxation.
4) is quite right. I intend to be near broke by age 80, and fox jr to have my assets. You can't take it with you.
You can't take it with you, but you could leave some for the many and not the few. How much of your NHS salary is covered by the duty on other people's estates?
The teachers/staff mention it. There's a stigma - not rational but there it is.
+1 it was the bane of my life as a school Governor.... - could you fill in this form it saves you £1100 a year on meals and gives the school £2000... Even removing cash from the school didn't help...
I expect the Tories to win c.400. It's the regional swings, and swings in Labour Leave seats, that are so good for the Conservatives.
I'm pitching in the same ballpark.
Con 400 - 420 Lab 160 - 180 SNP 45 - 50 LibDem 8 - 12 Others 20 - 22
There's plenty of evidence that Labour are holding up best in London and the South, where it doesn't help them, while suffering big swings in Wales, West Midlands, Yorkshire, the North East, where there are lots of vulnerable seats.
When you say London and the South don't you mean London?
From what I see and hear its essentially a London based pressure group nowadays.
Comments
Another YouGov that raises an eyebrow, UKiP +3, Con -4? - OK, I was prepared to see Labour benefit from a manifesto launch and extensive media coverage, but a UKiP surge that goes against every other pollster is odd. The obvious questions is, is this comparing like for like, or has YouGov fiddled with their methodology again?
https://mobile.twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/865108697927864320
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/5tdopkoktm/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-04-060113.pdf (P4)
I also think we are going to see a huge disconnect between vote share and seat totals, Labour are going to weigh the votes in Islington and Manchester but lose seats in the WM and NE.
Making them universal frees both parent and child from that stigmatisation and increases uptake.
I can't see many 'doorstep' easy sale messages for Tory candidates based on what we know so far... it's about giving room for the Tories in power rather than helping them win votes to get power.
I guess they think that's worth losing some votes over this and that its ok to do so when the alternative is so feeble.
is it non-voters being engaged by his populism?
Tories really need to let these inattentive types know exactly what they might be letting themselves in for. I fear that the tory manifesto with its eminently sensible removal of some freebies for undeserving (free school meals for rich kids? daft, rightly ditched) will lead to a further hardening of support for an uncosted lefty freebie handouts policy offer.
If Corbyn can hang on with a half decent result he could win in 2022. That would be the worst thing the Tories had ever managed to achieve. He must be beaten so badly that he and his acolytes are gone forever. That is what this election is about for me
Almost all Lab. nearly all had never voted before.
I don't know anyone called Frank under the age of 68.
The Tories need to work harder.
Having said that, if we didn't have FPTP, I suspect Corbyn's voteshare would be going through the floor to sub 20% and the balance to a mix of other soft-left parties.
Where are these 32%? Not in marginal seats.
The only explanation that makes any sense is he is piling them up in Bootle.
* Canute as popularly imagined. Yes I know what really happened - no need to trouble PB with that again.
JCP a good place to register as most have to know their NI number.
Some seemed very enthusiastic (Jezza is different) others not so sure
https://www.movinga.de/en/foreign-human-capital/
Of course, this is not all immigration, but it shows just how complex it is. Targets and black and white rules are not going to help us post-Brexit. We have to understand talented, entrepreneurial people have choices. And we are going to need them more than ever in the years to come.
If there is anything in this:
http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/edva-mashals-trump/2901/
then the odds ought to shorten soon.
TMICIPM (BAL)
Think of her as the Daily Mail in human form. The future looks like having a tabloid whacking a human face forever.
a few years ago we would regularly get letters from school telling us to PLEASE claim for free meals if we were entitled as it also got the school other linked funding, and it explained how to do it fully confidentially
If people still don't do it, well it's hard to know how to help those who won't help themselves :-/
Taxpayers funding free meals for people who can perfectly well afford it is a waste of money. Ditto universal winter fuel payments. Rightly ditched.
It's always important to remember that the polls in 2015 systematically overstated the Labour vote. Miliband was generally getting more than 32% vote shares in the run-up to polling day.
Con 400 - 420
Lab 160 - 180
SNP 45 - 50
LibDem 8 - 12
Others 20 - 22
He would have delivered a thumping Tory Majority
@RSylvesterTimes: It's a condition lottery - if you have cancer you are treated free on NHS if Alzheimer's you pay for all care
'Two new Tory councillors suspended over cannibalism and anti-Catholic tweet claims'
http://tinyurl.com/lc84nde
I'm sure all will be relieved to hear that the anti-Catholic bigot councillor is receiving anti-sectarianism training.
I don't feel my life is any poorer for it.
Needless to say, the Conservative manifesto has attracted plenty of interest not least on the issue of the funding of social care. I've written about this on here before as I have some knowledge so a few thoughts/questions:
1) The actual number of people requiring care is still small as a proportion of the general elderly population and "care" comes in many shapes and sizes from home based care to placement in an alternative residential facility.
2) Within the latter, you have the "general" care homes for those requiring less care right through to the dementia facilities and homes for those with severely restricted mobility and other issues. These specialised homes are the areas of largest expense but perhaps going forward those of highest increasing demand.
3) I don't quite see how this will work from a local authority perspective. If a person's property is sold for £500k now to fund care provision, that money is available now, while the person is alive. Will authorities have to "borrow" against the value of that property asset to fund the person's care while they are alive - fine, if the value of the asset outstrips the rise in the cost of the care but what happens if it doesn't ?
4) More and more people will seek to reduce the actual assets owned by the person requiring care by transferring property and other assets into trusts or directly transferring them to children or grandchildren leaving the person requiring care with "nothing" and the State having to pick up the entire cost.
I'm also concerned about the bureaucracy and the "care industry" seeing this as a licence to make money and for the more unscrupulous to profit from confusion. Until we can put in place a system whereby individuals, from an early age, can make adequate financial provision for later life (including pensions as well as care costs), it may just have to be the State will have to pick up the tab with the costs funded via general taxation.
I think family visas are a bit of scam. You should be able to marry whomever you want to worldwide, but that should carry no automatic right of entry into the UK. It should be capped, priced, or outright restricted, and spouses should qualify on their own merits or not at all.
Of course, this might need qualifying via a British Bill of Rights lest the Right to Family Life allow every Auntie, Uncle and Brother going free admittance.
One explanation is possibly that voters are disregarding Corbyn as they know he will not be PM and so are starting to be persuaded by their local Lab MP saying - "I'm a decent guy, I've done good things, don't blame me for Corbyn' etc etc.
The other (and the one I am inclined to go for) is that the polls are (obviously) just telling us what people might do. When faced with an actual ballot box and the prospect of Corbyn then they will desert on masse. A bit like '92.
Mind you I was completely wrong on Trump and Le Pen so DYOR :-)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39958659
SNP headed back over 45% I'd expect.
A lot of Corbyn's base is made up of political purists who will only vote for a Labour Party that is well to the left.
The PLP needs to either oust him or form a new party for people who are left wing, but not far left.
Edited extra bit: moderated my language a touch.
" an account he used to make references to ‘Tarriers’—a historically derogatory term for Catholics—and to ‘joke’ that all Catholics were paedophiles "
http://www.sconews.co.uk
From what I see and hear its essentially a London based pressure group nowadays.