Just touching on that Telegraph story about Corbyn's deep and longstanding association with the IRA, it seems very odd to me - indeed an outright dereliction of duty - that the Mail and the Sun have not gone far harder on Corbyn and McDonnell over this.
Why not? Are they keeping their powder dry until the last week?
At present, we have a Labour party led by two IRA sympathisers touching the mid 30s in the polling. I don't believe that many people know about their associations, outside of the Westminster bubble and sites like this. A few Sun and Daily Mail headers would surely change that.
I'm struck also by how few blows the Tories have landed on either of them this campaign. There is a mountain of ammunition out there to be used against them, and use it they must. The gloves have to come off if the Tories are to nail these scumbags into oblivion.
Terrifically well informed and well balanced article by Alistair. We may continue to vehemently disagree below the line but these thread headers just keep getting better.
I think the thrust of the Tory plans are absolutely right (and I say that as someone who would ideally like to leave house and inheritance to the kids and would lose a lot by this policy). We managed to keep my grandmother in her own home until she died of a stroke at 93 back in 2014. My mother, sister and I with our families made sure she could stay in her own home which is what she wanted more than anything. From the age of around 88 we would move her into my mothers house each winter so that we could pay extra attention to her in cold or bad weather. I am convinced that by keeping her in her own home and with her family we got at least an extra 5 years of life with her.
I do believe that families bear a huge responsibility for aged relations. My parents looked after me for the first 18 years of my life (and longer) and I think it is the least I can do to look after them as they grow infirm. Obviously there are circumstances where that can't happen but as long as they remain relatively well I believe children do have a responsibility for the welfare of their parents.
My concerns about the Tory proposals are purely practical and involve implementation. We already see adverts on TV for cashing in your house to a company in return for a lump sum whilst you stay in it until you die. I can see that becoming very popular and a potential problem for the Government if people know they risk seeing any potential inheritance for their children disappearing.
The other issue is that aging parents whilst still not suffering from infirmity might choose to gift their property to children whilst retaining a nominal amount of the value and a right to continue to live in it - a private form of the commercial schemes I have referred to. I believe currently that as long as you don't die within 7 years of a gift it does not count for inheritance tax purposes? We could well see a lot more people gifting to their children much earlier to circumvent the government scheme.
But the gift has to be genuine. You can't hand over property and then live in it for life. Anything less than full market rent nullifies the gift ( and lets face it rightly so. )
Even at market rent it is illegal if done to avoid the costs of care.
Is it actually "illegal"? Or just ignored/set-aside when the care costs are calculated.
I get the whole 'stop complacency' aspect but this seems like a weird tweet. It comes across as desperate. Also the kind of message that may fire up despondent labour voters as well as scaring lazy tories.
Can I echo the compliments for AM and his article.
Ditto for his others of the previous few weeks.
I agree, great article, although I disagree with it. I don't think the case that there is no public appetite for social care insurance has been proved. iirc Dillnott argues that government has not tried to do anything to start-up such a market, by for example, capping total overall lifetime care costs. If the cap was, say £70K, then people could get insurance for up to that figure.
I get the whole 'stop complacency' aspect but this seems like a weird tweet. It comes across as desperate. Also the kind of message that may fire up despondent labour voters as well as scaring lazy tories.
I get the whole 'stop complacency' aspect but this seems like a weird tweet. It comes across as desperate. Also the kind of message that may fire up despondent labour voters as well as scaring lazy tories.
Its also bollox.
Yes, the SNP would prop her up in those circumstances.
I get the whole 'stop complacency' aspect but this seems like a weird tweet. It comes across as desperate. Also the kind of message that may fire up despondent labour voters as well as scaring lazy tories.
Its also bollox.
Yes, the SNP would prop her up in those circumstances.
UUP then DUP followed by c&s from the 5 Lib Dem MPs first.
I get the whole 'stop complacency' aspect but this seems like a weird tweet. It comes across as desperate. Also the kind of message that may fire up despondent labour voters as well as scaring lazy tories.
Its also bollox.
Yes, the SNP would prop her up in those circumstances.
Morning Morris Dancer. We've received some stuff from Dawson. No mention of Corbyn and barely any of Labour's policies. He seems to be fighting a personal and locally focused campaign.
No mention of Corbyn by name or on a photograph on the two Labour leaflets in Bristol West. My wife had a targeted NHS in peril card today, no mention of Corbyn, but 4 quotes from newspapers. No sign of Tory leaflet. LDs plenty on Europe with Trump, Farage & Corbyn on leaflets.
I do wonder how many other Labour MPs haven't included Corbyn on their literature.
I get the whole 'stop complacency' aspect but this seems like a weird tweet. It comes across as desperate. Also the kind of message that may fire up despondent labour voters as well as scaring lazy tories.
Use of the singular first person pronoun is also a bit...needy.
Just touching on that Telegraph story about Corbyn's deep and longstanding association with the IRA, it seems very odd to me - indeed an outright dereliction of duty - that the Mail and the Sun have not gone far harder on Corbyn and McDonnell over this.
Why not? Are they keeping their powder dry until the last week?
At present, we have a Labour party led by two IRA sympathisers touching the mid 30s in the polling. I don't believe that many people know about their associations, outside of the Westminster bubble and sites like this. A few Sun and Daily Mail headers would surely change that.
I'm struck also by how few blows the Tories have landed on either of them this campaign. There is a mountain of ammunition out there to be used against them, and use it they must. The gloves have to come off if the Tories are to nail these scumbags into oblivion.
I think there is a risk of the accusations that Corbyn and McDonnell are terrorist sympathizers being dismissed by many as fake news. I'm not sure that they will catch on in a way they may have done previously. People are much more sceptical of everything they read today, and (while there is a lot of truth in the dodgy histories of Corbyn and McDonnell) overblown attacks over this will just be seen as background noise. It is too easy to dismiss truth as fake news, and promote fake news as truth these days.
I can scarcely believe some are so incensed the policy is mentioned, not opposed to it but anger it's admitted, along with gentle moves to the left, that last night a few supposed right wingers were essentially saying bring on Corbyn.
There's a febrile atmosphere as it dawns on certain Brexiteers that leaving the EU will shift the political centre of gravity in the opposite direction they expected.
That kind of assumes that we had an interest in where the centre of gravity was in the first place. For many of us that was never a consideration. Only that the decision on what the Government did or did not do rested with the electorate in Britain rather than the EU
I agree, this will primarily impact voters in the South (and of course even the winter fuel allowance will be means tested so will not affect the less well off). As for assets of course last April the Tories took all the estates of those voters in the South out of inheritance tax (a cut which Labour has said it will largely reverse) so most voters even in the South will still be better off in terms of assets except the minority who need care. However even those who need care will be better off if they have to have residential care as care will only be reclaimed from assets above £100k including their house whereas before they were reclaimed from assets above £23k including their house. So the only voters this policy really affects are well off voters in the South who will need personal care and will now have their house included in the cost of that assessment over £100k
How many houses in UK are under £100K? Terrace house in Hull - yeh probably. But vast swathes of Midlands and North have places where all houses are in a range more like £175 - £280K.
HYUFD does seem to have a rather 'Coronation Street' view of the North and has the impression that nobody there will lose their WFA.
Terrifically well informed and well balanced article by Alistair. We may continue to vehemently disagree below the line but these thread headers just keep getting better.
I think the thrust of the Tory plans are absolutely right (and I say that as someone who would ideally like to leave house and inheritance to the kids and would lose a lot by this policy). We managed to keep my grandmother in her own home until she died of a stroke at 93 back in 2014. My mother, sister and I with our families made sure she could stay in her own home which is what she wanted more than anything. From the age of around 88 we would move her into my mothers house each winter so that we could pay extra attention to her in cold or bad weather. I am convinced that by keeping her in her own home and with her family we got at least an extra 5 years of life with her.
I do believe that families bear a huge responsibility for aged relations. My parents looked after me for the first 18 years of my life (and longer) and I think it is the least I can do to look after them as they grow infirm. Obviously there are circumstances where that can't happen but as long as they remain relatively well I believe children do have a responsibility for the welfare of their parents.
My concerns about the Tory proposals are purely practical and involve implementation. We already see adverts on TV for cashing in your house to a company in return for a lump sum whilst you stay in it until you die. I can see that becoming very popular and a potential problem for the Government if people know they risk seeing any potential inheritance for their children disappearing.
The other issue is that aging parents whilst still not suffering from infirmity might choose to gift their property to children whilst retaining a nominal amount of the value and a right to continue to live in it - a private form of the commercial schemes I have referred to. I believe currently that as long as you don't die within 7 years of a gift it does not count for inheritance tax purposes? We could well see a lot more people gifting to their children much earlier to circumvent the government scheme.
But the gift has to be genuine. You can't hand over property and then live in it for life. Anything less than full market rent nullifies the gift ( and lets face it rightly so. )
Even at market rent it is illegal if done to avoid the costs of care.
Is it actually "illegal"? Or just ignored/set-aside when the care costs are calculated.
I agree, this will primarily impact voters in the South (and of course even the winter fuel allowance will be means tested so will not affect the less well off). As for assets of course last April the Tories took all the estates of those voters in the South out of inheritance tax (a cut which Labour has said it will largely reverse) so most voters even in the South will still be better off in terms of assets except the minority who need care. However even those who need care will be better off if they have to have residential care as care will only be reclaimed from assets above £100k including their house whereas before they were reclaimed from assets above £23k including their house. So the only voters this policy really affects are well off voters in the South who will need personal care and will now have their house included in the cost of that assessment over £100k
How many houses in UK are under £100K? Terrace house in Hull - yeh probably. But vast swathes of Midlands and North have places where all houses are in a range more like £175 - £280K.
The average house in the Midlands, North and Wales is £150k-£200k (although plenty of bungalows and flats in the likes of Skegness under £100k too), so they will keep the majority of their assets even if they need care thanks to the fact social care costs are only recouped above £100k and if they need residential care they are big net winners as previously social care costs could be recouped above £23k. The only real losers from this policy are those who need social care at home in London and the South East and their children
Morning Morris Dancer. We've received some stuff from Dawson. No mention of Corbyn and barely any of Labour's policies. He seems to be fighting a personal and locally focused campaign.
No mention of Corbyn by name or on a photograph on the two Labour leaflets in Bristol West. My wife had a targeted NHS in peril card today, no mention of Corbyn, but 4 quotes from newspapers. No sign of Tory leaflet. LDs plenty on Europe with Trump, Farage & Corbyn on leaflets.
I do wonder how many other Labour MPs haven't included Corbyn on their literature.
I think Bristol West will be held comfortably by Labour. Its precisely the sort of place the vote will hold up, and could even increase.
Interesting that Ashcroft's detailed model identifies that the Tory majority goes up by a significant 50 seats if turnout matches the 2015 GE rather than people's reported likelihood to vote (the latter being close to 2016 referendum turnout).
Since it isn't obvious why turnout should be particularly high this time (save for a few anecdotes of first-time referendum voters converted into always-voters), this probably gives the Tories a further edge.
Based solely on non-PB conversations, I reckon turnout will be down at close to 2001 levels. Nobody, and I mean absolutely nobody, has even mentioned the election to me, and we're less than three weeks away.
Respected PB punters Philp Thompson and Richard Nabavi say otherwise, Robert, but I'm with you on this. Under 60% is possible and under 65% distincty probable, imo.
In a highly representative sample I took in my barber's shop the other day the predicted turnout was 10%, and if I had changed my mind it would have been zero.
You can smell the tumbleweed drifting towards those polling booths.
In which case Ashcroft's analysis suggests that the actual Tory vote share is understated by the polls and the actual majority could easily be 50 greater than what the polls suggest.
Serious props to Lord Ashcroft.
No matter your thoughts on his personal politics, he is spending an absolute fortune on polling and focus groups, and we are all a lot more informed as a result of his interest in the subject.
Oh, and the VC collection that he continues to buy for public display.
Morning Morris Dancer. We've received some stuff from Dawson. No mention of Corbyn and barely any of Labour's policies. He seems to be fighting a personal and locally focused campaign.
No mention of Corbyn by name or on a photograph on the two Labour leaflets in Bristol West. My wife had a targeted NHS in peril card today, no mention of Corbyn, but 4 quotes from newspapers. No sign of Tory leaflet. LDs plenty on Europe with Trump, Farage & Corbyn on leaflets.
I do wonder how many other Labour MPs haven't included Corbyn on their literature.
It is interesting, the approach of Labour is the mirror image of the Conservatives. Lab doing everything possible to pretend Corbyn doesn't exist and promote the party brand - the Conservatives doing everything possible to promote May and pretend the party brand doesn't exist. Both are probably correct to do so.
Can I echo the compliments for AM and his article.
Ditto for his others of the previous few weeks.
I agree, great article, although I disagree with it. I don't think the case that there is no public appetite for social care insurance has been proved. iirc Dillnott argues that government has not tried to do anything to start-up such a market, by for example, capping total overall lifetime care costs. If the cap was, say £70K, then people could get insurance for up to that figure.
Would that not be almost as unsustainable as now though? My mother in law developed dementia and we sold her house to make sure she had decent care in a specialist care unit. As it was she only lived about 8 months after she went into the home but even so, selling her house would only have provided about 5 years of care before the money ran out. It still leaves a massive burden with the taxpayer - a burden that will become increasingly impossible to meet as life expectancy continues to improve.
I get the whole 'stop complacency' aspect but this seems like a weird tweet. It comes across as desperate. Also the kind of message that may fire up despondent labour voters as well as scaring lazy tories.
Its also bollox.
Yes, the SNP would prop her up in those circumstances.
May's a bit left wing for the SNP......
How much longer will London-based unionist free-market Tories hold their noses and continue to support her?
Just touching on that Telegraph story about Corbyn's deep and longstanding association with the IRA, it seems very odd to me - indeed an outright dereliction of duty - that the Mail and the Sun have not gone far harder on Corbyn and McDonnell over this.
Why not? Are they keeping their powder dry until the last week?
At present, we have a Labour party led by two IRA sympathisers touching the mid 30s in the polling. I don't believe that many people know about their associations, outside of the Westminster bubble and sites like this. A few Sun and Daily Mail headers would surely change that.
I'm struck also by how few blows the Tories have landed on either of them this campaign. There is a mountain of ammunition out there to be used against them, and use it they must. The gloves have to come off if the Tories are to nail these scumbags into oblivion.
I think there is a risk of the accusations that Corbyn and McDonnell are terrorist sympathizers being dismissed by many as fake news. I'm not sure that they will catch on in a way they may have done previously. People are much more sceptical of everything they read today, and (while there is a lot of truth in the dodgy histories of Corbyn and McDonnell) overblown attacks over this will just be seen as background noise. It is too easy to dismiss truth as fake news, and promote fake news as truth these days.
It's not fake news, though. The people who would dismiss it as such are already Corbyn apologists and hard core Labour voters. They are a couple of those on this very site.
Anyway, we'll see. A couple of front pages splashes from the two biggest read newspapers in Britain would have some serious effect.
I get the whole 'stop complacency' aspect but this seems like a weird tweet. It comes across as desperate. Also the kind of message that may fire up despondent labour voters as well as scaring lazy tories.
Yes, I think they've been complacent (despite the 'Jeremy might win, you don't know' message), but this is perhaps a little too direct and could just be taken as a lack of confidence.
Morning Morris Dancer. We've received some stuff from Dawson. No mention of Corbyn and barely any of Labour's policies. He seems to be fighting a personal and locally focused campaign.
No mention of Corbyn by name or on a photograph on the two Labour leaflets in Bristol West. My wife had a targeted NHS in peril card today, no mention of Corbyn, but 4 quotes from newspapers. No sign of Tory leaflet. LDs plenty on Europe with Trump, Farage & Corbyn on leaflets.
I do wonder how many other Labour MPs haven't included Corbyn on their literature.
I think Bristol West will be held comfortably by Labour. Its precisely the sort of place the vote will hold up, and could even increase.
It is the sort of place where Labour could have been in trouble - but their campaign has gone much better than those of the LibDems and Greens.
The battlegrounds there are now Bristols East and South - but whether Labour understand that is understand that is a different issue.
I get the whole 'stop complacency' aspect but this seems like a weird tweet. It comes across as desperate. Also the kind of message that may fire up despondent labour voters as well as scaring lazy tories.
Its also bollox.
Well it is possible they could lose six seats in some places I guess, though I should think that would not even be close to net.
I agree, this will primarily impact voters in the South (and of course even the winter fuel allowance will be means tested so will not affect the less well off). As for assets of course last April the Tories took all the estates of those voters in the South out of inheritance tax (a cut which Labour has said it will largely reverse) so most voters even in the South will still be better off in terms of assets except the minority who need care. However even those who need care will be better off if they have to have residential care as care will only be reclaimed from assets above £100k including their house whereas before they were reclaimed from assets above £23k including their house. So the only voters this policy really affects are well off voters in the South who will need personal care and will now have their house included in the cost of that assessment over £100k
How many houses in UK are under £100K? Terrace house in Hull - yeh probably. But vast swathes of Midlands and North have places where all houses are in a range more like £175 - £280K.
HYUFD does seem to have a rather 'Coronation Street' view of the North and has the impression that nobody there will lose their WFA.
In the target seats the Tories need to win from Labour in the North and Midlands, in Middlesborough, Walsall, Wakefield, Stoke, Blackpool, Scunthorpe, Dudley, Bishop Auckland, Bury and Bolton most won't lose their WFA or be much affected by the home assessment for social care. Now granted wealthier areas like Sutton Coldfield, Trafford and Tatton may be affected but those are solidly Tory anyway and will not touch Corbyn with a bargepole, May can afford to see a slightly lower Tory majority in Tatton and Altrincham and Sale if she wins the likes of Bury South and Wakefield
Just touching on that Telegraph story about Corbyn's deep and longstanding association with the IRA, it seems very odd to me - indeed an outright dereliction of duty - that the Mail and the Sun have not gone far harder on Corbyn and McDonnell over this.
Why not? Are they keeping their powder dry until the last week?
At present, we have a Labour party led by two IRA sympathisers touching the mid 30s in the polling. I don't believe that many people know about their associations, outside of the Westminster bubble and sites like this. A few Sun and Daily Mail headers would surely change that.
I'm struck also by how few blows the Tories have landed on either of them this campaign. There is a mountain of ammunition out there to be used against them, and use it they must. The gloves have to come off if the Tories are to nail these scumbags into oblivion.
I think there is a risk of the accusations that Corbyn and McDonnell are terrorist sympathizers being dismissed by many as fake news. I'm not sure that they will catch on in a way they may have done previously. People are much more sceptical of everything they read today, and (while there is a lot of truth in the dodgy histories of Corbyn and McDonnell) overblown attacks over this will just be seen as background noise. It is too easy to dismiss truth as fake news, and promote fake news as truth these days.
It's not fake news, though. The people who would dismiss it as such are already Corbyn apologists and hard core Labour voters. They are a couple of those on this very site.
Anyway, we'll see. A couple of front pages splashes from the two biggest read newspapers in Britain would have some serious effect.
Which is why I don't get what the Telegraph did this morning. Maybe they'll go harder on Sunday
I get the whole 'stop complacency' aspect but this seems like a weird tweet. It comes across as desperate. Also the kind of message that may fire up despondent labour voters as well as scaring lazy tories.
Its also bollox.
Yes, the SNP would prop her up in those circumstances.
May's a bit left wing for the SNP......
How much longer will London-based unionist free-market Tories hold their noses and continue to support her?
Years, they are hardly going to vote Labour are they
I get the whole 'stop complacency' aspect but this seems like a weird tweet. It comes across as desperate. Also the kind of message that may fire up despondent labour voters as well as scaring lazy tories.
Its also bollox.
Yes, the SNP would prop her up in those circumstances.
May's a bit left wing for the SNP......
How much longer will London-based unionist free-market Tories hold their noses and continue to support her?
Interesting that Ashcroft's detailed model identifies that the Tory majority goes up by a significant 50 seats if turnout matches the 2015 GE rather than people's reported likelihood to vote (the latter being close to 2016 referendum turnout).
Since it isn't obvious why turnout should be particularly high this time (save for a few anecdotes of first-time referendum voters converted into always-voters), this probably gives the Tories a further edge.
Based solely on non-PB conversations, I reckon turnout will be down at close to 2001 levels. Nobody, and I mean absolutely nobody, has even mentioned the election to me, and we're less than three weeks away.
Respected PB punters Philp Thompson and Richard Nabavi say otherwise, Robert, but I'm with you on this. Under 60% is possible and under 65% distincty probable, imo.
In a highly representative sample I took in my barber's shop the other day the predicted turnout was 10%, and if I had changed my mind it would have been zero.
You can smell the tumbleweed drifting towards those polling booths.
All the workshop in my highly representative C2 sample in South Yorkshire will be voting for "Our prime minister". Seemed well up for it.
No mention of Jezza in Steve Pound's leaflet for Ealing North. An excellent constituency MP who should be safe enough. Thought Newsnight last night interview was a 'car crash' and gives Tory media every oppotunity to drive a coach and horses through Labour's Defence policy. The gap will only widen from here
With postal voting papers likely to plop through letter boxes imminently, it's a sobering thought that based on the experience in 2015, more than 21% of the votes are likely to be cast in this way and therefore the outcome of the General Election will be largely determined by the end of this month.
Morning Morris Dancer. We've received some stuff from Dawson. No mention of Corbyn and barely any of Labour's policies. He seems to be fighting a personal and locally focused campaign.
No mention of Corbyn by name or on a photograph on the two Labour leaflets in Bristol West. My wife had a targeted NHS in peril card today, no mention of Corbyn, but 4 quotes from newspapers. No sign of Tory leaflet. LDs plenty on Europe with Trump, Farage & Corbyn on leaflets.
I do wonder how many other Labour MPs haven't included Corbyn on their literature.
I think Bristol West will be held comfortably by Labour. Its precisely the sort of place the vote will hold up, and could even increase.
It is the sort of place where Labour could have been in trouble - but their campaign has gone much better than those of the LibDems and Greens.
The battlegrounds there are now Bristols East and South - but whether Labour understand that is understand that is a different issue.
From acquaintances in East the Tories are certainly trying there, though it has really fired up some local Labour waverers.
No mention of Jezza in Steve Pound's leaflet for Ealing North. An excellent constituency MP who should be safe enough. Thought Newsnight last night interview was a 'car crash' and gives Tory media every oppotunity to drive a coach and horses through Labour's Defence policy. The gap will only widen from here
Easy to do when the gap has tightened so far, but for the good of Tories and Labour that's to be hoped for.
I get the whole 'stop complacency' aspect but this seems like a weird tweet. It comes across as desperate. Also the kind of message that may fire up despondent labour voters as well as scaring lazy tories.
Its also bollox.
Yes, the SNP would prop her up in those circumstances.
May's a bit left wing for the SNP......
How much longer will London-based unionist free-market Tories hold their noses and continue to support her?
A question which depends on whether the opposition that is being offered is better, or at least not to be worried about should it ever win.
Interesting that Ashcroft's detailed model identifies that the Tory majority goes up by a significant 50 seats if turnout matches the 2015 GE rather than people's reported likelihood to vote (the latter being close to 2016 referendum turnout).
Since it isn't obvious why turnout should be particularly high this time (save for a few anecdotes of first-time referendum voters converted into always-voters), this probably gives the Tories a further edge.
Based solely on non-PB conversations, I reckon turnout will be down at close to 2001 levels. Nobody, and I mean absolutely nobody, has even mentioned the election to me, and we're less than three weeks away.
Respected PB punters Philp Thompson and Richard Nabavi say otherwise, Robert, but I'm with you on this. Under 60% is possible and under 65% distincty probable, imo.
In a highly representative sample I took in my barber's shop the other day the predicted turnout was 10%, and if I had changed my mind it would have been zero.
You can smell the tumbleweed drifting towards those polling booths.
All the workshop in my highly representative C2 sample in South Yorkshire will be voting for "Our prime minister". Seemed well up for it.
Do you have an idea of the swing from previous elections ?
Rother Valley 3rd in "Identity" index from Ashcroft. Judging by the England flags and general Brexit atmosphere in Harthill immediately after June 23rd, could well be a huge swing here. But Labour does have a decent wall for the Tories to scale. Not bet on it but should be interesting. Rotherham OTOH will be safe as houses for err demographic reasons similiarly.
With postal voting papers likely to plop through letter boxes imminently, it's a sobering thought that based on the experience in 2015, more than 21% of the votes are likely to be cast in this way and therefore the outcome of the General Election will be largely determined by the end of this month.
Well that won't be repeated next time, depending by what the Tories mean by reforming postal voting.
Interesting that Ashcroft's detailed model identifies that the Tory majority goes up by a significant 50 seats if turnout matches the 2015 GE rather than people's reported likelihood to vote (the latter being close to 2016 referendum turnout).
Since it isn't obvious why turnout should be particularly high this time (save for a few anecdotes of first-time referendum voters converted into always-voters), this probably gives the Tories a further edge.
Based solely on non-PB conversations, I reckon turnout will be down at close to 2001 levels. Nobody, and I mean absolutely nobody, has even mentioned the election to me, and we're less than three weeks away.
Respected PB punters Philp Thompson and Richard Nabavi say otherwise, Robert, but I'm with you on this. Under 60% is possible and under 65% distincty probable, imo.
In a highly representative sample I took in my barber's shop the other day the predicted turnout was 10%, and if I had changed my mind it would have been zero.
You can smell the tumbleweed drifting towards those polling booths.
All the workshop in my highly representative C2 sample in South Yorkshire will be voting for "Our prime minister". Seemed well up for it.
Do you have an idea of the swing from previous elections ?
I get the whole 'stop complacency' aspect but this seems like a weird tweet. It comes across as desperate. Also the kind of message that may fire up despondent labour voters as well as scaring lazy tories.
Its also bollox.
Yes, the SNP would prop her up in those circumstances.
May's a bit left wing for the SNP......
How much longer will London-based unionist free-market Tories hold their noses and continue to support her?
You mentioned 'The Expanse' in a previous post. I cannot recommend it highly enough. It is a superb series. As an aside, one of the main characters has an uncanny resemblance to Jimmy Anderson (he's actually called James in the series).
Get it, you will not be disappointed, I guarantee it.
I agree, this will primarily impact voters in the South (and of course even the winter fuel allowance will be means tested so will not affect the less well off). As for assets of course last April the Tories took all the estates of those voters in the South out of inheritance tax (a cut which Labour has said it will largely reverse) so most voters even in the South will still be better off in terms of assets except the minority who need care. However even those who need care will be better off if they have to have residential care as care will only be reclaimed from assets above £100k including their house whereas before they were reclaimed from assets above £23k including their house. So the only voters this policy really affects are well off voters in the South who will need personal care and will now have their house included in the cost of that assessment over £100k
How many houses in UK are under £100K? Terrace house in Hull - yeh probably. But vast swathes of Midlands and North have places where all houses are in a range more like £175 - £280K.
HYUFD does seem to have a rather 'Coronation Street' view of the North and has the impression that nobody there will lose their WFA.
In the target seats the Tories need to win from Labour in the North and Midlands, in Middlesborough, Walsall, Wakefield, Stoke, Blackpool, Scunthorpe, Dudley, Bishop Auckland, Bury and Bolton most won't lose their WFA or be much affected by the home assessment for social care. Now granted wealthier areas like Sutton Coldfield, Trafford and Tatton may be affected but those are solidly Tory anyway and will not touch Corbyn with a bargepole, May can afford to see a slightly lower Tory majority in Tatton and Altrincham and Sale if she wins the likes of Bury South and Wakefield
You keep repeating that most wont lose WFA but could you tell me at what level people will lose it.
As I said you have a very 'Coronation Street' view of the North.
Until a couple of weeks ago, one bookie was offering odds on who would be the next HoC Speaker. unfortunately this market has since been taken down. My own pick was Margaret Beckett at odds of 20/1, assuming she manages to narrowly sneak in at Derby South, and that it's now Labour's turn to hold this position. Anyone have other ideas, bearing in mind that including retirees, up to a third or more of Labour MPs may not be returning to the House after the GE?
Just touching on that Telegraph story about Corbyn's deep and longstanding association with the IRA, it seems very odd to me - indeed an outright dereliction of duty - that the Mail and the Sun have not gone far harder on Corbyn and McDonnell over this.
Why not? Are they keeping their powder dry until the last week?
At present, we have a Labour party led by two IRA sympathisers touching the mid 30s in the polling. I don't believe that many people know about their associations, outside of the Westminster bubble and sites like this. A few Sun and Daily Mail headers would surely change that.
I'm struck also by how few blows the Tories have landed on either of them this campaign. There is a mountain of ammunition out there to be used against them, and use it they must. The gloves have to come off if the Tories are to nail these scumbags into oblivion.
I don't think the IRA story is anywhere near as watertight as you seem to think, and even if it were it is likely to resonate most strongly with the groups that are already voting Tory. And on top of that, as Project Fear showed in the referendum campaign, there is a level of hysteria that simply isn't credible. Speaking for myself, the personal attacks on Corbyn make me more likely to vote Labour, not less. It's what the man himself says that makes me think twice.
@DPJHodges: 19 days to go. Think we are entering the "Tory campaign in crisis" period of the election.
Where "crisis" = Tory majority not reaching triple figures.....
He's being facetious, isn't he?
This happened in each of the last two elections at about the three week stage. Talk of a left wing fightback (Cleggasm, Milifandom Non Dom) and a lacklustre Tory campaign. Cries of 'something must be done'. Nothing much is.
I get the whole 'stop complacency' aspect but this seems like a weird tweet. It comes across as desperate. Also the kind of message that may fire up despondent labour voters as well as scaring lazy tories.
Its also bollox.
Yes, the SNP would prop her up in those circumstances.
May's a bit left wing for the SNP......
How much longer will London-based unionist free-market Tories hold their noses and continue to support her?
Until we're safely out of the EU.
Exactly.
And if she pushes too far to the centre/left after that, the PCP will do what they've proved to be very good at over the years.
But right now, she can do anything and everything she likes as long as Brexit gets delivered.
I get the whole 'stop complacency' aspect but this seems like a weird tweet. It comes across as desperate. Also the kind of message that may fire up despondent labour voters as well as scaring lazy tories.
That assumes that the 'others' (LibDems, SNP, DUP etc) would rather side with a Corbyn led Labour rather than May led Tories. It might even prompt a change in leadership in one or more of the two big parties in order to get a coalition. Obviously it won't happen, but the fact that our Prime Minister is suggesting it is a bit weird.
Rother Valley 3rd in "Identity" index from Ashcroft. Judging by the England flags and general Brexit atmosphere in Harthill immediately after June 23rd, could well be a huge swing here. But Labour does have a decent wall for the Tories to scale. Not bet on it but should be interesting. Rotherham OTOH will be safe as houses for err demographic reasons similiarly.
The Conservatives are too short in Rotherham and Rother Valley ** but the 8/1 on them winning Don Valley was an amazing bet.
@DPJHodges: 19 days to go. Think we are entering the "Tory campaign in crisis" period of the election.
Where "crisis" = Tory majority not reaching triple figures.....
He's being facetious, isn't he?
This happened in each of the last two elections at about the three week stage. Talk of a left wing fightback (Cleggasm, Milifandom Non Dom) and a lacklustre Tory campaign. Cries of 'something must be done'. Nothing much is.
And then the Tories win.
Well the Tories did blow an unloseable election in 2010?
I agree, this will primarily impact voters in the South (and of course even the winter fuel allowance will be means tested so will not affect the less well off). As for assets of course last April the Tories took all the estates of those voters in the South out of inheritance tax (a cut which Labour has said it will largely reverse) so most voters even in the South will still be better off in terms of assets except the minority who need care. However even those who need care will be better off if they have to have residential care as care will only be reclaimed from assets above £100k including their house whereas before they were reclaimed from assets above £23k including their house. So the only voters this policy really affects are well off voters in the South who will need personal care and will now have their house included in the cost of that assessment over £100k
How many houses in UK are under £100K? Terrace house in Hull - yeh probably. But vast swathes of Midlands and North have places where all houses are in a range more like £175 - £280K.
HYUFD does seem to have a rather 'Coronation Street' view of the North and has the impression that nobody there will lose their WFA.
In the target seats the Tories need to win from Labour in the North and Midlands, in Middlesborough, Walsall, Wakefield, Stoke, Blackpool, Scunthorpe, Dudley, Bishop Auckland, Bury and Bolton most won't lose their WFA or be much affected by the home assessment for social care. Now granted wealthier areas like Sutton Coldfield, Trafford and Tatton may be affected but those are solidly Tory anyway and will not touch Corbyn with a bargepole, May can afford to see a slightly lower Tory majority in Tatton and Altrincham and Sale if she wins the likes of Bury South and Wakefield
You keep repeating that most wont lose WFA but could you tell me at what level people will lose it.
As I said you have a very 'Coronation Street' view of the North.
Above average UK wealth and assets, clearly pensioners in most marginal Labour northern seats do not have above average UK wealth and assets
Morning Morris Dancer. We've received some stuff from Dawson. No mention of Corbyn and barely any of Labour's policies. He seems to be fighting a personal and locally focused campaign.
No mention of Corbyn by name or on a photograph on the two Labour leaflets in Bristol West. My wife had a targeted NHS in peril card today, no mention of Corbyn, but 4 quotes from newspapers. No sign of Tory leaflet. LDs plenty on Europe with Trump, Farage & Corbyn on leaflets.
I do wonder how many other Labour MPs haven't included Corbyn on their literature.
I think Bristol West will be held comfortably by Labour. Its precisely the sort of place the vote will hold up, and could even increase.
Haven't seen much activity by the Tory on Twitter feeds. Will check if she has been Tweeting later, last time round the Con candidate was off helping Chris Skidmore. Greens seem to be hanging around the University of Bristol, but are supposed to be bussing in activists today. The Green candidate gives a Bristol address, but has been living there for about a month. Comparisons with Dr Nuttall have been made. Greens appear to be stuck in pen, paper and clipboard mode re canvassing. Suspect Lab will hold.
@DPJHodges: 19 days to go. Think we are entering the "Tory campaign in crisis" period of the election.
Where "crisis" = Tory majority not reaching triple figures.....
He's being facetious, isn't he?
This happened in each of the last two elections at about the three week stage. Talk of a left wing fightback (Cleggasm, Milifandom Non Dom) and a lacklustre Tory campaign. Cries of 'something must be done'. Nothing much is.
And then the Tories win.
Well the Tories did blow an unloseable election in 2010?
I wouldn't say they blew it but they certainly underachieved in 2010 **, ironically to their long term benefit.
** Amusingly they underachieved in those metropolitan middle class areas the 'Cameron Project' was most targeted at.
Just touching on that Telegraph story about Corbyn's deep and longstanding association with the IRA, it seems very odd to me - indeed an outright dereliction of duty - that the Mail and the Sun have not gone far harder on Corbyn and McDonnell over this.
Why not? Are they keeping their powder dry until the last week?
At present, we have a Labour party led by two IRA sympathisers touching the mid 30s in the polling. I don't believe that many people know about their associations, outside of the Westminster bubble and sites like this. A few Sun and Daily Mail headers would surely change that.
I'm struck also by how few blows the Tories have landed on either of them this campaign. There is a mountain of ammunition out there to be used against them, and use it they must. The gloves have to come off if the Tories are to nail these scumbags into oblivion.
I don't think the IRA story is anywhere near as watertight as you seem to think, and even if it were it is likely to resonate most strongly with the groups that are already voting Tory. And on top of that, as Project Fear showed in the referendum campaign, there is a level of hysteria that simply isn't credible. Speaking for myself, the personal attacks on Corbyn make me more likely to vote Labour, not less. It's what the man himself says that makes me think twice.
I think there's some truth in that. Personally I think Corbyn and McDonnell are vile but I appreciate there are others who are intensely relaxed about their links to the IRA.
If the Tories do go on the offensive over this, it will be interesting to see how the left wing media deal with it. I can imagine that what would actually help the Tories is if the Guardian and whoever else attack the Tories for bringing up this stuff. That might be what really benefits the Tories as I think a lot will consider it fair game.
I get the whole 'stop complacency' aspect but this seems like a weird tweet. It comes across as desperate. Also the kind of message that may fire up despondent labour voters as well as scaring lazy tories.
That assumes that the 'others' (LibDems, SNP, DUP etc) would rather side with a Corbyn led Labour rather than May led Tories. It might even prompt a change in leadership in one or more of the two big parties in order to get a coalition. Obviously it won't happen, but the fact that our Prime Minister is suggesting it is a bit weird.
What's even stranger is that this damages brand Theresa.
Theresa May is getting a lot of credit as being the 'grown up' after Gove, Boris, et al kicked in the shopped window and legged it. Her 'boring' persona is just the kind of "strong and stable" [sic and *sick*] persona that lots of people - particularly ex-UKIP supporters - are lapping up. Everything screams 'landslide', no-one is expecting anything less.
So this just looks like a barefaced lie, scaremongering, and that she is just another politician with an eye for the main chance. Bizarre.
@DPJHodges: 19 days to go. Think we are entering the "Tory campaign in crisis" period of the election.
Where "crisis" = Tory majority not reaching triple figures.....
He's being facetious, isn't he?
This happened in each of the last two elections at about the three week stage. Talk of a left wing fightback (Cleggasm, Milifandom Non Dom) and a lacklustre Tory campaign. Cries of 'something must be done'. Nothing much is.
And then the Tories win.
Well the Tories did blow an unloseable election in 2010?
I wouldn't say they blew it but they certainly underachieved in 2010 **, ironically to their long term benefit.
** Amusingly they underachieved in those metropolitan middle class areas the 'Cameron Project' was most targeted at.
Yes and they will still lose in those areas but May will gain in the Northern and Midlands Brexit backing areas, indeed I would expect May to win a number of Brown 2010 UKIP 2015 voters and keep most of the Clegg 2010 Cameron 2015 voters even if she loses a few back to the LDs, Corbyn will keep most of the Brown 2010 Miliband 2015 and Clegg 2010 Miliband 2015 vote
You mentioned 'The Expanse' in a previous post. I cannot recommend it highly enough. It is a superb series. As an aside, one of the main characters has an uncanny resemblance to Jimmy Anderson (he's actually called James in the series).
Get it, you will not be disappointed, I guarantee it.
Just touching on that Telegraph story about Corbyn's deep and longstanding association with the IRA, it seems very odd to me - indeed an outright dereliction of duty - that the Mail and the Sun have not gone far harder on Corbyn and McDonnell over this.
Why not? Are they keeping their powder dry until the last week?
At present, we have a Labour party led by two IRA sympathisers touching the mid 30s in the polling. I don't believe that many people know about their associations, outside of the Westminster bubble and sites like this. A few Sun and Daily Mail headers would surely change that.
I'm struck also by how few blows the Tories have landed on either of them this campaign. There is a mountain of ammunition out there to be used against them, and use it they must. The gloves have to come off if the Tories are to nail these scumbags into oblivion.
I don't think the IRA story is anywhere near as watertight as you seem to think, and even if it were it is likely to resonate most strongly with the groups that are already voting Tory. And on top of that, as Project Fear showed in the referendum campaign, there is a level of hysteria that simply isn't credible. Speaking for myself, the personal attacks on Corbyn make me more likely to vote Labour, not less. It's what the man himself says that makes me think twice.
Well, you can describe them as 'personal attacks' on Corbyn, I describe them as statements of fact regarding a man who overtly associated himself with a terrorist organisation that murdered women and children. Those are the facts.
I agree, this will primarily impact voters in the South (and of course even the winter fuel allowance will be means tested so will not affect the less well off). As for assets of course last April the Tories took all the estates of those voters in the South out of inheritance tax (a cut which Labour has said it will largely reverse) so most voters even in the South will still be better off in terms of assets except the minority who need care. However even those who need care will be better off if they have to have residential care as care will only be reclaimed from assets above £100k including their house whereas before they were reclaimed from assets above £23k including their house. So the only voters this policy really affects are well off voters in the South who will need personal care and will now have their house included in the cost of that assessment over £100k
How many houses in UK are under £100K? Terrace house in Hull - yeh probably. But vast swathes of Midlands and North have places where all houses are in a range more like £175 - £280K.
HYUFD does seem to have a rather 'Coronation Street' view of the North and has the impression that nobody there will lose their WFA.
In the target seats the Tories need to win from Labour in the North and Midlands, in Middlesborough, Walsall, Wakefield, Stoke, Blackpool, Scunthorpe, Dudley, Bishop Auckland, Bury and Bolton most won't lose their WFA or be much affected by the home assessment for social care. Now granted wealthier areas like Sutton Coldfield, Trafford and Tatton may be affected but those are solidly Tory anyway and will not touch Corbyn with a bargepole, May can afford to see a slightly lower Tory majority in Tatton and Altrincham and Sale if she wins the likes of Bury South and Wakefield
You keep repeating that most wont lose WFA but could you tell me at what level people will lose it.
As I said you have a very 'Coronation Street' view of the North.
Above average UK wealth and assets, clearly pensioners in most marginal Labour northern seats do not have above average UK wealth and assets
So you don't actually know but yet again you are treating people as monolithic blocks - for example I know several pensioners in a marginal Labour northern seat who do have above average UK wealth and assets.
Therefore everyone who gets WFA will fear that they will lose out and will be annoyed that they are being treated worse than their Scottish equivalents.
This will cost the Conservatives votes in England and Wales.
I agree, this will primarily impact voters in the South (and of course even the winter fuel allowance will be means tested so will not affect the less well off). As for assets of course last April the Tories took all the estates of those voters in the South out of inheritance tax (a cut which Labour has said it will largely reverse) so most voters even in the South will still be better off in terms of assets except the minority who need care. However even those who need care will be better off if they have to have residential care as care will only be reclaimed from assets above £100k including their house whereas before they were reclaimed from assets above £23k including their house. So the only voters this policy really affects are well off voters in the South who will need personal care and will now have their house included in the cost of that assessment over £100k
How many houses in UK are under £100K? Terrace house in Hull - yeh probably. But vast swathes of Midlands and North have places where all houses are in a range more like £175 - £280K.
HYUFD does seem to have a rather 'Coronation Street' view of the North and has the impression that nobody there will lose their WFA.
In the target seats the Tories need to win from Labour in the North and Midlands, in Middlesborough, Walsall, Wakefield, Stoke, Blackpool, Scunthorpe, Dudley, Bishop Auckland, Bury and Bolton most won't lose their WFA or be much affected by the home assessment for social care. Now granted wealthier areas like Sutton Coldfield, Trafford and Tatton may be affected but those are solidly Tory anyway and will not touch Corbyn with a bargepole, May can afford to see a slightly lower Tory majority in Tatton and Altrincham and Sale if she wins the likes of Bury South and Wakefield
You keep repeating that most wont lose WFA but could you tell me at what level people will lose it.
As I said you have a very 'Coronation Street' view of the North.
Above average UK wealth and assets, clearly pensioners in most marginal Labour northern seats do not have above average UK wealth and assets
So you don't actually know but yet again you are treating people as monolithic blocks - for example I know several pensioners in a marginal Labour northern seat who do have above average UK wealth and assets.
Therefore everyone who gets WFA will fear that they will lose out and will be annoyed that they are being treated worse than their Scottish equivalents.
This will cost the Conservatives votes in England and Wales.
Until a couple of weeks ago, one bookie was offering odds on who would be the next HoC Speaker. unfortunately this market has since been taken down. My own pick was Margaret Beckett at odds of 20/1, assuming she manages to narrowly sneak in at Derby South, and that it's now Labour's turn to hold this position. Anyone have other ideas, bearing in mind that including retirees, up to a third or more of Labour MPs may not be returning to the House after the GE?
@DPJHodges: 19 days to go. Think we are entering the "Tory campaign in crisis" period of the election.
Where "crisis" = Tory majority not reaching triple figures.....
He's being facetious, isn't he?
This happened in each of the last two elections at about the three week stage. Talk of a left wing fightback (Cleggasm, Milifandom Non Dom) and a lacklustre Tory campaign. Cries of 'something must be done'. Nothing much is.
And then the Tories win.
Goes back a lot further than that:
A week before election day, on what was to become known as "Wobbly Thursday", a rogue poll for The Daily Telegraph showed the Tory lead down to 4%. A concerned Mrs Thatcher handed the management of the campaign over to advertising guru Tim Bell. In a blanket newspaper advertising campaign, Bell spent £2 million in a single week. The Tory message was simple: "Britain is great again. Don't let Labour wreck it".
My concerns about the Tory proposals are purely practical and involve implementation. We already see adverts on TV for cashing in your house to a company in return for a lump sum whilst you stay in it until you die. I can see that becoming very popular and a potential problem for the Government if people know they risk seeing any potential inheritance for their children disappearing.
The other issue is that aging parents whilst still not suffering from infirmity might choose to gift their property to children whilst retaining a nominal amount of the value and a right to continue to live in it - a private form of the commercial schemes I have referred to. I believe currently that as long as you don't die within 7 years of a gift it does not count for inheritance tax purposes? We could well see a lot more people gifting to their children much earlier to circumvent the government scheme.
But the gift has to be genuine. You can't hand over property and then live in it for life. Anything less than full market rent nullifies the gift ( and lets face it rightly so. )
Even at market rent it is illegal if done to avoid the costs of care.
Is it actually "illegal"? Or just ignored/set-aside when the care costs are calculated.
You have a fair point, in that it is not a criminal offence. But local authorities are able to decide that the value of the asset will nevertheless count for purposes of assessing someone's entitlement to free care, and are entitled to seek retrospective recovery of care costs, either from the individual or the recipients of the property, in cases where it is established that a property or other assets have been passed on in order to avoid care costs. I cited two older precedent cases earlier, and the recovery powers of local authorities have since been extended by the 2014 Care Act.
So you're right that passing on a property is not in itself wrong - but subsequently seeking free care without declaring such might lead to an expensive court case and a big bill for the individual or their family. The Tory proposals multiply by about four the number of people potentially affected by such provisions, and of course people receiving care at home will tend to be of sounder mind and therefore more likely and able to contemplate arranging their finances to try and avoid care costs, than those at the stage of requiring full time residential care. So I think this could become a very live issue down the road.
How many houses in UK are under £100K? Terrace house in Hull - yeh probably. But vast swathes of Midlands and North have places where all houses are in a range more like £175 - £280K.
HYUFD does seem to have a rather 'Coronation Street' view of the North and has the impression that nobody there will lose their WFA.
In the target seats the Tories need to win from Labour in the North and Midlands, in Middlesborough, Walsall, Wakefield, Stoke, Blackpool, Scunthorpe, Dudley, Bishop Auckland, Bury and Bolton most won't lose their WFA or be much affected by the home assessment for social care. Now granted wealthier areas like Sutton Coldfield, Trafford and Tatton may be affected but those are solidly Tory anyway and will not touch Corbyn with a bargepole, May can afford to see a slightly lower Tory majority in Tatton and Altrincham and Sale if she wins the likes of Bury South and Wakefield
You keep repeating that most wont lose WFA but could you tell me at what level people will lose it.
As I said you have a very 'Coronation Street' view of the North.
Above average UK wealth and assets, clearly pensioners in most marginal Labour northern seats do not have above average UK wealth and assets
So you don't actually know but yet again you are treating people as monolithic blocks - for example I know several pensioners in a marginal Labour northern seat who do have above average UK wealth and assets.
Therefore everyone who gets WFA will fear that they will lose out and will be annoyed that they are being treated worse than their Scottish equivalents.
This will cost the Conservatives votes in England and Wales.
..
Well done !!!
I'll change that to many people will fear that they will lose out and many will be annoyed that they are being treated worse than their Scottish equivalents.
And that will cost the Conservatives votes in England and Wales.
I think making relatively wealthy people in southern England with more than £100,000 in assets pay for their care will be fantastically popular with most voters. And where are those affected by it going to go, politically speaking? Are they going to support Corbyn's Labour Party? The Tories don't need to pile up such large majorities in their south-east constituencies.
Heh. 'Trying to get back into parliament'. It's defying the will of the people is what it is! What a bloody stupid headline.
Stupid? – The article is being shared on-line by the outraged of Tunbridge – It's a DM win.
That something has an audience doesn't make the content of it less stupid. I don't dispute that the Mail's business strategy and editorial line is apparently successful, for a variety of reasons.
Just touching on that Telegraph story about Corbyn's deep and longstanding association with the IRA, it seems very odd to me - indeed an outright dereliction of duty - that the Mail and the Sun have not gone far harder on Corbyn and McDonnell over this.
Why not? Are they keeping their powder dry until the last week?
At present, we have a Labour party led by two IRA sympathisers touching the mid 30s in the polling. I don't believe that many people know about their associations, outside of the Westminster bubble and sites like this. A few Sun and Daily Mail headers would surely change that.
I'm struck also by how few blows the Tories have landed on either of them this campaign. There is a mountain of ammunition out there to be used against them, and use it they must. The gloves have to come off if the Tories are to nail these scumbags into oblivion.
I think there is a risk of the accusations that Corbyn and McDonnell are terrorist sympathizers being dismissed by many as fake news. I'm not sure that they will catch on in a way they may have done previously. People are much more sceptical of everything they read today, and (while there is a lot of truth in the dodgy histories of Corbyn and McDonnell) overblown attacks over this will just be seen as background noise. It is too easy to dismiss truth as fake news, and promote fake news as truth these days.
I think the pacifism thing may be more damning in the eyes of the general public than the fact that he has an 'association' with the IRA whatever that means...
And where are those affected by it going to go, politically speaking? Are they going to support Corbyn's Labour Party?
I'm seriously considering it. Why not give Jez a try?
But were you tempted by the Tory offer in the first place? Because that's who they are worried about losing, people who liked what they were offering, and might now be put off, and I do not quite understand how if someone was considering May before, they would wholesale switch to Corbyn now. Corbyn's offer of massive spending is not a surprise, if someone did not believe it before, they won't believe it now, and vice-versa.
Just touching on that Telegraph story about Corbyn's deep and longstanding association with the IRA, it seems very odd to me - indeed an outright dereliction of duty - that the Mail and the Sun have not gone far harder on Corbyn and McDonnell over this.
Why not? Are they keeping their powder dry until the last week?
At present, we have a Labour party led by two IRA sympathisers touching the mid 30s in the polling. I don't believe that many people know about their associations, outside of the Westminster bubble and sites like this. A few Sun and Daily Mail headers would surely change that.
I'm struck also by how few blows the Tories have landed on either of them this campaign. There is a mountain of ammunition out there to be used against them, and use it they must. The gloves have to come off if the Tories are to nail these scumbags into oblivion.
I think there is a risk of the accusations that Corbyn and McDonnell are terrorist sympathizers being dismissed by many as fake news..
For a lot of people it will be. 'Sympathiser' is probably too strong a word in any case, but most people who are inclined to like him will instantly dismiss it as fake, even though there are serious points there, and those who already disliked him will already know about it or it will reinforce a premade decision.
And where are those affected by it going to go, politically speaking? Are they going to support Corbyn's Labour Party?
I'm seriously considering it. Why not give Jez a try?
But were you tempted by the Tory offer in the first place? Because that's who they are worried about losing, people who liked what they were offering, and might now be put off, and I do not quite understand how if someone was considering May before, they would wholesale switch to Corbyn now.
I've always had a grudging respect for Jezza for sticking to his guns and surviving all the PLP plots to oust him.
I firmly believe he would have campaigned for LEAVE were it not for the PLP and in the privacy of the polling booth probably did vote OUT!
His policies range from intriguing to madness but at least he's not taking the piss out of his own supporters...
I think making relatively wealthy people in southern England with more than £100,000 in assets pay for their care will be fantastically popular with most voters. And where are those affected by it going to go, politically speaking? Are they going to support Corbyn's Labour Party? The Tories don't need to pile up such large majorities in their south-east constituencies.
They vote Lib Dem, obviously.
The world does not divide solely into Tory and Labour, even though some posters here think it does.
Rother Valley 3rd in "Identity" index from Ashcroft. Judging by the England flags and general Brexit atmosphere in Harthill immediately after June 23rd, could well be a huge swing here. But Labour does have a decent wall for the Tories to scale. Not bet on it but should be interesting. Rotherham OTOH will be safe as houses for err demographic reasons similiarly.
Thanks. I also think some Labour odds in B'ham may have gone a bit long.
My tip from this area is for Tories to retain Brecon and Radnor @1.25. I don't see a remote, rural 'small c' conservative Welsh seat going Lib.Dem. this time. The Tory seats on the English side are 1.01 and should be 1.001, though Wales has always been a bit Liberal. I believe the disclaimer is DYOR but if you spread money across some similar bets you should be OK.
I've been wondering how much money is bet on each of the 650 constituencies at a GE. Anyone know?
I get the whole 'stop complacency' aspect but this seems like a weird tweet. It comes across as desperate. Also the kind of message that may fire up despondent labour voters as well as scaring lazy tories.
That assumes that the 'others' (LibDems, SNP, DUP etc) would rather side with a Corbyn led Labour rather than May led Tories. It might even prompt a change in leadership in one or more of the two big parties in order to get a coalition. Obviously it won't happen, but the fact that our Prime Minister is suggesting it is a bit weird.
What's even stranger is that this damages brand Theresa.
Theresa May is getting a lot of credit as being the 'grown up' after Gove, Boris, et al kicked in the shopped window and legged it. Her 'boring' persona is just the kind of "strong and stable" [sic and *sick*] persona that lots of people - particularly ex-UKIP supporters - are lapping up. Everything screams 'landslide', no-one is expecting anything less.
So this just looks like a barefaced lie, scaremongering, and that she is just another politician with an eye for the main chance. Bizarre.
The Conservatives risk making the same mistake Labour made with Gordon Brown -- the double whammy of taking away the PM's USP as the strong, stable leader (or not Flash, just Gordon) by engaging in stunts conceived for the previous PM, and making them look incompetent because the the new leader cannot pull them off convincingly.
Just touching on that Telegraph story about Corbyn's deep and longstanding association with the IRA, it seems very odd to me - indeed an outright dereliction of duty - that the Mail and the Sun have not gone far harder on Corbyn and McDonnell over this.
Why not? Are they keeping their powder dry until the last week?
At present, we have a Labour party led by two IRA sympathisers touching the mid 30s in the polling. I don't believe that many people know about their associations, outside of the Westminster bubble and sites like this. A few Sun and Daily Mail headers would surely change that.
I'm struck also by how few blows the Tories have landed on either of them this campaign. There is a mountain of ammunition out there to be used against them, and use it they must. The gloves have to come off if the Tories are to nail these scumbags into oblivion.
I think there is a risk of the accusations that Corbyn and McDonnell are terrorist sympathizers being dismissed by many as fake news..
For a lot of people it will be. 'Sympathiser' is probably too strong a word in any case, but most people who are inclined to like him will instantly dismiss it as fake, even though there are serious points there, and those who already disliked him will already know about it or it will reinforce a premade decision.
I stand to be directly affected by this - As I also said on the thread last night no one at work (affluent South East) is remotely bothered by this.
As my mother in law was until recently in a care home suffering from dementia we fully expected that the estate would be wittled down to 23k paying for the care costs.
We would also have been paying a higher rate once her house sale had completed.
So, from the perspective of a family that has actually first hand experience of this - our feelings are is that this is a step in the right direction.
It may not be the optimum way but someone has at least tried to grasp the nettle.
Personally I am more pissed off at people who want to use cheap slogans to attack rather than a party that at least is trying even though they must have known how it would be spun.
Just another thought - when my father tries to talk to my brother and I about inheritance and how he doesn't want to spend X on himself as that is "for you" we both tell him to spend it on himself.
He was also shocked to find out my experience with mother in law that the State could take his asset to pay for care down to 23k - so another one who sees this as a step forward.
I stand to be directly affected by this - As I also said on the thread last night no one at work (affluent South East) is remotely bothered by this.
As my mother in law was until recently in a care home suffering from dementia we fully expected that the estate would be wittled down to 23k paying for the care costs.
We would also have been paying a higher rate once her house sale had completed.
So, from the perspective of a family that has actually first hand experience of this - our feelings are is that this is a step in the right direction.
It may not be the optimum way but someone has at least tried to grasp the nettle.
Personally I am more pissed off at people who want to use cheap slogans to attack rather than a party that at least is trying even though they must have known how it would be spun.
Just another thought - when my father tries to talk to my brother and I about inheritance and how he doesn't want to spend X on himself as that is "for you" we both tell him to spend it on himself.
He was also shocked to find out my experience with mother in law that the State could take his asset to pay for care down to 23k - so another one who sees this as a step forward.
The people who may end up being the most unhappy could be those whose savings have already been whittled down to £23k and then see the threshold lifted to £100k.
One of Labour's more intriguing policies is to build a second Brighton Main Rail Line which would mean the reopening of the Uckfield - Lewes section closed in 1969, with new connections to Tunbridge Wells and entering London via Canary Wharf & Stratford in the east. Expensive but an example of them being willing to tackle the nation's infrastructure problems in the face of our burgeoning population which contrasts with the Tories decidedly niggardly approach (except when it comes to the flawed HS2 project)
Comments
Ditto for his others of the previous few weeks.
Mr. Norm, I'd guess so. Can't imagine Gove would find it hard to find work if he wanted to leave.
Why not? Are they keeping their powder dry until the last week?
At present, we have a Labour party led by two IRA sympathisers touching the mid 30s in the polling. I don't believe that many people know about their associations, outside of the Westminster bubble and sites like this. A few Sun and Daily Mail headers would surely change that.
I'm struck also by how few blows the Tories have landed on either of them this campaign. There is a mountain of ammunition out there to be used against them, and use it they must. The gloves have to come off if the Tories are to nail these scumbags into oblivion.
I get the whole 'stop complacency' aspect but this seems like a weird tweet. It comes across as desperate. Also the kind of message that may fire up despondent labour voters as well as scaring lazy tories.
I do wonder how many other Labour MPs haven't included Corbyn on their literature.
No matter your thoughts on his personal politics, he is spending an absolute fortune on polling and focus groups, and we are all a lot more informed as a result of his interest in the subject.
Oh, and the VC collection that he continues to buy for public display.
Anyway, we'll see. A couple of front pages splashes from the two biggest read newspapers in Britain would have some serious effect.
The battlegrounds there are now Bristols East and South - but whether Labour understand that is understand that is a different issue.
Rotherham OTOH will be safe as houses for err demographic reasons similiarly.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/15/voting-intention-regional-breakdown-apr-24-may-5/
You mentioned 'The Expanse' in a previous post. I cannot recommend it highly enough. It is a superb series. As an aside, one of the main characters has an uncanny resemblance to Jimmy Anderson (he's actually called James in the series).
Get it, you will not be disappointed, I guarantee it.
As I said you have a very 'Coronation Street' view of the North.
Anyone have other ideas, bearing in mind that including retirees, up to a third or more of Labour MPs may not be returning to the House after the GE?
The North is very Conservative, the South is very Labour, but the West is packed full of marginals.
This happened in each of the last two elections at about the three week stage. Talk of a left wing fightback (Cleggasm, Milifandom Non Dom) and a lacklustre Tory campaign. Cries of 'something must be done'. Nothing much is.
And then the Tories win.
But right now, she can do anything and everything she likes as long as Brexit gets delivered.
It might even prompt a change in leadership in one or more of the two big parties in order to get a coalition.
Obviously it won't happen, but the fact that our Prime Minister is suggesting it is a bit weird.
TP seems confident:
https://twitter.com/aaron4donvalley
** Bizarrely Labour are 1/200 in Wentworth & Dearne, perhaps because people don't know where it is.
"Over half of ex-LibDem MPs who were kicked out at the last general election are trying to get back into Parliament despite £620k payoff"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4524386/Ex-LibDem-MPs-trying-Parliament.html
HOW DARE THEY CONTEST THE ELECTION?!!!!!!!!!!
** Amusingly they underachieved in those metropolitan middle class areas the 'Cameron Project' was most targeted at.
If the Tories do go on the offensive over this, it will be interesting to see how the left wing media deal with it. I can imagine that what would actually help the Tories is if the Guardian and whoever else attack the Tories for bringing up this stuff. That might be what really benefits the Tories as I think a lot will consider it fair game.
Theresa May is getting a lot of credit as being the 'grown up' after Gove, Boris, et al kicked in the shopped window and legged it. Her 'boring' persona is just the kind of "strong and stable" [sic and *sick*] persona that lots of people - particularly ex-UKIP supporters - are lapping up. Everything screams 'landslide', no-one is expecting anything less.
So this just looks like a barefaced lie, scaremongering, and that she is just another politician with an eye for the main chance. Bizarre.
https://twitter.com/Coldwar_Steve/status/865818765191196672
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11527516/This-may-surprise-you-but-the-Tories-are-delighted-with-how-the-campaign-is-going.html
Therefore everyone who gets WFA will fear that they will lose out and will be annoyed that they are being treated worse than their Scottish equivalents.
This will cost the Conservatives votes in England and Wales.
"The ayes to the right, 300,000"
Or is there some PB game of copying the tweets of people who we've never heard of about the tweets of other people we've never heard of.
If so I think you'll have to work a bit harder to beat Scott.
A week before election day, on what was to become known as "Wobbly Thursday", a rogue poll for The Daily Telegraph showed the Tory lead down to 4%. A concerned Mrs Thatcher handed the management of the campaign over to advertising guru Tim Bell. In a blanket newspaper advertising campaign, Bell spent £2 million in a single week. The Tory message was simple: "Britain is great again. Don't let Labour wreck it".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/background/pastelec/ge87.shtml
So you're right that passing on a property is not in itself wrong - but subsequently seeking free care without declaring such might lead to an expensive court case and a big bill for the individual or their family. The Tory proposals multiply by about four the number of people potentially affected by such provisions, and of course people receiving care at home will tend to be of sounder mind and therefore more likely and able to contemplate arranging their finances to try and avoid care costs, than those at the stage of requiring full time residential care. So I think this could become a very live issue down the road.
I'll change that to many people will fear that they will lose out and many will be annoyed that they are being treated worse than their Scottish equivalents.
And that will cost the Conservatives votes in England and Wales.
https://twitter.com/JimDOfficial/status/864783997636939777
I've always had a grudging respect for Jezza for sticking to his guns and surviving all the PLP plots to oust him.
I firmly believe he would have campaigned for LEAVE were it not for the PLP and in the privacy of the polling booth probably did vote OUT!
His policies range from intriguing to madness but at least he's not taking the piss out of his own supporters...
"...this coalition is heavily reliant on both making sure people who usually don’t vote turn up on the day"
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/18/how-labours-support-holding/
https://amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2017/may/18/theresa-may-big-break-campaign-help-jim-davidson
The world does not divide solely into Tory and Labour, even though some posters here think it does.
My tip from this area is for Tories to retain Brecon and Radnor @1.25. I don't see a remote, rural 'small c' conservative Welsh seat going Lib.Dem. this time. The Tory seats on the English side are 1.01 and should be 1.001, though Wales has always been a bit Liberal. I believe the disclaimer is DYOR but if you spread money across some similar bets you should be OK.
I've been wondering how much money is bet on each of the 650 constituencies at a GE. Anyone know?
As my mother in law was until recently in a care home suffering from dementia we fully expected that the estate would be wittled down to 23k paying for the care costs.
We would also have been paying a higher rate once her house sale had completed.
So, from the perspective of a family that has actually first hand experience of this - our feelings are is that this is a step in the right direction.
It may not be the optimum way but someone has at least tried to grasp the nettle.
Personally I am more pissed off at people who want to use cheap slogans to attack rather than a party that at least is trying even though they must have known how it would be spun.
Just another thought - when my father tries to talk to my brother and I about inheritance and how he doesn't want to spend X on himself as that is "for you" we both tell him to spend it on himself.
He was also shocked to find out my experience with mother in law that the State could take his asset to pay for care down to 23k - so another one who sees this as a step forward.