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.
£100,000 is hardly wealthy in terms of net assets.
Nearly all pensioners own their own homes and have paid off their mortgage. Very few homeowning pensioners across the UK won't be affected by this. Taken together with removing the winter fuel allowance from all but a few, and ending the triple lock, it all adds up to a pretty big perceived assault on a group 69% of whom vote Tory (last YouGov).
Here are two possible reactions, it's uncertain how potent this could be in terms of overall effect, but whether it appreciably affects loyalties or not I think there will be 10 times as many in category 1 as category 2:
1. I'm a pensioner. The Tories are having a go at us. I'm not going to vote for them now because of that.
2. I'm not a pensioner. The Tories are having a go at pensioners. I'm going to vote Tory now because of that.
£100,000 is a helluva lot to anybody "just about managing".
Theresa May has said she will look out for the JAMs.
Kudos to Jim Davidson for campaigning for the Tories in Derby in the rain, rather more useful for the Tories than leftie celebs tweeting from North London will be for Corbyn
Let's hope he doesn't meet too many overweight people in flip-flops and fat children of all colours and no class on the doorsteps. Wouldn't want him put off from being useful to the Tories.
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,
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.
So you know one or two wealthy pensioners in northern Labour marginal seats, so what, they are a minority, the vast majority of voters May needs to win in those Labour marginal seats are not wealthy and those that are are hardly going to vote for Corbyn anyway
Still got that 'Coronation Street' view of the North haven't you. Or perhaps you think that's one of the posh bits and Northern swing voters come from a Tony Capstick / Monty Python sketch ?
Tell us HYUFD if means testing WFA wont cost the Conservatives votes why is Ruth Davidson so keen for it not to happen in Scotland ?
And if you could also how many extra Conservative seats in the North are you willing to forgo for extra SCON MPs ?
We should be banning contraception & encouraging teenage pregnancy.
I know you like your heresies, here's one for you.
In one of my former lives I was an adult education lecturer. And the main demographic that means I worked with was teenage mums whose youngest kids had now started full-time primary school, who wanted to work through the relevant college courses and then, in many cases, move on to university.
Because they had bloody well got on with their sprog-popping business, this was generally in their mid-to-late-20s - so by the time they were moving on to university, they weren't that much older than the rest of the cohort, and they almost all had a clear view of why they wanted to go to uni and what they were going to do afterwards. Most sought professional careers, with teaching, nursing, midwifery, law and social work particularly common. By the time they graduated around 30 or so, they would have about 35 years to progress up the ranks without further interruption - easily enough to repay their education, as they had clearly calculated.
Their lifepaths do not seem to me to have worked out too badly, even if becoming a parent at such a young age hadn't been a carefully thought-out plan. There are many young ladies who take their A-levels on the back of what GCSEs/O-levels they quite enjoyed, then off to uni for 3 years to grow up a bit and because the subject sounded interesting, then (increasingly these days) a Masters, diploma or conversion course that's actually practically useful now they've worked out what they want to do professionally, followed by ten years on the career treadmill while looking increasingly desperately for a guy to settle down with before the 30s are up, then a career break that kicks in from their mid 30s. Once freed up by the mid-to-late-40s, it may be tricky to go back into the old industry, and taking a couple of years away to retrain may not repay itself if there's only 15 years of career left after that. So you can end up working a role you're massively overqualified for at pay-rates that only marginally make it worth going back to work at all. And with kids staying at home increasingly until their late 20s or early 30s, you don't even get a free home back until your 60s or older.
Obviously this is unfair anecdotage, comparing a near-optimal teenage parent lifepath to a decidedly sub-optimal alternative. But neither presented was unrealistic. I do think pushing parenthood into the 30s and 40s has had some negative effects, and also that many people are far too fast to condemn or write off teenage mums - ones with a good support network (quite often from their own family rather than the young chap involved) can still thrive. Can even get into the Shadow Cabinet...
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.
£100,000 is hardly wealthy in terms of net assets.
Nearly all pensioners own their own homes and have paid off their mortgage. Very few homeowning pensioners across the UK won't be affected by this. Taken together with removing the winter fuel allowance from all but a few, and ending the triple lock, it all adds up to a pretty big perceived assault on a group 69% of whom vote Tory (last YouGov).
Here are two possible reactions, it's uncertain how potent this could be in terms of overall effect, but whether it appreciably affects loyalties or not I think there will be 10 times as many in category 1 as category 2:
1. I'm a pensioner. The Tories are having a go at us. I'm not going to vote for them now because of that.
2. I'm not a pensioner. The Tories are having a go at pensioners. I'm going to vote Tory now because of that.
Its not a new policy for goodness sake.... its an improvement on the old policy...
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.
£100,000 is hardly wealthy in terms of net assets.
Nearly all pensioners own their own homes and have paid off their mortgage. Very few homeowning pensioners across the UK won't be affected by this. Taken together with removing the winter fuel allowance from all but a few, and ending the triple lock, it all adds up to a pretty big perceived assault on a group 69% of whom vote Tory (last YouGov).
Here are two possible reactions, it's uncertain how potent this could be in terms of overall effect, but whether it appreciably affects loyalties or not I think there will be 10 times as many in category 1 as category 2:
1. I'm a pensioner. The Tories are having a go at us. I'm not going to vote for them now because of that.
2. I'm not a pensioner. The Tories are having a go at pensioners. I'm going to vote Tory now because of that.
Of course there are other reactions;
3. I'm a pensioner. I've always believed in fairness. It's not fair that I could have some of my assets that I've worked hard for taken from me. I'm not going to vote Tory now because of that.
4. I'm a pensioner. I've always believed in fairness. It's fair that richer people should pay more for their care. I'm going to vote Tory now because of that.
Et cetera...
The reactions I've had from my parents (who are divorced and living separately) split one each way (3 and 4).
The part of the policy that seems to have been less well-publicised relates to the post-death payment element. I think this makes a difference. The increase in student tuition fees had no lasting negative effect on demand for university places in part because of the deferred payment element of it. Not having to fork out now for something does have a psychological effect on many people (just look at the personal debt figures.)
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.
£100,000 is hardly wealthy in terms of net assets.
Nearly all pensioners own their own homes and have paid off their mortgage. Very few homeowning pensioners across the UK won't be affected by this. Taken together with removing the winter fuel allowance from all but a few, and ending the triple lock, it all adds up to a pretty big perceived assault on a group 69% of whom vote Tory (last YouGov).
Here are two possible reactions, it's uncertain how potent this could be in terms of overall effect, but whether it appreciably affects loyalties or not I think there will be 10 times as many in category 1 as category 2:
1. I'm a pensioner. The Tories are having a go at us. I'm not going to vote for them now because of that.
2. I'm not a pensioner. The Tories are having a go at pensioners. I'm going to vote Tory now because of that.
"nearly all"
that's a claim and a half. anyone know the actual percentage?
The nation has also spoken about the other major scone hot topic – jam or cream first? Jam first – also known as the “Cornish” method – is the overwhelming favourite, with more than six in ten (61%) adding the sweet stuff first. By contrast, just one in five (21%) go for the “Devon” approach of putting the cream on before putting on the jam
I hate jam, but if I were so inclined, I would put it on after the cream, so now I am in the 21%.
You should campaign for a second vote!!!
No, it's time to move on and just accept I live in a nation of degenerates.
kle4, I gotta ask this - who are you actually voting for this election? I can't make my mind up whether you're a Labour double agent sounding out Tory opinion, a covert Corbyn sympathiser (you do seem to defend his 'honour' on occasion), or a wavering Tory voter. Perhaps even a Limp Dim? UKIP? Green??
Which one? I'm genuinely intrigued.
I typically vote LD as a default option, particularly as I live in a safe Tory seat and I think they have been hard done by the public, but I definitely lean Tory more than Lab, though I'd consider the latter if not led by Corbyn. I voted for Brexit (albeit I had hoped for softer sort), and voted hoping for a Tory-LD coalition in 2010 and 2015. May's stance on social care, and being willing to take heat for addressing a difficult issue, has me considering voting Tory this time.
I do not defend Corbyn's honour - I think he's inflexible, not very bright and not as 'different' as his supporters claim, and that that is not as big a positive as people suggest. But on a personal level he seems an amiable man, were he not involved in politics.
I'm generally a fence sitter (hence the profile pic), but that's down to indecisiveness.
Kudos to Jim Davidson for campaigning for the Tories in Derby in the rain, rather more useful for the Tories than leftie celebs tweeting from North London will be for Corbyn
Jim Davidson isn't my favorite comedian and the Blues aren't my favorite Party but I have a lot of respect for anybody who gets out there and footslogs for their political beliefs, and that includes Jim.
Talking of footsoldiers, the Labour Party were out in force in Wanstead High Street just now. They seemed on the whole to be getting a good response, but it's a safe Labour seat, even if Wanstead is the Tory end. No sign of the Conservatives, but they are probably targeting marginal Ilford, which would be sensible.
I indicated that I wouldn't be supporting John Cryer this time because of his support for Brexit. They were sensible enough not to engage me in debate and just said they would pass the message on. I'm sure it won't worry him.
Agree with this. A Labour fella was out delivering leaflets in my street, in the pouring rain, in a rock solid Tory area. I kinda felt sorry for him, because in his heart he must have known he was wasting his time and effort. No sign of the Terrorist Sympathiser on any of the literature.
Here's a task for all PBers - produce a copy of any Labour election material with either a mention or a picture of Corbyn on it.
The nation has also spoken about the other major scone hot topic – jam or cream first? Jam first – also known as the “Cornish” method – is the overwhelming favourite, with more than six in ten (61%) adding the sweet stuff first. By contrast, just one in five (21%) go for the “Devon” approach of putting the cream on before putting on the jam
The nation has also spoken about the other major scone hot topic – jam or cream first? Jam first – also known as the “Cornish” method – is the overwhelming favourite, with more than six in ten (61%) adding the sweet stuff first. By contrast, just one in five (21%) go for the “Devon” approach of putting the cream on before putting on the jam
You are already quoting stuff written by someone else and using sharing a platform as a proxy for sharing an opinion.
The 'sharing a platform' excuse doesn't apply here. When you're editor of a magazine, you're responsible for the opinions that come out under its byline. When you're at an event organised by terrorists to commemorate dead terrorists, talking about how you hope the terrorists get what they want, you're sharing their opinion.
It's fine to argue that the whole thing won't have much electoral impact, although I suspect Crosby has focus-grouped attack ads which will be highly targeted and come out near the end of the campaign. But let's not beat about the bush: Corbyn and McDonnell supported the terrorist campaign to unify Ireland.
You might be assuming I'm a Corbyn partisan. I'm not. When it came out that he was standing for the Labour leadership it was the first time I heard of him for decades and my first thought was "wasn't he the one who supported the IRA?". So I literally started from the assumption that he did. But when I looked into it the facts didn't support it. Like a lot of things in politics, you can't believe the impression you get from the newspapers. London Labour Briefing was a crazy publication and Corbyn's association with it is not much to his credit, but it doesn't make him a terrorist.
We should be banning contraception & encouraging teenage pregnancy.
Obviously this is unfair anecdotage, comparing a near-optimal teenage parent lifepath to a decidedly sub-optimal alternative. But neither presented was unrealistic. I do think pushing parenthood into the 30s and 40s has had some negative effects, and also that many people are far too fast to condemn or write off teenage mums - ones with a good support network (quite often from their own family rather than the young chap involved) can still thrive. Can even get into the Shadow Cabinet...
Kudos to Jim Davidson for campaigning for the Tories in Derby in the rain, rather more useful for the Tories than leftie celebs tweeting from North London will be for Corbyn
JD must be the only 70s TV personality left who hasn't turned out to be a kid toucher. Kudos to him, indeed.
Kudos to Jim Davidson for campaigning for the Tories in Derby in the rain, rather more useful for the Tories than leftie celebs tweeting from North London will be for Corbyn
Jim Davidson isn't my favorite comedian and the Blues aren't my favorite Party but I have a lot of respect for anybody who gets out there and footslogs for their political beliefs, and that includes Jim.
Talking of footsoldiers, the Labour Party were out in force in Wanstead High Street just now. They seemed on the whole to be getting a good response, but it's a safe Labour seat, even if Wanstead is the Tory end. No sign of the Conservatives, but they are probably targeting marginal Ilford, which would be sensible.
I indicated that I wouldn't be supporting John Cryer this time because of his support for Brexit. They were sensible enough not to engage me in debate and just said they would pass the message on. I'm sure it won't worry him.
Well said about Jim. Like you I don't share his political views but I respect people who get out there completely unheralded . Several years ago I met Jim at a provincial gig by the late Greg Lake where he did a little warm-up and introduced the great man (to someone of my generation lol) on to the stage. Turned out he did this unpaid and unannounced just because he was a good mate of the singer and loved his music.
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,
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 in England and Wales.
So you know one or two hardly going to vote for Corbyn anyway
Still got that 'Coronation Street' view of the North haven't you. Or perhaps you think that's one of the posh bits and Northern swing voters come from a Tony Capstick / Monty Python sketch ?
Tell us HYUFD if means testing WFA wont cost the Conservatives votes why is Ruth Davidson so keen for it not to happen in Scotland ?
And if you could also how many extra Conservative seats in the North are you willing to forgo for extra SCON MPs ?
The average house price in the North is about £150-£200k, the average salary about £23k, they will lose zero from the WFA changes on average and very little on the social care charges, they will in fact gain if they are in residential care from the increase in protected assets to £100k from £23k.
So I expect the Tories will still gain about 40-50 seats from Labour in the North and Midlands and Wales, indeed as the focus group Paul Waugh posted on twitter shows Labour voters fully back May in not protecting 'toffs' from paying their fair share. The Tories will also gain up to 10 seats from the SNP and in Scotland the upper middle class vote SNP now, the Tories want to win those who voted No over to them, in England and Wales by contrast they always largely vote Tory. Granted in the wealthy South and London they may gain barely more than a handful of new seats and indeed lose a few seats to the LDs but the direction of travel will still be significant gains for May
We should be banning contraception & encouraging teenage pregnancy.
I know you like your heresies, here's one for you.
In one of my former lives I was an adult education lecturer. And the main demographic that means I worked with was teenage mums whose youngest kids had now started full-time primary school, who wanted to work through the relevant college courses and then, in many cases, move on to university.
Because they had bloody well got on with their sprog-popping business, this was generally in their mid-to-late-20s - so by the time they were moving on to university, they weren't that much older than the rest of the cohort, and they almost all had a clear view of why they wanted to go to uni and what they were going to do afterwards. Most sought professional careers, with teaching, nursing, midwifery, law and social work particularly common. By the time they graduated around 30 or so, they would have about 35 years to progress up the ranks without further interruption - easily enough to repay their education, as they had clearly calculated.
Their lifepaths do not seem to me to have worked out too badly, even if becoming a parent at such a young age hadn't been a carefully thought-out plan. There are many young ladies who take their A-levels on the back of what GCSEs/O-levels they quite enjoyed, then off to uni for 3 years to grow up a bit and because the subject sounded interesting, then (increasingly these days) a Masters, diploma or conversion course that's actually practically useful now they've worked out what they want to do professionally, followed by ten years on the career treadmill while looking increasingly desperately for a guy to settle down with before the 30s are up, then a career break that kicks in from their mid 30s. Once freed up by the mid-to-late-40s, it may be tricky to go back into t............a couple of years away to retrain may not repay itself if there's only 15 years of career left after that. So you can end up working a role you're massively overqualified for at pay-rates that only marginally make it worth going back to work at all. And with kids staying at home increasingly until their late 20s or early 30s, you don't even get a free home back until your 60s or older.
Obviously this is unfair anecdotage, comparing a near-optimal teenage parent lifepath to a decidedly sub-optimal alternative. But neither presented was unrealistic. I do think pushing parenthood into the 30s and 40s has had some negative effects, and also that many people are far too fast to condemn or write off teenage mums - ones with a good support network (quite often from their own family rather than the young chap involved) can still thrive. Can even get into the Shadow Cabinet...
Excellent post, MBE. I've often thought this but never articulated it as well.
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.
Here's what Corbyn himself says. "The violence was wrong on all sides and I have said so all along. My whole point was if we are to bring about a peace process, you weren't going to achieve it by military means." I wouldn't say the same myself, and I'd be much happier if Corbyn had spent the time he has on Ireland tending his allotment instead. But he simply has not overtly associated himself with a terrorist organisation. Claiming that he has is simply electioneering.
The nation has also spoken about the other major scone hot topic – jam or cream first? Jam first – also known as the “Cornish” method – is the overwhelming favourite, with more than six in ten (61%) adding the sweet stuff first. By contrast, just one in five (21%) go for the “Devon” approach of putting the cream on before putting on the jam
I hate jam, but if I were so inclined, I would put it on after the cream, so now I am in the 21%.
You should campaign for a second vote!!!
No, it's time to move on and just accept I live in a nation of degenerates.
kle4, I gotta ask this - who are you actually voting for this election? I can't make my mind up whether you're a Labour double agent sounding out Tory opinion, a covert Corbyn sympathiser (you do seem to defend his 'honour' on occasion), or a wavering Tory voter. Perhaps even a Limp Dim? UKIP? Green??
Which one? I'm genuinely intrigued.
I typically vote LD as a default option, particularly as I live in a safe Tory seat and I think they have been hard done by the public, but I definitely lean Tory more than Lab, though I'd consider the latter if not led by Corbyn. I voted for Brexit (albeit I had hoped for softer sort), and voted hoping for a Tory-LD coalition in 2010 and 2015. May's stance on social care, and being willing to take heat for addressing a difficult issue, has me considering voting Tory this time.
I do not defend Corbyn's honour - I think he's inflexible, not very bright and not as 'different' as his supporters claim, and that that is not as big a positive as people suggest. But on a personal level he seems an amiable man, were he not involved in politics.
I'm generally a fence sitter (hence the profile pic), but that's down to indecisiveness.
'I'm generally a fence sitter (hence the profile pic), but that's down to indecisiveness.'
I'm glad you admitted that, kle4. I would never have guessed otherwise. (sorry, i'm being sarcastic, obviously).
I've always voted Tory since 1987, apart from one election - 1997 - when I abstained, because I was, like most others, tired of them. I could not bring myself to vote Labour, even then, though. I knew Blair was a charlatan, but none of my converted friends would believe me at the time. Funny they all now vote Tory again.
Kudos to Jim Davidson for campaigning for the Tories in Derby in the rain, rather more useful for the Tories than leftie celebs tweeting from North London will be for Corbyn
Jim Davidson isn't my favorite comedian and the Blues aren't my favorite Party but I have a lot of respect for anybody who gets out there and footslogs for their political beliefs, and that includes Jim.
Talking of footsoldiers, the Labour Party were out in force in Wanstead High Street just now. They seemed on the whole to be getting a good response, but it's a safe Labour seat, even if Wanstead is the Tory end. No sign of the Conservatives, but they are probably targeting marginal Ilford, which would be sensible.
I indicated that I wouldn't be supporting John Cryer this time because of his support for Brexit. They were sensible enough not to engage me in debate and just said they would pass the message on. I'm sure it won't worry him.
Labour will win Leyton comfortably anyway, I know Tory activists around outer London and Essex in safe seats are being sent to Ilford North, Thurrock, Enfield North and Dagenham
Kudos to Jim Davidson for campaigning for the Tories in Derby in the rain, rather more useful for the Tories than leftie celebs tweeting from North London will be for Corbyn
JD must be the only 70s TV personality left who hasn't turned out to be a kid toucher. Kudos to him, indeed.
The nation has also spoken about the other major scone hot topic – jam or cream first? Jam first – also known as the “Cornish” method – is the overwhelming favourite, with more than six in ten (61%) adding the sweet stuff first. By contrast, just one in five (21%) go for the “Devon” approach of putting the cream on before putting on the jam
Kudos to Jim Davidson for campaigning for the Tories in Derby in the rain, rather more useful for the Tories than leftie celebs tweeting from North London will be for Corbyn
JD must be the only 70s TV personality left who hasn't turned out to be a kid toucher. Kudos to him, indeed.
Yes, he is also probably more in touch with the average voter than most comedians now are which should keep him touring for a while yet
The average house price in the North is about £150-£200k, the average salary about £23k, they will lose zero from the WFA changes on average and very little on the social care charges, they will in fact gain if they are in residential care from the increase in protected assets to £100k from £23k.
So I expect the Tories will still gain about 40-50 seats from Labour in the North and Midlands and Wales, indeed as the focus group Paul Waugh posted on twitter shows Labour voters fully back May in not protecting 'toffs' from paying their fair share. The Tories will also gain up to 10 seats from the SNP and in Scotland the upper middle class vote SNP now, the Tories want to win those who voted No over to them, in England and Wales by contrast they always largely vote Tory. Granted in the wealthy South and London they may gain barely more than a handful of new seats and indeed lose a few seats to the LDs but the direction of travel will still be significant gains for May
There's barely a handful of new seats for the Tories to gain in the South. Perhaps a few more in London, but with so many of the Labour Party members being in London, Corbyn keeping Labour strong in the capital may well be enough to keep him in post after the election.
And I'm sure the Tories will happily fight another hard Left candidate next time, rather than another Blair....
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.
£100,000 is hardly wealthy in terms of net assets.
Nearly all pensioners own their own homes and have paid off their mortgage. Very few homeowning pensioners across the UK won't be affected by this. Taken together with removing the winter fuel allowance from all but a few, and ending the triple lock, it all adds up to a pretty big perceived assault on a group 69% of whom vote Tory (last YouGov).
Here are two possible reactions, it's uncertain how potent this could be in terms of overall effect, but whether it appreciably affects loyalties or not I think there will be 10 times as many in category 1 as category 2:
1. I'm a pensioner. The Tories are having a go at us. I'm not going to vote for them now because of that.
2. I'm not a pensioner. The Tories are having a go at pensioners. I'm going to vote Tory now because of that.
£100,000 is a helluva lot to anybody "just about managing".
Theresa May has said she will look out for the JAMs.
She's justified.
But Scottish millionaires pensioners aren't JAMs and May is happy for them to keep getting WFA.
Now are pensioners who lose their WFA in England and Wales going to be happy about that ?
The nation has also spoken about the other major scone hot topic – jam or cream first? Jam first – also known as the “Cornish” method – is the overwhelming favourite, with more than six in ten (61%) adding the sweet stuff first. By contrast, just one in five (21%) go for the “Devon” approach of putting the cream on before putting on the jam
Kudos to Jim Davidson for campaigning for the Tories in Derby in the rain, rather more useful for the Tories than leftie celebs tweeting from North London will be for Corbyn
JD must be the only 70s TV personality left who hasn't turned out to be a kid toucher. Kudos to him, indeed.
Sadly he did get caught up in it though. Cost him a lot (and not just financially) to clear his name.
Kudos to Jim Davidson for campaigning for the Tories in Derby in the rain, rather more useful for the Tories than leftie celebs tweeting from North London will be for Corbyn
Jim Davidson isn't my favorite comedian and the Blues aren't my favorite Party but I have a lot of respect for anybody who gets out there and footslogs for their political beliefs, and that includes Jim.
Talking of footsoldiers, the Labour Party were out in force in Wanstead High Street just now. They seemed on the whole to be getting a good response, but it's a safe Labour seat, even if Wanstead is the Tory end. No sign of the Conservatives, but they are probably targeting marginal Ilford, which would be sensible.
I indicated that I wouldn't be supporting John Cryer this time because of his support for Brexit. They were sensible enough not to engage me in debate and just said they would pass the message on. I'm sure it won't worry him.
The local Tories might still be on Upmister High Street discussing constituency odds with iSam.
The average house price in the North is about £150-£200k, the average salary about £23k, they will lose zero from the WFA changes on average and very little on the social care charges, they will in fact gain if they are in residential care from the increase in protected assets to £100k from £23k.
So I expect the Tories will still gain about 40-50 seats from Labour in the North and Midlands and Wales, indeed as the focus group Paul Waugh posted on twitter shows Labour voters fully back May in not protecting 'toffs' from paying their fair share. The Tories will also gain up to 10 seats from the SNP and in Scotland the upper middle class vote SNP now, the Tories want to win those who voted No over to them, in England and Wales by contrast they always largely vote Tory. Granted in the wealthy South and London they may gain barely more than a handful of new seats and indeed lose a few seats to the LDs but the direction of travel will still be significant gains for May
There's barely a handful of new seats for the Tories to gain in the South. Perhaps a few more in London, but with so many of the Labour Party members being in London, Corbyn keeping Labour strong in the capital may well be enough to keep him in post after the election.
And I'm sure the Tories will happily fight another hard Left candidate next time, rather than another Blair....
Indeed, Labour may hold Hove, Hampstead and Kilburn, Harrow West, Southampton Test and Westminster North now but those 5 seats will be more than outweighed by losing the likes of Wrexham, Bridgend, Bury, Walsall, Bishop Auckland, Wakefield, Birmingham Northfield, Coventry North West etc. Corbyn will survive but he will be leading an even more London centric parliamentary party than Labour is now
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.
£100,000 is hardly wealthy in terms of net assets.
Nearly all pensioners own their own homes and have paid off their mortgage. Very few homeowning pensioners across the UK won't be affected by this. Taken together with removing the winter fuel allowance from all but a few, and ending the triple lock, it all adds up to a pretty big perceived assault on a group 69% of whom vote Tory (last YouGov).
Here are two possible reactions, it's uncertain how potent this could be in terms of overall effect, but whether it appreciably affects loyalties or not I think there will be 10 times as many in category 1 as category 2:
1. I'm a pensioner. The Tories are having a go at us. I'm not going to vote for them now because of that.
2. I'm not a pensioner. The Tories are having a go at pensioners. I'm going to vote Tory now because of that.
£100,000 is a helluva lot to anybody "just about managing".
Theresa May has said she will look out for the JAMs.
She's justified.
But Scottish millionaires pensioners aren't JAMs and May is happy for them to keep getting WFA.
Now are pensioners who lose their WFA in England and Wales going to be happy about that ?
Millionaire pensioners in England and Wales may complain but they won't vote for Corbyn
Kudos to Jim Davidson for campaigning for the Tories in Derby in the rain, rather more useful for the Tories than leftie celebs tweeting from North London will be for Corbyn
Jim Davidson isn't my favorite comedian and the Blues aren't my favorite Party but I have a lot of respect for anybody who gets out there and footslogs for their political beliefs, and that includes Jim.
Talking of footsoldiers, the Labour Party were out in force in Wanstead High Street just now. They seemed on the whole to be getting a good response, but it's a safe Labour seat, even if Wanstead is the Tory end. No sign of the Conservatives, but they are probably targeting marginal Ilford, which would be sensible.
I indicated that I wouldn't be supporting John Cryer this time because of his support for Brexit. They were sensible enough not to engage me in debate and just said they would pass the message on. I'm sure it won't worry him.
Well said about Jim. Like you I don't share his political views but I respect people who get out there completely unheralded . Several years ago I met Jim at a provincial gig by the late Greg Lake where he did a little warm-up and introduced the great man (to someone of my generation lol) on to the stage. Turned out he did this unpaid and unannounced just because he was a good mate of the singer and loved his music.
Amanda Solloway had a majority of just 41 in Derby North two years ago, so I imagine Jim Davidson's endorsement of her on the ground is most welcome. That said, were the Tories to lose this seat, it's probably goodnight Vienna for Theresa.
I hope this never happens again, where we have an election which isn't a proper contest and one party can take victory for granted no matter what happens. Also it makes for a very boring campaign.
I think 2001 was boring only thing I can remember is Haque saving the pound, Prescott punching someone and Mandelson I am not a quitter.
"Save the Pound" went down particularly well in Ealing North where the Labour vote increased from 53% to 55%. Stephen Pound has been dining out on it ever since.
You are already quoting stuff written by someone else and using sharing a platform as a proxy for sharing an opinion.
The 'sharing a platform' excuse doesn't apply here. When you're editor of a magazine, you're responsible for the opinions that come out under its byline. When you're at an event organised by terrorists to commemorate dead terrorists, talking about how you hope the terrorists get what they want, you're sharing their opinion.
It's fine to argue that the whole thing won't have much electoral impact, although I suspect Crosby has focus-grouped attack ads which will be highly targeted and come out near the end of the campaign. But let's not beat about the bush: Corbyn and McDonnell supported the terrorist campaign to unify Ireland.
You might be assuming I'm a Corbyn partisan. I'm not. When it came out that he was standing for the Labour leadership it was the first time I heard of him for decades and my first thought was "wasn't he the one who supported the IRA?". So I literally started from the assumption that he did. But when I looked into it the facts didn't support it. Like a lot of things in politics, you can't believe the impression you get from the newspapers. London Labour Briefing was a crazy publication and Corbyn's association with it is not much to his credit, but it doesn't make him a terrorist.
Nobody as far as I know has accused Corbyn of actually being a terrorist. What I am saying is that he sneakily used his Parliamentary prvililege to callude with and give succour to a terrorist organisation. He invited IRA commanders to the HoP ONE WEEK after the Brighton bombings.
That's not only immoral in the extreme, it was a direct affront to the British State and a direct affront to the hundreds of Armed Forces personnel and civilians murdered by the IRA. Corbyn must have come very close indeed to illegal activity.
It's an outrage, a disgrace, and a stain on British political culture, not only the Labour party, that this very same person is being considered as a PM of GB and NI.
local radio station here in north west headlines news with Corbyn saying tories attacking pensioners making them sell their homes and taking away triple lock
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.
£100,000 is hardly wealthy in terms of net assets.
Nearly all pensioners own their own homes and have paid off their mortgage. Very few homeowning pensioners across the UK won't be affected by this. Taken together with removing the winter fuel allowance from all but a few, and ending the triple lock, it all adds up to a pretty big perceived assault on a group 69% of whom vote Tory (last YouGov).
Here are two possible reactions, it's uncertain how potent this could be in terms of overall effect, but whether it appreciably affects loyalties or not I think there will be 10 times as many in category 1 as category 2:
1. I'm a pensioner. The Tories are having a go at us. I'm not going to vote for them now because of that.
2. I'm not a pensioner. The Tories are having a go at pensioners. I'm going to vote Tory now because of that.
£100,000 is a helluva lot to anybody "just about managing".
Theresa May has said she will look out for the JAMs.
She's justified.
But Scottish millionaires pensioners aren't JAMs and May is happy for them to keep getting WFA.
Now are pensioners who lose their WFA in England and Wales going to be happy about that ?
Millionaire pensioners in England and Wales may complain but they won't vote for Corbyn
Actually they might as they can afford to.
More to the point is that pensioners on 10Kpa might not vote Conservative either.
I've been thinking about an aspect of social care which I haven't seen mentioned: the effect on family dynamics. If dementia care was free at the point of use it would incentivise families to put their old granny in a home pdq, whereas if they have to pay for it they might chose to rally round and organise a less costly alternative instead. Unfortunately, not all families are as kind and selfless as the people who comment on here.
im beginning to think that Theresa May has really cocked up with this social care announcement making an issue that wasn't in the public spotlight become an issue during an election campaign that was meant to be all be about Brexit which she was clearly winning by a large margin. needless own goal that will cost her lots of votes just hope it doesn't allow Corbyn to win
As an aside, saw a little of Sky News yesterday and the political editor of the Yorkshire Post reckoned Labour believed they might win back Morley and Outwood. Their candidate, Neil Dawson (I think), has been a local councillor for many years.
Edited extra bit: for what it's worth, Labour are 5 for the seat on Betfair Sportsbook, current Con majority a little over 400. Andrea Jenkyns seems quite high profile and popular, so I think it could be close. Again.
Perhaps voters don't like having an MP who has just had a little bastard!
You are a really nasty bit of work, aren't you, calling an innocent infant a "bastard." You have serious form for this, and every time you do it my theory is reinforced that you do it to compensate for the fact that, what with political correctness gone mad, you can no longer talk about n*ggers and poofters.
I don't find the word 'bastard' to be particularly offensive - it is just a statement of fact! I also strongly condemn any discrimination against infants born out of wedlock - and reserve my contempt for the parents. I do have strong views on such issues - and have been descibed as more right wing than most Tories in relation to them. I would never knowingly vote for an adulterer or a candidate I knew to be 'living in sin'. Most certainly I would withold my vote from candidates who had produced 'bastards'. I am not being party political here at all , having been critical in the past of the likes of David Blunkett and Robin Cook.
A Tory deputy mayor has sparked outrage by calling for disabled kids to be guillotined to avoid wasting cash on their care.
Retired GP Owen Lister made his sick suggestion to fellow councillors as they discussed sending the youngsters to a £3,000-a-week care home.
Mr Lister, 79, told them: "I would guillotine them."
Where do all these dodgy councillors come from? It seems there's another one every day at the moment, don't the parties vet them or train them on what not to say?
when I looked into it the facts didn't support it.
What the facts don't support is that Corbyn believed in a peaceful solution. He could have used his platform to urge the IRA to seek a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Instead, he used it to encourage the British to give up, which is coincidentally what the audiences of terrorists to which he was speaking wanted to hear.
You perhaps need to read the arguments of others more carefully. He wasn't a terrorist because he didn't make the bombs or murder people himself, or give the orders to those who did. He did, however, 'support the terrorist campaign to unify Ireland,' had a 'deep and longstanding association with the IRA,' and 'overtly associated himself with a terrorist organisation that murdered women and children': all this makes him an 'IRA sympathiser'.
A Tory deputy mayor has sparked outrage by calling for disabled kids to be guillotined to avoid wasting cash on their care.
Retired GP Owen Lister made his sick suggestion to fellow councillors as they discussed sending the youngsters to a £3,000-a-week care home.
Mr Lister, 79, told them: "I would guillotine them."
Where do all these dodgy councillors come from? It seems there's another one every day at the moment, don't the parties vet them or train them on what not to say?
There was another dodgy councillor who advocated the annual culling of council house tenants.
im beginning to think that Theresa May has really cocked up with this social care announcement making an issue that wasn't in the public spotlight become an issue during an election campaign that was meant to be all be about Brexit which she was clearly winning by a large margin. needless own goal that will cost her lots of votes just hope it doesn't allow Corbyn to win
No it won't as swing voters in the North and Midlands will be barely affected at all and will in fact benefit if they need residential care, the main losers will be wealthy voters in London and the South and while a few may go LD they certainly won't vote for Corbyn
No sign of Corbyn on Rushanari Ali's campain literature here in Bethnal Green. She was one of the "morons" who nominated him. Must have changed her mind,
Is there any restriction on the size of posters that one can erect during an election? I know they're exempt from normal planning applications, because they're temporary, but could I put one up that's 50 feet high?
I'm asking because someone wants to object to an extremely large poster on a narrow road, which he thinks could be a distraction for traffic (I suspect he disagrees with the poster, but anyway I want to give a factual reply).
A Tory deputy mayor has sparked outrage by calling for disabled kids to be guillotined to avoid wasting cash on their care.
Retired GP Owen Lister made his sick suggestion to fellow councillors as they discussed sending the youngsters to a £3,000-a-week care home.
Mr Lister, 79, told them: "I would guillotine them."
Where do all these dodgy councillors come from? It seems there's another one every day at the moment, don't the parties vet them or train them on what not to say?
Vetting of local authority candidates is done locally by all the parties, I believe, and with varying degrees of thoroughness depending on how desperate they are for candidates. Being a local councillor can be a thankless task, and it is rare to be overwhelmed with people wanting to do it (being too keen is probably a disqualification in any sensible world, in any event).
The amount of training they get is pretty minimal - by their own party it would be voluntary and at their own expense. Unlike thirty years ago most councils make some sort of an effort to provide some councillor training nowadays, but this generally stays away from overtly campaigning stuff. There are some media training courses around offered to councillors, but as they charge you'd have to be willing to pay for it yourself or persuade your council to do so, which being public money is most likely to be focused upon leading members rather than your regular backbencher.
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,
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 in England and Wales.
So you know one or two hardly going to vote for Corbyn anyway
Still got that 'Coronation Street' view of the North haven't you. Or perhaps you think that's one of the posh bits and Northern swing voters come from a Tony Capstick / Monty Python sketch ?
Tell us HYUFD if means testing WFA wont cost the Conservatives votes why is Ruth Davidson so keen for it not to happen in Scotland ?
And if you could also how many extra Conservative seats in the North are you willing to forgo for extra SCON MPs ?
The average house price in the North is about £150-£200k, the average salary about £23k, they will lose zero from the WFA changes on average and very little on the social care charges, they will in fact gain if they are in residential care from the increase in protected assets to £100k from £23k.
And everyone is an 'average' aren't they.
I see you're unable to explain why if means testing WFA wont lose votes why Ruth Davidson is so keen for it to be paid universally in Scotland.
Perhaps because Ruth Davidson realises that means testing it would be a vote loser.
Now tossing away a few seats in England and Wales might be considered worth it for an extra SCON MP or two - Richard Nabavi IIRC made a interesting comment on this - but please accept its going to happen.
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.
£100,000 is hardly wealthy in terms of net assets.
Nearly all pensioners own their own homes and have paid off their mortgage. Very few homeowning pensioners across the UK won't be affected by this. Taken together with removing the winter fuel allowance from all but a few, and ending the triple lock, it all adds up to a pretty big perceived assault on a group 69% of whom vote Tory (last YouGov).
Here are two possible reactions, it's uncertain how potent this could be in terms of overall effect, but whether it appreciably affects loyalties or not I think there will be 10 times as many in category 1 as category 2:
1. I'm a pensioner. The Tories are having a go at us. I'm not going to vote for them now because of that.
2. I'm not a pensioner. The Tories are having a go at pensioners. I'm going to vote Tory now because of that.
£100,000 is a helluva lot to anybody "just about managing".
Theresa May has said she will look out for the JAMs.
She's justified.
But Scottish millionaires pensioners aren't JAMs and May is happy for them to keep getting WFA.
Now are pensioners who lose their WFA in England and Wales going to be happy about that ?
Millionaire pensioners in England and Wales may complain but they won't vote for Corbyn
Actually they might as they can afford to.
More to the point is that pensioners on 10Kpa might not vote Conservative either.
No, Corbyn would end the inheritance tax cut they got last year and introduce a wealth tax, they would not vote for him, at most they would stay at home or vote UKIP or LD.
As for pensioners on £10kpa you still seem unable to comprehend they will not be affected AT ALL by this policy, none will lose their winter fuel payment and almost none would have a property over £100k while most will back May on immigration and Brexit
A Tory deputy mayor has sparked outrage by calling for disabled kids to be guillotined to avoid wasting cash on their care.
Retired GP Owen Lister made his sick suggestion to fellow councillors as they discussed sending the youngsters to a £3,000-a-week care home.
Mr Lister, 79, told them: "I would guillotine them."
Where do all these dodgy councillors come from? It seems there's another one every day at the moment, don't the parties vet them or train them on what not to say?
I expect they've always existed but the likes of Twatter make them more visible.
Is there any restriction on the size of posters that one can erect during an election? I know they're exempt from normal planning applications, because they're temporary, but could I put one up that's 50 feet high?
I'm asking because someone wants to object to an extremely large poster on a narrow road, which he thinks could be a distraction for traffic (I suspect he disagrees with the poster, but anyway I want to give a factual reply).
Is it right that council tenants are forbidden from putting up election posters?
A Tory deputy mayor has sparked outrage by calling for disabled kids to be guillotined to avoid wasting cash on their care.
Retired GP Owen Lister made his sick suggestion to fellow councillors as they discussed sending the youngsters to a £3,000-a-week care home.
Mr Lister, 79, told them: "I would guillotine them."
Where do all these dodgy councillors come from? It seems there's another one every day at the moment, don't the parties vet them or train them on what not to say?
Mr Lister said this in 2005, if he was 79 in 2005, that would make him 92 now, and most likely no longer with us. Is it one of those facebook things that gets repeated over and over?
im beginning to think that Theresa May has really cocked up with this social care announcement making an issue that wasn't in the public spotlight become an issue during an election campaign that was meant to be all be about Brexit which she was clearly winning by a large margin. needless own goal that will cost her lots of votes just hope it doesn't allow Corbyn to win
You must have missed every “crisis looms” headline, but social care for the elderly has been in the public spotlight for well over a year.
you say it won't affect swing voters but most peoples homes even low to middle class are worth at least £150-£300,000 so if you have to to get care at home when you die you will still have have to pay to the proceeds of your house sale to the government for the social care that you have received I don't see how this is not going to affect a lot of people in that bracket who before this if they needed social care at home the home was excluded as an asset . Whilst the cost of social care was an issue that needed to be addressed I'm not convinced that launching it as a main topic of the manifesto was good politics for the Conservatives and has led to Jeremy Corbyn and his bandwagon a golden opportunity of using this as a weapon to frighten pensioners into sticking with labour and not bothering to vote for the Conservative's and also a major distraction from the ineptitude and incompetence and dangerous socialist policies that would bankrupt the nation
im beginning to think that Theresa May has really cocked up with this social care announcement making an issue that wasn't in the public spotlight become an issue during an election campaign that was meant to be all be about Brexit which she was clearly winning by a large margin. needless own goal that will cost her lots of votes just hope it doesn't allow Corbyn to win
No it won't as swing voters in the North and Midlands will be barely affected at all and will in fact benefit if they need residential care, the main losers will be wealthy voters in London and the South and while a few may go LD they certainly won't vote for Corbyn
No sign of Corbyn on Rushanari Ali's campain literature here in Bethnal Green. She was one of the "morons" who nominated him. Must have changed her mind,
Further to my earlier report of activities in Wanstead High Street, forensic examination of the Labour Party flier I picked up reveals no mention of the Party Leader, although I suppose you could say that the slogan ('for the many, not the few') is a nod in his direction.
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,
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 in England and Wales.
So you know one or two hardly going to vote for Corbyn anyway
Still got that 'Coronation Street' view of the North haven't you. Or perhaps you think that's one of the posh bits and Conservative seats in the North are you willing to forgo for extra SCON MPs ?
The average =if they are in residential care from the increase in protected assets to £100k from £23k.
And everyone is an 'average' aren't they.
I see you're unable to explain why if means testing WFA wont lose votes why Ruth Davidson is so keen for it to be paid universally in Scotland.
Perhaps because Ruth Davidson realises that means testing it would be a vote loser.
Now tossing away a few seats in England and Wales might be considered worth it for an extra SCON MP or two - Richard Nabavi IIRC made a interesting comment on this - but please accept its going to happen.
It is 'average' Labour and UKIP voters May needs in the North and Midlands and Wales not wealthy ones yes, the latter will vote Tory anyway or at most LD.
I see you are still unable to read my earlier point that upper middle class voters in Scotland largely voted SNP in 2015 No in 2014 and so they are included as Tory target voters, in England and Wales upper middle class voters largely vote Tory anyway.
Yes the Tories may lose 1 or 2 seats to the LDs in the South but that will be more than outweighed by the big gains they make from Labour in the North, the Midlands and Wales and from the SNP in Scotland, now please accept that will happen
There's been a lot of talk of 'landslides' around this election; what constitutes a 'landslide'? Is it based on majority or absolute number of seats or number of gains? Or how the media feels at the time?
Is there any restriction on the size of posters that one can erect during an election? I know they're exempt from normal planning applications, because they're temporary, but could I put one up that's 50 feet high?
I'm asking because someone wants to object to an extremely large poster on a narrow road, which he thinks could be a distraction for traffic (I suspect he disagrees with the poster, but anyway I want to give a factual reply).
Is it right that council tenants are forbidden from putting up election posters?
If it is, its a reminder just how coercive the state can be. Social landlords can get away with treating their tenants like door mats in a way a private landlord cant.
There are zero and I mean zero chances a tenant could lose their social tenancy due to putting up an election poster. In fact I would expect a better chance of Jezza getting a landslide majority.
I see you're unable to explain why if means testing WFA wont lose votes why Ruth Davidson is so keen for it to be paid universally in Scotland.
Perhaps because Ruth Davidson realises that means testing it would be a vote loser.
Now tossing away a few seats in England and Wales might be considered worth it for an extra SCON MP or two - Richard Nabavi IIRC made a interesting comment on this - but please accept its going to happen.
Didn't we discuss this last night? Scotland is special and always gets the bribes because its the squeaky wheel, has done since 1997 and counting. Free prescriptions, free parking at hospitals, free tuition fees etc - The Scots expect it and the English are used to it.
That Scotland is a special case won't change any English votes whatsoever.
No sign of Corbyn on Rushanari Ali's campain literature here in Bethnal Green. She was one of the "morons" who nominated him. Must have changed her mind,
Further to my earlier report of activities in Wanstead High Street, forensic examination of the Labour Party flier I picked up reveals no mention of the Party Leader, although I suppose you could say that the slogan ('for the many, not the few') is a nod in his direction.
For the many, not the few, is surely a Blairite slogan (nicked from Star Trek). It is an odd sort of election where one side won't mention their leader, and the other lot won't mention their party.
ORB fieldwork straddles the Tory launch and is fully post labour. Further evidence that the blue vote is solid and Labour are gaining a little ground as Tory haters flock to the only game in town. UKIP still too high- where are their votes going? Really does look settled unless polls from Friday show a decline, but certainly a poll half conducted on launch day with the negative coverage and commentary has not moved them according to ORB.
There's been a lot of talk of 'landslides' around this election; what constitutes a 'landslide'? Is it based on majority or absolute number of seats or number of gains? Or how the media feels at the time?
My definition has always been a 100 seat majority plus.
£100,000 is a helluva lot to anybody "just about managing".
Theresa May has said she will look out for the JAMs.
She's justified.
But Scottish millionaires pensioners aren't JAMs and May is happy for them to keep getting WFA.
Now are pensioners who lose their WFA in England and Wales going to be happy about that ?
Millionaire pensioners in England and Wales may complain but they won't vote for Corbyn
Actually they might as they can afford to.
More to the point is that pensioners on 10Kpa might not vote Conservative either.
No, Corbyn would end the inheritance tax cut they got last year and introduce a wealth tax, they would not vote for him, at most they would stay at home or vote UKIP or LD.
As for pensioners on £10kpa you still seem unable to comprehend they will not be affected AT ALL by this policy, none will lose their winter fuel payment and almost none would have a property over £100k while most will back May on immigration and Brexit
Perhaps you could link to where it says at what level WFA will be means tested.
It really seems to be a remarkable policy in that nobody will be affected - except it seems in Scotland where its apparently vital that it remain universal.
And you're still pretending that the North is one big Coronation Street.
Here's a tip - next time you're phone canvassing somewhere Northern ask them if they think giving WFA to Scottish millionaires while withdrawing it from much poorer people in their own town is right.
If you have your ears open you might get your eyes opened.
Now I have to go now and see to the pigeons and whippets so I'll leave you this to help you prepare for Northern swing voters:
25% say “Labour should formerly split and a group should breakaway and form a new party if it does not win power at this election”.
25% is not enough to form a critical mass imo, but still an ominous figure for the PLP.
I don't understand how so many think that even as Labour support is up 7-8 points from its lows. Yes they'd still lose seats, but if they get 34% why would people split? Clearly the brand would still be super strong.
you say it won't affect swing voters but most peoples homes even low to middle class are worth at least £150-£300,000 so if you have to to get care at home when you die you will still have have to pay to the proceeds of your house sale to the government for the social care that you have received I don't see how this is not going to affect a lot of people in that bracket who before this if they needed social care at home the home was excluded as an asset . Whilst the cost of social care was an issue that needed to be addressed I'm not convinced that launching it as a main topic of the manifesto was good politics for the Conservatives and has led to Jeremy Corbyn and his bandwagon a golden opportunity of using this as a weapon to frighten pensioners into sticking with labour and not bothering to vote for the Conservative's and also a major distraction from the ineptitude and incompetence and dangerous socialist policies that would bankrupt the nation
im beginning to think that Theresa May has really cocked up with this social care announcement making an issue that wasn't in the public spotlight become an issue during an election campaign that was meant to be all be about Brexit which she was clearly winning by a large margin. needless own goal that will cost her lots of votes just hope it doesn't allow Corbyn to win
No it won't as swing voters in the North and Midlands will be barely affected at all and will in fact benefit if they need residential care, the main losers will be wealthy voters in London and the South and while a few may go LD they certainly won't vote for Corbyn
No, north of Watford the average house price is under £200 000 actually and those are the seats May is targeting and will be barely affected, south of Watford it is £300 000+ but most of those seats are blue anyway and will not vote for Corbyn, at most a handful will go LD. May will still gain lots of Labour seats in Brexitshire in the North and Midlands and Wales and in Scotland against indyref2, she may lose a few in wealthy Southern Remainier to the LDs but overall she will increase her majority significantly
im beginning to think that Theresa May has really cocked up with this social care announcement making an issue that wasn't in the public spotlight become an issue during an election campaign that was meant to be all be about Brexit which she was clearly winning by a large margin. needless own goal that will cost her lots of votes just hope it doesn't allow Corbyn to win
No it won't as swing voters in the North and Midlands will be barely affected at all and will in fact benefit if they need residential care, the main losers will be wealthy voters in London and the South and while a few may go LD they certainly won't vote for Corbyn
£100,000 is a helluva lot to anybody "just about managing".
Theresa May has said she will look out for the JAMs.
She's justified.
But Scottish millionaires pensioners aren't JAMs and May is happy for them to keep getting WFA.
Now are pensioners who lose their WFA in England and Wales going to be happy about that ?
Millionaire pensioners in England and Wales may complain but they won't vote for Corbyn
Actually they might as they can afford to.
More to the point is that pensioners on 10Kpa might not vote Conservative either.
No, Corbyn would end the inheritance tax cut they got last year and introduce a wealth tax, they would not vote for him, at most they would stay at home or vote UKIP or LD.
As for pensioners on £10kpa you still seem unable to comprehend they will not be affected AT ALL by this policy, none will lose their winter fuel payment and almost none would have a property over £100k while most will back May on immigration and Brexit
Perhaps you could link to where it says at what level WFA will be means tested.
It really seems to be a remarkable policy in that nobody will be affected - except it seems in Scotland where its apparently vital that it remain universal.
And you're still pretending that the North is one big Coronation Street.
Here's a tip - next time you're phone canvassing somewhere Northern ask them if they think giving WFA to Scottish millionaires while withdrawing it from much poorer people in their own town is right.
If you have your ears open you might get your eyes opened.
Now I have to go now and see to the pigeons and whippets so I'll leave you this to help you prepare for Northern swing voters:
Is there any restriction on the size of posters that one can erect during an election? I know they're exempt from normal planning applications, because they're temporary, but could I put one up that's 50 feet high?
I'm asking because someone wants to object to an extremely large poster on a narrow road, which he thinks could be a distraction for traffic (I suspect he disagrees with the poster, but anyway I want to give a factual reply).
Is it right that council tenants are forbidden from putting up election posters?
If it is, its a reminder just how coercive the state can be. Social landlords can get away with treating their tenants like door mats in a way a private landlord cant.
There are zero and I mean zero chances a tenant could lose their social tenancy due to putting up an election poster. In fact I would expect a better chance of Jezza getting a landslide majority.
It requires a court to end a social tenancy.
I'm a tenant in the private sector and my rental agreement has a specific clause that says I may not display any posters without the landlord's permission.
It also says I may not park a caravan outside the house....
That would imply a swing of 2.7% from Lab to Con and 21 Tory gains from Labour.Labour would have 211 seats - plus any clawed back from the SNP. Also worth bearing in mind that 12 of the sitting Labour MPs at risk on such a swing could expect a first time incumbency bonus which would help them to resist the Tory tide.
Is there any restriction on the size of posters that one can erect during an election? I know they're exempt from normal planning applications, because they're temporary, but could I put one up that's 50 feet high?
I'm asking because someone wants to object to an extremely large poster on a narrow road, which he thinks could be a distraction for traffic (I suspect he disagrees with the poster, but anyway I want to give a factual reply).
Is it right that council tenants are forbidden from putting up election posters?
If it is, its a reminder just how coercive the state can be. Social landlords can get away with treating their tenants like door mats in a way a private landlord cant.
There are zero and I mean zero chances a tenant could lose their social tenancy due to putting up an election poster. In fact I would expect a better chance of Jezza getting a landslide majority.
25% say “Labour should formerly split and a group should breakaway and form a new party if it does not win power at this election”.
25% is not enough to form a critical mass imo, but still an ominous figure for the PLP.
I don't understand how so many think that even as Labour support is up 7-8 points from its lows. Yes they'd still lose seats, but if they get 34% why would people split? Clearly the brand would still be super strong.
Mr Corbyn is still the leader, though, isn't he? OK, let's assume Labour won't form the next government. A loss is a loss, big or small, and nobody will remember the margin of defeat when glum Labour faces trudge back to Opposition in the HoC.
Do they stick with Mr Corbyn, who is already touching 70 years old (and not very bright with it, unlike Michael Foot) - or do they give themselves a chance with another party of the centre Left, led by someone who at least does not call IRA commanders their personal friends?
It's a no-brainer, but Labour are usually led by their hearts and not their heads.
im beginning to think that Theresa May has really cocked up with this social care announcement making an issue that wasn't in the public spotlight become an issue during an election campaign that was meant to be all be about Brexit which she was clearly winning by a large margin. needless own goal that will cost her lots of votes just hope it doesn't allow Corbyn to win
No it won't as swing voters in the North and Midlands will be barely affected at all and will in fact benefit if they need residential care, the main losers will be wealthy voters in London and the South and while a few may go LD they certainly won't vote for Corbyn
Not true almost every home owner is affected
No, unless they need personal care and are wealthy they will be barely affected at all, indeed if they need residential care they will benefit as they get to keep £100k rather than £23k as before
Is there any restriction on the size of posters that one can erect during an election? I know they're exempt from normal planning applications, because they're temporary, but could I put one up that's 50 feet high?
I'm asking because someone wants to object to an extremely large poster on a narrow road, which he thinks could be a distraction for traffic (I suspect he disagrees with the poster, but anyway I want to give a factual reply).
I don't think Advertising hoardings and large banners with election posters are exempt from planning rules, and the best advice is to talk to the council concerned. Regular posters are exempt provided they are removed within 14 days of the election. The electoral commission doesn't define large, but I guess a degree of common sense would resolve whether something is a poster or a banner or hoarding, in most cases.
Certainly anything that could distract drivers would be a potential problem - generally there is a view that a minimum height (for example 2.3m) above ground level for the bottom of the poster is advisable; ground level posters are usually considered potentially distracting. Hence advertising hoardings are always up in the air, on sides of buildings or well up high fences, and not on the ground. Some councils have codes of practice setting out such matters as they apply to elections.
I see you're unable to explain why if means testing WFA wont lose votes why Ruth Davidson is so keen for it to be paid universally in Scotland.
Perhaps because Ruth Davidson realises that means testing it would be a vote loser.
Now tossing away a few seats in England and Wales might be considered worth it for an extra SCON MP or two - Richard Nabavi IIRC made a interesting comment on this - but please accept its going to happen.
Didn't we discuss this last night? Scotland is special and always gets the bribes because its the squeaky wheel, has done since 1997 and counting. Free prescriptions, free parking at hospitals, free tuition fees etc - The Scots expect it and the English are used to it.
That Scotland is a special case won't change any English votes whatsoever.
The English are used to Labour giving extras to Scotland but now May seems happy doing likewise.
It really doesn't look 'strong and stable' does it and it will cost English votes.
Anecdote: no leaflets received; no posters seen. My poll card has arrived, though.
2 leaflets from SNP, one Labour & polling cards.
However a humourist has taken the time to fill in an electoral register enquiry with Glasgow City Council on my behalf, and they sent a letter addressed to Ruth Davidson at my address advising her/me to register with them immediately if I wanted to vote in the GE.
im beginning to think that Theresa May has really cocked up with this social care announcement making an issue that wasn't in the public spotlight become an issue during an election campaign that was meant to be all be about Brexit which she was clearly winning by a large margin. needless own goal that will cost her lots of votes just hope it doesn't allow Corbyn to win
No it won't as swing voters in the North and Midlands will be barely affected at all and will in fact benefit if they need residential care, the main losers will be wealthy voters in London and the South and while a few may go LD they certainly won't vote for Corbyn
Not true almost every home owner is affected
True there will not be many living in houses worth less than 100k .You can get nothing in York for that price .
Is there any restriction on the size of posters that one can erect during an election? I know they're exempt from normal planning applications, because they're temporary, but could I put one up that's 50 feet high?
I'm asking because someone wants to object to an extremely large poster on a narrow road, which he thinks could be a distraction for traffic (I suspect he disagrees with the poster, but anyway I want to give a factual reply).
Is it right that council tenants are forbidden from putting up election posters?
Not generally; it would depend on the council's terms of tenancy. Just as some private tenants have restrictive terms in their contracts, stopping them doing all sorts of things. The chances of anything being done about a temporary breach during an election are remote in any event, I would have thought. I was a tenant some years back and I believe there was a restriction on displaying any posters in my tenancy contract. Nevertheless when the election came round I didn't take any notice.
That would imply a swing of 2.7% from Lab to Con and 21 Tory gains from Labour.Labour would have 211 seats - plus any clawed back from the SNP. Also worth bearing in mind that 12 of the sitting Labour MPs at risk on such a swing could expect a first time incumbency bonus which would help them to resist the Tory tide.
Justin you must have copied and pasted the same post at least a dozen times now. It still points to a heavy Labour defeat, even if you believe these figures will be replicated on polling day, and I don't. The margin will be a lot bigger than this.
There's been a lot of talk of 'landslides' around this election; what constitutes a 'landslide'? Is it based on majority or absolute number of seats or number of gains? Or how the media feels at the time?
My definition has always been a 100 seat majority plus.
Would agree with that. And a comfortable working majority to see through a full term is now probably as low as 30, what with MPs being younger --> less by-elections than there used to be, Sinn Fein still not taking their seats and Unionists to buy-off on tricky measures....
In practice, ANY majority will be enough to put the House of Lords back in their box on any Manifesto measures.
£100,000 is a helluva lot to anybody "just about managing".
Theresa May has said she will look out for the JAMs.
She's justified.
But Scottish millionaires pensioners aren't JAMs and May is happy for them to keep getting WFA.
Now are pensioners who lose their WFA in England and Wales going to be happy about that ?
Millionaire pensioners in England and Wales may complain but they won't vote for Corbyn
Actually they might as they can afford to.
More to the point is that pensioners on 10Kpa might not vote Conservative either.
No, Corbyn would end the inheritance tax cut they got last year and introduce a wealth tax, they would not vote for him, at most they would stay at home or vote UKIP or LD.
As for pensioners on £10kpa you still seem unable to comprehend they will not be affected AT ALL by this policy, none will lose their winter fuel payment and almost none would have a property over £100k while most will back May on immigration and Brexit
Perhaps you could link to where it says at what level WFA will be means tested.
It really seems to be a remarkable policy in that nobody will be affected - except it seems in Scotland where its apparently vital that it remain universal.
And you're still pretending that the North is one big Coronation Street.
Here's a tip - next time you're phone canvassing somewhere Northern ask them if they think giving WFA to Scottish millionaires while withdrawing it from much poorer people in their own town is right.
If you have your ears open you might get your eyes opened.
Now I have to go now and see to the pigeons and whippets so I'll leave you this to help you prepare for Northern swing voters:
Comments
Theresa May has said she will look out for the JAMs.
She's justified.
Tell us HYUFD if means testing WFA wont cost the Conservatives votes why is Ruth Davidson so keen for it not to happen in Scotland ?
And if you could also how many extra Conservative seats in the North are you willing to forgo for extra SCON MPs ?
In one of my former lives I was an adult education lecturer. And the main demographic that means I worked with was teenage mums whose youngest kids had now started full-time primary school, who wanted to work through the relevant college courses and then, in many cases, move on to university.
Because they had bloody well got on with their sprog-popping business, this was generally in their mid-to-late-20s - so by the time they were moving on to university, they weren't that much older than the rest of the cohort, and they almost all had a clear view of why they wanted to go to uni and what they were going to do afterwards. Most sought professional careers, with teaching, nursing, midwifery, law and social work particularly common. By the time they graduated around 30 or so, they would have about 35 years to progress up the ranks without further interruption - easily enough to repay their education, as they had clearly calculated.
Their lifepaths do not seem to me to have worked out too badly, even if becoming a parent at such a young age hadn't been a carefully thought-out plan. There are many young ladies who take their A-levels on the back of what GCSEs/O-levels they quite enjoyed, then off to uni for 3 years to grow up a bit and because the subject sounded interesting, then (increasingly these days) a Masters, diploma or conversion course that's actually practically useful now they've worked out what they want to do professionally, followed by ten years on the career treadmill while looking increasingly desperately for a guy to settle down with before the 30s are up, then a career break that kicks in from their mid 30s. Once freed up by the mid-to-late-40s, it may be tricky to go back into the old industry, and taking a couple of years away to retrain may not repay itself if there's only 15 years of career left after that. So you can end up working a role you're massively overqualified for at pay-rates that only marginally make it worth going back to work at all. And with kids staying at home increasingly until their late 20s or early 30s, you don't even get a free home back until your 60s or older.
Obviously this is unfair anecdotage, comparing a near-optimal teenage parent lifepath to a decidedly sub-optimal alternative. But neither presented was unrealistic. I do think pushing parenthood into the 30s and 40s has had some negative effects, and also that many people are far too fast to condemn or write off teenage mums - ones with a good support network (quite often from their own family rather than the young chap involved) can still thrive. Can even get into the Shadow Cabinet...
3. I'm a pensioner. I've always believed in fairness. It's not fair that I could have some of my assets that I've worked hard for taken from me. I'm not going to vote Tory now because of that.
4. I'm a pensioner. I've always believed in fairness. It's fair that richer people should pay more for their care. I'm going to vote Tory now because of that.
Et cetera...
The reactions I've had from my parents (who are divorced and living separately) split one each way (3 and 4).
The part of the policy that seems to have been less well-publicised relates to the post-death payment element. I think this makes a difference. The increase in student tuition fees had no lasting negative effect on demand for university places in part because of the deferred payment element of it. Not having to fork out now for something does have a psychological effect on many people (just look at the personal debt figures.)
that's a claim and a half. anyone know the actual percentage?
I do not defend Corbyn's honour - I think he's inflexible, not very bright and not as 'different' as his supporters claim, and that that is not as big a positive as people suggest. But on a personal level he seems an amiable man, were he not involved in politics.
I'm generally a fence sitter (hence the profile pic), but that's down to indecisiveness.
Here's a task for all PBers - produce a copy of any Labour election material with either a mention or a picture of Corbyn on it.
So I expect the Tories will still gain about 40-50 seats from Labour in the North and Midlands and Wales, indeed as the focus group Paul Waugh posted on twitter shows Labour voters fully back May in not protecting 'toffs' from paying their fair share. The Tories will also gain up to 10 seats from the SNP and in Scotland the upper middle class vote SNP now, the Tories want to win those who voted No over to them, in England and Wales by contrast they always largely vote Tory. Granted in the wealthy South and London they may gain barely more than a handful of new seats and indeed lose a few seats to the LDs but the direction of travel will still be significant gains for May
Afternoon all
I'm glad you admitted that, kle4. I would never have guessed otherwise. (sorry, i'm being sarcastic, obviously).
I've always voted Tory since 1987, apart from one election - 1997 - when I abstained, because I was, like most others, tired of them. I could not bring myself to vote Labour, even then, though. I knew Blair was a charlatan, but none of my converted friends would believe me at the time. Funny they all now vote Tory again.
Retired GP Owen Lister made his sick suggestion to fellow councillors as they discussed sending the youngsters to a £3,000-a-week care home.
Mr Lister, 79, told them: "I would guillotine them."
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/477070/jim-davidson-my-sex-arrest-agony-2/
And I'm sure the Tories will happily fight another hard Left candidate next time, rather than another Blair....
Now are pensioners who lose their WFA in England and Wales going to be happy about that ?
And that guy was a GP?!
That's not only immoral in the extreme, it was a direct affront to the British State and a direct affront to the hundreds of Armed Forces personnel and civilians murdered by the IRA. Corbyn must have come very close indeed to illegal activity.
It's an outrage, a disgrace, and a stain on British political culture, not only the Labour party, that this very same person is being considered as a PM of GB and NI.
More to the point is that pensioners on 10Kpa might not vote Conservative either.
And apparently a leading light in the Stalybridge and Hyde Conservative association.
Shock horror ...... a supportive piece from Matthew Parris in today's Times. Just when I was expecting him to declare for the LibDems.
Miss Anne Thrope.
I'm asking because someone wants to object to an extremely large poster on a narrow road, which he thinks could be a distraction for traffic (I suspect he disagrees with the poster, but anyway I want to give a factual reply).
The amount of training they get is pretty minimal - by their own party it would be voluntary and at their own expense. Unlike thirty years ago most councils make some sort of an effort to provide some councillor training nowadays, but this generally stays away from overtly campaigning stuff. There are some media training courses around offered to councillors, but as they charge you'd have to be willing to pay for it yourself or persuade your council to do so, which being public money is most likely to be focused upon leading members rather than your regular backbencher.
I see you're unable to explain why if means testing WFA wont lose votes why Ruth Davidson is so keen for it to be paid universally in Scotland.
Perhaps because Ruth Davidson realises that means testing it would be a vote loser.
Now tossing away a few seats in England and Wales might be considered worth it for an extra SCON MP or two - Richard Nabavi IIRC made a interesting comment on this - but please accept its going to happen.
As for pensioners on £10kpa you still seem unable to comprehend they will not be affected AT ALL by this policy, none will lose their winter fuel payment and almost none would have a property over £100k while most will back May on immigration and Brexit
LAB: 34% (+2)
LDEM: 7% (-1)
UKIP: 7% (-)
(via @ORB_int / 17 - 18 May)
I see you are still unable to read my earlier point that upper middle class voters in Scotland largely voted SNP in 2015 No in 2014 and so they are included as Tory target voters, in England and Wales upper middle class voters largely vote Tory anyway.
Yes the Tories may lose 1 or 2 seats to the LDs in the South but that will be more than outweighed by the big gains they make from Labour in the North, the Midlands and Wales and from the SNP in Scotland, now please accept that will happen
There are zero and I mean zero chances a tenant could lose their social tenancy due to putting up an election poster. In fact I would expect a better chance of Jezza getting a landslide majority.
It requires a court to end a social tenancy.
25% is not enough to form a critical mass imo, but still an ominous figure for the PLP.
That Scotland is a special case won't change any English votes whatsoever.
LibDems on 7% as postal votes arrive seems to suggest that with a 5-6% swing from them to the Tories since 2015, they really are screwed.
It really seems to be a remarkable policy in that nobody will be affected - except it seems in Scotland where its apparently vital that it remain universal.
And you're still pretending that the North is one big Coronation Street.
Here's a tip - next time you're phone canvassing somewhere Northern ask them if they think giving WFA to Scottish millionaires while withdrawing it from much poorer people in their own town is right.
If you have your ears open you might get your eyes opened.
Now I have to go now and see to the pigeons and whippets so I'll leave you this to help you prepare for Northern swing voters:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2AcJSkUw6M
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/865882100263792641
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/865869294315372544
It also says I may not park a caravan outside the house....
46/34
TMICIPM
JCISLOL
http://www.yourthurrock.com/2017/05/17/ukip-anger-thurrock-council-order-removal-political-boards-property/
Do they stick with Mr Corbyn, who is already touching 70 years old (and not very bright with it, unlike Michael Foot) - or do they give themselves a chance with another party of the centre Left, led by someone who at least does not call IRA commanders their personal friends?
It's a no-brainer, but Labour are usually led by their hearts and not their heads.
Certainly anything that could distract drivers would be a potential problem - generally there is a view that a minimum height (for example 2.3m) above ground level for the bottom of the poster is advisable; ground level posters are usually considered potentially distracting. Hence advertising hoardings are always up in the air, on sides of buildings or well up high fences, and not on the ground. Some councils have codes of practice setting out such matters as they apply to elections.
It really doesn't look 'strong and stable' does it and it will cost English votes.
* OK so he's a candidate right now.
However a humourist has taken the time to fill in an electoral register enquiry with Glasgow City Council on my behalf, and they sent a letter addressed to Ruth Davidson at my address advising her/me to register with them immediately if I wanted to vote in the GE.
We have not evolved
We have no respect
We have lost control
We're going backwards
Ignoring the realities
Going backwards
Are you counting all the casualties?
We are not there yet
Where we need to be
We are still in debt
To our insanities
We're going backwards
Turning back our history
Going backwards
Piling on the misery
We can track in all the satellites
Seeing all in plain sight
Watch men die in real time
But we have nothing inside
We feel nothing inside
We are not there yet
We have lost our soul
The course has been set
We're digging our own hole
We're going backwards
Armed with new technology
Going backwards
To a cavemen mentality
We can emulate on consoles
Killings we can control
For senses that have been dulled
Because there's nothing inside
We feel nothing inside
We feel nothing inside
(We feel nothing, nothing inside)
We feel nothing inside
(We feel nothing, nothing inside)
Because there's nothing inside
Because there's nothing inside
Depeche Mode (lyrics Martin L. Gore), 2017
In practice, ANY majority will be enough to put the House of Lords back in their box on any Manifesto measures.
May supports giving WFA to the Scottish wealthy but swing voters in Bury oppose doing so.
YOU LOSE
YOU LOSE
YOU LOSE
YOU LOSE
YOU LOSE