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.
Seem odd for Unionist party to want to treat citizens in the UK differently.
£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:
UKIP 7% (impossible to achieve in reality) and the Tories on 46%? Hmmm. The Labour numbers, and the gap, look awfully weak to me. It may close up a bit more for a day or two though so I reckon there's money to be made.
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.
Scottish Tories run their own manifesto because domestic policy is made at Holyrood, not Westminster, it is Davidson who has made this commitment and not May
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
Not true you dont understand the current rules for homecare (which 76% of all those receiving care get)
Because the house is disregarded the person affected is allowed £50k capital.
If you are below that you pay a token amount (in our case £41 pw of the £400 per week Care bill for Mrs BJ.
Above £50k you pay the full care bill
Once your house is brought in everyone pays the full care bill as their assets are over £50k
Anecdote: no leaflets received; no posters seen. My poll card has arrived, though.
Had a ton of bumph through the door prior to the locals, nothing since however and virtually no posters seen on my usual daily route. – We’re a quiet, undemonstrative lot here in Wilts.
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
Not true you dont understand the current rules for homecare (which 76% of all those receiving care get)
Because the house is disregarded the person affected is allowed £50k capital.
If you are below that you pay a token amount (in our case £41 pw of the £400 per week Care bill for Mrs BJ.
Above £50k you pay the full care bill
Once your house is brought in everyone pays the full care bill as their assets are over £50k
So, half taken on the day of the Tory manifesto announcement and the Tory voteshare unchanged
Meaningless - these things esp something as complex as social care take time to register. The further strengthening of Labour will have Tory nerves if not jangling at least awakening from their previous torpor. A couple of points off their vote as a result of the manifesto and another point to Labour and questions will be asked whether this election was such a good idea.
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.
34% sounds like a strong base to build from, but when a quarter of that vote is voting tactically this time and wants the party to split, it takes Labour back down to 25/26%, which is what they were polling before the campaign.
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.
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.
Regionally though there is only a swing of 2% from Lab to Con in the South East and London and 0.5% in the South West, but 10% in the North East, 7% in the North West, 5.5% in Yorkshire and the Humber, 7% in the East Midlands, 7% in the West Midlands and 8% in Wales so even that 2.7% national swing would see a far bigger swing in the marginal rich North, Midlands and Wales https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/15/voting-intention-regional-breakdown-apr-24-may-5/
Those of you discussing house prices in the usual PB fashion ("YOUR MUM SMELLS OF POO!") may wish to look at the latest ONS figures (available at this link here). The relevant figures are:
Avg Price Country and GOR £232,530 England £124,007 Northern Ireland (Quarter 1 - 2017) £137,139 Scotland £147,746 Wales £176,213 East Midlands £277,127 East of England £471,742 London £122,298 North East £150,250 North West £311,514 South East £240,222 South West £180,293 West Midlands Region £149,606 Yorkshire and The Humber
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).
google gets asked this so often it autocompletes the search for you as "election posters planning permission".
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
hope you're right HYUFD. Maybe i'm just having a Tory wobble moment and all I can see is an unforced error by Theresa May that could've been avoided but if she still comes out with a landslide then Lynton Crosby deserves a knighthood . The problem with these type of complex announcements is the media doesn't give the public the detail just the headlines and that is all most people hear in their busy lives is the message that the Tories are attacking pensioners and are the nasty party. evil baby eaters etc. however I do hope I am proved completely wrong because social care is an issue that needs to be tackled in this country in the long term
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
Not true you dont understand the current rules for homecare (which 76% of all those receiving care get)
Because the house is disregarded the person affected is allowed £50k capital.
If you are below that you pay a token amount (in our case £41 pw of the £400 per week Care bill for Mrs BJ.
Above £50k you pay the full care bill
Once your house is brought in everyone pays the full care bill as their assets are over £50k
Those thinking few are affected.
This is a complete gamechanger.
Replacing Jeremy Corbyn with somebody sane and numerate - that would have been a complete gamechanger. Nothing else in this election.
Anecdote: no leaflets received; no posters seen. My poll card has arrived, though.
Had a ton of bumph through the door prior to the locals, nothing since however and virtually no posters seen on my usual daily route. – We’re a quiet, undemonstrative lot here in Wilts.
Since candidates are entitled to one free delivery across the constituency, courtesy of Royal Mail (funded by the government), in most seats at least one of the parties should take advantage. The delivery timetable extends beyond the date when postal votes arrive, however, and even if you get the leaflet to the RM early, they often get retained so that the unaddressed leaflets from all the parties get delivered as one batch. In marginal seats the parties in contention might go with an addressed drop, and in super-marginal seats split this into separate items for the first and subsequent members of a household, so getting almost two free mailings to multi-person households. Whether your election communication is addressed or unaddresssed is the surest sign of whether the party is fighting hard to win.
According to electoral calculus, those ORB figures would show the Tories gaining 30 seats from Labour, not 21. Of course that's a UNS as well. As for the Dimerals, well, they would lose 4 of their 9 seats on a UNS. So much for the mythical Yellow Surge. More like Yellow Fever.
This election could see the extinction of the UNS model, because it doesn't work well enough with FPTP. Labour are stacking up tonnes of votes in London, but outside of there...we shall see.
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
Not true you dont understand the current rules for homecare (which 76% of all those receiving care get)
Because the house is disregarded the person affected is allowed £50k capital.
If you are below that you pay a token amount (in our case £41 pw of the £400 per week Care bill for Mrs BJ.
Above £50k you pay the full care bill
Once your house is brought in everyone pays the full care bill as their assets are over £50k
Those thinking few are affected.
This is a complete gamechanger.
That is personal care not residential care who will be net beneficiaries and as I said £100k of assets will be protected so that will have limited impact in the marginal rich North, Midlands and Wales where house prices are only about £150k to £200k so this is not a gamechanger
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).
google gets asked this so often it autocompletes the search for you as "election posters planning permission".
Yes, but as I said below, a 50 foot high one isn't considered a poster to begin with, but is clearly an advertising hoarding. There is no exemption for election hoardings.
In practical terms, of course, no local authority is going to be able to act quick enough to get a hoarding taken down before the election is over. Nevertheless a party putting up an unauthorised hoarding risks getting some bad publicity (which the homeowner may not welcome), and if there is a risk to road safety as well, this publicity may not be very helpful.
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
hope you're right HYUFD. Maybe i'm just having a Tory wobble moment and all I can see is an unforced error by Theresa May that could've been avoided but if she still comes out with a landslide then Lynton Crosby deserves a knighthood . The problem with these type of complex announcements is the media doesn't give the public the detail just the headlines and that is all most people hear in their busy lives is the message that the Tories are attacking pensioners and are the nasty party. evil baby eaters etc. however I do hope I am proved completely wrong because social care is an issue that needs to be tackled in this country in the long term
Agreed but this is a policy which will annoy the Tory Home Counties not the Labour North where May needs her gains
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.
Whose vote will it cost?
Where will an English voter who is that upset about the Scots getting preferential treatment turn to? Are they going to vote for Labour so they can get a coalition with the SNP? Are they going to vote UKIP despite them being dead and not standing in half the seats?
People may gripe and moan but its not going to make an electoral impact. That the Scots are special is already priced in.
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
Not true you dont understand the current rules for homecare (which 76% of all those receiving care get)
Because the house is disregarded the person affected is allowed £50k capital.
If you are below that you pay a token amount (in our case £41 pw of the £400 per week Care bill for Mrs BJ.
Above £50k you pay the full care bill
Once your house is brought in everyone pays the full care bill as their assets are over £50k
Those thinking few are affected.
This is a complete gamechanger.
Replacing Jeremy Corbyn with somebody sane and numerate - that would have been a complete gamechanger. Nothing else in this election.
Number one topic on doorsteps I am knocking on is the Tory house theft OG
Who is Jezza its Natascha, Chris and Toby round here
Those of you discussing house prices in the usual PB fashion ("YOUR MUM SMELLS OF POO!") may wish to look at the latest ONS figures (available at this link here). The relevant figures are:
Avg Price Country and GOR £232,530 England £124,007 Northern Ireland (Quarter 1 - 2017) £137,139 Scotland £147,746 Wales £176,213 East Midlands £277,127 East of England £471,742 London £122,298 North East £150,250 North West £311,514 South East £240,222 South West £180,293 West Midlands Region £149,606 Yorkshire and The Humber
Exactly, so not 1 UK region outside of London, the South East, the South West and the East has an average house price over £200k, and those provincial regions are where May is targeting, a slight Tory to Labour swing in the richest 4 regions would pick up barely any Tory seats but a large Tory to Labour swing in the Midlands, Wales and the North would pick up lots of Labour seats
According to electoral calculus, those ORB figures would show the Tories gaining 30 seats from Labour, not 21. Of course that's a UNS as well. As for the Dimerals, well, they would lose 4 of their 9 seats on a UNS. So much for the mythical Yellow Surge. More like Yellow Fever.
This election could see the extinction of the UNS model, because it doesn't work well enough with FPTP. Labour are stacking up tonnes of votes in London, but outside of there...we shall see.
The figure is 21 gains from Labour - the seats can be found under Conservative Targets in UK Polling Reports. On a uniform swing this poll implies Labour losing seats held with a 2015 majority of less than 5.4%. I do not use Electoral Calculus - perhaps they are rounding party vote shares.
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
Not true you dont understand the current rules for homecare (which 76% of all those receiving care get)
Because the house is disregarded the person affected is allowed £50k capital.
If you are below that you pay a token amount (in our case £41 pw of the £400 per week Care bill for Mrs BJ.
Above £50k you pay the full care bill
Once your house is brought in everyone pays the full care bill as their assets are over £50k
Those thinking few are affected.
This is a complete gamechanger.
That is personal care not residential care who will be net beneficiaries and as I said £100k of assets will be protected so that will have limited impact in the marginal rich North, Midlands and Wales where house prices are only about £150k to £200k so this is not a gamechanger
You have not read my post.
Almost everyone with a house will now pay in full from their capital until all their cash is exhausted now houses are included in capital
According to electoral calculus, those ORB figures would show the Tories gaining 30 seats from Labour, not 21. Of course that's a UNS as well. As for the Dimerals, well, they would lose 4 of their 9 seats on a UNS. So much for the mythical Yellow Surge. More like Yellow Fever.
This election could see the extinction of the UNS model, because it doesn't work well enough with FPTP. Labour are stacking up tonnes of votes in London, but outside of there...we shall see.
Labour stacking up tons of votes in London, Manchester and Liverpool will make for a very inefficient vote.
Those of you discussing house prices in the usual PB fashion ("YOUR MUM SMELLS OF POO!") may wish to look at the latest ONS figures (available at this link here). The relevant figures are:
Avg Price Country and GOR £232,530 England £124,007 Northern Ireland (Quarter 1 - 2017) £137,139 Scotland £147,746 Wales £176,213 East Midlands £277,127 East of England £471,742 London £122,298 North East £150,250 North West £311,514 South East £240,222 South West £180,293 West Midlands Region £149,606 Yorkshire and The Humber
Exactly, so not 1 UK region outside of London, the South East, the South West and the East has an average house price over £200k, and those provincial regions are where May is targeting, a slight Tory to Labour swing in the richest 4 regions would pick up barely any Tory seats but a large Tory to Labour swing in the Midlands, Wales and the North would pick up lots of Labour seats
I don't understand your point, the threshold is £100k not £200k.
There is not a single region with an average house price below £100k so it looks like every single region will be affected.
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
In that case, how do you explain the fact that my grandmother's home was worth £80k? Around a third of that ended up getting spent on care home bills. I'm not impressed by the whinings of people in London and the south-east with homes worth hundreds of thousands.
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
Not true you dont understand the current rules for homecare (which 76% of all those receiving care get)
Because the house is disregarded the person affected is allowed £50k capital.
If you are below that you pay a token amount (in our case £41 pw of the £400 per week Care bill for Mrs BJ.
Above £50k you pay the full care bill
Once your house is brought in everyone pays the full care bill as their assets are over £50k
Those thinking few are affected.
This is a complete gamechanger.
That is personal care not residential care who will be net beneficiaries and as I said £100k of assets will be protected so that will have limited impact in the marginal rich North, Midlands and Wales where house prices are only about £150k to £200k so this is not a gamechanger
According to electoral calculus, those ORB figures would show the Tories gaining 30 seats from Labour, not 21. Of course that's a UNS as well. As for the Dimerals, well, they would lose 4 of their 9 seats on a UNS. So much for the mythical Yellow Surge. More like Yellow Fever.
This election could see the extinction of the UNS model, because it doesn't work well enough with FPTP. Labour are stacking up tonnes of votes in London, but outside of there...we shall see.
The UNS model presupposed a small swing against an incumbent government, with supporters more likely to switch in areas where the proportion of government supporters was lowest. Hence, rather than one in twenty of the government's supporters switching across the whole country, one seat would go from 50% to 47% and another from 20% to 17%.
When the government party is gaining votes (and in any situation where third parties are in play) there is no logical or theoretical reason why the UNS model should work at all.
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.
Regionally though there is only a swing of 2% from Lab to Con in the South East and London and 0.5% in the South West, but 10% in the North East, 7% in the North West, 5.5% in Yorkshire and the Humber, 7% in the East Midlands, 7% in the West Midlands and 8% in Wales so even that 2.7% national swing would see a far bigger swing in the marginal rich North, Midlands and Wales https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/15/voting-intention-regional-breakdown-apr-24-may-5/
But the source you are relying on is already quite old!
I wonder how many of them are bullshit (or things Labour are not actually proposing to do anything about), but for party purposes, it's useful to have a list like that.
Anecdote: no leaflets received; no posters seen. My poll card has arrived, though.
Had a ton of bumph through the door prior to the locals, nothing since however and virtually no posters seen on my usual daily route. – We’re a quiet, undemonstrative lot here in Wilts.
2 letters from Mrs May (one on rather fetching pale yellow paper) 2 leaflets from the Tories, one Tory canvasser and 1 rather uninspiring leaflet from Karen Buck. Am I in a target seat for the first time in my life?
Those of you discussing house prices in the usual PB fashion ("YOUR MUM SMELLS OF POO!") may wish to look at the latest ONS figures (available at this link here). The relevant figures are:
Avg Price Country and GOR £232,530 England £124,007 Northern Ireland (Quarter 1 - 2017) £137,139 Scotland £147,746 Wales £176,213 East Midlands £277,127 East of England £471,742 London £122,298 North East £150,250 North West £311,514 South East £240,222 South West £180,293 West Midlands Region £149,606 Yorkshire and The Humber
Exactly, so not 1 UK region outside of London, the South East, the South West and the East has an average house price over £200k, and those provincial regions are where May is targeting, a slight Tory to Labour swing in the richest 4 regions would pick up barely any Tory seats but a large Tory to Labour swing in the Midlands, Wales and the North would pick up lots of Labour seats
I don't understand your point, the threshold is £100k not £200k.
There is not a single region with an average house price below £100k so it looks like every single region will be affected.
You can make far too much of regional differences. Added to which it's perception that counts. For me the manifesto social care announcement while bold was a blunder in terms of its timing 3 weeks before polling day as was the WFA means testing and I've yet to be dissuaded by what I've seen so far.
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.
Seem odd for Unionist party to want to treat citizens in the UK differently.
Only if Unionist is defined as treating all nations in the Union equally - in an ideal world maybe but it is possible some nations need more help than others of course, which is fair enough as a general rule (though the specifics of getting treated differently may not always be fair).
Anecdote: no leaflets received; no posters seen. My poll card has arrived, though.
Had a ton of bumph through the door prior to the locals, nothing since however and virtually no posters seen on my usual daily route. – We’re a quiet, undemonstrative lot here in Wilts.
2 letters from Mrs May (one on rather fetching pale yellow paper) 2 leaflets from the Tories, one Tory canvasser and 1 rather uninspiring leaflet from Karen Buck. Am I in a target seat for the first time in my life?
It doesn't look like Labour's effort to hold the seat is up to par? Or, of course, they are sensibly focusing it on more fertile parts of the seat.
Those of you discussing house prices in the usual PB fashion ("YOUR MUM SMELLS OF POO!") may wish to look at the latest ONS figures (available at this link here). The relevant figures are:
Avg Price Country and GOR £232,530 England £124,007 Northern Ireland (Quarter 1 - 2017) £137,139 Scotland £147,746 Wales £176,213 East Midlands £277,127 East of England £471,742 London £122,298 North East £150,250 North West £311,514 South East £240,222 South West £180,293 West Midlands Region £149,606 Yorkshire and The Humber
Exactly, so not 1 UK region outside of London, the South East, the South West and the East has an average house price over £200k, and those provincial regions are where May is targeting, a slight Tory to Labour swing in the richest 4 regions would pick up barely any Tory seats but a large Tory to Labour swing in the Midlands, Wales and the North would pick up lots of Labour seats
I don't understand your point, the threshold is £100k not £200k.
There is not a single region with an average house price below £100k so it looks like every single region will be affected.
Those are averages, which means a few people with expensive properties will raise the figure disproportionately. Looking at the median or mode would be interesting.
It was morally wrong IMO for people with between £23k and £100k of assets to lose 75% in care home bills.
"One activist told me that the vilification of Jeremy Corbyn on doorsteps in a hitherto safe seat surpassed that of Mrs Thatcher or of Arthur Scargill 30 years ago."
Those of you discussing house prices in the usual PB fashion ("YOUR MUM SMELLS OF POO!") may wish to look at the latest ONS figures (available at this link here). The relevant figures are:
Avg Price Country and GOR £232,530 England £124,007 Northern Ireland (Quarter 1 - 2017) £137,139 Scotland £147,746 Wales £176,213 East Midlands £277,127 East of England £471,742 London £122,298 North East £150,250 North West £311,514 South East £240,222 South West £180,293 West Midlands Region £149,606 Yorkshire and The Humber
Exactly, so not 1 UK region outside of London, the South East, the South West and the East has an average house price over £200k, and those provincial regions are where May is targeting, a slight Tory to Labour swing in the richest 4 regions would pick up barely any Tory seats but a large Tory to Labour swing in the Midlands, Wales and the North would pick up lots of Labour seats
I don't understand your point, the threshold is £100k not £200k.
There is not a single region with an average house price below £100k so it looks like every single region will be affected.
Many properties are owned by two people, which will effectively halve the asset value for an individual.
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.
Regionally though there is only a swing of 2% from Lab to Con in the South East and London and 0.5% in the South West, but 10% in the North East, 7% in the North West, 5.5% in Yorkshire and the Humber, 7% in the East Midlands, 7% in the West Midlands and 8% in Wales so even that 2.7% national swing would see a far bigger swing in the marginal rich North, Midlands and Wales https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/15/voting-intention-regional-breakdown-apr-24-may-5/
But the source you are relying on is already quite old!
Not really, ORB on 29th April had it Tory 42% Labour 31% so the new ORB would see the Tories up 4% on that and Labour up 3%, so if anything a 0.5% move to the Tories
Those of you discussing house prices in the usual PB fashion ("YOUR MUM SMELLS OF POO!") may wish to look at the latest ONS figures (available at this link here). The relevant figures are:
Avg Price Country and GOR £232,530 England £124,007 Northern Ireland (Quarter 1 - 2017) £137,139 Scotland £147,746 Wales £176,213 East Midlands £277,127 East of England £471,742 London £122,298 North East £150,250 North West £311,514 South East £240,222 South West £180,293 West Midlands Region £149,606 Yorkshire and The Humber
Exactly, so not 1 UK region outside of London, the South East, the South West and the East has an average house price over £200k, and those provincial regions are where May is targeting, a slight Tory to Labour swing in the richest 4 regions would pick up barely any Tory seats but a large Tory to Labour swing in the Midlands, Wales and the North would pick up lots of Labour seats
I don't understand your point, the threshold is £100k not £200k.
There is not a single region with an average house price below £100k so it looks like every single region will be affected.
You can make far too much of regional differences. Added to which it's perception that counts. For me the manifesto social care announcement while bold was a blunder in terms of its timing 3 weeks before polling day as was the WFA means testing and I've yet to be dissuaded by what I've seen so far.
It was bold, what I'm surprised at was that there had been no kites flown beforehand to test reaction. The end of WFA and the Triple Lock had been expected, this had not so has dominated the reaction to the exclusion of pretty much anything else. I follow politics and apart from changes for the elderly I can't think of anything else that was in the Tory manifesto - I doubt those less interested in politics will either then.
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
Not true you dont understand the current rules for homecare (which 76% of all those receiving care get)
Because the house is disregarded the person affected is allowed £50k capital.
If you are below that you pay a token amount (in our case £41 pw of the £400 per week Care bill for Mrs BJ.
Above £50k you pay the full care bill
Once your house is brought in everyone pays the full care bill as their assets are over £50k
Those thinking few are affected.
This is a complete gamechanger.
That is personal care not residential care who will be net beneficiaries and as I said £100k of assets will be protected so that will have limited impact in the marginal rich North, Midlands and Wales where house prices are only about £150k to £200k so this is not a gamechanger
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
Not true you dont understand the current rules for homecare (which 76% of all those receiving care get)
Because the house is disregarded the person affected is allowed £50k capital.
If you are below that you pay a token amount (in our case £41 pw of the £400 per week Care bill for Mrs BJ.
Above £50k you pay the full care bill
Once your house is brought in everyone pays the full care bill as their assets are over £50k
Those thinking few are affected.
This is a complete gamechanger.
That is personal care not residential care who will be net beneficiaries and as I said £100k of assets will be protected so that will have limited impact in the marginal rich North, Midlands and Wales where house prices are only about £150k to £200k so this is not a gamechanger
You have not read my post.
Almost everyone with a house will now pay in full from their capital until all their cash is exhausted now houses are included in capital
Those of you discussing house prices in the usual PB fashion ("YOUR MUM SMELLS OF POO!") may wish to look at the latest ONS figures (available at this link here). The relevant figures are:
Avg Price Country and GOR £232,530 England £124,007 Northern Ireland (Quarter 1 - 2017) £137,139 Scotland £147,746 Wales £176,213 East Midlands £277,127 East of England £471,742 London £122,298 North East £150,250 North West £311,514 South East £240,222 South West £180,293 West Midlands Region £149,606 Yorkshire and The Humber
Exactly, so not 1 UK region outside of London, the South East, the South West and the East has an average house price over £200k, and those provincial regions are where May is targeting, a slight Tory to Labour swing in the richest 4 regions would pick up barely any Tory seats but a large Tory to Labour swing in the Midlands, Wales and the North would pick up lots of Labour seats
I don't understand your point, the threshold is £100k not £200k.
There is not a single region with an average house price below £100k so it looks like every single region will be affected.
You can make far too much of regional differences. Added to which it's perception that counts. For me the manifesto social care announcement while bold was a blunder in terms of its timing 3 weeks before polling day as was the WFA means testing and I've yet to be dissuaded by what I've seen so far.
Everyone knows that a disproportionate amount of the country's wealth is tied up in high property prices, and finding a way to tap into that is the key to squaring the circle of affording the inexorably rising cost of public services. With the spinoff benefit that if it happens to make property a less attractive asset, then the housing market becomes more affordable to new entrants.
As is often the case, the LibDems were ahead of the curve with Cable's Mansion Tax proposal ten years back. Now all the parties are looking at how they can direct some of the property equity towards the common good.
I agree that the Tories surprising us all with its new approach to care funding is bold, in the Yes Minister sense of the phrase. But one way or another (any) government is coming for property equity, make no mistake...
According to electoral calculus, those ORB figures would show the Tories gaining 30 seats from Labour, not 21. Of course that's a UNS as well. As for the Dimerals, well, they would lose 4 of their 9 seats on a UNS. So much for the mythical Yellow Surge. More like Yellow Fever.
This election could see the extinction of the UNS model, because it doesn't work well enough with FPTP. Labour are stacking up tonnes of votes in London, but outside of there...we shall see.
The figure is 21 gains from Labour - the seats can be found under Conservative Targets in UK Polling Reports. On a uniform swing this poll implies Labour losing seats held with a 2015 majority of less than 5.4%. I do not use Electoral Calculus - perhaps they are rounding party vote shares.
As you say Justin - on a UNS. There are huge regional variances. Let's take London, Manchester and Liverpool out of the figures that help to flatter Labour greatly. Those 30 seat losses suddenly look more like 70 or 80, possibly more.
Of course, a madman like Corbyn would see a net 30 loss as a victory.
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
Not true you dont understand the current rules for homecare (which 76% of all those receiving care get)
Because the house is disregarded the person affected is allowed £50k capital.
If you are below that you pay a token amount (in our case £41 pw of the £400 per week Care bill for Mrs BJ.
Above £50k you pay the full care bill
Once your house is brought in everyone pays the full care bill as their assets are over £50k
Those thinking few are affected.
This is a complete gamechanger.
That is personal care not residential care who will be net beneficiaries and as I said £100k of assets will be protected so that will have limited impact in the marginal rich North, Midlands and Wales where house prices are only about £150k to £200k so this is not a gamechanger
You have not read my post.
Almost everyone with a house will now pay in full from their capital until all their cash is exhausted now houses are included in capital
76% of social care is home care 24% residential
Not all will need care (and they will get up to £1 million free of inheritance tax now thanks to Osborne) and a quarter of those are residential and will see a net benefit and indeed only 1 in 10 spend more than £100 000 on care https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime
Excellent post, MBE. I've often thought this but never articulated it as well.
Cheers PtP (and others). Some of the lasses I taught were very sorted, level-headed individuals - though their emotional and romantic entanglements seemed still to be an utter trainwreck in most cases, and I suspect having had kids so young wasn't helping with their perceived eligibility.
Funny how that piece of recounted lifedata got such a good response, whereas the previous post that I actually put some serious analytical thought into (and included a sort of criticism of this generally very popular header) vanished without a trace. Though I'm copyrighting the terms High NHSism, Low NHSism and One True NHSism just in case...
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.
Those of you discussing house prices in the usual PB fashion ("YOUR MUM SMELLS OF POO!") may wish to look at the latest ONS figures (available at this link here). The relevant figures are:
Avg Price Country and GOR £232,530 England £124,007 Northern Ireland (Quarter 1 - 2017) £137,139 Scotland £147,746 Wales £176,213 East Midlands £277,127 East of England £471,742 London £122,298 North East £150,250 North West £311,514 South East £240,222 South West £180,293 West Midlands Region £149,606 Yorkshire and The Humber
Exactly, so not 1 UK region outside of London, the South East, the South West and the East has an average house price over £200k, and those provincial regions are where May is targeting, a slight Tory to Labour swing in the richest 4 regions would pick up barely any Tory seats but a large Tory to Labour swing in the Midlands, Wales and the North would pick up lots of Labour seats
I don't understand your point, the threshold is £100k not £200k.
There is not a single region with an average house price below £100k so it looks like every single region will be affected.
The clear majority of regions will get to keep over half their assets even if they need care, that is the point and not all those who need care will spend over £100 000
Anecdote: no leaflets received; no posters seen. My poll card has arrived, though.
Had a ton of bumph through the door prior to the locals, nothing since however and virtually no posters seen on my usual daily route. – We’re a quiet, undemonstrative lot here in Wilts.
2 letters from Mrs May (one on rather fetching pale yellow paper) 2 leaflets from the Tories, one Tory canvasser and 1 rather uninspiring leaflet from Karen Buck. Am I in a target seat for the first time in my life?
I’m in a LD target seat apparently (Salisbury) hence the pre local election deluge, which also had the yellow and blue parliamentary candidates. Probably why it’s all gone so quiet now.
[edit] @IanB2 – many thanks for your illuminating and informed reply.
Anecdote: no leaflets received; no posters seen. My poll card has arrived, though.
Had a ton of bumph through the door prior to the locals, nothing since however and virtually no posters seen on my usual daily route. – We’re a quiet, undemonstrative lot here in Wilts.
2 letters from Mrs May (one on rather fetching pale yellow paper) 2 leaflets from the Tories, one Tory canvasser and 1 rather uninspiring leaflet from Karen Buck. Am I in a target seat for the first time in my life?
I’m in a LD target seat apparently (Salisbury) hence the pre local election deluge, which also had the yellow and blue parliamentary candidates. Probably why it’s all gone so quiet now.
Salisbury is a LD target seat?! After the terrible locals there then I would not blame their activists for having a quiet GE.
Anecdote: no leaflets received; no posters seen. My poll card has arrived, though.
One leaflet here - the fragrant Mr Bercow pictured with his wife Sally & 3 kids (are they back together) and then testimonials and photos from TMay, Tim Farron and.... Yvette Cooper...
Mr. Ears, posts sometimes just get missed. It's one of the reasons I usually repeat out-of-season tips and the F1 blog links.
I think in my case, my wall-of-text posts are more likely to be TLDRed! (Tildered? Tuldered?)
So I am not too prone to repeating myself unless I know I've made a really good one, generally a prior posting from weeks gone by that's relevant to a new discussion.
Those of you discussing house prices in the usual PB fashion ("YOUR MUM SMELLS OF POO!") may wish to look at the latest ONS figures (available at this link here). The relevant figures are:
Avg Price Country and GOR £232,530 England £124,007 Northern Ireland (Quarter 1 - 2017) £137,139 Scotland £147,746 Wales £176,213 East Midlands £277,127 East of England £471,742 London £122,298 North East £150,250 North West £311,514 South East £240,222 South West £180,293 West Midlands Region £149,606 Yorkshire and The Humber
Exactly, so not 1 UK region outside of London, the South East, the South West and the East has an average house price over £200k, and those provincial regions are where May is targeting, a slight Tory to Labour swing in the richest 4 regions would pick up barely any Tory seats but a large Tory to Labour swing in the Midlands, Wales and the North would pick up lots of Labour seats
I don't understand your point, the threshold is £100k not £200k.
There is not a single region with an average house price below £100k so it looks like every single region will be affected.
You can make far too much of regional differences. Added to which it's perception that counts. For me the manifesto social care announcement while bold was a blunder in terms of its timing 3 weeks before polling day as was the WFA means testing and I've yet to be dissuaded by what I've seen so far.
It was bold, what I'm surprised at was that there had been no kites flown beforehand to test reaction. The end of WFA and the Triple Lock had been expected, this had not so has dominated the reaction to the exclusion of pretty much anything else. I follow politics and apart from changes for the elderly I can't think of anything else that was in the Tory manifesto - I doubt those less interested in politics will either then.
The only issue on the doorstep for past couple of days.
It remains to be seen how big an OG this is.
I guess as the Tories were 3-0 up with 5 mins to go may not cost the Election but may cost the Landslide.
Those of you discussing house prices in the usual PB fashion ("YOUR MUM SMELLS OF POO!") may wish to look at the latest ONS figures (available at this link here). The relevant figures are:
Avg Price Country and GOR £232,530 England £124,007 Northern Ireland (Quarter 1 - 2017) £137,139 Scotland £147,746 Wales £176,213 East Midlands £277,127 East of England £471,742 London £122,298 North East £150,250 North West £311,514 South East £240,222 South West £180,293 West Midlands Region £149,606 Yorkshire and The Humber
Exactly, so not 1 UK region outside of London, the South East, the South West and the East has an average house price over £200k, and those provincial regions are where May is targeting, a slight Tory to Labour swing in the richest 4 regions would pick up barely any Tory seats but a large Tory to Labour swing in the Midlands, Wales and the North would pick up lots of Labour seats
I don't understand your point, the threshold is £100k not £200k.
There is not a single region with an average house price below £100k so it looks like every single region will be affected.
You can make far too much of regional differences. Added to which it's perception that counts. For me the manifesto social care announcement while bold was a blunder in terms of its timing 3 weeks before polling day as was the WFA means testing and I've yet to be dissuaded by what I've seen so far.
It was bold, what I'm surprised at was that there had been no kites flown beforehand to test reaction. The end of WFA and the Triple Lock had been expected, this had not so has dominated the reaction to the exclusion of pretty much anything else. I follow politics and apart from changes for the elderly I can't think of anything else that was in the Tory manifesto - I doubt those less interested in politics will either then.
The only issue on the doorstep for past couple of days.
It remains to be seen how big an OG this is.
I guess as the Tories were 3-0 up with 5 mins to go may not cost the Election but may cost the Landslide.
We're all agreed then they have a mandate to rebalance the Govt's approach to the pensioner vote and the rest of the electorate then 'if' they do win?
Those of you discussing house prices in the usual PB fashion ("YOUR MUM SMELLS OF POO!") may wish to look at the latest ONS figures (available at this link here). The relevant figures are:
Avg Price Country and GOR £232,530 England £124,007 Northern Ireland (Quarter 1 - 2017) £137,139 Scotland £147,746 Wales £176,213 East Midlands £277,127 East of England £471,742 London £122,298 North East £150,250 North West £311,514 South East £240,222 South West £180,293 West Midlands Region £149,606 Yorkshire and The Humber
Exactly, so not 1 UK region outside of London, the South East, the South West and the East has an average house price over £200k, and those provincial regions are where May is targeting, a slight Tory to Labour swing in the richest 4 regions would pick up barely any Tory seats but a large Tory to Labour swing in the Midlands, Wales and the North would pick up lots of Labour seats
I don't understand your point, the threshold is £100k not £200k.
There is not a single region with an average house price below £100k so it looks like every single region will be affected.
You can make far too much of regional differences. Added to which it's perception that counts. For me the manifesto social care announcement while bold was a blunder in terms of its timing 3 weeks before polling day as was the WFA means testing and I've yet to be dissuaded by what I've seen so far.
It was bold, what I'm surprised at was that there had been no kites flown beforehand to test reaction. The end of WFA and the Triple Lock had been expected, this had not so has dominated the reaction to the exclusion of pretty much anything else. I follow politics and apart from changes for the elderly I can't think of anything else that was in the Tory manifesto - I doubt those less interested in politics will either then.
The only issue on the doorstep for past couple of days.
It remains to be seen how big an OG this is.
I guess as the Tories were 3-0 up with 5 mins to go may not cost the Election but may cost the Landslide.
We're all agreed then they have a mandate to rebalance the Govt's approach to the pensioner vote and the rest of the electorate then 'if' they do win?
Yes, they can. The oldies are going back to the kippers. Nutall's personality !!!
But they're standing in less than 400 seat, including some ones where they got big votes last time. Factor in what is clearly a big drop in their vote anyway if the VI is saying 7, and that'll be a struggle to reach with fewer constituencies.
Anecdote: no leaflets received; no posters seen. My poll card has arrived, though.
Had a ton of bumph through the door prior to the locals, nothing since however and virtually no posters seen on my usual daily route. – We’re a quiet, undemonstrative lot here in Wilts.
2 letters from Mrs May (one on rather fetching pale yellow paper) 2 leaflets from the Tories, one Tory canvasser and 1 rather uninspiring leaflet from Karen Buck. Am I in a target seat for the first time in my life?
I’m in a LD target seat apparently (Salisbury) hence the pre local election deluge, which also had the yellow and blue parliamentary candidates. Probably why it’s all gone so quiet now.
Salisbury is a LD target seat?! After the terrible locals there then I would not blame their activists for having a quiet GE.
There's no way Salisbury is close to being an LD target seat. John Glen got well over 50% last time, and the LDs came 4th.
Abbott belongs in that list because of her car-crash LBC interview, in which she had no idea how much Labour’s planned 10,000 extra police would cost. Nye and others have seen the polling and focus groups which reveal that this encounter is the one event of this election campaign that’s truly cut through, reaching even those who barely follow politics.
Anecdote: no leaflets received; no posters seen. My poll card has arrived, though.
Had a ton of bumph through the door prior to the locals, nothing since however and virtually no posters seen on my usual daily route. – We’re a quiet, undemonstrative lot here in Wilts.
2 letters from Mrs May (one on rather fetching pale yellow paper) 2 leaflets from the Tories, one Tory canvasser and 1 rather uninspiring leaflet from Karen Buck. Am I in a target seat for the first time in my life?
I’m in a LD target seat apparently (Salisbury) hence the pre local election deluge, which also had the yellow and blue parliamentary candidates. Probably why it’s all gone so quiet now.
Salisbury is a LD target seat?! After the terrible locals there then I would not blame their activists for having a quiet GE.
There's no way Salisbury is close to being an LD target seat. John Glen got well over 50% last time, and the LDs came 4th.
Those of you discussing house prices in the usual PB fashion ("YOUR MUM SMELLS OF POO!") may wish to look at the latest ONS figures (available at this link here). The relevant figures are:
Avg Price Country and GOR £232,530 England £124,007 Northern Ireland (Quarter 1 - 2017) £137,139 Scotland £147,746 Wales £176,213 East Midlands £277,127 East of England £471,742 London £122,298 North East £150,250 North West £311,514 South East £240,222 South West £180,293 West Midlands Region £149,606 Yorkshire and The Humber
Exactly, so not 1 UK region outside of London, the South East, the South West and the East has an average house price over £200k, and those provincial regions are where May is targeting, a slight Tory to Labour swing in the richest 4 regions would pick up barely any Tory seats but a large Tory to Labour swing in the Midlands, Wales and the North would pick up lots of Labour seats
I don't understand your point, the threshold is £100k not £200k.
There is not a single region with an average house price below £100k so it looks like every single region will be affected.
The clear majority of regions will get to keep over half their assets even if they need care, that is the point and not all those who need care will spend over £100 000
Your still missing it.
Person A Has £50k cash and a house worth £200k and has £400 of social care at home per week
Current system pays £41 pw towards care (just over £2k per Annum) 10 years still using cash they are £20k less cash rich than before so still has a house and £30k cash
New system same person now has £250k assets and pays full cost of care. 1 years cost is £20k So after 2.5 years all cash is gone Half the house gone in 7.5 years
Any kind of backlash to the social care policy might well play out post-election. Right now, to voters there is no alternative other than the Tories. - but voters voting for Cameron's Tories in 2015, didn't stop the backlash to the disability cuts that autumn.
Anecdote: no leaflets received; no posters seen. My poll card has arrived, though.
One leaflet here - the fragrant Mr Bercow pictured with his wife Sally & 3 kids (are they back together) and then testimonials and photos from TMay, Tim Farron and.... Yvette Cooper...
hmm spot the odd one out.
We've had one letter which was addressed to me and actively mentions the postal vote that I have. My wife, who votes in the usual way has not had anything. I'd suggest that implies a reasonably sophisticated data mining operation by the letter sending party but I couldn't say whether this is replicated in other constituencies.
May and the Tories are to be unreservedly applauded for making this a prominent issue. It's a shame it was not done years ago, but Labour learned a Death Tax lesson in 2010 and the Tories made a rod for their own back in deploying the term - so May's move is undoubtedly brave, if made a whole lot easier by the fact that she is facing Jeremy Corbyn. He really is a political game-changer.
The debate should now be about whether the duty of care and payment should be placed entirely on the family concerned, or whether a pooling approach is a better one. I favour the latter, because any one of us might be affected by this and dementia is an illness just as much as any other; but I can understand why others might take the opposite view. Once the general election is out of the way we may just get a grown-up conversation going, which would be extraordinary, but also very positive. My guess is that the policy as currently set out by the Tories will not be the one that makes it to the statute books.
Anecdote: no leaflets received; no posters seen. My poll card has arrived, though.
Had a ton of bumph through the door prior to the locals, nothing since however and virtually no posters seen on my usual daily route. – We’re a quiet, undemonstrative lot here in Wilts.
2 letters from Mrs May (one on rather fetching pale yellow paper) 2 leaflets from the Tories, one Tory canvasser and 1 rather uninspiring leaflet from Karen Buck. Am I in a target seat for the first time in my life?
I’m in a LD target seat apparently (Salisbury) hence the pre local election deluge, which also had the yellow and blue parliamentary candidates. Probably why it’s all gone so quiet now.
[edit] @IanB2 – many thanks for your illuminating and informed reply.
Thank you kindly. I suspect you are benefitting more from my past stint as a General Election agent than my candidate did.
Talking of past lives, one of my past jobs was negotiating the rate paid to postmen and women for delivering the election material you'll all be receiving over the next couple of weeks. The threat of disruption ensured that the staff always got a decent deal.
Almost everyone with a house will now pay in full from their capital until all their cash is exhausted now houses are included in capital
76% of social care is home care 24% residential
Best wishes to Mrs BJO.
Something to remember in the distinction between home care and residential is it often changes with time! My mother had 2 years of home care. She gradually deteriorated, and then had 4 years of residential care.
The home care was affordable, but the residential care was hugely expensive. We sold my mother's property to pay for it.
There are really iniquities in the present system. Sadly, many people who have home care move on to needing residential care later on.
Those of you discussing house prices in the usual PB fashion ("YOUR MUM SMELLS OF POO!") may wish to look at the latest ONS figures (available at this link here). The relevant figures are:
Avg Price Country and GOR £232,530 England £124,007 Northern Ireland (Quarter 1 - 2017) £137,139 Scotland £147,746 Wales £176,213 East Midlands £277,127 East of England £471,742 London £122,298 North East £150,250 North West £311,514 South East £240,222 South West £180,293 West Midlands Region £149,606 Yorkshire and The Humber
Exactly, so not 1 UK region outside of London, the South East, the South West and the East has an average house price over £200k, and those provincial regions are where May is targeting, a slight Tory to Labour swing in the richest 4 regions would pick up barely any Tory seats but a large Tory to Labour swing in the Midlands, Wales and the North would pick up lots of Labour seats
I don't understand your point, the threshold is £100k not £200k.
There is not a single region with an average house price below £100k so it looks like every single region will be affected.
The clear majority of regions will get to keep over half their assets even if they need care, that is the point and not all those who need care will spend over £100 000
Your still missing it.
Person A Has £50k cash and a house worth £200k and has £400 of social care at home per week
Current system pays £41 pw towards care (just over £2k per Annum) 10 years still using cash they are £20k less cash rich than before so still has a house and £30k cash
New system same person now has £250k assets and pays full cost of care. 1 years cost is £20k So after 2.5 years all cash is gone Half the house gone in 7.5 years
Not a gamechanger
Dream on
Person A Has £50k cash and a house worth £200k and has £400 of social care at home per week
£400pw less contribution of £41pw = £360pw = £18,668pa.
Or to put it another way under the new system their cost of care rises 10% on your numbers.
Those of you discussing house prices in the usual PB fashion ("YOUR MUM SMELLS OF POO!") may wish to look at the latest ONS figures (available at this link here). The relevant figures are:
Avg Price Country and GOR £232,530 England £124,007 Northern Ireland (Quarter 1 - 2017) £137,139 Scotland £147,746 Wales £176,213 East Midlands £277,127 East of England £471,742 London £122,298 North East £150,250 North West £311,514 South East £240,222 South West £180,293 West Midlands Region £149,606 Yorkshire and The Humber
Exactly, so not 1 UK region outside of London, the South East, the South West and the East has an average house price over £200k, and those provincial regions are where May is targeting, a slight Tory to Labour swing in the richest 4 regions would pick up barely any Tory seats but a large Tory to Labour swing in the Midlands, Wales and the North would pick up lots of Labour seats
I don't understand your point, the threshold is £100k not £200k.
There is not a single region with an average house price below £100k so it looks like every single region will be affected.
The clear majority of regions will get to keep over half their assets even if they need care, that is the point and not all those who need care will spend over £100 000
Your still missing it.
Person A Has £50k cash and a house worth £200k and has £400 of social care at home per week
Current system pays £41 pw towards care (just over £2k per Annum) 10 years still using cash they are £20k less cash rich than before so still has a house and £30k cash
New system same person now has £250k assets and pays full cost of care. 1 years cost is £20k So after 2.5 years all cash is gone Half the house gone in 7.5 years
Not a gamechanger
Dream on
No house is worth £200k outside London and the South on average and that is not where the Tory target seats are, in any case most houses in London and the South are worth £300k+ so would have been caught by inheritance tax which the Tories took most of them out of last year and indeed if that same hypothetical person had needed residential care before they would have only been left with £23k including the value of their house, they now get £100k to keep including the value of their house
Anecdote: no leaflets received; no posters seen. My poll card has arrived, though.
Had a ton of bumph through the door prior to the locals, nothing since however and virtually no posters seen on my usual daily route. – We’re a quiet, undemonstrative lot here in Wilts.
2 letters from Mrs May (one on rather fetching pale yellow paper) 2 leaflets from the Tories, one Tory canvasser and 1 rather uninspiring leaflet from Karen Buck. Am I in a target seat for the first time in my life?
I’m in a LD target seat apparently (Salisbury) hence the pre local election deluge, which also had the yellow and blue parliamentary candidates. Probably why it’s all gone so quiet now.
Salisbury is a LD target seat?! After the terrible locals there then I would not blame their activists for having a quiet GE.
There's no way Salisbury is close to being an LD target seat. John Glen got well over 50% last time, and the LDs came 4th.
Hence the '?!'
Indeed. I lived there before I moved out here, it's one of the most blue places in the country - Salisbury going for anyone else would be Bootle in reverse!
May and the Tories are to be unreservedly applauded for making this a prominent issue. It's a shame it was not done years ago, but Labour learned a Death Tax lesson in 2010 and the Tories made a rod for their own back in deploying the term - so May's move is undoubtedly brave, if made a whole lot easier by the fact that she is facing Jeremy Corbyn. He really is a political game-changer.
The debate should now be about whether the duty of care and payment should be placed entirely on the family concerned, or whether a pooling approach is a better one. I favour the latter, because any one of us might be affected by this and dementia is an illness just as much as any other; but I can understand why others might take the opposite view. Once the general election is out of the way we may just get a grown-up conversation going, which would be extraordinary, but also very positive. My guess is that the policy as currently set out by the Tories will not be the one that makes it to the statute books.
As I said below, future governments are coming for property equity, and there is no escape.
Those of you discussing house prices in the usual PB fashion ("YOUR MUM SMELLS OF POO!") may wish to look at the latest ONS figures (available at this link here). The relevant figures are:
Avg Price Country and GOR £232,530 England £124,007 Northern Ireland (Quarter 1 - 2017) £137,139 Scotland £147,746 Wales £176,213 East Midlands £277,127 East of England £471,742 London £122,298 North East £150,250 North West £311,514 South East £240,222 South West £180,293 West Midlands Region £149,606 Yorkshire and The Humber
Exactly, so not 1 UK region outside of London, the South East, the South West and the East has an average house price over £200k, and those provincial regions are where May is targeting, a slight Tory to Labour swing in the richest 4 regions would pick up barely any Tory seats but a large Tory to Labour swing in the Midlands, Wales and the North would pick up lots of Labour seats
I don't understand your point, the threshold is £100k not £200k.
There is not a single region with an average house price below £100k so it looks like every single region will be affected.
The clear majority of regions will get to keep over half their assets even if they need care, that is the point and not all those who need care will spend over £100 000
Your still missing it.
Person A Has £50k cash and a house worth £200k and has £400 of social care at home per week
Current system pays £41 pw towards care (just over £2k per Annum) 10 years still using cash they are £20k less cash rich than before so still has a house and £30k cash
New system same person now has £250k assets and pays full cost of care. 1 years cost is £20k So after 2.5 years all cash is gone Half the house gone in 7.5 years
Not a gamechanger
Dream on
do they not claim attendance allowance in your hypothethical?
Incredibly, this will be the FOURTH GE in a row that Labour have shed seats. Since 2001, when they had 413 seats, they have lost 155 seats (so far). They have also had the two lowest votes shares since 1997 (admittedly the highest as well, so far), and the Tories have never gone below Miliband's 30.4%, even during the Blair landslides.
The Tories started gaining vote share and seats significantly after just 3 elections in 2005 (they actually got more votes in England than Labour did). Labour's bubble burst after just 8 years in government. The Tories have been governing for 7 years now, and look to make substantial gains in both seats and vote share, and Labour make substantial losses again.
Since 2001, Labour will have likely lost well in excess of 200 seats, (with possibly a 100 plus seats lost since they have been in opposition) spread over 16 years. Remarkable.
Anecdote: no leaflets received; no posters seen. My poll card has arrived, though.
One leaflet here - the fragrant Mr Bercow pictured with his wife Sally & 3 kids (are they back together) and then testimonials and photos from TMay, Tim Farron and.... Yvette Cooper...
hmm spot the odd one out.
We've had one letter which was addressed to me and actively mentions the postal vote that I have. My wife, who votes in the usual way has not had anything. I'd suggest that implies a reasonably sophisticated data mining operation by the letter sending party but I couldn't say whether this is replicated in other constituencies.
Lists of registered postal voters are made available to all the parties and, even in local elections, we always made sure they got a personal letter, ideally on the day we expected their postal vote to arrive. It's the sign of a well organised campaign, as you say.
I have looked at the Electoral Calculus site , and it is clear that it is not applying a universal swing. Seats listed as Tory gains include – Edgbaston – Bishop Auckland – Bristol East Southampton Test – Wakefield -Delyn – Chorley – Eltham – Stoke on Trent North – Stoke on Trent South. None of those seats would fall to the Tories on a 2.7% swing – indeed Stoke on Trent North requires a swing of over 6% and Chorley, Bristol East and Bishop Auckland a 4.5% swing.. On the other hand , Tooting would very narrowly go Tory but is not included in the list.
May and the Tories are to be unreservedly applauded for making this a prominent issue. It's a shame it was not done years ago, but Labour learned a Death Tax lesson in 2010 and the Tories made a rod for their own back in deploying the term - so May's move is undoubtedly brave, if made a whole lot easier by the fact that she is facing Jeremy Corbyn. He really is a political game-changer.
The debate should now be about whether the duty of care and payment should be placed entirely on the family concerned, or whether a pooling approach is a better one. I favour the latter, because any one of us might be affected by this and dementia is an illness just as much as any other; but I can understand why others might take the opposite view. Once the general election is out of the way we may just get a grown-up conversation going, which would be extraordinary, but also very positive. My guess is that the policy as currently set out by the Tories will not be the one that makes it to the statute books.
Is there a way the pollsters [ particularly, panel pollsters like YG ] can pick up people who have not voted ever or the last few elections, but this time will vote ?
I wonder how many of them are bullshit (or things Labour are not actually proposing to do anything about), but for party purposes, it's useful to have a list like that.
One lie I spotted right away - it's 4 teachers in 10 quite within five years, not within one year. (Also, 4 in 10 NQTs quite 'within the first year' would, even if true, be a tautology.)
May and the Tories are to be unreservedly applauded for making this a prominent issue. It's a shame it was not done years ago, but Labour learned a Death Tax lesson in 2010 and the Tories made a rod for their own back in deploying the term - so May's move is undoubtedly brave, if made a whole lot easier by the fact that she is facing Jeremy Corbyn. He really is a political game-changer.
The debate should now be about whether the duty of care and payment should be placed entirely on the family concerned, or whether a pooling approach is a better one. I favour the latter, because any one of us might be affected by this and dementia is an illness just as much as any other; but I can understand why others might take the opposite view. Once the general election is out of the way we may just get a grown-up conversation going, which would be extraordinary, but also very positive. My guess is that the policy as currently set out by the Tories will not be the one that makes it to the statute books.
Comments
I WIN
I WIN
I WIN
I WIN
I WIN
I WIN
Because the house is disregarded the person affected is allowed £50k capital.
If you are below that you pay a token amount (in our case £41 pw of the £400 per week Care bill for Mrs BJ.
Above £50k you pay the full care bill
Once your house is brought in everyone pays the full care bill as their assets are over £50k
Those thinking few are affected.
This is a complete gamechanger.
http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/iain-dale/young-voter-tells-of-online-abuse-he-receives/
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/15/voting-intention-regional-breakdown-apr-24-may-5/
Avg Price Country and GOR
£232,530 England
£124,007 Northern Ireland (Quarter 1 - 2017)
£137,139 Scotland
£147,746 Wales
£176,213 East Midlands
£277,127 East of England
£471,742 London
£122,298 North East
£150,250 North West
£311,514 South East
£240,222 South West
£180,293 West Midlands Region
£149,606 Yorkshire and The Humber
Raining quite a lot.
This election could see the extinction of the UNS model, because it doesn't work well enough with FPTP. Labour are stacking up tonnes of votes in London, but outside of there...we shall see.
In practical terms, of course, no local authority is going to be able to act quick enough to get a hoarding taken down before the election is over. Nevertheless a party putting up an unauthorised hoarding risks getting some bad publicity (which the homeowner may not welcome), and if there is a risk to road safety as well, this publicity may not be very helpful.
Where will an English voter who is that upset about the Scots getting preferential treatment turn to? Are they going to vote for Labour so they can get a coalition with the SNP? Are they going to vote UKIP despite them being dead and not standing in half the seats?
People may gripe and moan but its not going to make an electoral impact. That the Scots are special is already priced in.
Who is Jezza its Natascha, Chris and Toby round here
Almost everyone with a house will now pay in full from their capital until all their cash is exhausted now houses are included in capital
76% of social care is home care 24% residential
There is not a single region with an average house price below £100k so it looks like every single region will be affected.
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/Ross-On-Wye/detached.html
In Monmouth it'd be similar.
Good semi-detached less, but still pricey for a large house and garden.
That's the periphery, where Wales and Midlands join south-west England, and Ross on Wye has its very own motorway, but even so...
When the government party is gaining votes (and in any situation where third parties are in play) there is no logical or theoretical reason why the UNS model should work at all.
It was morally wrong IMO for people with between £23k and £100k of assets to lose 75% in care home bills.
"One activist told me that the vilification of Jeremy Corbyn on doorsteps in a hitherto safe seat surpassed that of Mrs Thatcher or of Arthur Scargill 30 years ago."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/29/five-key-charts-show-people-will-vote-general-election-according/
1. Cameron proposed a cap of £78,000
2. With careful will structure the exemption could be £200,000 for a couple
If you work through the scenarios then the wealthy are going to be hammered by dropping the cap although it's quite possible they can pay from income.
"ORB - 17/18 May
Con 46 (-)
Lab 34 (+2)
LD 7 (-1)
UKIP 7 (+1)"
When you say £50000 do you mean £23250?
18, 14, 15, 13, and now 12 with ORB. The 5 pollsters are all different.
Soon, it will be 8%
Labour on 205 according to EC with ORB. I cannot believe the Tories will beat Caroline Lucas.
As is often the case, the LibDems were ahead of the curve with Cable's Mansion Tax proposal ten years back. Now all the parties are looking at how they can direct some of the property equity towards the common good.
I agree that the Tories surprising us all with its new approach to care funding is bold, in the Yes Minister sense of the phrase. But one way or another (any) government is coming for property equity, make no mistake...
Of course, a madman like Corbyn would see a net 30 loss as a victory.
https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime
Funny how that piece of recounted lifedata got such a good response, whereas the previous post that I actually put some serious analytical thought into (and included a sort of criticism of this generally very popular header) vanished without a trace. Though I'm copyrighting the terms High NHSism, Low NHSism and One True NHSism just in case...
Suck it up - ditch the trots and move on.
[edit] @IanB2 – many thanks for your illuminating and informed reply.
With the exception of almost every race weekend in 2016, I'll have you know my F1 record is passable to moderate.
hmm spot the odd one out.
So I am not too prone to repeating myself unless I know I've made a really good one, generally a prior posting from weeks gone by that's relevant to a new discussion.
It remains to be seen how big an OG this is.
I guess as the Tories were 3-0 up with 5 mins to go may not cost the Election but may cost the Landslide.
I'm not superstitious. Follow my tips or not, they'll come off or they won't.
Mr. Ears, Talida'red?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/19/british-voters-rejecting-santa-embracing-scrooge-labour-popularity
Abbott belongs in that list because of her car-crash LBC interview, in which she had no idea how much Labour’s planned 10,000 extra police would cost. Nye and others have seen the polling and focus groups which reveal that this encounter is the one event of this election campaign that’s truly cut through, reaching even those who barely follow politics.
And the next one most certainly isn't fast...
Person A Has £50k cash and a house worth £200k and has £400 of social care at home per week
Current system pays £41 pw towards care (just over £2k per Annum) 10 years still using cash they are £20k less cash rich than before so still has a house and £30k cash
New system same person now has £250k assets and pays full cost of care. 1 years cost is £20k So after 2.5 years all cash is gone Half the house gone in 7.5 years
Not a gamechanger
Dream on
The debate should now be about whether the duty of care and payment should be placed entirely on the family concerned, or whether a pooling approach is a better one. I favour the latter, because any one of us might be affected by this and dementia is an illness just as much as any other; but I can understand why others might take the opposite view. Once the general election is out of the way we may just get a grown-up conversation going, which would be extraordinary, but also very positive. My guess is that the policy as currently set out by the Tories will not be the one that makes it to the statute books.
Talking of past lives, one of my past jobs was negotiating the rate paid to postmen and women for delivering the election material you'll all be receiving over the next couple of weeks. The threat of disruption ensured that the staff always got a decent deal.
Something to remember in the distinction between home care and residential is it often changes with time! My mother had 2 years of home care. She gradually deteriorated, and then had 4 years of residential care.
The home care was affordable, but the residential care was hugely expensive. We sold my mother's property to pay for it.
There are really iniquities in the present system. Sadly, many people who have home care move on to needing residential care later on.
Person A Has £50k cash and a house worth £200k and has £400 of social care at home per week
£400pw less contribution of £41pw = £360pw = £18,668pa.
Or to put it another way under the new system their cost of care rises 10% on your numbers.
The Tories started gaining vote share and seats significantly after just 3 elections in 2005 (they actually got more votes in England than Labour did). Labour's bubble burst after just 8 years in government. The Tories have been governing for 7 years now, and look to make substantial gains in both seats and vote share, and Labour make substantial losses again.
Since 2001, Labour will have likely lost well in excess of 200 seats, (with possibly a 100 plus seats lost since they have been in opposition) spread over 16 years. Remarkable.
Let's say, 2% of the electoral register.