I haven't looked at the entire thread. But I was beyond astonished at this comment from @kyf_100 (I paraphrase):
'You bought your own semi detached council house, now worth £450,000, that you hope to pass on to your children'.
Please name one constituency north of Birmingham where an ex-council house is worth that much. Even £200,000 would be a very high price. Mine, which does fit that description, is worth £140,000.
I think one problem is southern voters who are genuinely ignorant of the north and the way it works are extrapolating themselves onto northern voters and not realising that actually it's the south that's the exception. In the south, those people with assets often have liquid assets as well, so the house has to be sold later. In the north, even though houses are worth less, often that's the only asset and has to be taken from the off to pay care bills.
I am not surprised this focus grouped well in Birmingham. Or Bury. Or Bolton. Which is where May has set her sights.
That's unfair on people in the south who first of all have to pay considerably more for our houses and then pay an awful lot more dementia tax. We don't all live in mansions and drive sports cars here. Talk about taking the pee out of your core vote
At the moment, Northerners often have few assets beyond their house and their pensions are poor by comparison (because the jobs are not as well paid). So they are stuck in the same trap. This will level things up somewhat.
My key point is that I think PB (which is dominated by those from the south, for good and obvious reasons) is talking past the majority of the population because they don't realise the situation. Believe me, I have every sympathy with people in the South who have to sell their houses to pay for care. I also have a great deal of sympathy for those who are stuck in tiny and unsuitable houses because the property market there is so insane.
There are two possible outcomes to this policy from that point of view if it is implemented:
1) Because initial deposits are lower, house prices correct at last and normal people can afford to have a decent house in the SE again;
2) By postponing the sale of the house until after death, this damages the property market further by drying up the supply, bearing in mind it will not affect everyone but will affect those who had previously sold up.
One would be a desirable outcome the other obviously would not be. Don't ask me which it would be because I don't know.
What will piss off pensioners in the north and midlands is that the Tories are changing the rules winter fuel allowance, but keeping things the same in Scotland.
I haven't looked at the entire thread. But I was beyond astonished at this comment from @kyf_100 (I paraphrase):
'You bought your own semi detached council house, now worth £450,000, that you hope to pass on to your children'.
I am not surprised this focus grouped well in Birmingham. Or Bury. Or Bolton. Which is where May has set her sights.
I don't think this was focus grouped at all. One of many reasons that Theresa May's snap election was a bad idea is that all manifestos have been produced on the hoof.
The reason that TM appears to be doing well in Midlands and North has nothing to do with Social Care. Moving the topic to welfare provision from jingoistic nationalism is not going to do her any favours.
Poorer pensioners and their middle aged children will be more bothered by loss of WFA and the triple lock than the redistributive aspects of the Dementia Tax.
Has anyone mentioned Brexit lately ? Wasn't this the Brexit election ?
May is slipping in her slippers. The Tory manifesto is looking more foolish by the day. Corbyn to slipping through on the outside is now more than a maybe.
Nothing has changed. The Tories will win the election very comfortably. It may well be a landslide. May is a mediocre leader. Corbyn is a catastrophe. The world turns.
If Corbyn polls 35% in the end - then that will be very significant when the leadership challenges come in.
I still think Corbyn will go - but it should show the next leadership that they needn't be so scared to stand on a left wing platform.
If Corbyn polls 35% then if he was smart he would walk away - he would have transformed Labour party policy and direction.
I haven't looked at the entire thread. But I was beyond astonished at this comment from @kyf_100 (I paraphrase):
'You bought your own semi detached council house, now worth £450,000, that you hope to pass on to your children'.
I am not surprised this focus grouped well in Birmingham. Or Bury. Or Bolton. Which is where May has set her sights.
I don't think this was focus grouped at all. One of many reasons that Theresa May's snap election was a bad idea is that all manifestos have been produced on the hoof.
The reason that TM appears to be doing well in Midlands and North has nothing to do with Social Care. Moving the topic to welfare provision from jingoistic nationalism is not going to do her any favours.
Poorer pensioners and their middle aged children will be more bothered by loss of WFA and the triple lock than the redistributive aspects of the Dementia Tax.
Has anyone mentioned Brexit lately ? Wasn't this the Brexit election ?
Where Labour has it right, and LibDems have it wrong, is that Lab talk about everything other than Brexit.
Even talking about Irish history, and Trident is better. This is not 1983 when Foot was proposing disarming during the Cold War. Trident is an obsolete weapons system at a time when Britain cannot field a single battle ready Army Division.
When looking at voting in GE2015, 93 out of the weighted total of 836 are in Others [ i.e. not C, Lab, LD, UKIP, DNV ].
Of these people, 25% are voting SNP [ understandable as they are not shown separately, "Another party" is 29%.
But 35% are going to vote Labour. 8% will vote Conservative.
Amongst the DNV, 42 - 29 are breaking in favour of Labour.
The above two could be because of Corbyn [ radical policies ].
That post doesn't make sense. 35% of others are voting Labour?
Your attention detail is VERY POOR. Right at the start of the post, I wrote: "When looking at voting in GE2015......"
So, amongst those who voted OTHERS in GE2015, 35% will now vote Labour.
Geddit ?
Thank you. Yes, I missed the start of the post which was foolish of me. It is partly because I am getting about four hours sleep a night, have a huge amount of paperwork to do, extra exam classes and marking to complete and am trying to support a family member just out of hospital. I am sorry that this led me to annoy you once again, although it has to be said it's remarkably easy to annoy you, as it is most members of the Labour Party at the moment. Because I realise that your existence must be pretty miserable right now trying to defend the indefensible, I'll forgive you your short fuse.
I have to get to Dursley. Have a good day everyone.
I haven't looked at the entire thread. But I was beyond astonished at this comment from @kyf_100 (I paraphrase):
'You bought your own semi detached council house, now worth £450,000, that you hope to pass on to your children'.
Please name one constituency north of Birmingham where an ex-council house is worth that much. Even £200,000 would be a very high price. Mine, which does fit that description, is worth £140,000.
I think one problem is southern voters who are genuinely ignorant of the north and the way it works are extrapolating themselves onto northern voters and not realising that actually it's the south that's the exception. In the south, those people with assets often have liquid assets as well, so the house has to be sold later. In the north, even though houses are worth less, often that's the only asset and has to be taken from the off to pay care bills.
I am not surprised this focus grouped well in Birmingham. Or Bury. Or Bolton. Which is where May has set her sights.
There's a helluva lot of folks for whom being sure you can pass on £100,000 to the kids is as much as they will ever need.
And those folks who need to worry about bigger sums - you've been looked after very well by rises in Inheritance Tax thresholds. Most of them - at least 5/6 of the richest (and remember, they represent a much smaller proportion than that of the total population) will get the benefit of this Inheritance Tax uplift because they will never need care at home. They can pass on a vast proportion of their wealth. As has been commented on many times, Inheritance Tax has so many escape routes that it is virtually a voluntary tax.
The issue is the 1/6. Rather than a Dementia Tax, It would be more apposite to call it a Russian Roulette Tax. One chamber is loaded. Now, the cost of health care for those with dementia needs to be met. So...we have to ask the richest: do you want a) to have a 1/6 chance of having to bear the cost of many many years of care yourself - with just £100,000 guaranteed to be left? Or do you want b) to lose 1/6 of your wealth above £100,000, with a new element of Inheritance Tax (or compulsory insurance) that you can't avoid? Or is it that you want c) someone else has to contribute to the cost of your care for many many years?
Seems to me at the moment that we are hearing exclusively from those in c) who want to keep everything and have the Care Cost Fairy settle up their bills....
May is slipping in her slippers. The Tory manifesto is looking more foolish by the day. Corbyn to slipping through on the outside is now more than a maybe.
What people who are citing polls saying that "support" slightly exceeds "oppose" fail to take on board (as well as how this changes after 2 days of consistent negative reinforcement by the press):
- How much they support or oppose is critical. You could get a swing towards or a swing away with the same figures.
If, for example, you have 100 people, 49 of whom intended to vote Tory and 51 for other parties.
Of these 35 say they are opposed and 40 are in favour.
If those in favour really like the policy (enough to switch) and those opposed dislike it but not enough to switch, that can be a big swing in favour. Those opposed who are in that 49 stay put; those in favour who are in the 51 switch to the Tories, and you could see a big increase. I don't think we're seeing that here.
If those opposed really hate the policy (enough to switch), and those who support it aren't enthused enough to switch because of it, then you can see a big switch away. Those of the 35 who are opposed who are in the 49 Tories either switch away or remain and consider it (or are weakened in their support and can flake away later) and those of the 40 who are in favour amongst the 51 non-Tories stay where they are. Big switch away possible.
Of course, there are also issues of where in the country they are. And, bigger than that, the fact that there's nearly 3 weeks left anyway, and we could be looking back and saying "remember when the care homes thing was going to sink May?" (Or saying "Hell, remember that before the care homes thing, May was going to win, and win really big?", but I think the latter is far less likely, to be honest).
The policy of hurting your core vote never works out well in the long term. Labour's abandonment of its core vote is part of the reason why it has the issues it does now.
As someone noted earlier, all this does is underline how bad the next five years are going to be. May's vision isn't going to enthuse the public that much - she's winning simply because she's not Corbyn. And this whole saga brings into question her competence, and her ability to deliver a successful Brexit.
Mr's May's cunning plan is working. She's hoping to close the gap in the polls to encourage Tory voters to turn out.
I've been away in Wexford at a niece's wedding, so blessed relief from election 'fever', but even there I had a discussion about Brexit with another guest. However we was from Belfast so that doesn't count.
In 1983, when I voted Labour, we had a few days when the campaign seemed to be going well. You can always announce goodies when you're never going to have to implement them, but at the booth, reality always kicks in. According to Labour, nationalisation has no cost, and people don't change their habits to avoid taxes. Back then, I wanted to believe it.
Mr. CD13, not nearly enough was made of cost (especially of nationalisation) by the Conservatives in their response to Labour's tax-and-spend binge manifesto.
Ms. Apocalypse, I agree entirely.
If May wins and is still there in five years, I'd probably be actively looking for somewhere else to cast my vote [assuming she doesn't face Corbyn again].
Watching the look on Trump's face while being obliged to do a sword dance with all those Arabs is almost worth the danger of having a lunatic as POTUS.
The policy of hurting your core vote never works out well in the long term. Labour's abandonment of its core vote is part of the reason why it has the issues it does now.
As someone noted earlier, all this does is underline how bad the next five years are going to be. May's vision isn't going to enthuse the public that much - she's winning simply because she's not Corbyn. And this whole saga brings into question her competence, and her ability to deliver a successful Brexit.
Nah - she is MORE popular than Cameron.
Remember, Corbyn was beating Cameron in the VI polls in April 16.
I haven't looked at the entire thread. But I was beyond astonished at this comment from @kyf_100 (I paraphrase):
'You bought your own semi detached council house, now worth £450,000, that you hope to pass on to your children'.
Please name one constituency north of Birmingham where an ex-council house is worth that much. Even £200,000 would be a very high price. Mine, which does fit that description, is worth £140,000.
I think one problem is southern voters who are genuinely ignorant of the north and the way it works are extrapolating themselves onto northern voters and not realising that actually it's the south that's the exception. In the south, those people with assets often have liquid assets as well, so the house has to be sold later. In the north, even though houses are worth less, often that's the only asset and has to be taken from the off to pay care bills.
I am not surprised this focus grouped well in Birmingham. Or Bury. Or Bolton. Which is where May has set her sights.
There's a helluva lot of folks for whom being sure you can pass on £100,000 to the kids is as much as they will ever need.
And those folks who need to worry about bigger sums - you've been looked after very well by rises in Inheritance Tax thresholds. Most of them - at least 5/6 of the richest (and remember, they represent a much smaller proportion than that of the total population) will get the benefit of this Inheritance Tax uplift because they will never need care at home. They can pass on a vast proportion of their wealth. As has been commented on many times, Inheritance Tax has so many escape routes that it is virtually a voluntary tax.
The issue is the 1/6. Rather than a Dementia Tax, It would be more apposite to call it a Russian Roulette Tax. One chamber is loaded. Now, the cost of health care for those with dementia needs to be met. So...we have to ask the richest: do you want a) to have a 1/6 chance of having to bear the cost of many many years of care yourself - with just £100,000 guaranteed to be left? Or do you want b) to lose 1/6 of your wealth above £100,000, with a new element of Inheritance Tax (or compulsory insurance) that you can't avoid? Or is it that you want c) someone else has to contribute to the cost of your care for many many years?
Seems to me at the moment that we are hearing exclusively from those in c) who want to keep everything and have the Care Cost Fairy settle up their bills....
If you really think 5 people not affected are going to willingly give up anything to help that 6th (unknown) person then you don't understand people...
I haven't looked at the entire thread. But I was beyond astonished at this comment from @kyf_100 (I paraphrase):
'You bought your own semi detached council house, now worth £450,000, that you hope to pass on to your children'.
Please name one constituency north of Birmingham where an ex-council house is worth that much. Even £200,000 would be a very high price. Mine, which does fit that description, is worth £140,000.
I think one problem is southern voters who are genuinely ignorant of the north and the way it works are extrapolating themselves onto northern voters and not realising that actually it's the south that's the exception. In the south, those people with assets often have liquid assets as well, so the house has to be sold later. In the north, even though houses are worth less, often that's the only asset and has to be taken from the off to pay care bills.
I am not surprised this focus grouped well in Birmingham. Or Bury. Or Bolton. Which is where May has set her sights.
There's a helluva lot of folks for whom being sure you can pass on £100,000 to the kids is as much as they will ever need.
And those folks who need to worry about bigger sums - you've been looked after very well by rises in Inheritance Tax thresholds. Most of them - at least 5/6 of the richest (and remember, they represent a much smaller proportion than that of the total population) will get the benefit of this Inheritance Tax uplift because they will never need care at home. They can pass on a vast proportion of their wealth. As has been commented on many times, Inheritance Tax has so many escape routes that it is virtually a voluntary tax.
The issue is the 1/6. Rather than a Dementia Tax, It would be more apposite to call it a Russian Roulette Tax. One chamber is loaded. Now, the cost of health care for those with dementia needs to be met. So...we have to ask the richest: do you want a) to have a 1/6 chance of having to bear the cost of many many years of care yourself - with just £100,000 guaranteed to be left? Or do you want b) to lose 1/6 of your wealth above £100,000, with a new element of Inheritance Tax (or compulsory insurance) that you can't avoid? Or is it that you want c) someone else has to contribute to the cost of your care for many many years?
Seems to me at the moment that we are hearing exclusively from those in c) who want to keep everything and have the Care Cost Fairy settle up their bills....
If you really think 5 people not affected are going to willingly give up anything to help that 6th (unknown) person then you don't understand people...
The policy of hurting your core vote never works out well in the long term. Labour's abandonment of its core vote is part of the reason why it has the issues it does now.
As someone noted earlier, all this does is underline how bad the next five years are going to be. May's vision isn't going to enthuse the public that much - she's winning simply because she's not Corbyn. And this whole saga brings into question her competence, and her ability to deliver a successful Brexit.
Nah - she is MORE popular than Cameron.
Remember, Corbyn was beating Cameron in the VI polls in April 16.
Executive summary: everyone now agrees that Cameron and Osborne weren't so bad at this politics malarkey after all, right?
Nope!
Te difficulty we face (and maybe this is universal) is that the people who are good at politics are not necessarily the ones who are good at governing.
The policy of hurting your core vote never works out well in the long term. Labour's abandonment of its core vote is part of the reason why it has the issues it does now.
As someone noted earlier, all this does is underline how bad the next five years are going to be. May's vision isn't going to enthuse the public that much - she's winning simply because she's not Corbyn. And this whole saga brings into question her competence, and her ability to deliver a successful Brexit.
Nah - she is MORE popular than Cameron.
Remember, Corbyn was beating Cameron in the VI polls in April 16.
Because of Ukip. You can't compare the two
Edit. You can but you know it's not a fair comparison. Pretty sure Dave would have a bigger lead now if roles were reversed.
The policy of hurting your core vote never works out well in the long term. Labour's abandonment of its core vote is part of the reason why it has the issues it does now.
As someone noted earlier, all this does is underline how bad the next five years are going to be. May's vision isn't going to enthuse the public that much - she's winning simply because she's not Corbyn. And this whole saga brings into question her competence, and her ability to deliver a successful Brexit.
Nah - she is MORE popular than Cameron.
Remember, Corbyn was beating Cameron in the VI polls in April 16.
She's popular because she isn't Corbyn.
VI polls, as shown by GE 2015 are not the greatest measure of public mood. It's leaders ratings which counts.
Mr. CD13, not nearly enough was made of cost (especially of nationalisation) by the Conservatives in their response to Labour's tax-and-spend binge manifesto.
Ms. Apocalypse, I agree entirely.
If May wins and is still there in five years, I'd probably be actively looking for somewhere else to cast my vote [assuming she doesn't face Corbyn again].
Key thing is that Corbyn goes. If he goes, then all bets are off. I really cannot see the May team negotiating a successful Brexit. The competence doesn't appear to be there.
The secondary results in the Yougov poll still point to a big Conservative lead. May's approval rating is 52%, compared to 25% for Corbyn.
Yep - this is key. They also point to a distinct lack of enthusiasm about many Tory policies, though. May needs Corbyn to stay in charge of Labour.
Overall 44% think the Conservatives' proposals are sensible, compared to 30% for Labour's. 32% think the Conservatives are making unaffordable promises, compared to 51% for Labour.
Means testing WFA is widely supported (by 49/34). Ending the triple lock is very unpopular. Surprisingly perhaps, pensioners are slightly more supportive of the care proposals than the general population (43/41). Ending free school lunches is very unpopular.
Mr. CD13, not nearly enough was made of cost (especially of nationalisation) by the Conservatives in their response to Labour's tax-and-spend binge manifesto.
Ms. Apocalypse, I agree entirely.
If May wins and is still there in five years, I'd probably be actively looking for somewhere else to cast my vote [assuming she doesn't face Corbyn again].
Mr Morris, the Tories had the slight problem of not having bothered to cost their own proposals?
44/35 may be as bad as it gets for the Tories, given their leads on secondary questions. Even in the 1983 campaign, single digit leads came up from time to time.
The problem with this care proposal is that it is being perceived as inheritance tax.
Got it in one.
Nah, the problem with it is thatit is a shit policy. I rather pay higher National Insurance then this.
Being shit never prevented people liking a policy. The Triple Lock is a shit policy, people are still crying about it potentially being taken away.
They only have to elect Labour to keep it.
I agree with the removal of the Triple Lock
I could be persuaded that WFA is too generous.
To limit the latter to only 10% of Pensioners in receipt of pension credit guaranteed is a bit harsh though.
The Pound Shop Thatcher House Snatcher policy is just WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Why should my parents be subsidised by people on average incomes?
why should people from humbler backgrounds, whose only asset is likely to be their home, see it whittled away to nothing while their more feckless peers get given care for free?
Firstly because it's not whittled away to nothing, there's a £100k threshold, and secondly if they are that humble, the excess value of their home over that threshold is not likely to be that great.
You are a working class woman in a marginal northern constituency. You were born on a council estate, but were the first person in your family to go to uni. You bought your first house - a little two up two down - in 1983 which, incidentally, was the first time you voted Tory. You worked hard in the 80s and 90s and moved up the property ladder.
You are now approaching retirement and apart from your pension pot, your main asset is your home, which you love and cherish and you raised your two children in it. You hope to pass it on to them. It is worth 450,000. Your sister in law's uncle was diagnosed with dementia a few years ago so you have personal experience of how horrific dementia is.
How does the Dementia Tax play out for you?
Well, if they went to uni they should know its not a tax.
same bloody effect.
I bought a bar of chocolate this morning and had to pay every bloody penny of the price out of my own pocket. Bloody Chocolate Tax.
However , you have not been paying for it for over 40 years before having to pay for it again though. Arithmetic for Dummies required methinks.
Of course, on care for those suffering from dementia, there is a further option, which I hope one day a Government will have the spine to address - and that is to make it so much easier to end your life with dignity and control, once you are diagnosed with dementia.
We rightly make a big thing of promoting organ donor cards - what I can do with my body when I am no longer around to give consent, where my wishes will be honoured by the state. I wish there was an equivalent for dementia - what I can do with my life when my mind is no longer around to give consent, where my wishes will be honoured by the state.
44/35 may be as bad as it gets for the Tories, given their leads on secondary questions. Even in the 1983 campaign, single digit leads came up from time to time.
Agent Corbyn is being deployed too this morning...
I haven't looked at the entire thread. But I was beyond astonished at this comment from @kyf_100 (I paraphrase):
'You bought
The issue is the 1/6. Rather than a Dementia Tax, It would be more apposite to call it a Russian Roulette Tax. One chamber is loaded. Now, the cost of health care for those with dementia needs to be met. So...we have to ask the richest: do you want a) to have a 1/6 chance of having to bear the cost of many many years of care yourself - with just £100,000 guaranteed to be left? Or do you want b) to lose 1/6 of your wealth above £100,000, with a new element of Inheritance Tax (or compulsory insurance) that you can't avoid? Or is it that you want c) someone else has to contribute to the cost of your care for many many years?
Seems to me at the moment that we are hearing exclusively from those in c) who want to keep everything and have the Care Cost Fairy settle up their bills....
The reason for c) is that people have the expectation that the NHS should cover mental health issues like dementia and that they have already been paying for it all their lives.
For chronic illnesses of frailty (whether mental or physical) there has been a shift to care outside the hospital, but no recognition that this really means paying for it yourself.
I haven't looked at the entire thread. But I was beyond astonished at this comment from @kyf_100 (I paraphrase):
'You bought your own semi detached council house, now worth £450,000, that you hope to pass on to your children'.
Please name one constituency north of Birmingham where an ex-council house is worth that much. Even £200,000 would be a very high price. Mine, which does fit that description, is worth £140,000.
I think one problem is southern voters who are genuinely ignorant of the north and the way it works are extrapolating themselves onto northern voters and not realising that actually it's the south that's the exception. In the south, those people with assets often have liquid assets as well, so the house has to be sold later. In the north, even though houses are worth less, often that's the only asset and has to be taken from the off to pay care bills.
I am not surprised this focus grouped well in Birmingham. Or Bury. Or Bolton. Which is where May has set her sights.
There's a helluva lot of folks for whom being sure you can pass on £100,000 to the kids is as much as they will ever need.
And those folks who need to worry about bigger sums - you've been looked after very well by rises in Inheritance Tax thresholds. Most of them - at least 5/6 of the richest (and remember, they represent a much smaller proportion than that of the total population) will get the benefit of this Inheritance Tax uplift because they will never need care at home. They can pass on a vast proportion of their wealth. As has been commented on many times, Inheritance Tax has so many escape routes that it is virtually a voluntary tax.
The issue is the 1/6. Rather than a Dementia Tax, It would be more apposite to call it a Russian Roulette Tax. One chamber is loaded. Now, the cost of health care for those with dementia needs to be met. So...we have to ask the richest: do you want a) to have a 1/6 chance of having to bear the cost of many many years of care yourself - with just £100,000 guaranteed to be left? Or do you want b) to lose 1/6 of your wealth above £100,000, with a new element of Inheritance Tax (or compulsory insurance) that you can't avoid? Or is it that you want c) someone else has to contribute to the cost of your care for many many years?
Seems to me at the moment that we are hearing exclusively from those in c) who want to keep everything and have the Care Cost Fairy settle up their bills....
If you really think 5 people not affected are going to willingly give up anything to help that 6th (unknown) person then you don't understand people...
They do it happily for the NHS. I'd guess the ratio there is even more skewed.
Of course, on care for those suffering from dementia, there is a further option, which I hope one day a Government will have the spine to address - and that is to make it so much easier to end your life with dignity and control, once you are diagnosed with dementia.
We rightly make a big thing of promoting organ donor cards - what I can do with my body when I am no longer around to give consent, where my wishes will be honoured by the state. I wish there was an equivalent for dementia - what I can do with my life when my mind is no longer around to give consent, where my wishes will be honoured by the state.
I wouldn't be surprised if a future government made it compulsory, for economic reasons.
Re pensioners approving of the policy, that would appear to contradict the tweet posted that Southam earlier in the thread that showed most 65+ voters opposed to May's social care plans. The 43/41 score would appear to be from the Survation poll, given the YouGov polling on 65+ reaction to the policy.
In the red corner: YouGov and a few other pollsters
In the blue corner: common sense and virtually all of the other evidence - including Labour's own canvassing returns...
New poll analysis: Watson, Skinner and Flint facing defeat. Cooper, Miliband, Reeves and Rayner on the edge
Labour is facing a parliamentary wipeout on June 8th. The defeat will be greater than 1983 with the leading figures such as Tom Watson, Dennis Skinner and Caroline Flint facing defeat while many others, including Yvette Cooper, Ed Miliband and Angela Rayner, are teetering on the brink.
Currently Labour is set to lose just over 90 seats but a relatively small deterioration of the party’s position on the ground could see dozens more fall.
These are the findings of new analysis by Labour Uncut based on the views of dozens of Labour candidates, party officials and activists following the past three weeks of intensive canvassing.
In this time, thousands of Labour members and supporters have knocked on tens of thousands of doors in constituencies across the country. While social media is a place where hackneyed tropes about a “great reception on the #Labourdoorstep,” are trotted out, in reality Labour’s army of canvassers has been gathering huge amounts of intelligence and feeding it back through the party’s operation.
Uncut has focused on two questions in conversations with Labour campaigners to understand the situation on the ground:
1. What is the scale of switching from Ukip to the Tories? This issue has been highlighted widely in the media and is evident in the Tories rising poll rating and Ukip’s symmetrical slump.
2. What is the drop-off in 2015 Labour vote? Every area is reporting the Corbyn effect on the door with Labour voters refusing to back the party, but this hasn’t been clearly captured in the public polling.
For both questions, the estimated shift has been quantified at a regional level based on feedback from campaigners and applied to the 2015 vote share for each constituency in that region. In line with feedback from across the country, the Lib Dems and Greens are assumed to be on track to repeat their 2015 performance.
The results are not pretty.
While the national polls suggest Labour’s vote is holding up, potentially even advancing on 2015, in the constituencies that matter, something very different seems to be happening.
Again, the point is: both sources of evidence might be, but one must be, wrong. Possibly very badly wrong. So, do we trust the accuracy of these opinion polls that put Labour 4, 5 or 6% up on 2015? Over to you...
Of course, on care for those suffering from dementia, there is a further option, which I hope one day a Government will have the spine to address - and that is to make it so much easier to end your life with dignity and control, once you are diagnosed with dementia.
We rightly make a big thing of promoting organ donor cards - what I can do with my body when I am no longer around to give consent, where my wishes will be honoured by the state. I wish there was an equivalent for dementia - what I can do with my life when my mind is no longer around to give consent, where my wishes will be honoured by the state.
I wouldn't be surprised if a future government made it compulsory, for economic reasons.
By the end of this century, it is possible. When the mind is gone for good, life is gone.
Caring for those with dementia - for potentially decades - must rank second only to world war as the most futile use of our planet's scarce resources.
Re pensioners approving of the policy, that would appear to contradict the tweet posted that Southam earlier in the thread that showed most 65+ voters opposed to May's social care plans. The 43/41 score would appear to be from the Survation poll, given the YouGov polling on 65+ reaction to the policy.
All voters opposed it by 40/35. The over 65's were more supportive.
If any policy announcement has hit Conservative support, it's ending the triple lock, and free lunches, nit this one.
Of course, on care for those suffering from dementia, there is a further option, which I hope one day a Government will have the spine to address - and that is to make it so much easier to end your life with dignity and control, once you are diagnosed with dementia.
We rightly make a big thing of promoting organ donor cards - what I can do with my body when I am no longer around to give consent, where my wishes will be honoured by the state. I wish there was an equivalent for dementia - what I can do with my life when my mind is no longer around to give consent, where my wishes will be honoured by the state.
Can't relatives (and generally the more religious ones in practice) overrule those wishes in donor cards, or has that changed?
OT. Well done Chris of Paris getting Edouard Phillipe (French PM right).
Really OT! I'm in the great old hippy city of Amsterdam and the more you see of our soon to be ex partners the more you realise how suicidal our decision was. I hope it turns out OK but the life and culture we were once a part of and are no more is a tragedy and a stupidity of monumental proportions.
When are they towing the UK into the South Atlantic?
Amsterdam will still be under an hour's flight from London - we're not 'leaving Europe' - we're 'leaving the EU' - a political project which has had mixed success (ask the Greeks) and which we may have held back. We may well end up better neighbours than we have been tenants - and at least we wish the EU well and for them to have a happy and prosperous future - unlike the public pronouncements of some EU functionaries.......
There's a noticeable difference being a member of Wimbledon and queuing all night for a perch on Henman Hill.
You won't find it hard to visit Amsterdam in future.
Of course not but it's such a cosmopolitan city with plenty of English people living working and just hanging out here. Our outgoing culture will change
Re pensioners approving of the policy, that would appear to contradict the tweet posted that Southam earlier in the thread that showed most 65+ voters opposed to May's social care plans. The 43/41 score would appear to be from the Survation poll, given the YouGov polling on 65+ reaction to the policy.
Re pensioners approving of the policy, that would appear to contradict the tweet posted that Southam earlier in the thread that showed most 65+ voters opposed to May's social care plans. The 43/41 score would appear to be from the Survation poll, given the YouGov polling on 65+ reaction to the policy.
All voters opposed it by 40/35. The over 65's were more supportive.
If any policy announcement has hit Conservative support, it's ending the triple lock, and free lunches, nit this one.
Re pensioners approving of the policy, that would appear to contradict the tweet posted that Southam earlier in the thread that showed most 65+ voters opposed to May's social care plans. The 43/41 score would appear to be from the Survation poll, given the YouGov polling on 65+ reaction to the policy.
All voters opposed it by 40/35. The over 65's were more supportive.
If any policy announcement has hit Conservative support, it's ending the triple lock, and free lunches, nit this one.
As someone noted earlier, all this does is underline how bad the next five years are going to be. May's vision isn't going to enthuse the public that much - she's winning simply because she's not Corbyn. And this whole saga brings into question her competence, and her ability to deliver a successful Brexit.
What does a succesful Brexit even look like? Everyone wants and expects something different.
As someone noted earlier, all this does is underline how bad the next five years are going to be. May's vision isn't going to enthuse the public that much - she's winning simply because she's not Corbyn. And this whole saga brings into question her competence, and her ability to deliver a successful Brexit.
What does a succesful Brexit even look like? Everyone wants and expects something different.
Which rather underlines her questionable ability to deliver a successful one, surely ?
As someone noted earlier, all this does is underline how bad the next five years are going to be. May's vision isn't going to enthuse the public that much - she's winning simply because she's not Corbyn. And this whole saga brings into question her competence, and her ability to deliver a successful Brexit.
What does a succesful Brexit even look like? Everyone wants and expects something different.
Which rather underlines her questionable ability to deliver a successful one, surely ?
Exactly. Although I suspect a successful Brexit to many is one with limited negative economic impact alongside signifcantly lower immigration numbers. Which I don't see happening.
Of course, on care for those suffering from dementia, there is a further option, which I hope one day a Government will have the spine to address - and that is to make it so much easier to end your life with dignity and control, once you are diagnosed with dementia.
We rightly make a big thing of promoting organ donor cards - what I can do with my body when I am no longer around to give consent, where my wishes will be honoured by the state. I wish there was an equivalent for dementia - what I can do with my life when my mind is no longer around to give consent, where my wishes will be honoured by the state.
I wouldn't be surprised if a future government made it compulsory, for economic reasons.
By the end of this century, it is possible. When the mind is gone for good, life is gone.
Caring for those with dementia - for potentially decades - must rank second only to world war as the most futile use of our planet's scarce resources.
At risk of Godwinning the thread, that is how theNazis started, with euthanasia of the mentally infirm.
What separates humans from other animals is our care and compassion for those less fortunate than ourselves.
After yesterday's PB Tory wobble the comments in similar vein going up on Con Home make for entertaining reading:
we're stuck with a dull manifesto which is alienating our core vote and has no new big ideas to appeal to new voters
We're doomed
It's going to take a great deal of explaining in the next few weeks to convince voters to come back to the Tories. This manifesto has lost the possibility of a landslide. In fact the fight is now on for a majority.
Now we have an open goal for Corbyn and Farron to hit
The best we can do now is to ... frighten the voters into doing the right thing.
People are very upset about school dinners, foxhunting and a veiled "death tax" Last week people were prepared to vote Conservative for the first time...Then came the manifesto and they are not thinking it now
We have blown it.
There won't be a landslide. The platform on which the Tories have chosen to campaign and the manner in which the campaign has been conducted will ensure that. The manifesto was very disappointing on the economy and the campaign is very uninspiring. Other than Brexit and the inadequacies of the alternatives, I don't see many reasons to vote Tory myself.
lol.
It's looking quite possible TM is a tory tony blair.
OK, she doesn't have the charisma, but from what I can tell, she genuinely doesn't buy into a lot of what has become conservative orthodoxy since Thatcher.
It's - potentially - electoral dynamite. Winning voters where she needs them and losing them where she doesn't.
The negative Con home comments are *great* for TM.
The biggest danger is that she backtracks in the next couple of weeks, or doesn't follow through post-election.
Hammond to launch full on attack on Corbyn's inheritance changes that are going to lose home owners tens of thousands in tax without exception
The other side of the coin that will hurt all owners over £425,000 at 40%
"People who have worked hard all their lives, saved and improved their homes will now be hit with this punishing family homes tax," the chancellor says....
It takes a certain amount of intellectual flexibility, shall we say, to come up with this attack ...while simultaneously proposing the alzheimer's confiscation lottery for exactly those people.
As someone noted earlier, all this does is underline how bad the next five years are going to be. May's vision isn't going to enthuse the public that much - she's winning simply because she's not Corbyn. And this whole saga brings into question her competence, and her ability to deliver a successful Brexit.
What does a succesful Brexit even look like? Everyone wants and expects something different.
Which rather underlines her questionable ability to deliver a successful one, surely ?
May does lack a certain deftness and ability to communicate. I'm sure for whatever version of Brexit she attempts that she will a) fail at it and b) sell it in such a way that it seems a bigger failure than it actually is.
Of course, on care for those suffering from dementia, there is a further option, which I hope one day a Government will have the spine to address - and that is to make it so much easier to end your life with dignity and control, once you are diagnosed with dementia.
We rightly make a big thing of promoting organ donor cards - what I can do with my body when I am no longer around to give consent, where my wishes will be honoured by the state. I wish there was an equivalent for dementia - what I can do with my life when my mind is no longer around to give consent, where my wishes will be honoured by the state.
I wouldn't be surprised if a future government made it compulsory, for economic reasons.
By the end of this century, it is possible. When the mind is gone for good, life is gone.
Caring for those with dementia - for potentially decades - must rank second only to world war as the most futile use of our planet's scarce resources.
At risk of Godwinning the thread, that is how theNazis started, with euthanasia of the mentally infirm.
What separates humans from other animals is our care and compassion for those less fortunate than ourselves.
+1.
I was deeply disturbed by that conversation. And Conservatives are said to call themselves 'pro-life.'
The policy of hurting your core vote never works out well in the long term. Labour's abandonment of its core vote is part of the reason why it has the issues it does now.
As someone noted earlier, all this does is underline how bad the next five years are going to be. May's vision isn't going to enthuse the public that much - she's winning simply because she's not Corbyn. And this whole saga brings into question her competence, and her ability to deliver a successful Brexit.
Nah - she is MORE popular than Cameron.
Remember, Corbyn was beating Cameron in the VI polls in April 16.
Because of Ukip. You can't compare the two
Rubbish. In April 2016 people would have voted UKIP and allowed a Labour vote share win. He was UNpopular. Mrs May is popular enough to attract their votes.
As someone noted earlier, all this does is underline how bad the next five years are going to be. May's vision isn't going to enthuse the public that much - she's winning simply because she's not Corbyn. And this whole saga brings into question her competence, and her ability to deliver a successful Brexit.
What does a succesful Brexit even look like? Everyone wants and expects something different.
A successful Brexit involves having a cake and eating it.
This shows the over 65s as being less supportive of the policy, not more.
It's incorrect.
He's probably quoting Survation which specifies a house worth £235k and Alzheimers.
It's a perfect example of Sir Humphrey Appleby's way of wording questions to elicit particular responses.
So he's confused it with a result from another polling company. Wow....
So you're saying the Survation question is push polling? I get where you're coming from, although those kinds of hypothetical scenarios are going to come up once they try to implement this policy, that's the problem.
FWIW. Friday I was canvassing for the Cons in Morley (Cons marginal) and yesterday in Halifax (Lab marginal) Nobody mentioned the pension/care proposals and returns were excellent as usual. What's excercising older voters in these parts is why the f**** are we still in the EU and Why should we pay those b******* any money to get out? Both these seats are nailed on for us and we're expecting to add a few thousand in my Pudsey (Leeds Con) constituency.
As someone noted earlier, all this does is underline how bad the next five years are going to be. May's vision isn't going to enthuse the public that much - she's winning simply because she's not Corbyn. And this whole saga brings into question her competence, and her ability to deliver a successful Brexit.
What does a succesful Brexit even look like? Everyone wants and expects something different.
A successful Brexit involves having a cake and eating it.
Of course, on care for those suffering from dementia, there is a further option, which I hope one day a Government will have the spine to address - and that is to make it so much easier to end your life with dignity and control, once you are diagnosed with dementia.
We rightly make a big thing of promoting organ donor cards - what I can do with my body when I am no longer around to give consent, where my wishes will be honoured by the state. I wish there was an equivalent for dementia - what I can do with my life when my mind is no longer around to give consent, where my wishes will be honoured by the state.
I wouldn't be surprised if a future government made it compulsory, for economic reasons.
By the end of this century, it is possible. When the mind is gone for good, life is gone.
Caring for those with dementia - for potentially decades - must rank second only to world war as the most futile use of our planet's scarce resources.
At risk of Godwinning the thread, that is how theNazis started, with euthanasia of the mentally infirm.
What separates humans from other animals is our care and compassion for those less fortunate than ourselves.
I am not talking about euthanasia of those who have never had the ability to give consent. I am talking about the ability to make a decision when I have the mental capability, to be binding and honoured when I no longer have it.
To have otherwise sensible folk call that the slippery slope to Nazism is why politicians won't face up to a sensible discussion of this subject.
As someone noted earlier, all this does is underline how bad the next five years are going to be. May's vision isn't going to enthuse the public that much - she's winning simply because she's not Corbyn. And this whole saga brings into question her competence, and her ability to deliver a successful Brexit.
What does a succesful Brexit even look like? Everyone wants and expects something different.
Which rather underlines her questionable ability to deliver a successful one, surely ?
May does lack a certain deftness and ability to communicate. I'm sure for whatever version of Brexit she attempts that she will a) fail at it and b) sell it in such a way that it seems a bigger failure than it actually is.
It's interesting to me that someone who strike me as sanctimonious and possessing something of a political tin ear can possess such widespread appeal. The death tax wobble suggests that her popularity might be quite shallowly rooted (and conversations with middle aged women, probably among her strongest supporting demographic, anecdotally tend to support that).
While I have little doubt that she will win a solid majority, her popularity is far from assured.
Mr. B2, Labour didn't include nationalisation costs (including £60-70bn on water alone). That's not a problem for the Conservatives, frankly.
You can make the case that they should have set some money aside for nationalisation.
But to set aside £60-70bn would be to say that water companies are worthless which is obviously wrong. If they were nationalised, the cost to the taxpayer would be essentially the borrowing costs minus whatever profit is made on the sale of water. It's perfectly possible that would be zero.
@YBarddCwsc Yes, last night a lot of those themes were discussed re the unpopularity of any social care policy. I think the trouble is, as noted by another PBer that the solution May had chosen isn't great - I've already said what I think would be a better path to go down so I won't go into that again. I also think that it's not just that she's tackling social care now, but all the other things she's pursuing related to the Baby Boomers. On top of that, as a young person I don't see what she is doing to help my generation/the working population, which is apparently what the shift away from the baby boomers in terms of state benefits is supposed to be about.
If you really think 5 people not affected are going to willingly give up anything to help that 6th (unknown) person then you don't understand people...
They do it happily for the NHS. I'd guess the ratio there is even more skewed.
The NHS with free healthcare has been around for 70 years now and it is something that defines the UK. The question there is would you be able to implement it today if it wasn't already there - and I suspect you couldn't...
@YBarddCwsc Yes, last night a lot of those themes were discussed re the unpopularity of any social care policy. I think the trouble is, as noted by another PBer that the solution May had chosen isn't great - I've already said what I think would be a better path to go down so I won't go into that again. I also think that it's not just that she's tackling social care now, but all the other things she's pursuing related to the Baby Boomers. On top of that, as a young person I don't see what she is doing to help my generation/the working population, which is apparently what the shift away from the baby boomers in terms of state benefits is supposed to be about.
What she's proposing is not raising your income tax 5p in the Pound to pay for social care of your grandparents' generation.
The Tories have been honest but given the voters some nasty tasting medicine. I think its likely that the bad taste will have dissipated by the time it comes to vote. CCHQ had better pray so.
Of course, on care for those suffering from dementia, there is a further option, which I hope one day a Government will have the spine to address - and that is to make it so much easier to end your life with dignity and control, once you are diagnosed with dementia.
We rightly make a big thing of promoting organ donor cards - what I can do with my body when I am no longer around to give consent, where my wishes will be honoured by the state. I wish there was an equivalent for dementia - what I can do with my life when my mind is no longer around to give consent, where my wishes will be honoured by the state.
I wouldn't be surprised if a future government made it compulsory, for economic reasons.
By the end of this century, it is possible. When the mind is gone for good, life is gone.
Caring for those with dementia - for potentially decades - must rank second only to world war as the most futile use of our planet's scarce resources.
At risk of Godwinning the thread, that is how theNazis started, with euthanasia of the mentally infirm.
What separates humans from other animals is our care and compassion for those less fortunate than ourselves.
I am not talking about euthanasia of those who have never had the ability to give consent. I am talking about the ability to make a decision when I have the mental capability, to be binding and honoured when I no longer have it.
To have otherwise sensible folk call that the slippery slope to Nazism is why politicians won't face up to a sensible discussion of this subject.
The reply was to your far from negative response about making it 'compulsory', so it's hardly a stretch to call it a slippery slope. I have sympathy for voluntary euthanasia, with strong safeguards, but that will and should only ever happen if there is general agreement that there is a strong fence at the top of the slippery slope.
@YBarddCwsc Yes, last night a lot of those themes were discussed re the unpopularity of any social care policy. I think the trouble is, as noted by another PBer that the solution May had chosen isn't great - I've already said what I think would be a better path to go down so I won't go into that again. I also think that it's not just that she's tackling social care now, but all the other things she's pursuing related to the Baby Boomers. On top of that, as a young person I don't see what she is doing to help my generation/the working population, which is apparently what the shift away from the baby boomers in terms of state benefits is supposed to be about.
What she's proposing is not raising your income tax 5p in the Pound to pay for social care of your grandparents' generation.
Yeah, and that doesn't help young people/working she population in regard to the difficulties that we are facing now. If anything, it means that they'll likely get less of an inheritance than they would have done, and that generations in the future will risk having less to pass down their kids, in a period where many are relying on parents in order to get by, to get on to the property ladder etc.
Comments
My key point is that I think PB (which is dominated by those from the south, for good and obvious reasons) is talking past the majority of the population because they don't realise the situation. Believe me, I have every sympathy with people in the South who have to sell their houses to pay for care. I also have a great deal of sympathy for those who are stuck in tiny and unsuitable houses because the property market there is so insane.
There are two possible outcomes to this policy from that point of view if it is implemented:
1) Because initial deposits are lower, house prices correct at last and normal people can afford to have a decent house in the SE again;
2) By postponing the sale of the house until after death, this damages the property market further by drying up the supply, bearing in mind it will not affect everyone but will affect those who had previously sold up.
One would be a desirable outcome the other obviously would not be. Don't ask me which it would be because I don't know.
When looking at voting in GE2015, 93 out of the weighted total of 836 are in Others [ i.e. not C, Lab, LD, UKIP, DNV ].
Of these people, 25% are voting SNP [ understandable as they are not shown separately, "Another party" is 29%.
But 35% are going to vote Labour. 8% will vote Conservative.
Amongst the DNV, 42 - 29 are breaking in favour of Labour.
The above two could be because of Corbyn [ radical policies ].
*sighs*
The mediocre against the IRA-sympathiser. What a choice. Alien Versus Predator, almost.
As an aside, I backed Con seats 350-374 at 7 with Ladbrokes. It's fallen only a touch to 6, for those interested.
So, amongst those who voted OTHERS in GE2015, 35% will now vote Labour.
Geddit ?
I don't think that will happen.
Remember: LABOUR CANNOT WIN. CORBYN WILL NOT BE PM.
TRIPLE LOCK, DEMENTIA TAX, TRIPLE LOCK, DEMENTIA TAX, TRIPLE LOCK, DEMENTIA TAX,
They are facing each other !!!
Even talking about Irish history, and Trident is better. This is not 1983 when Foot was proposing disarming during the Cold War. Trident is an obsolete weapons system at a time when Britain cannot field a single battle ready Army Division.
I have to get to Dursley. Have a good day everyone.
And those folks who need to worry about bigger sums - you've been looked after very well by rises in Inheritance Tax thresholds. Most of them - at least 5/6 of the richest (and remember, they represent a much smaller proportion than that of the total population) will get the benefit of this Inheritance Tax uplift because they will never need care at home. They can pass on a vast proportion of their wealth. As has been commented on many times, Inheritance Tax has so many escape routes that it is virtually a voluntary tax.
The issue is the 1/6. Rather than a Dementia Tax, It would be more apposite to call it a Russian Roulette Tax. One chamber is loaded. Now, the cost of health care for those with dementia needs to be met. So...we have to ask the richest: do you want a) to have a 1/6 chance of having to bear the cost of many many years of care yourself - with just £100,000 guaranteed to be left? Or do you want b) to lose 1/6 of your wealth above £100,000, with a new element of Inheritance Tax (or compulsory insurance) that you can't avoid? Or is it that you want c) someone else has to contribute to the cost of your care for many many years?
Seems to me at the moment that we are hearing exclusively from those in c) who want to keep everything and have the Care Cost Fairy settle up their bills....
- How much they support or oppose is critical. You could get a swing towards or a swing away with the same figures.
If, for example, you have 100 people, 49 of whom intended to vote Tory and 51 for other parties.
Of these 35 say they are opposed and 40 are in favour.
If those in favour really like the policy (enough to switch) and those opposed dislike it but not enough to switch, that can be a big swing in favour. Those opposed who are in that 49 stay put; those in favour who are in the 51 switch to the Tories, and you could see a big increase. I don't think we're seeing that here.
If those opposed really hate the policy (enough to switch), and those who support it aren't enthused enough to switch because of it, then you can see a big switch away. Those of the 35 who are opposed who are in the 49 Tories either switch away or remain and consider it (or are weakened in their support and can flake away later) and those of the 40 who are in favour amongst the 51 non-Tories stay where they are. Big switch away possible.
Of course, there are also issues of where in the country they are. And, bigger than that, the fact that there's nearly 3 weeks left anyway, and we could be looking back and saying "remember when the care homes thing was going to sink May?"
(Or saying "Hell, remember that before the care homes thing, May was going to win, and win really big?", but I think the latter is far less likely, to be honest).
As someone noted earlier, all this does is underline how bad the next five years are going to be. May's vision isn't going to enthuse the public that much - she's winning simply because she's not Corbyn. And this whole saga brings into question her competence, and her ability to deliver a successful Brexit.
I've been away in Wexford at a niece's wedding, so blessed relief from election 'fever', but even there I had a discussion about Brexit with another guest. However we was from Belfast so that doesn't count.
In 1983, when I voted Labour, we had a few days when the campaign seemed to be going well. You can always announce goodies when you're never going to have to implement them, but at the booth, reality always kicks in. According to Labour, nationalisation has no cost, and people don't change their habits to avoid taxes. Back then, I wanted to believe it.
Ms. Apocalypse, I agree entirely.
If May wins and is still there in five years, I'd probably be actively looking for somewhere else to cast my vote [assuming she doesn't face Corbyn again].
Remember, Corbyn was beating Cameron in the VI polls in April 16.
VI polls, as shown by GE 2015 are not the greatest measure of public mood. It's leaders ratings which counts.
https://twitter.com/ProfTimBale/status/866177334470213632
Means testing WFA is widely supported (by 49/34). Ending the triple lock is very unpopular. Surprisingly perhaps, pensioners are slightly more supportive of the care proposals than the general population (43/41). Ending free school lunches is very unpopular.
though. Arithmetic for Dummies required methinks.
We rightly make a big thing of promoting organ donor cards - what I can do with my body when I am no longer around to give consent, where my wishes will be honoured by the state. I wish there was an equivalent for dementia - what I can do with my life when my mind is no longer around to give consent, where my wishes will be honoured by the state.
https://twitter.com/skynewsniall/status/866191823022288896
https://twitter.com/skynewsniall/status/866192378293616640
For chronic illnesses of frailty (whether mental or physical) there has been a shift to care outside the hospital, but no recognition that this really means paying for it yourself.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39989548
What could possibly go wrong?
Because it is fair.
In the blue corner: common sense and virtually all of the other evidence - including Labour's own canvassing returns...
New poll analysis: Watson, Skinner and Flint facing defeat. Cooper, Miliband, Reeves and Rayner on the edge
Labour is facing a parliamentary wipeout on June 8th. The defeat will be greater than 1983 with the leading figures such as Tom Watson, Dennis Skinner and Caroline Flint facing defeat while many others, including Yvette Cooper, Ed Miliband and Angela Rayner, are teetering on the brink.
Currently Labour is set to lose just over 90 seats but a relatively small deterioration of the party’s position on the ground could see dozens more fall.
These are the findings of new analysis by Labour Uncut based on the views of dozens of Labour candidates, party officials and activists following the past three weeks of intensive canvassing.
In this time, thousands of Labour members and supporters have knocked on tens of thousands of doors in constituencies across the country. While social media is a place where hackneyed tropes about a “great reception on the #Labourdoorstep,” are trotted out, in reality Labour’s army of canvassers has been gathering huge amounts of intelligence and feeding it back through the party’s operation.
Uncut has focused on two questions in conversations with Labour campaigners to understand the situation on the ground:
1. What is the scale of switching from Ukip to the Tories? This issue has been highlighted widely in the media and is evident in the Tories rising poll rating and Ukip’s symmetrical slump.
2. What is the drop-off in 2015 Labour vote? Every area is reporting the Corbyn effect on the door with Labour voters refusing to back the party, but this hasn’t been clearly captured in the public polling.
For both questions, the estimated shift has been quantified at a regional level based on feedback from campaigners and applied to the 2015 vote share for each constituency in that region. In line with feedback from across the country, the Lib Dems and Greens are assumed to be on track to repeat their 2015 performance.
The results are not pretty.
While the national polls suggest Labour’s vote is holding up, potentially even advancing on 2015, in the constituencies that matter, something very different seems to be happening.
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2017/05/20/new-poll-analysis-watson-skinner-and-flint-facing-defeat-cooper-miliband-reeves-and-rayner-on-the-edge/#more-21610
Again, the point is: both sources of evidence might be, but one must be, wrong. Possibly very badly wrong. So, do we trust the accuracy of these opinion polls that put Labour 4, 5 or 6% up on 2015? Over to you...
The number of Lab>Con switchers is down also. Mainly appears to be Midlands and the North.
Cautionary note: it is a very Remain sample - 54%-46% unweighted.
Caring for those with dementia - for potentially decades - must rank second only to world war as the most futile use of our planet's scarce resources.
If any policy announcement has hit Conservative support, it's ending the triple lock, and free lunches, nit this one.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/wvyc3lofp5/SundayTimesResults_170519_VI_W.pdf
https://twitter.com/adambienkov/status/866173771643858945
https://twitter.com/lucympowell/status/866200485010735105
Looking at that poll, the combined changes (Triple Lock, WFA, social care plans) could spell trouble for the government post-election.
What separates humans from other animals is our care and compassion for those less fortunate than ourselves.
He's probably quoting Survation which specifies a house worth £235k and Alzheimers.
It's a perfect example of Sir Humphrey Appleby's way of wording questions to elicit particular responses.
It takes a certain amount of intellectual flexibility, shall we say, to come up with this attack ...while simultaneously proposing the alzheimer's confiscation lottery for exactly those people.
I was deeply disturbed by that conversation. And Conservatives are said to call themselves 'pro-life.'
So you're saying the Survation question is push polling? I get where you're coming from, although those kinds of hypothetical scenarios are going to come up once they try to implement this policy, that's the problem.
To have otherwise sensible folk call that the slippery slope to Nazism is why politicians won't face up to a sensible discussion of this subject.
The money has to come either from individuals, or taxes, or both. And, ultimately, at least some of it has to come from housing wealth.
Most people don’t even like thinking about care at the end of life, let alone spending money on it.
So, I think anyone tackling this problem will be unpopular.
While I have little doubt that she will win a solid majority, her popularity is far from assured.
But to set aside £60-70bn would be to say that water companies are worthless which is obviously wrong. If they were nationalised, the cost to the taxpayer would be essentially the borrowing costs minus whatever profit is made on the sale of water. It's perfectly possible that would be zero.
Thanks Paul
Not worried about Dawson getting more votes due to being a councillor for a while?
Edited extra bit: [he's the Labour candidate for Morley & Outwood, for those unaware].
I have sympathy for voluntary euthanasia, with strong safeguards, but that will and should only ever happen if there is general agreement that there is a strong fence at the top of the slippery slope.