But they need to get round the potental obstacle of the House of Pensioners. Which needs a clear reference in the manifesto.
Not really "we will take necessary steps to ensure a fully funded social care system within the UK, a royal commission will be set up to report this time next year on the best way to do this". That's literally all they needed to say, make the royal commission report come out with the these conclusions.
So you are not against it in principle but would just have liked to have taken a cynical approach to it?
And people wonder why voters are cynical about politicians.
Yes, it's politics. The PM is either stupid or naïve to believe otherwise. People expect politicians to by cynical and it was baked into the poll rating. Why rock the boat, there aren't enough to votes for honesty.
Put the handbrake on and turn the car around now !
My fears that Boris wouldn't be totally on-message appear to have been justified. The damage from the policy had already been done, but now Boris has thrown Theresa's 'strong and stable' mantra into the fire by musing about a future flip-flop. Is there something Freudian going on here? Are the Tories so traumatized by Brexit and Dave's demise that deep down they don't actually want to win?
Aren't most people like this? Political and social views are informed by our life experiences and relationships rather than dogma.
By the way, I think your move to Compassion in World Farming is an excellent one. I hope you will be able to achieve good things.
Thanks very much - I think and hope so too and was really pleased to get the job.
And yes, I agree - very few of us fit entirely into one neat political box, and when we pretend to, it tends to be either out of possibly misplaced loyalty or careerism. I'd say that most of us agree with our parties 75-80% of the time, have doubts about 10-15% and outright dislike 5-10%. What is really common is for politicians to have private doubts about a policy which they subdue in an election period but which resurface afterwards.
One of the charms of PB is that we mosly feel free to chat honestly with supporters of other parties, protected by anonymity where people think it necessary (I've never bothered and to be fair it's never been used seriously against me, though Plato did try to shop me to Anna Soubry over some off-mssage comment I made).
That's always the case. All changes produce winners and losers. The people who are angry are those who view the welfare state as a kind of all you can eat buffet, where once you've paid into the system, you're damn well going to claim all you can, rather than viewing it as a safety net.
Does the all-you-can-eat buffet analogy really apply here? It is not as if people are deliberately getting Alzheimer's or Parkinson's to claim their quota of brain scans.
Top post but dont expect PB Tories to get it
The all-you-can-eat buffet analogy is a bit unfortunate, but it isn't wrong in the way you think it is. You think it self-evident that your own money is there for paying for nice things, someone else ought to pay for the consequences of nasty things. Not so: if your house falls down or your car breaks down, that is your lookout unless you have an insurer or a welfare state behind you. At the moment home care is outwith the welfare state and the debate is about whether it is brought within it. Thinking that you can surreptitiously bring it within the welfare state at no extra cost, because it has a sort of NHS-y feel about it, is paying for a fixed price 3 course meal and trying to leverage another two courses out of the restaurant for no extra money.
Nobody thinks it can be brought in for free. I think pooling is the way forward.
Much better than theft.
Pooling is what people euphemistically call tax isn't it? The tax that only the 2% should pay.
I like Progressive Taxation.
I think its fairer
You want minimum wage workers in bedsits to subsidise people with hundreds of thousands of pounds in assets, so clearly you don't.
Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.
Correct, he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. This is in the Parliamentary record.
I think Andrew Neil might be somewhat harder on this point than the young Sophy, who admitted that this was all before she was born. (Wiki reckons she's 32).
It doesn't absolve him of his past associations with the IRA.
But it does mean your previous post was a lie
Harsh to say lie. Just a mistake I think. And not surprising given the negativity towards Corbyn in some parts of the media.
It must be close to a lie. Regarding Corbyn, it is the practice of the alt-Right to put in a few "extras" even though those may not have taken place or where the situation was sufficiently muddy so that many readers would actually believe it.
1. There was previously a risk that the amount that you can leave to your family after taking account of your care costs for the rest of your life would be reduced to £23k. With this new proposal from the Conservatives, you can be sure that up to £100k will be available to leave to them. Do you think this is a good idea?
2. There was previously a risk that you would have to sell and leave your home to cover your care costs. That risk has now gone away, for both you and your spouse. Do you think this is a good idea?
3. In order to achieve 1 and 2 above, the Government is proposing that the value of all your assets - including your home - be included when assessing how much of a contribution you have to make to your own care costs for the rest of your life. Do you think this is fair?
All true. But until last Thursday I doubt more than 10% knew the current situation or that more than 0.1% were going to see it as an election issue. Telling people "your house is less in play than it was" is a useless defence against the blissful ignorance they were in till last Thursday when it hadn't even crossed their minds.
This is policy wonks off their reservation and finding out the real world doesnt think like them.
It is a bit like the argument that Remain got into over how much we send to the EU. £250 million or £350 m?
This argument is over whether the government should take all or just 3/4 of your estate if you need social care. It is not one that can be won.
Though actually I substantially agree with the policy, however the public want free owls.
with this social care policy and the religious pay aduit, energy cap etc etc she is.
The social care policy is very right wing. Those who incur the cost are those who pay. The only "Social Democrat" element is introducing a floor through which you cannot afford to pay. And that's the only bit people seem to like!
given the tories would need to win by more than 20 points to push labour this low, this is easy money, surely?
In 2001, the Conservatives won 167 seats, despite being only 9% behind Labour. In 1997, they won 166 at 13% behind. My guess is the Tories need to be about 13% ahead to push Labour that low.
That's always the case. All changes produce winners and losers. The people who are angry are those who view the welfare state as a kind of all you can eat buffet, where once you've paid into the system, you're damn well going to claim all you can, rather than viewing it as a safety net.
Does the all-you-can-eat buffet analogy really apply here? It is not as if people are deliberately getting Alzheimer's or Parkinson's to claim their quota of brain scans.
Top post but dont expect PB Tories to get it
The all-you-can-eat buffet analogy is a bit unfortunate, but it isn't wrong in the way you think it is. You think it self-evident that your own money is there for paying for nice things, someone else ought to pay for the consequences of nasty things. Not so: if your house falls down or your car breaks down, that is your lookout unless you have an insurer or a welfare state behind you. At the moment home care is outwith the welfare state and the debate is about whether it is brought within it. Thinking that you can surreptitiously bring it within the welfare state at no extra cost, because it has a sort of NHS-y feel about it, is paying for a fixed price 3 course meal and trying to leverage another two courses out of the restaurant for no extra money.
Nobody thinks it can be brought in for free. I think pooling is the way forward.
Much better than theft.
Pooling is what people euphemistically call tax isn't it? The tax that only the 2% should pay.
I like Progressive Taxation.
I think its fairer
You want minimum wage workers in bedsits to subsidise people with hundreds of thousands of pounds in assets, so clearly you don't.
they don't pay income tax.
I expect they pay VAT though.
VAT ie regressive
A progressive tax regime is much fairer
So people take their payslips to the shops and pay different rates of VAT based on their pay?!
1. There was previously a risk that the amount that you can leave to your family after taking account of your care costs for the rest of your life would be reduced to £23k. With this new proposal from the Conservatives, you can be sure that up to £100k will be available to leave to them. Do you think this is a good idea?
2. There was previously a risk that you would have to sell and leave your home to cover your care costs. That risk has now gone away, for both you and your spouse. Do you think this is a good idea?
3. In order to achieve 1 and 2 above, the Government is proposing that the value of all your assets - including your home - be included when assessing how much of a contribution you have to make to your own care costs for the rest of your life. Do you think this is fair?
All true. But until last Thursday I doubt more than 10% knew the current situation or that more than 0.1% were going to see it as an election issue. Telling people "your house is less in play than it was" is a useless defence against the blissful ignorance they were in till last Thursday when it hadn't even crossed their minds.
This is policy wonks off their reservation and finding out the real world doesnt think like them.
How many in the Tory party were involved in the decision to scrap a lifetime cap? Seems maybe about three people. Rest of party now scrambling to come up with reasons why this was a good idea (Green) or why it might be consulted on further (Boris).
It is in the manifesto and that is because the HoL would have been told you cannot make any changes as it is in the manifesto.
Regarding Isabel Oakeshott's point that it will not be implemented: she is probably correct. Even with 400 MPs, the shires will be in rebellion.
Then, the question turns to political judgement. If that will indeed be the outcome, then why go through all the negative publicity.
Please don't write in that she is some sort of a heroine. Just a lousy politician.
Presumably because she believes she will be able to get this through. Three line whip etc etc.
Although I am really angry about this (I want a lifetime cap as per Cameron), it is clearly likely to be better than the current system as it raises the amount people keep to £100K.
So, if it falls in Parliament, then we are back to square one?
All this does confirm how awesome Dave and George were.
2015 was solely down to them and not Sir Lynton Crosby.
Down to Jim Messina and not Sir Lynton Crosby, who is overrated imo and certainly has a mixed record in this country, having failed to get Michael Howard or Zac Goldsmith elected, and with 2010 at best a points victory against an opponent with a glass chin.
Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.
Correct, he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. This is in the Parliamentary record.
I think Andrew Neil might be somewhat harder on this point than the young Sophy, who admitted that this was all before she was born. (Wiki reckons she's 32).
Hmm, just spent a bit of time researching this and there were several votes for several things NI-related around the same time. He certainly spoke against the GFA but I can't find Hansard online that far back. Certainly he voted against the previous Anglo-Irish Agreement, there may be some confusion between the two.
I think there were plenty of amendments - it's possible he voted against the government on some of those. But his speech and vote are a pretty clear endorsement of the final bill. If you can find those links it would be interesting - I could imagine him pushing the government further on prisoners rights for instance...
You've got me going on this now, have challenged me on something I was certain about having read several times. Will do some more research this afternoon and come back to you, sadly I'm too far away from the Commons research library to dig out old paper Hansard copies.
Okay - it's your Sunday afternoon!
The publicwhip website was good... They work for you I found a bit are to navigate.
Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.
Correct, he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. This is in the Parliamentary record.
I think Andrew Neil might be somewhat harder on this point than the young Sophy, who admitted that this was all before she was born. (Wiki reckons she's 32).
Hmm, just spent a bit of time researching this and there were several votes for several things NI-related around the same time. He certainly spoke against the GFA but I can't find Hansard online that far back. Certainly he voted against the previous Anglo-Irish Agreement, there may be some confusion between the two.
I think there were plenty of amendments - it's possible he voted against the government on some of those. But his speech and vote are a pretty clear endorsement of the final bill. If you can find those links it would be interesting - I could imagine him pushing the government further on prisoners rights for instance...
You've got me going on this now, have challenged me on something I was certain about having read several times. Will do some more research this afternoon and come back to you, sadly I'm too far away from the Commons research library to dig out old paper Hansard copies.
When are the next pols due? In particular ICM ( is PB still agreeing that ICM is the current holder of the title "Gold Standard)
One other point-during the referendum and the last election there was much talk about on-line polls V phone polls Nothing this time around are they all On-line polls now ??
All this does confirm how awesome Dave and George were.
2015 was solely down to them and not Sir Lynton Crosby.
Sir Lynton is about messaging. The key message if the last election was Ed in Nicola's pocket. The main message of this election was "Theresa is Mrs Brexit - the patriots choice" and that was working extremely well against the clearly Britain hating Labour front bench. Now it's all been fucked up by this botched Tory manifesto.
Jason: And now you're wriggling from one post to another, like a slithery politician . In your original post you said:
"So it destroys Corbyn's defence, then. The lie that he did all that stuff to encourage peace has to be nailed."
Not an impartial searcher for truth, as you now suggest. But the actual terminological inexactititude came from Sandpit, who stated flatly that Corbyn voted against and it was in the Parliamentary record when he voted in favour.
I suspect that you weren't deliberately lying and just seized on that to reinforce your instinctive prejudices (and that Sandpit also wasn't deliberately lying, just too lazy to check). But, instead of saying "OK, that was wrong", you wriggled instantly into attacking Corbyn on something else.
It doesn't really matter, as you're both anonymous blokes nattering on a message board. But we try to pull each other up when something is actually wrong, and it's better to admit it.
I'm really grateful for your clarifiaction of my motivations, and your approval too. Thanks for that.
1. There was previously a risk that the amount that you can leave to your family after taking account of your care costs for the rest of your life would be reduced to £23k. With this new proposal from the Conservatives, you can be sure that up to £100k will be available to leave to them. Do you think this is a good idea?
2. There was previously a risk that you would have to sell and leave your home to cover your care costs. That risk has now gone away, for both you and your spouse. Do you think this is a good idea?
3. In order to achieve 1 and 2 above, the Government is proposing that the value of all your assets - including your home - be included when assessing how much of a contribution you have to make to your own care costs for the rest of your life. Do you think this is fair?
All true. But until last Thursday I doubt more than 10% knew the current situation or that more than 0.1% were going to see it as an election issue. Telling people "your house is less in play than it was" is a useless defence against the blissful ignorance they were in till last Thursday when it hadn't even crossed their minds.
This is policy wonks off their reservation and finding out the real world doesnt think like them.
How many in the Tory party were involved in the decision to scrap a lifetime cap? Seems maybe about three people. Rest of party now scrambling to come up with reasons why this was a good idea (Green) or why it might be consulted on further (Boris).
It is in the manifesto and that is because the HoL would have been told you cannot make any changes as it is in the manifesto.
Regarding Isabel Oakeshott's point that it will not be implemented: she is probably correct. Even with 400 MPs, the shires will be in rebellion.
Then, the question turns to political judgement. If that will indeed be the outcome, then why go through all the negative publicity.
Please don't write in that she is some sort of a heroine. Just a lousy politician.
Presumably because she believes she will be able to get this through. Three line whip etc etc.
Although I am really angry about this (I want a lifetime cap as per Cameron), it is clearly likely to be better than the current system as it raises the amount people keep to £100K.
So, if it falls in Parliament, then we are back to square one?
Lowers the amount most people keep from all of your own house to fook all of your own house
Jason: And now you're wriggling from one post to another, like a slithery politician . In your original post you said:
"So it destroys Corbyn's defence, then. The lie that he did all that stuff to encourage peace has to be nailed."
Not an impartial searcher for truth, as you now suggest. But the actual terminological inexactititude came from Sandpit, who stated flatly that Corbyn voted against and it was in the Parliamentary record when he voted in favour.
I suspect that you weren't deliberately lying and just seized on that to reinforce your instinctive prejudices (and that Sandpit also wasn't deliberately lying, just too lazy to check). But, instead of saying "OK, that was wrong", you wriggled instantly into attacking Corbyn on something else.
It doesn't really matter, as you're both anonymous blokes nattering on a message board. But we try to pull each other up when something is actually wrong, and it's better to admit it.
I'm really grateful for your clarifiaction of my motivations, and your approval too. Thanks for that.
Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.
Correct, he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. This is in the Parliamentary record.
I think Andrew Neil might be somewhat harder on this point than the young Sophy, who admitted that this was all before she was born. (Wiki reckons she's 32).
Hmm, just spent a bit of time researching this and there were several votes for several things NI-related around the same time. He certainly spoke against the GFA but I can't find Hansard online that far back. Certainly he voted against the previous Anglo-Irish Agreement, there may be some confusion between the two.
I think there were plenty of amendments - it's possible he voted against the government on some of those. But his speech and vote are a pretty clear endorsement of the final bill. If you can find those links it would be interesting - I could imagine him pushing the government further on prisoners rights for instance...
You've got me going on this now, have challenged me on something I was certain about having read several times. Will do some more research this afternoon and come back to you, sadly I'm too far away from the Commons research library to dig out old paper Hansard copies.
Andrew Neil on Tories' social care plan: "A stealth inheritance tax of 100% on everything above £100,000."
PB Tories shouting at TV "Its not a Tax"
Viewers cant hear
A 100% Stealth tax is theft in my view
A tax is taking from your income to pay others, losing a lot of state subsidy to pay your own care (beyond support for those with assets under £100k) is not a tax whether voters like it or not
1. There was previously a risk that the amount that you can leave to your family after taking account of your care costs for the rest of your life would be reduced to £23k. With this new proposal from the Conservatives, you can be sure that up to £100k will be available to leave to them. Do you think this is a good idea?
2. There was previously a risk that you would have to sell and leave your home to cover your care costs. That risk has now gone away, for both you and your spouse. Do you think this is a good idea?
3. In order to achieve 1 and 2 above, the Government is proposing that the value of all your assets - including your home - be included when assessing how much of a contribution you have to make to your own care costs for the rest of your life. Do you think this is fair?
All true. But until last Thursday I doubt more than 10% knew the current situation or that more than 0.1% were going to see it as an election issue. Telling people "your house is less in play than it was" is a useless defence against the blissful ignorance they were in till last Thursday when it hadn't even crossed their minds.
This is policy wonks off their reservation and finding out the real world doesnt think like them.
It is a bit like the argument that Remain got into over how much we send to the EU. £250 million or £350 m?
This argument is over whether the government should take all or just 3/4 of your estate if you need social care. It is not one that can be won.
Though actually I substantially agree with the policy, however the public want free owls.
Indeed it's in many ways not as bad as the present position, though I think poles ridk somewhere smells a better solution. My "issue" is the political ineptness of not seeing how this might look without laying out lots and lots of groundwork. Dropping it in last minute without really even telling the cabinet much (I suspect) is plain dumb. As you say getting into the detail of "why if" £350m was wrong just kept the subject rolling.
All this does confirm how awesome Dave and George were.
2015 was solely down to them and not Sir Lynton Crosby.
Sir Lynton is about messaging. The key message if the last election was Ed in Nicola's pocket. The main message of this election was "Theresa is Mrs Brexit - the patriots choice" and that was working extremely well against the clearly Britain hating Labour front bench. Now it's all been fucked up by this botched Tory manifesto.
Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.
Correct, he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. This is in the Parliamentary record.
I think Andrew Neil might be somewhat harder on this point than the young Sophy, who admitted that this was all before she was born. (Wiki reckons she's 32).
It doesn't absolve him of his past associations with the IRA.
Or, to put it another way, "I was wrong to say he voted against". Are you a politician or something?
No, I said it was my understanding, could anyone verifty it. Please read what I said. Are YOU a politican?
What I also said is it does not absolve in any way his association with a terrorist organisation. Like everyone keeps saying, perception is everything, only Corbyn giving succour to the IRA is not a perception - it is an incontrovertible fact.
The number of incontrovertible facts on this issue has shrunk a fair bit since I signed into this site yesterday. It turns out that Corbyn wasn't on the editorial board of Labour Briefing after all. And he, at the very least, wasn't totally opposed to the Good Friday Agreement. If I was managing his campaign I'd rather people weren't talking about it. He does come across as someone who was still playing student union politics in his thirties, and it emphasises that his CV is a bit short of any serious responsibility. But it isn't the single trump card that can be played to make the case that he shouldn't be prime minister.
All this does confirm how awesome Dave and George were.
2015 was solely down to them and not Sir Lynton Crosby.
Sir Lynton is about messaging. The key message if the last election was Ed in Nicola's pocket. The main message of this election was "Theresa is Mrs Brexit - the patriots choice" and that was working extremely well against the clearly Britain hating Labour front bench. Now it's all been fucked up by this botched Tory manifesto.
When did you last hear the word "Brexit" ?
Indeed. Theresa May just isn't very good at politics.
Jason: And now you're wriggling from one post to another, like a slithery politician . In your original post you said:
"So it destroys Corbyn's defence, then. The lie that he did all that stuff to encourage peace has to be nailed."
Not an impartial searcher for truth, as you now suggest. But the actual terminological inexactititude came from Sandpit, who stated flatly that Corbyn voted against and it was in the Parliamentary record when he voted in favour.
I suspect that you weren't deliberately lying and just seized on that to reinforce your instinctive prejudices (and that Sandpit also wasn't deliberately lying, just too lazy to check). But, instead of saying "OK, that was wrong", you wriggled instantly into attacking Corbyn on something else.
It doesn't really matter, as you're both anonymous blokes nattering on a message board. But we try to pull each other up when something is actually wrong, and it's better to admit it.
I'm really grateful for your clarifiaction of my motivations, and your approval too. Thanks for that.
Got caught with your pants down.
So will Corbyn when his statement equivocating the British Army with the IRA comes to public attention.
What that poll probably shows is that most voters have little idea who Chuka and Yvette are, or what they would do differently from Jezza. The anti-Corbynites shot themselves in the foot by refusing to serve in the Shadow Cabinet, which predictably has meant they've not raised their own profiles, not defeated any vulnerable Tory ministers, and worst of all, have handed a ready-made alibi for Corbynites: it was the split party what lost it.
For the benefit of those who believe minimum wage work is all free:
A worker doing 40 hours at £7.50 an hour receives an annual income tax/NI bill of £1712.32.
Yes, I am on £7.60 an hour and most certainly paying income tax and NI - and quite rightly so too. It really does blow my mind that there are some people posting on this site who are so out of touch with reality that they think lower income workers don't pay income tax!
All this does confirm how awesome Dave and George were.
2015 was solely down to them and not Sir Lynton Crosby.
Sir Lynton is about messaging. The key message if the last election was Ed in Nicola's pocket. The main message of this election was "Theresa is Mrs Brexit - the patriots choice" and that was working extremely well against the clearly Britain hating Labour front bench. Now it's all been fucked up by this botched Tory manifesto.
When did you last hear the word "Brexit" ?
Indeed. Theresa May just isn't very good at politics.
Perhaps she could ask Juncker to do her another favour and create a theatrical row?
All this does confirm how awesome Dave and George were.
2015 was solely down to them and not Sir Lynton Crosby.
Sir Lynton is about messaging. The key message if the last election was Ed in Nicola's pocket. The main message of this election was "Theresa is Mrs Brexit - the patriots choice" and that was working extremely well against the clearly Britain hating Labour front bench. Now it's all been fucked up by this botched Tory manifesto.
When did you last hear the word "Brexit" ?
Indeed. Theresa May just isn't very good at politics.
Perhaps she could ask Juncker to do her another favour and create a theatrical row?
Well isn't that what Davis was trying to do by saying we'll walk away from any EU bill. It may pick up steam if the Tories are lucky.
Not correct. Labour will collect extra money from those earning more than £80k and from companies.
Yes it is true.
For the benefit of those who believe minimum wage work is all free:
A worker doing 40 hours at £7.50 an hour receives an annual income tax/NI bill of £1712.32.
But they are paying that now. Labour proposals are extra which does not touch them. What you are basically trying to prove is that the tax paid by minimum wage earning people goes first to old people's welfare and then everything else.
Because your words basically stated that it is those on minimum wage who are paying for this expenditure.
SCON might want to broaden their campaign message !!
twitter.com/ScotTories/status/865923560807813120
Why, when this one is clearly working?
SNP support firming up at c.45% - amazingly SLAB showing resilience - SCON could still come 3rd in vote % !
Firming up based on what?
The same subsample on which you're basing your confidence that there's no evidence of appetite for an immediate referendum?
SNP 44%, Tories 28%.
In 2015 the SNP got 50% and the Tories 15% so your absurd 'SNP support firming up' argument is actually based on a Scottish subsample today from yougov which shows a swing of 9.5% from the SNP to the Tories
Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.
Correct, he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. This is in the Parliamentary record.
I think Andrew Neil might be somewhat harder on this point than the young Sophy, who admitted that this was all before she was born. (Wiki reckons she's 32).
It doesn't absolve him of his past associations with the IRA.
Or, to put it another way, "I was wrong to say he voted against". Are you a politician or something?
No, I said it was my understanding, could anyone verifty it. Please read what I said. Are YOU a politican?
What I also said is it does not absolve in any way his association with a terrorist organisation. Like everyone keeps saying, perception is everything, only Corbyn giving succour to the IRA is not a perception - it is an incontrovertible fact.
The number of incontrovertible facts on this issue has shrunk a fair bit since I signed into this site yesterday. It turns out that Corbyn wasn't on the editorial board of Labour Briefing after all. And he, at the very least, wasn't totally opposed to the Good Friday Agreement. If I was managing his campaign I'd rather people weren't talking about it. He does come across as someone who was still playing student union politics in his thirties, and it emphasises that his CV is a bit short of any serious responsibility. But it isn't the single trump card that can be played to make the case that he shouldn't be prime minister.
No right minded person could look at what Corbyn did and what he said as nothing other than for what it was - an overt and unashamed collsuion with a terrorist organisation. If people are content with being his apologists, then they are as bad as he is.
SCON might want to broaden their campaign message !!
twitter.com/ScotTories/status/865923560807813120
Why, when this one is clearly working?
SNP support firming up at c.45% - amazingly SLAB showing resilience - SCON could still come 3rd in vote % !
Firming up based on what?
The same subsample on which you're basing your confidence that there's no evidence of appetite for an immediate referendum?
SNP 44%, Tories 28%.
In 2015 the SNP got 50% and the Tories 15% so your absurd 'SNP support firming up' argument is actually based on a Scottish subsample today from yougov which shows a swing of 9.5% from the SNP to the Tories
My argument? Perhaps you'd like to point out where I made that argument. Great to see you get a feather up your ass about someone else mentioning subsamples tho'.
What that poll probably shows is that most voters have little idea who Chuka and Yvette are, or what they would do differently from Jezza. The anti-Corbynites shot themselves in the foot by refusing to serve in the Shadow Cabinet, which predictably has meant they've not raised their own profiles, not defeated any vulnerable Tory ministers, and worst of all, have handed a ready-made alibi for Corbynites: it was the split party what lost it.
No it doesn't as those figures exclude don't knows and undecideds as with the main poll, if don't knows were included Cooper led Labour was down to just 24%
What that poll probably shows is that most voters have little idea who Chuka and Yvette are, or what they would do differently from Jezza. The anti-Corbynites shot themselves in the foot by refusing to serve in the Shadow Cabinet, which predictably has meant they've not raised their own profiles, not defeated any vulnerable Tory ministers, and worst of all, have handed a ready-made alibi for Corbynites: it was the split party what lost it.
Exactly so. I am much more in sympathy with Cooper's political outlook than Corbyn's. But you have to say he has played his hand a lot more skilfully.
For the benefit of those who believe minimum wage work is all free:
A worker doing 40 hours at £7.50 an hour receives an annual income tax/NI bill of £1712.32.
Yes, I am on £7.60 an hour and most certainly paying income tax and NI - and quite rightly so too. It really does blow my mind that there are some people posting on this site who are so out of touch with reality that they think lower income workers don't pay income tax!
Around £1500 worth of tax and NI for a full time worker, but you should get working tax credit which will be worth a bit more than that over a year.
FWIW, if you believe the polls, YouGov tables make very interesting reading. Amongst the age groups:
1. Biggest movement towards Labour is amongst 25-49 years olds (Labour's lead doubling from 8% to 16% in course of a few days) - no sign so far of weakening of the Tory vote with pensioners. 2. Greatest degree of opposition to the social care plans is... drumroll... also amongst 25-49 year olds!
Well well. Some people are mercenary fuckers who care more about Gran's money than they do about Gran. Who'd-a-thunk it?
Andrew Neil on Tories' social care plan: "A stealth inheritance tax of 100% on everything above £100,000."
PB Tories shouting at TV "Its not a Tax"
Viewers cant hear
A 100% Stealth tax is theft in my view
A tax is taking from your income to pay others, losing a lot of state subsidy to pay your own care (beyond support for those with assets under £100k) is not a tax whether voters like it or not
SCON might want to broaden their campaign message !!
twitter.com/ScotTories/status/865923560807813120
Why, when this one is clearly working?
SNP support firming up at c.45% - amazingly SLAB showing resilience - SCON could still come 3rd in vote % !
Firming up based on what?
The same subsample on which you're basing your confidence that there's no evidence of appetite for an immediate referendum?
SNP 44%, Tories 28%.
In 2015 the SNP got 50% and the Tories 15% so your absurd 'SNP support firming up' argument is actually based on a Scottish subsample today from yougov which shows a swing of 9.5% from the SNP to the Tories
My argument? Perhaps you'd like to point out where I made that argument. Great to see you get a feather up your ass about someone else mentioning subsamples tho'.
Apologies, that was Calum, however you did say 'The same subsample on which you're basing your confidence that there's no evidence of appetite for an immediate referendum?
Andrew Neil on Tories' social care plan: "A stealth inheritance tax of 100% on everything above £100,000."
PB Tories shouting at TV "Its not a Tax"
Viewers cant hear
A 100% Stealth tax is theft in my view
A tax is taking from your income to pay others, losing a lot of state subsidy to pay your own care (beyond support for those with assets under £100k) is not a tax whether voters like it or not
Was it a Community charge or was it a POLL TAX ?
That was a poll tax as it was levied per head on individuals to pay for local services
FWIW, if you believe the polls, YouGov tables make very interesting reading. Amongst the age groups:
1. Biggest movement towards Labour is amongst 25-49 years olds (Labour's lead doubling from 8% to 16% in course of a few days) - no sign so far of weakening of the Tory vote with pensioners. 2. Greatest degree of opposition to the social care plans is... drumroll... also amongst 25-49 year olds!
Well well. Some people are mercenary fuckers who care more about Gran's money than they do about Gran. Who'd-a-thunk it?
Just read them at this time next week. Let it simmer. You think the entire population are political wonks like you. They have better things to do. But they will talk with relatives, neighbours etc. over the coming week and all these conversations will be spiced up.
Around £1500 worth of tax and NI for a full time worker, but you should get working tax credit which will be worth a bit more than that over a year.
No, I'm not on any tax credits or benefits of any kind whatsoever. The only reduction to my taxes that I get is the 25% off my Council Tax for being single. No complaints, it's right that I pay my way.
Before writing off this election, remember that Corbyn's approval rating is 25/60%, May's is 52/37%.
May is Merkel and of course Merkel rather underperformed expectations in her first election win despite winning it and is still here 12 years later though despite his gains today I don't think Corbyn is quite Schroeder yet but I think having got the tough policies out the way CCHQ need to focus on electorally more positive ones for the rest of the campaign while hitting Labour's figures hard
Around £1500 worth of tax and NI for a full time worker, but you should get working tax credit which will be worth a bit more than that over a year.
I wonder how much it costs to admin all that tax and tax credit, for a net return of basically nothing.
Indeed. Pay people a better wage and get rid of tax credits. It is the real solution to benefit dependency. Raise the minimum wage, cut corporation tax and entirely eliminate employer's NI along with all tax credits.
Andrew Neil on Tories' social care plan: "A stealth inheritance tax of 100% on everything above £100,000."
PB Tories shouting at TV "Its not a Tax"
Viewers cant hear
A 100% Stealth tax is theft in my view
A tax is taking from your income to pay others, losing a lot of state subsidy to pay your own care (beyond support for those with assets under £100k) is not a tax whether voters like it or not
Was it a Community charge or was it a POLL TAX ?
That was a poll tax as it was levied per head on individuals to pay for local services
Including people who did not even earn.
Has Le Pen won yet ? Last time you looked, she was leading.
Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.
Correct, he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. This is in the Parliamentary record.
I think Andrew Neil might be somewhat harder on this point than the young Sophy, who admitted that this was all before she was born. (Wiki reckons she's 32).
It doesn't absolve him of his past associations with the IRA.
Or, to put it another way, "I was wrong to say he voted against". Are you a politician or something?
No, I said it was my understanding, could anyone verifty it. Please read what I said. Are YOU a politican?
What I also said is it does not absolve in any way his association with a terrorist organisation. Like everyone keeps saying, perception is everything, only Corbyn giving succour to the IRA is not a perception - it is an incontrovertible fact.
The number of incontrovertible facts on this issue has shrunk a fair bit since I signed into this site yesterday. It turns out that Corbyn wasn't on the editorial board of Labour Briefing after all. And he, at the very least, wasn't totally opposed to the Good Friday Agreement. If I was managing his campaign I'd rather people weren't talking about it. He does come across as someone who was still playing student union politics in his thirties, and it emphasises that his CV is a bit short of any serious responsibility. But it isn't the single trump card that can be played to make the case that he shouldn't be prime minister.
No right minded person could look at what Corbyn did and what he said as nothing other than for what it was - an overt and unashamed collsuion with a terrorist organisation. If people are content with being his apologists, then they are as bad as he is.
And that shows why the Tories are wise to downplay this one. You started out with what sounded like a strong case, but you're now coming across a bit unhinged. And it probably sounds even crazier to people under 40 for whom the IRA are history.
At least Mr Neil won't be short of questions when he meets Mrs M next week.
Andrew Neil's interviews with both May and Corbyn are going to be must-watch television. Can see them both being hammered.
Agree with this. May has been a terrible disappointment this campaign, as has the entire Tory effort. Corbyn has had, in relative terms I suppose, a decent campaign, in so much as he hasn't yet made a catastrophic error, but it is all relative to what he is and what is expected of him. In other words, nothing.
There is a mountain of ammunition to fire against both of them, but I get the sense May will keep her cool and Corbyn won't be able to, especially when Neil brings up his favourite three letters - I, R and A. Reailty and political gravity hasn't yet punched Corbyn squarely on the face yet - but it will.
given the tories would need to win by more than 20 points to push labour this low, this is easy money, surely?
In 2001, the Conservatives won 167 seats, despite being only 9% behind Labour. In 1997, they won 166 at 13% behind. My guess is the Tories need to be about 13% ahead to push Labour that low.
I'm just basing that on a uniform swing from 2015
i believe back then the tory vote was inefficiently distributed, hence the lower lab leads needed to get a big majority
Jason: And now you're wriggling from one post to another, like a slithery politician . In your original post you said:
"So it destroys Corbyn's defence, then. The lie that he did all that stuff to encourage peace has to be nailed."
Not an impartial searcher for truth, as you now suggest. But the actual terminological inexactititude came from Sandpit, who stated flatly that Corbyn voted against and it was in the Parliamentary record when he voted in favour.
I suspect that you weren't deliberately lying and just seized on that to reinforce your instinctive prejudices (and that Sandpit also wasn't deliberately lying, just too lazy to check). But, instead of saying "OK, that was wrong", you wriggled instantly into attacking Corbyn on something else.
It doesn't really matter, as you're both anonymous blokes nattering on a message board. But we try to pull each other up when something is actually wrong, and it's better to admit it.
I'm really grateful for your clarifiaction of my motivations, and your approval too. Thanks for that.
Got caught with your pants down.
So will Corbyn when his statement equivocating the British Army with the IRA comes to public attention.
It already has. Go back to your earlier question: why hasn't CCHQ led with it?
Two possible answers are that it clearly isn't true, or more subtly that it isn't clearly true. In other words, that the detailed facts can at least be fudged, so that Corbyn met Sinn Fein, not the IRA, and was eventually proved right that peace followed negotiations rather than military victory. Yes, he opposed the Anglo-Irish Agreement but he supported the Good Friday Agreement. Yes, he supports a united Ireland but so do lots of people, and only with consent.
Now whether you personally believe that, surely you can see it is at least an arguable and defensible position, if you spread enough fudge about.
So most likely, given the facts are at best ambiguous, the official Tory campaign will be happy to leave it to their friends in the papers and social media warriors.
And if I am wrong, what is your answer to why CCHQ has not plastered the country with posters of Corbyn meeting Gerry Adams?
Not correct. Labour will collect extra money from those earning more than £80k and from companies.
Yes it is true.
For the benefit of those who believe minimum wage work is all free:
A worker doing 40 hours at £7.50 an hour receives an annual income tax/NI bill of £1712.32.
But they are paying that now. Labour proposals are extra which does not touch them. What you are basically trying to prove is that the tax paid by minimum wage earning people goes first to old people's welfare and then everything else.
Because your words basically stated that it is those on minimum wage who are paying for this expenditure.
I could have said that the third of the population that have zero in property assets are being asked to safeguard the property assets of those who do have them.
What that poll probably shows is that most voters have little idea who Chuka and Yvette are, or what they would do differently from Jezza. The anti-Corbynites shot themselves in the foot by refusing to serve in the Shadow Cabinet, which predictably has meant they've not raised their own profiles, not defeated any vulnerable Tory ministers, and worst of all, have handed a ready-made alibi for Corbynites: it was the split party what lost it.
Exactly so. I am much more in sympathy with Cooper's political outlook than Corbyn's. But you have to say he has played his hand a lot more skilfully.
Apart from Abbott's plane crash, the Labour campaign has been , by and large, pretty good. Even yesterday's Trident news allowed Corbyn to re-assert that Labour will be building the submarine [ something I do not agree BTW ]
Andrew Neil on Tories' social care plan: "A stealth inheritance tax of 100% on everything above £100,000."
PB Tories shouting at TV "Its not a Tax"
Viewers cant hear
A 100% Stealth tax is theft in my view
A tax is taking from your income to pay others, losing a lot of state subsidy to pay your own care (beyond support for those with assets under £100k) is not a tax whether voters like it or not
Was it a Community charge or was it a POLL TAX ?
That was a poll tax as it was levied per head on individuals to pay for local services
Including people who did not even earn.
Has Le Pen won yet ? Last time you looked, she was leading.
No difference, if you are retired you don't earn but still pay tax and even if you were unemployed you were paying for services for others not those only you would lose, that was a tax this is not whether you like it or not.
Le Pen did of course win most regions and departements in the first round
All this does confirm how awesome Dave and George were.
2015 was solely down to them and not Sir Lynton Crosby.
Even on today's poll May has a larger lead over Corbyn than Cameron eventually got over Miliband or Brown and as today's yougov shows that has nothing to do with Corbyn something being massively more toxic than those two were in terms of the Labour vote
SCON might want to broaden their campaign message !!
twitter.com/ScotTories/status/865923560807813120
Why, when this one is clearly working?
SNP support firming up at c.45% - amazingly SLAB showing resilience - SCON could still come 3rd in vote % !
Firming up based on what?
The same subsample on which you're basing your confidence that there's no evidence of appetite for an immediate referendum?
SNP 44%, Tories 28%.
In 2015 the SNP got 50% and the Tories 15% so your absurd 'SNP support firming up' argument is actually based on a Scottish subsample today from yougov which shows a swing of 9.5% from the SNP to the Tories
We got the point. What he was saying that in recent days, the SNP vote has indeed firmed up. Actually, all three's have firmed up.
Personally, I don't think the SNP will lose that many seats. Probably four or five, max.
For the benefit of those who believe minimum wage work is all free:
A worker doing 40 hours at £7.50 an hour receives an annual income tax/NI bill of £1712.32.
Yes, I am on £7.60 an hour and most certainly paying income tax and NI - and quite rightly so too. It really does blow my mind that there are some people posting on this site who are so out of touch with reality that they think lower income workers don't pay income tax!
Around £1500 worth of tax and NI for a full time worker, but you should get working tax credit which will be worth a bit more than that over a year.
People without children do not get tax credits thrown at them.
Tax credits are child benefit by another name. People without kids on minimum wage get very little, if anything, given to them.
What that poll probably shows is that most voters have little idea who Chuka and Yvette are, or what they would do differently from Jezza. The anti-Corbynites shot themselves in the foot by refusing to serve in the Shadow Cabinet, which predictably has meant they've not raised their own profiles, not defeated any vulnerable Tory ministers, and worst of all, have handed a ready-made alibi for Corbynites: it was the split party what lost it.
No it doesn't as those figures exclude don't knows and undecideds as with the main poll, if don't knows were included Cooper led Labour was down to just 24%
I still think I am right because excluding DKs does not exclude people who do not know how things would be different under Yvette or Chuka -- because that would exclude everyone.
Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.
Correct, he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. This is in the Parliamentary record.
I think Andrew Neil might be somewhat harder on this point than the young Sophy, who admitted that this was all before she was born. (Wiki reckons she's 32).
It doesn't absolve him of his past associations with the IRA.
Or, to put it another way, "I was wrong to say he voted against". Are you a politician or something?
No, I said it was my understanding, could anyone verifty it. Please read what I said. Are YOU a politican?
What I also said is it does not absolve in any way his association with a terrorist organisation. Like everyone keeps saying, perception is everything, only Corbyn giving succour to the IRA is not a perception - it is an incontrovertible fact.
No right minded person could look at what Corbyn did and what he said as nothing other than for what it was - an overt and unashamed collsuion with a terrorist organisation. If people are content with being his apologists, then they are as bad as he is.
And that shows why the Tories are wise to downplay this one. You started out with what sounded like a strong case, but you're now coming across a bit unhinged. And it probably sounds even crazier to people under 40 for whom the IRA are history.
I'm not the one who had a deep association with an organisation that murdered women and children, or shared a platform with a world famous Holocaust denier. You need to re-evaluate what your meaning of the word 'unhinged' is, because if you think I'm unhinged for high lighting what is an utter disgrace, then actually, it is you who has the problem, not me.
I'm happy to post here Mr Corbyn's back catalogue. If you want to defend what he did and then accuse me of being disturbed, then go ahead.
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.
Correct, he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. This is in the Parliamentary record.
I think Andrew Neil might be somewhat harder on this point than the young Sophy, who admitted that this was all before she was born. (Wiki reckons she's 32).
It doesn't absolve him of his past associations with the IRA.
Or, to put it another way, "I was wrong to say he voted against". Are you a politician or something?
No, I said it was my understanding, could anyone verifty it. Please read what I said. Are YOU a politican?
What I also said is it does not absolve in any way his association with a terrorist organisation. Like everyone keeps saying, perception is everything, only Corbyn giving succour to the IRA is not a perception - it is an incontrovertible fact.
The number of incontrovertible facts on this issue has shrunk a fair bit since I signed into this site yesterday. It turns out that Corbyn wasn't on the editorial board of Labour Briefing after all. And he, at the very least, wasn't totally opposed to the Good Friday Agreement. If I was managing his campaign I'd rather people weren't talking about it. He does come across as someone who was still playing student union politics in his thirties, and it emphasises that his CV is a bit short of any serious responsibility. But it isn't the single trump card that can be played to make the case that he shouldn't be prime minister.
No right minded person could look at what Corbyn did and what he said as nothing other than for what it was - an overt and unashamed collsuion with a terrorist organisation. If people are content with being his apologists, then they are as bad as he is.
And that shows why the Tories are wise to downplay this one. You started out with what sounded like a strong case, but you're now coming across a bit unhinged. And it probably sounds even crazier to people under 40 for whom the IRA are history.
I'm 37 and the IRA are certainly not history. You'd have to be under 30, possibly under 25 for them to be history. And those people aren't voting Tory anyway.
Well, he did make an equivalence between the British Amy and the IRA. We all just heard him do so in that radio interview on TSP. I wonder how many pensioners are aware of that.
The British state finally lost the moral high ground in the 6C at around the time of the second Stephens Inquiry. There's no clean hands in that mess.
Andrew Neil on Tories' social care plan: "A stealth inheritance tax of 100% on everything above £100,000."
PB Tories shouting at TV "Its not a Tax"
Viewers cant hear
A 100% Stealth tax is theft in my view
A tax is taking from your income to pay others, losing a lot of state subsidy to pay your own care (beyond support for those with assets under £100k) is not a tax whether voters like it or not
Was it a Community charge or was it a POLL TAX ?
That was a poll tax as it was levied per head on individuals to pay for local services
Why did the Conservative Party insist on calling it the Community Charge then ?
I see YouGov specifically asks about the IRA issue:
"Some people have accused Jeremy Corbyn of having been sympathetic towards the IRA in the past and having been too friendly towards groups involved in terrorism. Jeremy Corbyn has said that violence on all sides was wrong, and that he spoke to figures involved with the IRA because he wanted to open a dialogue and find a peaceful solution." They ask if respondents think the criticism is fair or unfair?"
36% say they think it's fair, 36% think it's unfair, the rest don't have an opinion. There are no significant differences by class or region (some have thought there was a strong Midlands view, but not so), but men are far more criticial (46-36) than women (27-37). Mainly Conservative voters seem seriously bothered (67% vs 10 for Lab, 32 for LD). There aren't very many don't knows, suggesting that the criticism, valid or not, is largely priced in.
It is .I think it goes to the core of a house owning democracy and passing on that asset to your family. This concern goes across all sections of society even this who aspire to own their own home.
1. There was previously a risk that the amount that you can leave to your family after taking account of your care costs for the rest of your life would be reduced to £23k. With this new proposal from the Conservatives, you can be sure that up to £100k will be available to leave to them. Do you think this is a good idea?
2. There was previously a risk that you would have to sell and leave your home to cover your care costs. That risk has now gone away, for both you and your spouse. Do you think this is a good idea?
3. In order to achieve 1 and 2 above, the Government is proposing that the value of all your assets - including your home - be included when assessing how much of a contribution you have to make to your own care costs for the rest of your life. Do you think this is fair?
All true. But until last Thursday I doubt more than 10% knew the current situation or that more than 0.1% were going to see it as an election issue. Telling people "your house is less in play than it was" is a useless defence against the blissful ignorance they were in till last Thursday when it hadn't even crossed their minds.
This is policy wonks off their reservation and finding out the real world doesnt think like them.
How many in the Tory party were involved in the decision to scrap a lifetime cap? Seems maybe about three people. Rest of party now scrambling to come up with reasons why this was a good idea (Green) or why it might be consulted on further (Boris).
It is in the manifesto and that is because the HoL would have been told you cannot make any changes as it is in the manifesto.
Regarding Isabel Oakeshott's point that it will not be implemented: she is probably correct. Even with 400 MPs, the shires will be in rebellion.
Then, the question turns to political judgement. If that will indeed be the outcome, then why go through all the negative publicity.
Please don't write in that she is some sort of a heroine. Just a lousy politician.
Presumably because she believes she will be able to get this through. Three line whip etc etc.
Although I am really angry about this (I want a lifetime cap as per Cameron), it is clearly likely to be better than the current system as it raises the amount people keep to £100K.
So, if it falls in Parliament, then we are back to square one?
Lowers the amount most people keep from all of your own house to fook all of your own house
Bill Somebody Else - the perennial Labour approach to economics.
The Tories have completely lost control of the narrative now...
Wasn't this election supposed to be about securing a mandate for Brexit negotiations?
No, it was about rescheduling the next election so that if a 6 or 12 month extension to the A50 negotiations is required, it won't clash with the next election campaign.
The Tories have completely lost control of the narrative now...
Wasn't this election supposed to be about securing a mandate for Brexit negotiations?
When Theresa May is returned to Number 10 with an increased but not landslide majority, we will be assured the Dementia Tax was a brilliant dead cat to divert attention from the manifestos thin, motherhood and apple pie proposals on Brexit for which, allegedly, a mandate is sought.
Comments
2015 was solely down to them and not Sir Lynton Crosby.
Anyway, I must be off. Play nicely, children.
And yes, I agree - very few of us fit entirely into one neat political box, and when we pretend to, it tends to be either out of possibly misplaced loyalty or careerism. I'd say that most of us agree with our parties 75-80% of the time, have doubts about 10-15% and outright dislike 5-10%. What is really common is for politicians to have private doubts about a policy which they subdue in an election period but which resurface afterwards.
One of the charms of PB is that we mosly feel free to chat honestly with supporters of other parties, protected by anonymity where people think it necessary (I've never bothered and to be fair it's never been used seriously against me, though Plato did try to shop me to Anna Soubry over some off-mssage comment I made).
A progressive tax regime is much fairer
This argument is over whether the government should take all or just 3/4 of your estate if you need social care. It is not one that can be won.
Though actually I substantially agree with the policy, however the public want free owls.
For the benefit of those who believe minimum wage work is all free:
A worker doing 40 hours at £7.50 an hour receives an annual income tax/NI bill of £1712.32.
https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/866251104492941314
Although I am really angry about this (I want a lifetime cap as per Cameron), it is clearly likely to be better than the current system as it raises the amount people keep to £100K.
So, if it falls in Parliament, then we are back to square one?
The publicwhip website was good... They work for you I found a bit are to navigate.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/
In particular ICM ( is PB still agreeing that ICM is the current holder of the title "Gold Standard)
One other point-during the referendum and the last election there was much talk about on-line polls V phone polls
Nothing this time around are they all On-line polls now ??
Spoilsport!!
The headline voting intention is
Con 44
Lab 35
LD 9
UKIP 3
With Cooper leading Labour the scores are
Con 45
Lab 33
LD 9
UKIP 4
So the Tory lead actually increases slightly under Cooper compared to under Corbyn
With Khan leading Labour the scores are
Con 45
Lab 36
LD 8
UKIP 4
So the Tory lead is unchanged under Khan compared to Corbyn
With Umunna leading Labour the scores are
Con 46
Lab 33
LD 9
UKIP 4
So the Tory lead slightly increases under Umunna
Therefore it looks that with Corbyn Labour polling over 30% and Corbyn doing as well as potential rivals post election he is here to stay for a while yet
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/wvyc3lofp5/SundayTimesResults_170519_VI_W.pdf
The Conservative targets should be the motorway constituencies not conurbation shitholes with zero Conservative councillors.
I always have severe doubts whether London based Conservatives have any clue about parts north of the Watford Gap.
If they had they wouldn't think stopping WFA in the North but keeping it for Scottish millionaires was a good idea.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/may/21/general-election-2017-tory-wobble-over-social-care-live-updates?page=with:block-592152fce4b0a9ae59335bff#liveblog-navigation
of his speech to a huge crowd at Tranmere's ground. I don't think any Labour sympathiser, even ultra-sceptics, can fail to be a bit moved.
What you are basically trying to prove is that the tax paid by minimum wage earning people goes first to old people's welfare and then everything else.
Because your words basically stated that it is those on minimum wage who are paying for this expenditure.
What didn't make sense was bloody announcing it in the media, so Tom Watson could circle the wagons.
Contrast with the stealth castration of Balls in 2015.
Great to see you get a feather up your ass about someone else mentioning subsamples tho'.
1. Biggest movement towards Labour is amongst 25-49 years olds (Labour's lead doubling from 8% to 16% in course of a few days) - no sign so far of weakening of the Tory vote with pensioners.
2. Greatest degree of opposition to the social care plans is... drumroll... also amongst 25-49 year olds!
Well well. Some people are mercenary fuckers who care more about Gran's money than they do about Gran. Who'd-a-thunk it?
SNP 44%, Tories 28%'
Well that is a 9.5% swing from SNP to the Tories
Has Le Pen won yet ? Last time you looked, she was leading.
There is a mountain of ammunition to fire against both of them, but I get the sense May will keep her cool and Corbyn won't be able to, especially when Neil brings up his favourite three letters - I, R and A. Reailty and political gravity hasn't yet punched Corbyn squarely on the face yet - but it will.
Fair enough, I can understand that.
i believe back then the tory vote was inefficiently distributed, hence the lower lab leads needed to get a big majority
Two possible answers are that it clearly isn't true, or more subtly that it isn't clearly true. In other words, that the detailed facts can at least be fudged, so that Corbyn met Sinn Fein, not the IRA, and was eventually proved right that peace followed negotiations rather than military victory. Yes, he opposed the Anglo-Irish Agreement but he supported the Good Friday Agreement. Yes, he supports a united Ireland but so do lots of people, and only with consent.
Now whether you personally believe that, surely you can see it is at least an arguable and defensible position, if you spread enough fudge about.
So most likely, given the facts are at best ambiguous, the official Tory campaign will be happy to leave it to their friends in the papers and social media warriors.
And if I am wrong, what is your answer to why CCHQ has not plastered the country with posters of Corbyn meeting Gerry Adams?
Le Pen did of course win most regions and departements in the first round
But I don't think West Bromwich East was ever winnable - the demographics are helpful to Labour and its been trending leftwards for a generation.
Its rather the opposite to Bolsover in that respect.
Personally, I don't think the SNP will lose that many seats. Probably four or five, max.
Tax credits are child benefit by another name. People without kids on minimum wage get very little, if anything, given to them.
I'm happy to post here Mr Corbyn's back catalogue. If you want to defend what he did and then accuse me of being disturbed, then go ahead.
Wasn't this election supposed to be about securing a mandate for Brexit negotiations?
I think I prefer that version, don't spoil it for me.
"Some people have accused Jeremy Corbyn of having been sympathetic towards the IRA
in the past and having been too friendly towards groups involved in terrorism. Jeremy Corbyn has said that violence on all sides was wrong, and that he spoke to figures involved with the IRA because he wanted to open a dialogue and find a peaceful solution." They ask if respondents think the criticism is fair or unfair?"
36% say they think it's fair, 36% think it's unfair, the rest don't have an opinion. There are no significant differences by class or region (some have thought there was a strong Midlands view, but not so), but men are far more criticial (46-36) than women (27-37). Mainly Conservative voters seem seriously bothered (67% vs 10 for Lab, 32 for LD). There aren't very many don't knows, suggesting that the criticism, valid or not, is largely priced in.
‘I said to him later: “It’s time we buried the hatchet, normally I do that in the other guy’s head but I’ll make an exception in your case.”’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2308773/She-lost-Cecil--did-fat-fornicating-fool-Prescott-survive-In-true-Chingford-Polecat-style-delicious-monstering-political-lightweights-brought-Thatcher-down.html
I think Skinner wants to die in office. If he a) wins b) lives to a great age he could become the father of the house.