The conservative retired homeowners party haven't got a hope in hell of addressing intergenerational unfairness.
The baby boomers will be protected from the costs of brexit.
The young will pay.
That is a heartrending post, Pong, and one with which I can only agree, with great sadness.
Puts all this GE crap into perspective. Thanks.
That is the one tragic thing. Public services desperately need proper funding, and there is sense in trying to tap into some of the windfall wealth of older property owners. To their credit the LibDems were the first to explore this with their Mansion Tax, Labour had a brave attempt with its estate levy - both savagely and cynically attacked by the Tories, of course - and now even the Tories are prepared to look at it. Inter-generational unfairness will be impossible to deliver if everything has to be paid for by the working age population, or the cost shunted off into the future.
Yes, the Tories have made a complete hash of handling the issue from start to finish (or middle, which is probably where we are). But let's not lose sight of the bigger picture.
It's a perfect example of why our political system is too short term and adversarial to tackle the big issues in any sort of sensible way.
It's deeply frustrating.
There are good people in all parties (possibly barring UKIP!) who get it - and I think TM is one of them. As we've seen today, she just can't stand up to the pressure.
It's not "standing up to the pressure", it's releasing a policy in such a cack-handed, self-harming away that is actually imperils your chances of winning an election (certainly in a satisfactory way)
The self inflicted wound is real, the bleeding was significant, the best that can be done is bandage and staunch, and hobble on, hoping for better. You can't just let it bleed out.
She has gone back to being evasive and duplicitous, which is much better.
The problem with that is that if all politicians follow the route you suggest then no one will ever dare deal with some of the fundamental problems facing the country. They will all just cave at the first sign of opposition. That is no way to govern a country.
In the end the policy was sensible and should have been fought for, not dumped as soon as anyone complained about it.
The conservative retired homeowners party haven't got a hope in hell of addressing intergenerational unfairness.
The baby boomers will be protected from the costs of brexit.
The young will pay.
That is a heartrending post, Pong, and one with which I can only agree, with great sadness.
Puts all this GE crap into perspective. Thanks.
That is the one tragic thing. Public services desperately need proper funding, and there is sense in trying to tap into some of the windfall wealth of older property owners. To their credit the LibDems were the first to explore this with their Mansion Tax, Labour had a brave attempt with its estate levy - both savagely and cynically attacked by the Tories, of course - and now even the Tories are prepared to look at it. Inter-generational unfairness will be impossible to deliver if everything has to be paid for by the working age population, or the cost shunted off into the future.
Yes, the Tories have made a complete hash of handling the issue from start to finish (or middle, which is probably where we are). But let's not lose sight of the bigger picture.
It's a perfect example of why our political system is too short term and adversarial to tackle the big issues in any sort of sensible way.
It's deeply frustrating.
There are good people in all parties (possibly barring UKIP!) who get it - and I think TM is one of them. As we've seen today, she just can't stand up to the pressure.
It's not "standing up to the pressure", it's releasing a policy in such a cack-handed, self-harming away that is actually imperils your chances of winning an election (certainly in a satisfactory way)
The self inflicted wound is real, the bleeding was significant, the best that can be done is bandage and staunch, and hobble on, hoping for better. You can't just let it bleed out.
She has gone back to being evasive and duplicitous, which is much better.
The problem with that is that if all politicians follow the route you suggest then no one will ever dare deal with some of the fundamental problems facing the country. They will all just cave at the first sign of opposition. That is no way to govern a country.
In the end the policy was sensible and should have been fought for, not dumped as soon as anyone complained about it.
Well it hasn't been dropped entirely, and I suspect the cap will be a fine balance between revenue and reaction.
The conservative retired homeowners party haven't got a hope in hell of addressing intergenerational unfairness.
The baby boomers will be protected from the costs of brexit.
The young will pay.
That is a heartrending post, Pong, and one with which I can only agree, with great sadness.
Puts all this GE crap into perspective. Thanks.
That is the one tragic thing. Public services desperately need proper funding, and there is sense in trying to tap into some of the windfall wealth of older property owners. To their credit the LibDems were the first to explore this with their Mansion Tax, Labour had a brave attempt with its estate levy - both savagely and cynically attacked by the Tories, of course - and now even the Tories are prepared to look at it. Inter-generational unfairness will be impossible to deliver if everything has to be paid for by the working age population, or the cost shunted off into the future.
Yes, the Tories have made a complete hash of handling the issue from start to finish (or middle, which is probably where we are). But let's not lose sight of the bigger picture.
It's a perfect example of why our political system is too short term and adversarial to tackle the big issues in any sort of sensible way.
It's deeply frustrating.
There are good people in all parties (possibly barring UKIP!) who get it - and I think TM is one of them. As we've seen today, she just can't stand up to the pressure.
I think it's more a case of modifying a badly drafted policy than an outright reversal. The principle that property as well as savings should count towards the payment of care costs is maintained. It's a principle which I would support: I believe it was a columnist for this morning's FT who said that there wasn't much to be said for high property prices, but the potential for them to be tapped to pay for care costs was one of the few positives.
Labour, of course, have played this issue unusually well. But has anyone noticed how like the SNP they are becoming? Free tuition fees and the defence of inherited property wealth on one hand. Most of George Osborne's program of benefit cuts upheld on the other. Faux progressive stances masking middle class welfarism.
The big difference, of course, being that the SNP can pay for most of their goodies out of Barnett subsidy. Labour has to find the money from tax and borrowing - until businesses get fed up of investing in Britain and the high earners start to emigrate, at which point the screw of higher income tax and national insurance would doubtless start to be applied further and further down the wage scale...
The conservative retired homeowners party haven't got a hope in hell of addressing intergenerational unfairness.
The baby boomers will be protected from the costs of brexit.
The young will pay.
That is a heartrending post, Pong, and one with which I can only agree, with great sadness.
Puts all this GE crap into perspective. Thanks.
That is the one tragic thing. Public services desperately need proper funding, and there is sense in trying to tap into some of the windfall wealth of older property owners. To their credit the LibDems were the first to explore this with their Mansion Tax, Labour had a brave attempt with its estate levy - both savagely and cynically attacked by the Tories, of course - and now even the Tories are prepared to look at it. Inter-generational unfairness will be impossible to deliver if everything has to be paid for by the working age population, or the cost shunted off into the future.
Yes, the Tories have made a complete hash of handling the issue from start to finish (or middle, which is probably where we are). But let's not lose sight of the bigger picture.
It's a perfect example of why our political system is too short term and adversarial to tackle the big issues in any sort of sensible way.
It's deeply frustrating.
There are good people in all parties (possibly barring UKIP!) who get it - and I think TM is one of them. As we've seen today, she just can't stand up to the pressure.
It's not "standing up to the pressure", it's releasing a policy in such a cack-handed, self-harming away that is actually imperils your chances of winning an election (certainly in a satisfactory way)
The self inflicted wound is real, the bleeding was significant, the best that can be done is bandage and staunch, and hobble on, hoping for better. You can't just let it bleed out.
She has gone back to being evasive and duplicitous, which is much better.
The problem with that is that if all politicians follow the route you suggest then no one will ever dare deal with some of the fundamental problems facing the country. They will all just cave at the first sign of opposition. That is no way to govern a country.
In the end the policy was sensible and should have been fought for, not dumped as soon as anyone complained about it.
I agree, the trouble is Conservative policy since roughly 1987 has been built around spoiling middle class baby boomers. How do you tell them it's payback time.
The Welsh numbers feed into my scepticism about YouGov. Wobbling about all over the place. Am much more inclined to take ICM seriously - they've been very consistent up until today, and the picture they present - of the Tories holding more-or-less stable whilst the anti-Tory vote coalesces around Labour - makes considerably more sense.
Meanwhile, been watching the local news this evening. Anglia are doing a trip down the A10, stopping off at a different town each day to interview people about the election. Today they started off in Downham Market, a town in Norfolk quite a long way from London, which is neither particularly wealthy nor poor. The main subjects raised by the townsfolk were jobs and Brexit. Little sign of a rebellion over elderly care in a place where there aren't too many huge inheritances at stake.
A "rogue poll" has always been one that a PB poster disagrees with!
Well, what is one supposed to make of an 8% swing between two surveys conducted relatively close together? It *might* actually be right, but it does look a bit dodgy. Have the interests of such a substantial proportion of the electorate changed that quickly? Has the electorate grown that volatile? Again, perhaps they have, but it does look a little bit strange.
What counts as a disastrous, must-resign result for TMay, what is pretty poor, but maybe survivable, etc?
My thoughts: any result where she actually loses seats, or - heaven forfend - she loses her majority, is a must resign. Though I can see her struggling on for a few months.
25-50 seat majority: very poor, yet perfectly survivable, but many Tories will feel swindled, and it will feel like a defeat
50-80: meh, not great, she is a bit damaged, but people will forget, Brexit next
Over 80: she's almost Boadicea, nice one Theresa, despite the wobbles
Over 120: Fuckyeah
Would be quite amusing if, after everything, the numbers are as they were in 2015.
Well, I have to eat my words about Theresa May last week re decisiveness. Like the NI rises, this is an totally unforced error and the U-turn suggests a lack of a backbone.
That said, I still remain unconvinced about the apocalyptic narrative coming out from some posters on here. We still see a solid Tory lead in the polls, even though it is down from the 20-point highs of earlier in the campaign. I still think we are going to be seeing a majority touching at 100. The U-turn is highly embarrassing but probably was the only way of killing the narrative at this stage.
I still suspect the Tories will end up with a winning margin of at least 10% with some significant swings in certain seats. However, this latest misfire does suggest that if Labour can get their act together in the next parliament, they could do rather well in 2022, as it suggests that they will be facing a government that could seriously make a hash of things.
What counts as a disastrous, must-resign result for TMay, what is pretty poor, but maybe survivable, etc?
My thoughts: any result where she actually loses seats, or - heaven forfend - she loses her majority, is a must resign. Though I can see her struggling on for a few months.
25-50 seat majority: very poor, yet perfectly survivable, but many Tories will feel swindled, and it will feel like a defeat
50-80: meh, not great, she is a bit damaged, but people will forget, Brexit next
Over 80: she's almost Boadicea, nice one Theresa, despite the wobbles
Over 120: Fuckyeah
Would be quite amusing if, after everything, the numbers are as they were in 2015.
It would I still think a 150 Maj for the blues.Still a forgone conclusion.Not as boring as seeing Celtic win the league every year as I thought it would be when the election was announced.
The YouGov Wales poll has 7% of the 2015 Tory vote going over to Labour. Compared to 5% of the 2015 Lab vote going the other way.
Labour also getting a respectable 29% of the Welsh Leave vote (as well as 57% of the Remain vote).
I reckon the truth is somewhere between the two most recent yougovs, what is consistent is the big squeeze on Plaid, UKIP and the Lib Dems. Politics moving back to the big two in Wales and England.
Just getting on a plane back from Rome so missing the big interview, but all the evidence so far is that there's no change in the Tory share is, which is holding steady at 45-46% give or take MoE. And that's plenty for a comfortable majority.
That said, I still remain unconvinced about the apocalyptic narrative coming out from some posters on here.
I think the apocalyptic narrative is because posters have had a foretaste of how she will behave when we get down to the business end of Brexit. Black Wednesday on steroids is coming up at some point.
What counts as a disastrous, must-resign result for TMay, what is pretty poor, but maybe survivable, etc?
My thoughts: any result where she actually loses seats, or - heaven forfend - she loses her majority, is a must resign. Though I can see her struggling on for a few months.
25-50 seat majority: very poor, yet perfectly survivable, but many Tories will feel swindled, and it will feel like a defeat
50-80: meh, not great, she is a bit damaged, but people will forget, Brexit next
Over 80: she's almost Boadicea, nice one Theresa, despite the wobbles
Over 120: Fuckyeah
Losing the majority/sub 12 seat majority = She has to go, and will go.
Majority 12 - 50 = Embarrassing the closer it is to 12, she'll be forced out during the next Parliament against her will. Remember she was targeting places like Leeds East, West Bromwich East, and Bolsover. Will feel like a missed opportunity. Especially when the campaign started the Tories were at 50%, 25% ahead of Labour
51-99 = Big enough to keep her opponents quiet, she'll only go if Brexit deal is a disaster
What counts as a disastrous, must-resign result for TMay, what is pretty poor, but maybe survivable, etc?
My thoughts: any result where she actually loses seats, or - heaven forfend - she loses her majority, is a must resign. Though I can see her struggling on for a few months.
25-50 seat majority: very poor, yet perfectly survivable, but many Tories will feel swindled, and it will feel like a defeat
50-80: meh, not great, she is a bit damaged, but people will forget, Brexit next
Over 80: she's almost Boadicea, nice one Theresa, despite the wobbles
Over 120: Fuckyeah
Would be quite amusing if, after everything, the numbers are as they were in 2015.
Yes, but do you think she could survive that? I think she would try, but in the end she'd be seen as too wounded to continue.
She'd be okay from a public opinion point of view but her party would be out to kill her off: to have been thinking a majority of 80+, practically 2021/22 in the bag as well, and then to come in with only a majority of 17 (?) again.....the knives would be out.
What counts as a disastrous, must-resign result for TMay, what is pretty poor, but maybe survivable, etc?
My thoughts: any result where she actually loses seats, or - heaven forfend - she loses her majority, is a must resign. Though I can see her struggling on for a few months.
25-50 seat majority: very poor, yet perfectly survivable, but many Tories will feel swindled, and it will feel like a defeat
50-80: meh, not great, she is a bit damaged, but people will forget, Brexit next
Over 80: she's almost Boadicea, nice one Theresa, despite the wobbles
Over 120: Fuckyeah
I suspect anything below a majority of 50 probably means her days are numbered. Not immediately, because that would be distracting from Brexit. But there would be a tacit acknowledgement that the leadership will probably change before the next election.
From 50-80, I agree with your analysis. I think she can recover from that.
The Welsh numbers feed into my scepticism about YouGov. Wobbling about all over the place. Am much more inclined to take ICM seriously - they've been very consistent up until today, and the picture they present - of the Tories holding more-or-less stable whilst the anti-Tory vote coalesces around Labour - makes considerably more sense.
Meanwhile, been watching the local news this evening. Anglia are doing a trip down the A10, stopping off at a different town each day to interview people about the election. Today they started off in Downham Market, a town in Norfolk quite a long way from London, which is neither particularly wealthy nor poor. The main subjects raised by the townsfolk were jobs and Brexit. Little sign of a rebellion over elderly care in a place where there aren't too many huge inheritances at stake.
A "rogue poll" has always been one that a PB poster disagrees with!
Well, what is one supposed to make of an 8% swing between two surveys conducted relatively close together? It *might* actually be right, but it does look a bit dodgy. Have the interests of such a substantial proportion of the electorate changed that quickly? Has the electorate grown that volatile? Again, perhaps they have, but it does look a little bit strange.
It's possible the Wales poll was reflecting a Rhodri Morgan sympathy vote, in which case the swing could reverse back just as quickly.
What counts as a disastrous, must-resign result for TMay, what is pretty poor, but maybe survivable, etc?
My thoughts: any result where she actually loses seats, or - heaven forfend - she loses her majority, is a must resign. Though I can see her struggling on for a few months.
25-50 seat majority: very poor, yet perfectly survivable, but many Tories will feel swindled, and it will feel like a defeat
50-80: meh, not great, she is a bit damaged, but people will forget, Brexit next
Over 80: she's almost Boadicea, nice one Theresa, despite the wobbles
Over 120: Fuckyeah
Would be quite amusing if, after everything, the numbers are as they were in 2015.
Yes, but do you think she could survive that? I think she would try, but in the end she'd be seen as too wounded to continue.
When would the Tories have the opportunity to get rid of her, though? During the Brexit negotiations? Doesn't sound feasible to me.
The Welsh numbers feed into my scepticism about YouGov. Wobbling about all over the place. Am much more inclined to take ICM seriously - they've been very consistent up until today, and the picture they present - of the Tories holding more-or-less stable whilst the anti-Tory vote coalesces around Labour - makes considerably more sense.
Meanwhile, been watching the local news this evening. Anglia are doing a trip down the A10, stopping off at a different town each day to interview people about the election. Today they started off in Downham Market, a town in Norfolk quite a long way from London, which is neither particularly wealthy nor poor. The main subjects raised by the townsfolk were jobs and Brexit. Little sign of a rebellion over elderly care in a place where there aren't too many huge inheritances at stake.
A "rogue poll" has always been one that a PB poster disagrees with!
Well, what is one supposed to make of an 8% swing between two surveys conducted relatively close together? It *might* actually be right, but it does look a bit dodgy. Have the interests of such a substantial proportion of the electorate changed that quickly? Has the electorate grown that volatile? Again, perhaps they have, but it does look a little bit strange.
It's possible the Wales poll was reflecting a Rhodri Morgan sympathy vote, in which case the swing could reverse back just as quickly.
Bit of that, and some natural variation
Also I say this quietly but I'm wondering if Yougov has some severe panel effects of the politically overinterested - the politically uninterested are far more Brexity I think, even than leavers on the Yougov Panel. They'll generally be a bit more Tory methinsk..
The u turn was a huge mistake. She should have taken the hit and moved the headlines on
You are confident she won't u-turn on the u-turn?
"These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others".
Shes awful on any level. So is Jezza. And Tim. It's a paucity of talent. She'll probably fall over the line with the help of Brexiteers but will look like an idiot for calling the election. On the other hand, maybe the electorate will say you know what? Screw this,. And vote for something odd.
She'll win easily. And that's when her - and our - troubles will really begin.
I don't think she will. I think the games up and it's gonna be a 2001 result - little change, but a collapse in confidence in her and Brussels planning an extra 50 billion bill.
Looks like we have not one, but two characters from Dad's Army now - Corporal Jones (Sean T), and now Private Frazer.
Wouldn't it be more fun to identify politicians as members of the Dad's Army cast?
Theresa May as Sergeant Wilson, Nigel Farage as Private Walker, Tim Farron as the Verger (obviously) and so on? Still trying to figure out where Jeremy Corbyn fits in.
Theresa is clearly Captain May-nwaring. As some have noticed: Hammond almost reminds me of Arthur le mesurier...
What counts as a disastrous, must-resign result for TMay, what is pretty poor, but maybe survivable, etc?
My thoughts: any result where she actually loses seats, or - heaven forfend - she loses her majority, is a must resign. Though I can see her struggling on for a few months.
25-50 seat majority: very poor, yet perfectly survivable, but many Tories will feel swindled, and it will feel like a defeat
50-80: meh, not great, she is a bit damaged, but people will forget, Brexit next
Over 80: she's almost Boadicea, nice one Theresa, despite the wobbles
Over 120: Fuckyeah
Would be quite amusing if, after everything, the numbers are as they were in 2015.
Yes, but do you think she could survive that? I think she would try, but in the end she'd be seen as too wounded to continue.
When would the Tories have the opportunity to get rid of her, though? During the Brexit negotiations? Doesn't sound feasible to me.
What counts as a disastrous, must-resign result for TMay, what is pretty poor, but maybe survivable, etc?
My thoughts: any result where she actually loses seats, or - heaven forfend - she loses her majority, is a must resign. Though I can see her struggling on for a few months.
25-50 seat majority: very poor, yet perfectly survivable, but many Tories will feel swindled, and it will feel like a defeat
50-80: meh, not great, she is a bit damaged, but people will forget, Brexit next
Over 80: she's almost Boadicea, nice one Theresa, despite the wobbles
Over 120: Fuckyeah
Losing the majority/sub 12 seat majority = She has to go, and will go.
Majority 12 - 50 = Embarrassing the closer it is to 12, she'll be forced out during the next Parliament against her will. Remember she was targeting places like Leeds East, West Bromwich East, and Bolsover. Will feel like a missed opportunity. Especially when the campaign started the Tories were at 50%, 25% ahead of Labour
51-99 = Big enough to keep her opponents quiet, she'll only go if Brexit deal is a disaster
100-150 = The Thatcher de nos hours
151-200 = Blairesque
201+ = Boadicea
Given 80 was an Boadicea-like for performance for SeanT, what would a 200 majority be?
What counts as a disastrous, must-resign result for TMay, what is pretty poor, but maybe survivable, etc?
My thoughts: any result where she actually loses seats, or - heaven forfend - she loses her majority, is a must resign. Though I can see her struggling on for a few months.
25-50 seat majority: very poor, yet perfectly survivable, but many Tories will feel swindled, and it will feel like a defeat
50-80: meh, not great, she is a bit damaged, but people will forget, Brexit next
Over 80: she's almost Boadicea, nice one Theresa, despite the wobbles
Over 120: Fuckyeah
prediction: when all is said and done this will wake them out of their complacency and they will uo their game now. No more campaigining in Bolsover ffs. 80 seat majority.
A very good result, well worth it.
majority of 20-40 she will be weakened as her backbenchers will control her now demanding hard brexit, may have to quit within a couple of years.
40-70 meh, she will survive but disappointing considering the opposition, will feel like a defeat.
80-100 Victory! a strong hand in Brexit.
100+ God I hope not. If she was this arrogant and complacent with a majority of 20 she will be unbearable with one this big.
What counts as a disastrous, must-resign result for TMay, what is pretty poor, but maybe survivable, etc?
My thoughts: any result where she actually loses seats, or - heaven forfend - she loses her majority, is a must resign. Though I can see her struggling on for a few months.
25-50 seat majority: very poor, yet perfectly survivable, but many Tories will feel swindled, and it will feel like a defeat
50-80: meh, not great, she is a bit damaged, but people will forget, Brexit next
Over 80: she's almost Boadicea, nice one Theresa, despite the wobbles
Over 120: Fuckyeah
Would be quite amusing if, after everything, the numbers are as they were in 2015.
Yes, but do you think she could survive that? I think she would try, but in the end she'd be seen as too wounded to continue.
When would the Tories have the opportunity to get rid of her, though? During the Brexit negotiations? Doesn't sound feasible to me.
It all depends on the bulk of opinion in the Parliamentary Tory party after this GE. If the majority of Tory MPs would prefer a Soft Brexit, and Single Market, then TMay is in trouble if she goes for Hard Brexit.
But maybe there will be a Hard Brexit maj within Tory ranks. Who the F knows.
If it is looking like WTO and even most Leavers accept that will be a disaster, then she might be forced out then, replaced by someone like Gove who might be more pragmatic, a sort of only Nixon could go to China moment.
What counts as a disastrous, must-resign result for TMay, what is pretty poor, but maybe survivable, etc?
My thoughts: any result where she actually loses seats, or - heaven forfend - she loses her majority, is a must resign. Though I can see her struggling on for a few months.
25-50 seat majority: very poor, yet perfectly survivable, but many Tories will feel swindled, and it will feel like a defeat
50-80: meh, not great, she is a bit damaged, but people will forget, Brexit next
Over 80: she's almost Boadicea, nice one Theresa, despite the wobbles
Over 120: Fuckyeah
prediction: when all is said and done this will wake them out of their complacency and they will uo their game now. No more campaigining in Bolsover ffs. 80 seat majority.
A very good result, well worth it.
majority of 20-40 she will be weakened as her backbenchers will control her now demanding hard brexit, may have to quit within a couple of years.
40-70 meh, she will survive but disappointing considering the opposition, will feel like a defeat.
80-100 Victory! a strong hand in Brexit.
100+ God I hope not. If she was this arrogant and complacent with a majority of 20 she will be unbearable with one this big.
tory majority over 100 is still odds on everywhere. money to be made if you think that's incorrect and they fail to get there.
I agree, the trouble is Conservative policy since roughly 1987 has been built around spoiling middle class baby boomers. How do you tell them it's payback time.
Well Mrs May isn't far off being one of them (baby boomers) having been born in 1956.
If it's impossible to get relevant policies into the manifesto for fear that Mr Corbyn will end up PM, she's likely to have a fight with the Lords I should think. Many of them will be real baby boomers.
I agree, the trouble is Conservative policy since roughly 1987 has been built around spoiling middle class baby boomers. How do you tell them it's payback time.
It was Labour that brought in all the pensioner perks...
The Welsh numbers feed into my scepticism about YouGov. Wobbling about all over the place. Am much more inclined to take ICM seriously - they've been very consistent up until today, and the picture they present - of the Tories holding more-or-less stable whilst the anti-Tory vote coalesces around Labour - makes considerably more sense.
Meanwhile, been watching the local news this evening. Anglia are doing a trip down the A10, stopping off at a different town each day to interview people about the election. Today they started off in Downham Market, a town in Norfolk quite a long way from London, which is neither particularly wealthy nor poor. The main subjects raised by the townsfolk were jobs and Brexit. Little sign of a rebellion over elderly care in a place where there aren't too many huge inheritances at stake.
A "rogue poll" has always been one that a PB poster disagrees with!
Well, what is one supposed to make of an 8% swing between two surveys conducted relatively close together? It *might* actually be right, but it does look a bit dodgy. Have the interests of such a substantial proportion of the electorate changed that quickly? Has the electorate grown that volatile? Again, perhaps they have, but it does look a little bit strange.
It's possible the Wales poll was reflecting a Rhodri Morgan sympathy vote, in which case the swing could reverse back just as quickly.
Bit of that, and some natural variation
Also I say this quietly but I'm wondering if Yougov has some severe panel effects of the politically overinterested - the politically uninterested are far more Brexity I think, even than leavers on the Yougov Panel. They'll generally be a bit more Tory methinsk..
What will the future hold for polling if after this election it is found that there is still a problem with sampling? 4-5 years ago I used to fill in frequent surveys for YouGov to try to get my points up to £50 worth. After a while I started to get asked to do political polls quite regularly. It almost felt like a reward for ploughing through all the dreary stuff. Now I only do occasional surveys and have not been asked to do a political one for over three years. Perhaps my demographic is over-represented. Has anyone else found this?
That said, I still remain unconvinced about the apocalyptic narrative coming out from some posters on here.
I think the apocalyptic narrative is because posters have had a foretaste of how she will behave when we get down to the business end of Brexit. Black Wednesday on steroids is coming up at some point.
The Welsh numbers feed into my scepticism about YouGov. Wobbling about all over the place. Am much more inclined to take ICM seriously - they've been very consistent up until today, and the picture they present - of the Tories holding more-or-less stable whilst the anti-Tory vote coalesces around Labour - makes considerably more sense.
Meanwhile, been watching the local news this evening. Anglia are doing a trip down the A10, stopping off at a different town each day to interview people about the election. Today they started off in Downham Market, a town in Norfolk quite a long way from London, which is neither particularly wealthy nor poor. The main subjects raised by the townsfolk were jobs and Brexit. Little sign of a rebellion over elderly care in a place where there aren't too many huge inheritances at stake.
A "rogue poll" has always been one that a PB poster disagrees with!
Well, what is one supposed to make of an 8% swing between two surveys conducted relatively close together? It *might* actually be right, but it does look a bit dodgy. Have the interests of such a substantial proportion of the electorate changed that quickly? Has the electorate grown that volatile? Again, perhaps they have, but it does look a little bit strange.
It's possible the Wales poll was reflecting a Rhodri Morgan sympathy vote, in which case the swing could reverse back just as quickly.
Bit of that, and some natural variation
Also I say this quietly but I'm wondering if Yougov has some severe panel effects of the politically overinterested - the politically uninterested are far more Brexity I think, even than leavers on the Yougov Panel. They'll generally be a bit more Tory methinsk..
What will the future hold for polling if after this election it is found that there is still a problem with sampling? 4-5 years ago I used to fill in frequent surveys for YouGov to try to get my points up to £50 worth. After a while I started to get asked to do political polls quite regularly. It almost felt like a reward for ploughing through all the dreary stuff. Now I only do occasional surveys and have not been asked to do a political one for over three years. Perhaps my demographic is over-represented. Has anyone else found this?
If you tell them you are a 100% Tory/ Lab/ Lib Dem, they only poll you once in a millennium. If you tell them you are a swing voter, I reckon you get polled all the time...
Yes, I agree. It is hard for people to lay a finger on her because she goes into dull bluster mode. But she's not doing herself any more harm, which is the whole aim of this interview.
That said, I still remain unconvinced about the apocalyptic narrative coming out from some posters on here.
I think the apocalyptic narrative is because posters have had a foretaste of how she will behave when we get down to the business end of Brexit. Black Wednesday on steroids is coming up at some point.
pb is always good for obscure cultural references.
I'm hardly Theresa May's biggest fan but she seems to me to be doing fine. I can't for the life of me understand why any politician agrees to be interviewed by Andrew Neil.
pb is always good for obscure cultural references.
I'm hardly Theresa May's biggest fan but she seems to me to be doing fine. I can't for the life of me understand why any politician agrees to be interviewed by Andrew Neil.
pb is always good for obscure cultural references.
I'm hardly Theresa May's biggest fan but she seems to me to be doing fine. I can't for the life of me understand why any politician agrees to be interviewed by Andrew Neil.
Just ask Cammo and ozzie and brown.....all ducked them I think
That said, I still remain unconvinced about the apocalyptic narrative coming out from some posters on here.
I think the apocalyptic narrative is because posters have had a foretaste of how she will behave when we get down to the business end of Brexit. Black Wednesday on steroids is coming up at some point.
This.
We could do with an interest rate rise.
We are probably heading for an environment of inflation exceeding interest rates, so even if the nominal rate is ticked up a fraction, in effect real rates will be negative.
pb is always good for obscure cultural references.
I'm hardly Theresa May's biggest fan but she seems to me to be doing fine. I can't for the life of me understand why any politician agrees to be interviewed by Andrew Neil.
Just ask Cammo and ozzie and brown.....all ducked them I think
pb is always good for obscure cultural references.
I'm hardly Theresa May's biggest fan but she seems to me to be doing fine. I can't for the life of me understand why any politician agrees to be interviewed by Andrew Neil.
He is genuinely scary. So quick , so informed, brutal with waffle.
She could be doing worse. I can't see Corbyn cope with this.
That said, I still remain unconvinced about the apocalyptic narrative coming out from some posters on here.
I think the apocalyptic narrative is because posters have had a foretaste of how she will behave when we get down to the business end of Brexit. Black Wednesday on steroids is coming up at some point.
This.
We could do with an interest rate rise.
We are probably heading for an environment of inflation exceeding interest rates, so even if the nominal rate is ticked up a fraction, in effect real rates will be negative.
Comments
In the end the policy was sensible and should have been fought for, not dumped as soon as anyone complained about it.
Labour, of course, have played this issue unusually well. But has anyone noticed how like the SNP they are becoming? Free tuition fees and the defence of inherited property wealth on one hand. Most of George Osborne's program of benefit cuts upheld on the other. Faux progressive stances masking middle class welfarism.
The big difference, of course, being that the SNP can pay for most of their goodies out of Barnett subsidy. Labour has to find the money from tax and borrowing - until businesses get fed up of investing in Britain and the high earners start to emigrate, at which point the screw of higher income tax and national insurance would doubtless start to be applied further and further down the wage scale...
That said, I still remain unconvinced about the apocalyptic narrative coming out from some posters on here. We still see a solid Tory lead in the polls, even though it is down from the 20-point highs of earlier in the campaign. I still think we are going to be seeing a majority touching at 100. The U-turn is highly embarrassing but probably was the only way of killing the narrative at this stage.
I still suspect the Tories will end up with a winning margin of at least 10% with some significant swings in certain seats. However, this latest misfire does suggest that if Labour can get their act together in the next parliament, they could do rather well in 2022, as it suggests that they will be facing a government that could seriously make a hash of things.
Politics moving back to the big two in Wales and England.
Majority 12 - 50 = Embarrassing the closer it is to 12, she'll be forced out during the next Parliament against her will. Remember she was targeting places like Leeds East, West Bromwich East, and Bolsover. Will feel like a missed opportunity. Especially when the campaign started the Tories were at 50%, 25% ahead of Labour
51-99 = Big enough to keep her opponents quiet, she'll only go if Brexit deal is a disaster
100-150 = The Thatcher de nos jours
151-200 = Blairesque
201+ = Boadicea
From 50-80, I agree with your analysis. I think she can recover from that.
Also I say this quietly but I'm wondering if Yougov has some severe panel effects of the politically overinterested - the politically uninterested are far more Brexity I think, even than leavers on the Yougov Panel. They'll generally be a bit more Tory methinsk..
A very good result, well worth it.
majority of 20-40 she will be weakened as her backbenchers will control her now demanding hard brexit, may have to quit within a couple of years.
40-70 meh, she will survive but disappointing considering the opposition, will feel like a defeat.
80-100 Victory! a strong hand in Brexit.
100+ God I hope not. If she was this arrogant and complacent with a majority of 20 she will be unbearable with one this big.
Yawn.
How could it be anything other with His Imperial Deity Nuttall on camera.
If it's impossible to get relevant policies into the manifesto for fear that Mr Corbyn will end up PM, she's likely to have a fight with the Lords I should think. Many of them will be real baby boomers.
The references to "ordinary decent people" reminded me of a party that used to campaign many years gone by.
It was Labour that brought in all the pensioner perks...
Should get the message across to those who haven't been paying much attention.
"Me or Jeremy Corbyn"
Repeating it endlessly.
https://youtu.be/RCxgqHqakXc
I address concerns.
He plays politics.
Ouch.
Fractionally slower pace, gives slightly more room for her to answer.
I'm hardly Theresa May's biggest fan but she seems to me to be doing fine. I can't for the life of me understand why any politician agrees to be interviewed by Andrew Neil.
Weak and Wobbly Weak and Wobbly
Evasive
Poor Poor Show
How's May doing vs Neil? I can't see it right now.
Mummy's got her hat back on.
She could be doing worse. I can't see Corbyn cope with this.
Will Andrew Neil explode it when he interviews Corbyn on Friday?