Jeremy Corbyn is to take the hugely controversial step of blaming Britain’s foreign wars for terror attacks such as the Manchester suicide bombing.
The Labour leader will claim a link between “wars our government has supported or fought in other countries and terrorism here at home”, as he relaunches his party’s election campaign on Friday after the three-day pause.
Incidentally, Broxtowe will be recaptured if the swing goes another 2%, and with first term incumbency out of the way...
The main net swing for Labour is from the LDs and for the Tories from UKIP, that probably means Labour pile up bug increased majorities in their inner city seats which voted Remain but the Tories pick up more Labour Leave seats with large UKIP votes. Labour may well hold onto Remain seats, especially in London which have lower UKIP scores and where the LDs did a little better and Labour might even gain Broxtowe on an outside chance given 16% voted LD in 2015 and only 2% UKIP and those UKIP voters will not be voting for Soubry (although I don't think you are standing this time as Labour candidate)
Did anyone see the video clip of Donald Trump brusquely pushing aside the Prime Minister of Montenegro in order to place himself in prime position? Even more bizarre was the "Il Duce" expression of self satisfaction on his face, having done so. Quite apart from his appallingly bad manners, one was forced to seriously question his sanity. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Trump+Montenegro
Yes, but I also the way another leader was obviously mocking Trump's speech to others with his hand over his mouth to try to hide it. I am no fan of Trump, and I was a passionate Remain voter. But lets just remember who does actually step up and pay their way when it comes to NATO funding and then puts their money where their mouth is when it comes to NATO defence of member countries. I doubt that many EU Leaders wanted to be seen glad handing Donald Trump at that NATO summit, but I also think that some of those European Leaders need to remember which countries come to their aid when in need regardless of who their elected Leader is at the time.
As with the UK Brexit, there has been a lot of sabre rattling from Juncker & Co about punishing the Brits by making their exit difficult, but again look to who is a net contributer to the EU. We are going to face a lot of hostility from nations that had future big EU spending plans in place, and now might be concerned that that they are in jeopardy with our imminent withdrawal from the EU. We keep being told that the EU nations have the upper hand, but its worth remembering who pays their way and turns up to hold more than the jackets in a tough situation.
Incidentally, Broxtowe will be recaptured if the swing goes another 2%, and with first term incumbency out of the way...
Anna Soubry will hold her seat, and for the same reasons that she held the seat last time, she is a fiesty and independent voice for Broxtowe despite being under the Tory banner. I watched this contest quite closely online last time after she alluded to the original campaign run by your goodself and your supporters when she won the seat originally. I just wish that Esther McVey had been as fortunate.
By the way, one slight shred of hope for the LibDems:
YouGov still has them capturing 8% of the 2015 Lab vote. My guess would be that this is concentrated in Tory/LD marginals, where Labour voters are tactically getting behind them. COULD get them a few gains.
I have made the point before that IF non-Tory voters were doing the 'progressive alliance' (More United/Open Britain/Gina Miller) thing of gradually getting behind the non-Tory candidate most likely to win in their seat, we would see the polls moving in exactly the way they have - a rise in the Labour vote and a fall in the Green, UKIP and LibDem shares, because there are far more Labour challengers. Just because we see a swing does not necessarily mean it is a uniform one.
Once you get beyond Tory and Labour the poll rating tells you very little about how things are going in the small number of seats where they are in contention, and I would be wanting more evidence before making third-party bets on the back of a national VI poll.
...but again look to who is a net contributer to the EU...its worth remembering who pays their way....
The whole point about Brexit is to *stop* being a contributor to the EU. It was on a bus and everything. I mean, Leave wouldn't put a whacking great fib on the side of a bus, now would they...
Anyhoo, I had a look at the timings and I wouldn't be able to get home until omigod o'clock, so I probably won't be able to come to the shindig: you'll have to provide your own sour milk and cheesegraters. If I can't make it, I'll pop on beforehand and leave some money behind the bar for a drink.
I would be surprised if this poll is accurate. But if it is, it was of course taken at pretty much the time when postal votes landed.
Although of course postal votes skew very heavily towards the elderly - and this poll has an absolutely massive Con lead amongst over 65s.
The issue is whether young people are going to turn out - and not many of them will be voting by post.
Not as heavily as they once did. The big expansion in postal votes over the past ten years hasn't come from the elderly - those that wanted one mostly had them already. Many student and ethnic minority voters have them as well, as well as an increasing number of random people signed up by party activists.
I would be surprised if this poll is accurate. But if it is, it was of course taken at pretty much the time when postal votes landed.
Although of course postal votes skew very heavily towards the elderly - and this poll has an absolutely massive Con lead amongst over 65s.
The issue is whether young people are going to turn out - and not many of them will be voting by post.
Not as heavily as they once did. The big expansion in postal votes over the past ten years hasn't come from the elderly - those that wanted one mostly had them already. Many student and ethnic minority voters have them as well, as well as an increasing number of random people signed up by party activists.
Interesting list of the top/bottom 20 constituencies in terms of postal vote registration:
I would be surprised if this poll is accurate. But if it is, it was of course taken at pretty much the time when postal votes landed.
Although of course postal votes skew very heavily towards the elderly - and this poll has an absolutely massive Con lead amongst over 65s.
The issue is whether young people are going to turn out - and not many of them will be voting by post.
Not as heavily as they once did. The big expansion in postal votes over the past ten years hasn't come from the elderly - those that wanted one mostly had them already. Many student and ethnic minority voters have them as well, as well as an increasing number of random people signed up by party activists.
Interesting list of the top/bottom 20 constituencies in terms of postal vote registration:
Yes, thanks for the link. I see that on average about one in six of the electorate has a PV, and the turnout (discounting for rejected returns) is just above 80%. Against a typical GE turnout of say 66% that means about one on five of the final votes come back by post.
My impression is that a good half of PVs tend to come back straight away, with the balance in dribs and drabs and then a bit of a last minute rush. That probably means that somewhere in the region of 10% of the total votes in this election are being cast this week.
Did anyone see the video clip of Donald Trump brusquely pushing aside the Prime Minister of Montenegro in order to place himself in prime position? Even more bizarre was the "Il Duce" expression of self satisfaction on his face, having done so. Quite apart from his appallingly bad manners, one was forced to seriously question his sanity. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Trump+Montenegro
Yes, but I also the way another leader was obviously mocking Trump's speech to others with his hand over his mouth to try to hide it. I am no fan of Trump, and I was a passionate Remain voter. But lets just remember who does actually step up and pay their way when it comes to NATO funding and then puts their money where their mouth is when it comes to NATO defence of member countries. I doubt that many EU Leaders wanted to be seen glad handing Donald Trump at that NATO summit, but I also think that some of those European Leaders need to remember which countries come to their aid when in need regardless of who their elected Leader is at the time.
As with the UK Brexit, there has been a lot of sabre rattling from Juncker & Co about punishing the Brits by making their exit difficult, but again look to who is a net contributer to the EU. We are going to face a lot of hostility from nations that had future big EU spending plans in place, and now might be concerned that that they are in jeopardy with our imminent withdrawal from the EU. We keep being told that the EU nations have the upper hand, but its worth remembering who pays their way and turns up to hold more than the jackets in a tough situation.
But odd that the area that contributes by far the most from the UK to the EU is London yet London is by far the strongest Remainer. Could it be that the Hartlepudlians and Clactonians who collectively contribute sweet FA are too stupid to realise that what we collectively get for our net contribution is cheap at the price?
You can see why - to many of them it might be worth £30k.
Its probably the biggest electoral bribe offered in modern British history.
That half the universities will consequently go bankrupt hasn't occurred to them.
No way that half of universities will go bankrupt. Labour have costed it and if they have underestimated they would find more money to ensure that doesn't happen.
The big threat to universities is immigration policy and the falling number of overseas students. Bluntly these declines really are down to Theresa:
You can see why - to many of them it might be worth £30k.
Its probably the biggest electoral bribe offered in modern British history.
That half the universities will consequently go bankrupt hasn't occurred to them.
No way that half of universities will go bankrupt. Labour have costed it and if they have underestimated they would find more money to ensure that doesn't happen.
The big threat to universities is immigration policy and the falling number of overseas students. Bluntly these declines really are down to Theresa:
You can see why - to many of them it might be worth £30k.
Its probably the biggest electoral bribe offered in modern British history.
That half the universities will consequently go bankrupt hasn't occurred to them.
No way that half of universities will go bankrupt. Labour have costed it and if they have underestimated they would find more money to ensure that doesn't happen.
The big threat to universities is immigration policy and the falling number of overseas students. Bluntly these declines really are down to Theresa:
Find more money? Another shake of the magic money tree?
Regardless of how they do it - they will not allow half of universities to go bankrupt.
Edit - i'd add - they are paying for their spending commitments by raising taxes. That's how government finances things. They're being open about which taxes would go up.
You can see why - to many of them it might be worth £30k.
Its probably the biggest electoral bribe offered in modern British history.
That half the universities will consequently go bankrupt hasn't occurred to them.
No way that half of universities will go bankrupt. Labour have costed it and if they have underestimated they would find more money to ensure that doesn't happen.
The big threat to universities is immigration policy and the falling number of overseas students. Bluntly these declines really are down to Theresa:
You can see why - to many of them it might be worth £30k.
Its probably the biggest electoral bribe offered in modern British history.
That half the universities will consequently go bankrupt hasn't occurred to them.
No way that half of universities will go bankrupt. Labour have costed it and if they have underestimated they would find more money to ensure that doesn't happen.
The big threat to universities is immigration policy and the falling number of overseas students. Bluntly these declines really are down to Theresa:
You can see why - to many of them it might be worth £30k.
Its probably the biggest electoral bribe offered in modern British history.
That half the universities will consequently go bankrupt hasn't occurred to them.
No way that half of universities will go bankrupt. Labour have costed it and if they have underestimated they would find more money to ensure that doesn't happen.
The big threat to universities is immigration policy and the falling number of overseas students. Bluntly these declines really are down to Theresa:
Find more money? Another shake of the magic money tree?
Rich foreign students. It's called invisible exports.
Aren't the tuition fees for non-EU students already pretty high?
One party has committed to having a lot less foreign people coming to the country and the other one hasn't. We can raise more money for universities by helping them to get in more expensive foreign students.
You can see why - to many of them it might be worth £30k.
Its probably the biggest electoral bribe offered in modern British history.
That half the universities will consequently go bankrupt hasn't occurred to them.
No way that half of universities will go bankrupt. Labour have costed it and if they have underestimated they would find more money to ensure that doesn't happen.
The big threat to universities is immigration policy and the falling number of overseas students. Bluntly these declines really are down to Theresa:
Find more money? Another shake of the magic money tree?
Rich foreign students. It's called invisible exports.
Aren't the tuition fees for non-EU students already pretty high?
One party has committed to having a lot less foreign people coming to the country and the other one hasn't. We can raise more money for universities by helping them to get in more expensive foreign students.
Oh, so the idea would be to increase the number of foreign students relative to UK students? Why haven't universities already done this to raise further money?
Incidentally, Broxtowe will be recaptured if the swing goes another 2%, and with first term incumbency out of the way...
The main net swing for Labour is from the LDs and for the Tories from UKIP, that probably means Labour pile up bug increased majorities in their inner city seats which voted Remain but the Tories pick up more Labour Leave seats with large UKIP votes. Labour may well hold onto Remain seats, especially in London which have lower UKIP scores and where the LDs did a little better and Labour might even gain Broxtowe on an outside chance given 16% voted LD in 2015 and only 2% UKIP and those UKIP voters will not be voting for Soubry (although I don't think you are standing this time as Labour candidate)
If the Tories get 80% of the UKIP votes in East of England, 58 seats, they will not gain a single seat. ZERO. Wasted votes ? You bet.
You can see why - to many of them it might be worth £30k.
Its probably the biggest electoral bribe offered in modern British history.
That half the universities will consequently go bankrupt hasn't occurred to them.
No way that half of universities will go bankrupt. Labour have costed it and if they have underestimated they would find more money to ensure that doesn't happen.
The big threat to universities is immigration policy and the falling number of overseas students. Bluntly these declines really are down to Theresa:
Find more money? Another shake of the magic money tree?
Rich foreign students. It's called invisible exports.
Aren't the tuition fees for non-EU students already pretty high?
One party has committed to having a lot less foreign people coming to the country and the other one hasn't. We can raise more money for universities by helping them to get in more expensive foreign students.
Oh, so the idea would be to increase the number of foreign students relative to UK students? Why haven't universities already done this to raise further money?
Excellent thread by the way. I know the evidence is scant but perhaps voters are warming to the old Trot. .....
I saw an interesting sight yesterday. An old hippy with a rastafarian haircut riding a tandem bicycle with his hippy girlfriend pulling an old trailer with all their stuff on it. They were being followed by their two kids of about nine or ten none with sissy helmets..... A nice juxtaposition with the pot bellied petrol heads in Monaco.
I thought of Jeremy and Diane and 'Motorcycle Diaries'. Maybe we are in for one of those inexplicable shifts where the repulsiveness and vulgarity of Trump suddenly wakes everyone up and the old peacenik values of Jeremy and co become mainstream again.
You can see why - to many of them it might be worth £30k.
Its probably the biggest electoral bribe offered in modern British history.
That half the universities will consequently go bankrupt hasn't occurred to them.
No way that half of universities will go bankrupt. Labour have costed it and if they have underestimated they would find more money to ensure that doesn't happen.
The big threat to universities is immigration policy and the falling number of overseas students. Bluntly these declines really are down to Theresa:
Find more money? Another shake of the magic money tree?
Rich foreign students. It's called invisible exports.
Aren't the tuition fees for non-EU students already pretty high?
One party has committed to having a lot less foreign people coming to the country and the other one hasn't. We can raise more money for universities by helping them to get in more expensive foreign students.
Oh, so the idea would be to increase the number of foreign students relative to UK students? Why haven't universities already done this to raise further money?
And the government aims to reduce student numbers.
Yes, the inclusion of the student numbers in the migration statistics is frustrating, but I think that is because it is an international standard to do it that way, and the government are loathe to go against it.
I'm all for the universities seeking out more foreign students, the only downside is there is less space for UK students.
You can see why - to many of them it might be worth £30k.
Its probably the biggest electoral bribe offered in modern British history.
That half the universities will consequently go bankrupt hasn't occurred to them.
No way that half of universities will go bankrupt. Labour have costed it and if they have underestimated they would find more money to ensure that doesn't happen.
The big threat to universities is immigration policy and the falling number of overseas students. Bluntly these declines really are down to Theresa:
You can see why - to many of them it might be worth £30k.
Its probably the biggest electoral bribe offered in modern British history.
That half the universities will consequently go bankrupt hasn't occurred to them.
No way that half of universities will go bankrupt. Labour have costed it and if they have underestimated they would find more money to ensure that doesn't happen.
The big threat to universities is immigration policy and the falling number of overseas students. Bluntly these declines really are down to Theresa:
Yes, the inclusion of the student numbers in the migration statistics is frustrating, but I think that is because it is an international standard to do it that way, and the government are loathe to go against it.
I'm all for the universities seeking out more foreign students, the only downside is there is less space for UK students.
Why is there less space for Brits? With the fees charged they can afford to hire more staff and expand.
When I did my MSc at LSE the internationals were paying something like 2x as much. With that kind of money you are making a big profit on internationals which you can spend on better facilities, more teachers etc... Which benefits UK students massively.
On the migrant statistics... You could exclude students from your policy cap very easily. that's a govt choice not to. Amazing that they want to harm our biggest (I think?) export industry.
Why is there less space for Brits? With the fees charged they can afford to hire more staff and expand.
When I did my MSc at LSE the internationals were paying something like 2x as much. With that kind of money you are making a big profit on internationals which you can spend on better facilities, more teachers etc... Which benefits UK students massively.
I thought the whole point of the foreign students was to fill a funding gap we were discussing earlier?
Why is there less space for Brits? With the fees charged they can afford to hire more staff and expand.
When I did my MSc at LSE the internationals were paying something like 2x as much. With that kind of money you are making a big profit on internationals which you can spend on better facilities, more teachers etc... Which benefits UK students massively.
I thought the whole point of the foreign students was to fill a funding gap we were discussing earlier?
Yes - and they are? If the cost of providing a university degree is 10k then for every international paying 17k you can afford 7 UK students paying 9k?
If you get a second international in - then you can afford a bunch more UK students. If you lose one then either UK students have to pay more, you cuts costs or you go bankrupt.
It's not that simple of course - but that's an example.
You can see why - to many of them it might be worth £30k.
Its probably the biggest electoral bribe offered in modern British history.
That half the universities will consequently go bankrupt hasn't occurred to them.
No way that half of universities will go bankrupt. Labour have costed it and if they have underestimated they would find more money to ensure that doesn't happen.
The big threat to universities is immigration policy and the falling number of overseas students. Bluntly these declines really are down to Theresa:
Find more money? Another shake of the magic money tree?
Rich foreign students. It's called invisible exports.
Aren't the tuition fees for non-EU students already pretty high?
One party has committed to having a lot less foreign people coming to the country and the other one hasn't. We can raise more money for universities by helping them to get in more expensive foreign students.
Oh, so the idea would be to increase the number of foreign students relative to UK students? Why haven't universities already done this to raise further money?
And the government aims to reduce student numbers.
Yes, the inclusion of the student numbers in the migration statistics is frustrating, but I think that is because it is an international standard to do it that way, and the government are loathe to go against it. .
Yes - if the UK adopts a non standard measurement then some may not unfairly conclude that the numbers are being "fiddled". Presumably the net flow of students should be in the 10s of thousands...
Why is there less space for Brits? With the fees charged they can afford to hire more staff and expand.
When I did my MSc at LSE the internationals were paying something like 2x as much. With that kind of money you are making a big profit on internationals which you can spend on better facilities, more teachers etc... Which benefits UK students massively.
I thought the whole point of the foreign students was to fill a funding gap we were discussing earlier?
Yes - and they are? If the cost of providing a university degree is 10k then for every international paying 17k you can afford 7 UK students paying 9k?
If you get a second international in - then you can afford a bunch more UK students. If you lose one then either UK students have to pay more, you cuts costs or you go bankrupt.
It's not that simple of course - but that's an example.
I think we have crossed wires. We were discussing the hypothetical about how to fill the funding gap if a university was going to go bankrupt. You said the money would be found, and then suggested foreign students.
Isn't it a bit ambitious to say they will both fund that shortfall, but also pay for a big expansion in places for UK students (which would further the deficit if those places were filled with UK students)?
Yes - if the UK adopts a non standard measurement then some may not unfairly conclude that the numbers are being "fiddled". Presumably the net flow of students should be in the 10s of thousands...
It's a government pledge. They can set whatever parameters they want.
Students should be included if they stay when their course finishes. To include them while studying is to basically say to our very successful higher education sector - it is government policy to reduce your sales.
You can see why - to many of them it might be worth £30k.
Its probably the biggest electoral bribe offered in modern British history.
That half the universities will consequently go bankrupt hasn't occurred to them.
No way that half of universities will go bankrupt. Labour have costed it and if they have underestimated they would find more money to ensure that doesn't happen.
The big threat to universities is immigration policy and the falling number of overseas students. Bluntly these declines really are down to Theresa:
Find more money? Another shake of the magic money tree?
Rich foreign students. It's called invisible exports.
Aren't the tuition fees for non-EU students already pretty high?
One party has committed to having a lot less foreign people coming to the country and the other one hasn't. We can raise more money for universities by helping them to get in more expensive foreign students.
Oh, so the idea would be to increase the number of foreign students relative to UK students? Why haven't universities already done this to raise further money?
And the government aims to reduce student numbers.
Yes, the inclusion of the student numbers in the migration statistics is frustrating, but I think that is because it is an international standard to do it that way, and the government are loathe to go against it. .
Yes - if the UK adopts a non standard measurement then some may not unfairly conclude that the numbers are being "fiddled". Presumably the net flow of students should be in the 10s of thousands...
Tories could have simply said "and this target excludes students", and get the ONS to work out just how many students are going in/out so they can be subtracted from the headline figures.
Excellent thread by the way. I know the evidence is scant but perhaps voters are warming to the old Trot. .....
I saw an interesting sight yesterday. An old hippy with a rastafarian haircut riding a tandem bicycle with his hippy girlfriend pulling an old trailer with all their stuff on it. They were being followed by their two kids of about nine or ten none with sissy helmets..... A nice juxtaposition with the pot bellied petrol heads in Monaco.
I thought of Jeremy and Diane and 'Motorcycle Diaries'. Maybe we are in for one of those inexplicable shifts where the repulsiveness and vulgarity of Trump suddenly wakes everyone up and the old peacenik values of Jeremy and co become mainstream again.
I guess the question is why, if he hasn't been rejected so far, voters would turn against him now if/when the Mail & co. does what we all expect and make it personal with Corbyn? We can't argue that voters haven't been paying attention to Corbyn since Labour has gone from mid-20s to low 30s, and all the negative stuff has been out there already. Which is not saying Labour can win, but is saying they may not be as easily demolished as some have been assuming. It also appears that there was something in the 'wide not deep' points being made about May back when she was on 50%.
I still think we are looking at a Tory majority between workable and comfortable, but am starting to question whether a landslide is likely without another black swan?
Why is there less space for Brits? With the fees charged they can afford to hire more staff and expand.
When I did my MSc at LSE the internationals were paying something like 2x as much. With that kind of money you are making a big profit on internationals which you can spend on better facilities, more teachers etc... Which benefits UK students massively.
I thought the whole point of the foreign students was to fill a funding gap we were discussing earlier?
Yes - and they are? If the cost of providing a university degree is 10k then for every international paying 17k you can afford 7 UK students paying 9k?
If you get a second international in - then you can afford a bunch more UK students. If you lose one then either UK students have to pay more, you cuts costs or you go bankrupt.
It's not that simple of course - but that's an example.
I think we have crossed wires. We were discussing the hypothetical about how to fill the funding gap if a university was going to go bankrupt. You said the money would be found, and then suggested foreign students.
Isn't it a bit ambitious to say they will both fund that shortfall, but also pay for a big expansion in places for UK students (which would further the deficit if those places were filled with UK students)?
Yes maybe crossed wires.
My point is that Labour will not allow universities to go bankrupt. They have pledged central govt money to replace student loans. That's how it used to be financed. If they have miscalculated the cost they can raise money elsewhere - through taxes or through creating a more favorable environment to attract foreign students (numbers dropping fast).
At the moment international students are subsidising the big increase in local student numbers.
Theresa May is actively encouraging bankruptcy by seeking to reduce one of their biggest earners. She pushed this hard in govt against wishes of treasury and BIS and now she is PM no one can stop her.
Labour will reverse this policy. Universities will be in a much stronger financial position under Labour.
Why is there less space for Brits? With the fees charged they can afford to hire more staff and expand.
When I did my MSc at LSE the internationals were paying something like 2x as much. With that kind of money you are making a big profit on internationals which you can spend on better facilities, more teachers etc... Which benefits UK students massively.
I thought the whole point of the foreign students was to fill a funding gap we were discussing earlier?
Yes - and they are? If the cost of providing a university degree is 10k then for every international paying 17k you can afford 7 UK students paying 9k?
If you get a second international in - then you can afford a bunch more UK students. If you lose one then either UK students have to pay more, you cuts costs or you go bankrupt.
It's not that simple of course - but that's an example.
I think we have crossed wires. We were discussing the hypothetical about how to fill the funding gap if a university was going to go bankrupt. You said the money would be found, and then suggested foreign students.
Isn't it a bit ambitious to say they will both fund that shortfall, but also pay for a big expansion in places for UK students (which would further the deficit if those places were filled with UK students)?
Incidentally, Broxtowe will be recaptured if the swing goes another 2%, and with first term incumbency out of the way...
The main net swing for Labour is from the LDs and for the Tories from UKIP, that probably means Labour pile up bug increased majorities in their inner city seats which voted Remain but the Tories pick up more Labour Leave seats with large UKIP votes. Labour may well hold onto Remain seats, especially in London which have lower UKIP scores and where the LDs did a little better and Labour might even gain Broxtowe on an outside chance given 16% voted LD in 2015 and only 2% UKIP and those UKIP voters will not be voting for Soubry (although I don't think you are standing this time as Labour candidate)
If the Tories get 80% of the UKIP votes in East of England, 58 seats, they will not gain a single seat. ZERO. Wasted votes ? You bet.
Incidentally, Broxtowe will be recaptured if the swing goes another 2%, and with first term incumbency out of the way...
The main net swing for Labour is from the LDs and for the Tories from UKIP, that probably means Labour pile up bug increased majorities in their inner city seats which voted Remain but the Tories pick up more Labour Leave seats with large UKIP votes. Labour may well hold onto Remain seats, especially in London which have lower UKIP scores and where the LDs did a little better and Labour might even gain Broxtowe on an outside chance given 16% voted LD in 2015 and only 2% UKIP and those UKIP voters will not be voting for Soubry (although I don't think you are standing this time as Labour candidate)
If the Tories get 80% of the UKIP votes in East of England, 58 seats, they will not gain a single seat. ZERO. Wasted votes ? You bet.
My point is that Labour will not allow universities to go bankrupt. They have pledged central govt money to replace student loans. That's how it used to be financed. If they have miscalculated the cost they can raise money elsewhere - through taxes or through creating a more favorable environment to attract foreign students (numbers dropping fast).
At the moment international students are subsidising the big increase in local student numbers.
Theresa May is actively encouraging bankruptcy by seeking to reduce one of their biggest earners. She pushed this hard in govt against wishes of treasury and BIS and now she is PM no one can stop her.
Labour will reverse this policy. Universities will be in a much stronger financial position under Labour.
They won't have any money to raise from taxes elsewhere. That is the problem. They have already pledged to sextuple government borrowing, and they have also said they will not raise taxes for most of the population (we know they're lying, but that's their claim).
Take their education policy for example. Pay for extra spending on state schools by raising taxes on private schools, including VAT on fees and business rates. Great idea in theory - until you realise the majority of private school children under those circumstances would have to go back to the state sector, and that most private schools pay business rates anyway. So what they are actually proposing is to massively increase costs, substantially increase pupil numbers and provide no additional funding whatsoever.
Just to say 'they won't let x happen, they'll pay for it somehow' is no guarantee it will happen. Look at the Chavez/Maduro government (which Corbyn and Macdonnell admire so much) which made very similar pledges to buy votes and has totally destroyed a country with far sounder economic fundamentals than we have.
Incidentally, Broxtowe will be recaptured if the swing goes another 2%, and with first term incumbency out of the way...
The main net swing for Labour is from the LDs and for the Tories from UKIP, that probably means Labour pile up bug increased majorities in their inner city seats which voted Remain but the Tories pick up more Labour Leave seats with large UKIP votes. Labour may well hold onto Remain seats, especially in London which have lower UKIP scores and where the LDs did a little better and Labour might even gain Broxtowe on an outside chance given 16% voted LD in 2015 and only 2% UKIP and those UKIP voters will not be voting for Soubry (although I don't think you are standing this time as Labour candidate)
If the Tories get 80% of the UKIP votes in East of England, 58 seats, they will not gain a single seat. ZERO. Wasted votes ? You bet.
What about North Norfolk?
Dementia tax means no sacraficial Lamb.
He will take away from the sins of the Conservative party?
I would be surprised if this poll is accurate. But if it is, it was of course taken at pretty much the time when postal votes landed.
Although of course postal votes skew very heavily towards the elderly - and this poll has an absolutely massive Con lead amongst over 65s.
The issue is whether young people are going to turn out - and not many of them will be voting by post.
Not as heavily as they once did. The big expansion in postal votes over the past ten years hasn't come from the elderly - those that wanted one mostly had them already. Many student and ethnic minority voters have them as well, as well as an increasing number of random people signed up by party activists.
I was delivering letters yesterday to postal voters. I was astonished how many there were from people within spitting distance of the polling station.
Comments
The Labour leader will claim a link between “wars our government has supported or fought in other countries and terrorism here at home”, as he relaunches his party’s election campaign on Friday after the three-day pause.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-manchester-attack-terrorism-uk-foreign-policy-wars-speech-a7756266.html
If only Belgium & Sweden didn't go around invading countries.....
As with the UK Brexit, there has been a lot of sabre rattling from Juncker & Co about punishing the Brits by making their exit difficult, but again look to who is a net contributer to the EU. We are going to face a lot of hostility from nations that had future big EU spending plans in place, and now might be concerned that that they are in jeopardy with our imminent withdrawal from the EU. We keep being told that the EU nations have the upper hand, but its worth remembering who pays their way and turns up to hold more than the jackets in a tough situation.
Once you get beyond Tory and Labour the poll rating tells you very little about how things are going in the small number of seats where they are in contention, and I would be wanting more evidence before making third-party bets on the back of a national VI poll.
The issue is whether young people are going to turn out - and not many of them will be voting by post.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/191861/Plymouth-UKPGE-electoral-data-report-final-WEB.pdf
https://twitter.com/ImranGarda/status/867710933627490305
https://www.wsj.com/articles/islamic-state-linked-to-indonesia-suicide-bombing-that-killed-3-police-officers-1495704137?mod=e2tw
https://twitter.com/SirDavidButler/status/867946247079903234
My impression is that a good half of PVs tend to come back straight away, with the balance in dribs and drabs and then a bit of a last minute rush. That probably means that somewhere in the region of 10% of the total votes in this election are being cast this week.
The big threat to universities is immigration policy and the falling number of overseas students.
Bluntly these declines really are down to Theresa:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/education/2017/02/sooner-or-later-british-university-going-go-bankrupt
Edit - i'd add - they are paying for their spending commitments by raising taxes. That's how government finances things. They're being open about which taxes would go up.
But the government has been making it much less attractive for foreign students:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/jan/04/anxious-international-students-turn-away-from-uk
And the government aims to reduce international student numbers.
I saw an interesting sight yesterday. An old hippy with a rastafarian haircut riding a tandem bicycle with his hippy girlfriend pulling an old trailer with all their stuff on it. They were being followed by their two kids of about nine or ten none with sissy helmets..... A nice juxtaposition with the pot bellied petrol heads in Monaco.
I thought of Jeremy and Diane and 'Motorcycle Diaries'. Maybe we are in for one of those inexplicable shifts where the repulsiveness and vulgarity of Trump suddenly wakes everyone up and the old peacenik values of Jeremy and co become mainstream again.
I'm all for the universities seeking out more foreign students, the only downside is there is less space for UK students.
With the fees charged they can afford to hire more staff and expand.
When I did my MSc at LSE the internationals were paying something like 2x as much.
With that kind of money you are making a big profit on internationals which you can spend on better facilities, more teachers etc... Which benefits UK students massively.
On the migrant statistics... You could exclude students from your policy cap very easily. that's a govt choice not to. Amazing that they want to harm our biggest (I think?) export industry.
If the cost of providing a university degree is 10k then for every international paying 17k you can afford 7 UK students paying 9k?
If you get a second international in - then you can afford a bunch more UK students. If you lose one then either UK students have to pay more, you cuts costs or you go bankrupt.
It's not that simple of course - but that's an example.
Isn't it a bit ambitious to say they will both fund that shortfall, but also pay for a big expansion in places for UK students (which would further the deficit if those places were filled with UK students)?
Students should be included if they stay when their course finishes.
To include them while studying is to basically say to our very successful higher education sector - it is government policy to reduce your sales.
I still think we are looking at a Tory majority between workable and comfortable, but am starting to question whether a landslide is likely without another black swan?
My point is that Labour will not allow universities to go bankrupt.
They have pledged central govt money to replace student loans.
That's how it used to be financed. If they have miscalculated the cost they can raise money elsewhere - through taxes or through creating a more favorable environment to attract foreign students (numbers dropping fast).
At the moment international students are subsidising the big increase in local student numbers.
Theresa May is actively encouraging bankruptcy by seeking to reduce one of their biggest earners. She pushed this hard in govt against wishes of treasury and BIS and now she is PM no one can stop her.
Labour will reverse this policy. Universities will be in a much stronger financial position under Labour.
Take their education policy for example. Pay for extra spending on state schools by raising taxes on private schools, including VAT on fees and business rates. Great idea in theory - until you realise the majority of private school children under those circumstances would have to go back to the state sector, and that most private schools pay business rates anyway. So what they are actually proposing is to massively increase costs, substantially increase pupil numbers and provide no additional funding whatsoever.
Just to say 'they won't let x happen, they'll pay for it somehow' is no guarantee it will happen. Look at the Chavez/Maduro government (which Corbyn and Macdonnell admire so much) which made very similar pledges to buy votes and has totally destroyed a country with far sounder economic fundamentals than we have.