Perhaps someone should tell UKIP and Brexit supporters that May can't be trusted to deliver what they want. They should vote UKIP.
The PM has navigated Brexit through the courts, both houses and now signed Article50, I think they’ll put their faith in her for a little longer.
Meanwhile, I hear the Remainers trust in Tim Farron is going spiffingly well...
Still 2 weeks to go, and May's stock is falling fast. Watch the Tories panic, turn nasty, and convince more people that she is not to be trusted.
Time will tell, but there’s certainly a whiff of panic and nastiness about your post.
LOOL. PB Tories don't like it up em
Panic everywhere from te hfrothers, pant wetting reaches fllod stage as their idol of clay melts in the sun
It's up to the public. Always is. If they vote in Jezza then, just as with Brexit, it will be the less well off that suffer most while the better off will cope.
I'm not pant wetting; I just think it a shame that people who can least afford it will be affected most. It's the waste that is the most egregious.
Corbyn will be no worse than May. At least he has a semblance of a heart left. May has proven she is a scheming self interested duplicitious leader who cannot be trusted on anything.
May has shown she is utterly inept and not able to handle any kind of pressure. Her cabinet is devoid of talent. The idea that she is storing and stable has been blown out of the water. Fallon on Channel 4 Nerws last night - supposedly one of the better Tory performers - was humiliated. All May offers is not being Corbyn. That will win her a decent majority. Then she actually has to start delivering. And that is when the fun will begin.
I didn't have the chance to watch C4 but it sounds like a classic "gotcha" question.
How does laughing at a politician for being a politician progress matters?
It was the fact that he was a fool, trying to diss Corbyn for something the buffoon Johnson had said. Some politician.
Low levels of home ownership among the under 40s is easily the biggest threat to the Tory party. It's why I've always been so against private renting.
I have never quite followed this arguement. House prices are high because more people want houses, than there are houses available (within a given locale). Stopping private renting doesnt increase the supply of houses. At best you have the same number of houses with the same number of people chasing them, they are just all owners this time, which the less well off being squeezed out to cheaper areas.
If you are a 25 year old in the South East on 25k a year you wont be able to get an mortgage on anything, so you rent (probably with friends) or live at home. If all the rents are stopped and a lot of rental properties go on the market the prices will drop a bit, but not for long given the demand in the South East, and the price drop wont put them in reach of the 25 year old in anycase, so now they have to live at home if they can, or move out the area to somewhere cheaper, which wont make them very happy.
Surely that answer is to build a (lot) more houses, or reduce the demand, which practically means stopping enough people to fill a city the size of Sheffield arriving every couple of years.
Not really, there's no shortage of housing stock, there is a shortage of housing available for sale. A transfer of ownership from landlords to owner occupiers is what we need in this country. A value tax on second property ownership is a very simple fix that will chase landlords out and lower prices enough to make a difference. It shouldn't be necessary for someone or a household to earn six figures to buy a house in London.
Won't the landlords just put the rent up?
Here's the dilemma you have to solve: my wife and I rent a house and have never been in rent arrears. We can afford the amount we're spending on it. The mortgage on it, were we to buy it, would be less than we are paying in rent. But no bank will give us a mortgage to buy it.
Something bothering me about data-driven punditry this election is a seeming lack of transparency over data and specific methods...If you present a 'forecast', you need to publish a comprehensive explanation of what assumptions and data it is based on. This isn't always possible in national media outlets, but is easily done on a publicly available website. If we believe that what we do is scientific, then there can be no room for debate about replication and transparency. Two election 'forecasts' I know of published in national newspapers have ignored requests to explain their method. This is the Nate Silver problem: someone who made their reputation based on (rightly) critiquing punditry, but then falling into it...Notably, authors of one of the definitive academic studies on Brexit declined to release their data. This is hugely problematic.
Any ideas who he's criticising for lack of transparency?
Lol Abbott has said Corbyn met IRA members in their capacity as Sinn Fein activists. D'oh. That's like saying he had lunch with Harold Shipman in his capacity as a former GP.
Priceless.
Did she say how many he met? Was it 30 or 300,000?
Low levels of home ownership among the under 40s is easily the biggest threat to the Tory party. It's why I've always been so against private renting.
Osborne did at least take some steps to discourage more investment money going in to buy-to-let, but I think more needs to be done to turn the situation around.
Yes, the private landlords need to get hammered again and again until they give up.
Yes then the government can put them all up in hotels, what a great policy.
House prices are high because more people want houses, than there are houses available (within a given locale).
No, house prices are sky-high because the banks have been allowed to lend at such high levels. That's where the demand comes from. (There are other reasons for the very top bracket.)
I agree. I was a mortgage underwriter in years leading up to the crash and the amounts we were being permitted to lend were obscene. There will be an enormous crisis when interest rates rise.
Which is why the won't rise perhaps?
Indeed I anticipate the opposite - inflation rising above interest rates such that real rates become negative. How else is the debt crisis going to be resolved without another collapse?
I think BTL was a long-term unintended consequnce of the modern (since the 80's) obsession with low inflation. This drove down the yield on bonds and then stocks so investors looked elsewhere for higher yielding investments - residential property. and they were happy to invest in this at higher and higher prices until the yields became closer to the that of bonds/stocks etc.
unwinding this in a hurry would be very painful but could be done over a generation maybe.
Exactly this. Not to mention the large number of middle class couples that looked at interest rates and annuities over the past decade (not to mention continued smash and grabs from chancellors on pension funds), and considered that having a BTL or two was the only safe way to provide for their old age. Any Chancellor meddling with that is either brave, or considering a new career.
If people wish to borrow money to purchase assets why should they be entitled to an easy return in such difficult economic times? One reason I'm so hard on the coalition is that 2008 should have provided the opportunity to think again and do things differently. Housing correction, less financial engineering and credit. We even had a hung parliament.
Amusing to see those who were outraged at Remainers trying to block the noble, sovereign will of the voters are now furious at the idiotic, entitled simpletons who are supporting Corbyn.
So, just to clarify your point: you think you are not bright enough to challenge an actual poster in response to an actual post, so your best course of action is a passive-aggressive whine against an unspecified and not-actually-existent group doing nothing that anyone has ever actually done?
Feel free to quote an actual post, by an actual poster, to prove me wrong.
House prices are high because more people want houses, than there are houses available (within a given locale).
No, house prices are sky-high because the banks have been allowed to lend at such high levels. That's where the demand comes from. (There are other reasons for the very top bracket.)
I agree. I was a mortgage underwriter in years leading up to the crash and the amounts we were being permitted to lend were obscene. There will be an enormous crisis when interest rates rise.
Which is why the won't rise perhaps?
Indeed I anticipate the opposite - inflation rising above interest rates such that real rates become negative. How else is the debt crisis going to be resolved without another collapse?
I think BTL was a long-term unintended consequnce of the modern (since the 80's) obsession with low inflation. This drove down the yield on bonds and then stocks so investors looked elsewhere for higher yielding investments - residential property. and they were happy to invest in this at higher and higher prices until the yields became closer to the that of bonds/stocks etc.
unwinding this in a hurry would be very painful but could be done over a generation maybe.
http://citywire.co.uk/money/pension-managers-let-us-down-after-gordon-browns-pension-raid/a395858 ''In 1997, then chancellor Gordon Brown scrapped the tax relief on dividends paid into pension funds. Calculations since then suggest the decision cost Britain's pension savers at least £100 billion and many say the move killed off defined benefit pensions. Documents released under Freedom Of Information Act in 2007 show opposition to the plans was widespread and some critics said at the time 'employers would have to contribute about an extra £10 billion a year for the next 10 to 15 years to get pension scheme funding back on track'.''
ONE of the SNP’s big donors has switched his financial support to the Conservatives over Brexit and the economy, the Herald can reveal.
Businessman Bill Samuel, who has given the SNP £60,000 over the past decade and who publicly backed a Yes vote in 2014, has now handed £10,000 to the Tories.
Mr Samuel, 74, said he switched allegiance because he feared Nicola Sturgeon’s government did not understand the way the economy worked and he also wanted Brexit to go well.
He said the SNP appeared to have passed its “apogee”, or highest point, adding: “It’s very sad in a way. What an opportunity that was, what an opportunity. It’s just so sad.”
LOL, £6K a year and given the SNP has millions a year, like you Scott these guys are not good with numbers. One old fart giving pennies will make little difference.
£ 6K a year as opposed to the £ 0.00 exiting your seldom seen wallet.
Cuckoo as ever, how much do you donate to the fascists then Monica
An inevitable consequence of the narrowing Conservative lead over Labour must surely be an increase in turnout as the Great British Public wake up to the fact that their vote could really make a difference .... as if! There's stand-out value in the this market where those nice folk at BetwaySports are offering odds of 6/5 (or 2.2 decimal) that turnout exceeds 63%. This compares with Paddy Power's odds of 4/7 (or 1.5714 and Hills' 8/13 (or 1.6154) for the same bet. Put another way the profit opportunity available from Betway is 110% and 95% better than is being offered respectively by these other leading bookies. I can't imagine these odds will last once a few PBers get to grips with this tempter! As ever, DYOR!
My research indicates you've got the paddy power and Hills odds for under and over 63 mixed up
1) i don't want jermey corbyn to be an mp. 2) she failed to control immigration both of eu and non-eu residents. 3) dementia tax is fair and right 4) she plans to raise taxes or national insurance. 5) she refuses to scrap business rates for small businesses. 6) she has no idea who lives in this country and where they've gone and who they met. 7) she has been on the wrong side of every public policy issue 8) i need a reason to vote for her..help!
Lol Abbott has said Corbyn met IRA members in their capacity as Sinn Fein activists. D'oh. That's like saying he had lunch with Harold Shipman in his capacity as a former GP.
Priceless.
Did she say how many he met? Was it 30 or 300,000?
I think it was both, at the same time. Probably. Although he didn't. But he did. But it was for peace. And anyway we brought it on ourselves
Low levels of home ownership among the under 40s is easily the biggest threat to the Tory party. It's why I've always been so against private renting.
I have never quite followed this arguement. House prices are high because more people want houses, than there are houses available (within a given locale). Stopping private renting doesnt increase the supply of houses. At best you have the same number of houses with the same number of people chasing them, they are just all owners this time, which the less well off being squeezed out to cheaper areas.
If you are a 25 year old in the South East on 25k a year you wont be able to get an mortgage on anything, so you rent (probably with friends) or live at home. If all the rents are stopped and a lot of rental properties go on the market the prices will drop a bit, but not for long given the demand in the South East, and the price drop wont put them in reach of the 25 year old in anycase, so now they have to live at home if they can, or move out the area to somewhere cheaper, which wont make them very happy.
Surely that answer is to build a (lot) more houses, or reduce the demand, which practically means stopping enough people to fill a city the size of Sheffield arriving every couple of years.
Not really, there's no shortage of housing stock, there is a shortage of housing available for sale. A transfer of ownership from landlords to owner occupiers is what we need in this country. A value tax on second property ownership is a very simple fix that will chase landlords out and lower prices enough to make a difference. It shouldn't be necessary for someone or a household to earn six figures to buy a house in London.
Won't the landlords just put the rent up?
Here's the dilemma you have to solve: my wife and I rent a house and have never been in rent arrears. We can afford the amount we're spending on it. The mortgage on it, were we to buy it, would be less than we are paying in rent. But no bank will give us a mortgage to buy it.
Max will be happy you are out on the street , he lives outside the UK so does not impact him.
Having just watched Corbyn in his interview with Andrew Neil on catch-up I suspect what will eventually sink him will be a continued lack of traction amongst the over 50's however much Theresa May tries to shoot herself in the foot over social care etc. Contrary to some slightly rose-tinted reports on here I think he came across really quite badly. With 1800 dead the IRA weren't exactly some cuddlier version of Islamic State and the man was happily fraternising with their spokesmen. Too many recall bombing outrages like the one in Deal in 1989 which "was carried out on a ceremonial military band whose only military training was geared towards saving lives. The public were also shocked by the ages of those killed, as many were new recruits to the School and most of those injured were teenagers."
Just spent the morning bundling the latest leaflets with a group of LibDems. All of them had watched the Andrew Neil interview. None of them like Corbyn but all of them felt that Andrew Neil really helped Corbyn yesterday with his bullying manner and Corbyn's calmness under fire. My wife, who hates Corbyn with a passion for some reason, reacted in the same way as she watched the interview last evening.
The rose-tinted reports you refer to may be from those that thought he came across really quite badly. Just saying.
I'm not sure a bunch of Lib Dem activists who let's be frank if push came to shove would support Corbyn over the Tory alternative and whose ages you don't specify exactly invalidate my main point. As for Neil he no more "bullied" Corbyn than any number of people I've seen him interview over very many years.
ONE of the SNP’s big donors has switched his financial support to the Conservatives over Brexit and the economy, the Herald can reveal.
Businessman Bill Samuel, who has given the SNP £60,000 over the past decade and who publicly backed a Yes vote in 2014, has now handed £10,000 to the Tories.
Mr Samuel, 74, said he switched allegiance because he feared Nicola Sturgeon’s government did not understand the way the economy worked and he also wanted Brexit to go well.
He said the SNP appeared to have passed its “apogee”, or highest point, adding: “It’s very sad in a way. What an opportunity that was, what an opportunity. It’s just so sad.”
LOL, £6K a year and given the SNP has millions a year, like you Scott these guys are not good with numbers. One old fart giving pennies will make little difference.
£ 6K a year as opposed to the £ 0.00 exiting your seldom seen wallet.
Cuckoo as ever, how much do you donate to the fascists then Monica
Low levels of home ownership among the under 40s is easily the biggest threat to the Tory party. It's why I've always been so against private renting.
I have never quite followed this arguement. House prices are high because more people want houses, than there are houses available (within a given locale). Stopping private renting doesnt increase the supply of houses. At best you have the same number of houses with the same number of people chasing them, they are just all owners this time, which the less well off being squeezed out to cheaper areas.
If you are a 25 year old in the South East on 25k a year you wont be able to get an mortgage on anything, so you rent (probably with friends) or live at home. If all the rents are stopped and a lot of rental properties go on the market the prices will drop a bit, but not for long given the demand in the South East, and the price drop wont put them in reach of the 25 year old in anycase, so now they have to live at home if they can, or move out the area to somewhere cheaper, which wont make them very happy.
Surely that answer is to build a (lot) more houses, or reduce the demand, which practically means stopping enough people to fill a city the size of Sheffield arriving every couple of years.
Not really, there's no shortage of housing stock, there is a shortage of housing available for sale. A transfer of ownership from landlords to owner occupiers is what we need in this country. A value tax on second property ownership is a very simple fix that will chase landlords out and lower prices enough to make a difference. It shouldn't be necessary for someone or a household to earn six figures to buy a house in London.
Won't the landlords just put the rent up?
Here's the dilemma you have to solve: my wife and I rent a house and have never been in rent arrears. We can afford the amount we're spending on it. The mortgage on it, were we to buy it, would be less than we are paying in rent. But no bank will give us a mortgage to buy it.
House prices are high because more people want houses, than there are houses available (within a given locale).
No, house prices are sky-high because the banks have been allowed to lend at such high levels. That's where the demand comes from. (There are other reasons for the very top bracket.)
I agree. I was a mortgage underwriter in years leading up to the crash and the amounts we were being permitted to lend were obscene. There will be an enormous crisis when interest rates rise.
Which is why the won't rise perhaps?
Indeed I anticipate the opposite - inflation rising above interest rates such that real rates become negative. How else is the debt crisis going to be resolved without another collapse?
I think BTL was a long-term unintended consequnce of the modern (since the 80's) obsession with low inflation. This drove down the yield on bonds and then stocks so investors looked elsewhere for higher yielding investments - residential property. and they were happy to invest in this at higher and higher prices until the yields became closer to the that of bonds/stocks etc.
unwinding this in a hurry would be very painful but could be done over a generation maybe.
Exactly this. Not to mention the large number of middle class couples that looked at interest rates and annuities over the past decade (not to mention continued smash and grabs from chancellors on pension funds), and considered that having a BTL or two was the only safe way to provide for their old age. Any Chancellor meddling with that is either brave, or considering a new career.
If people wish to borrow money to purchase assets why should they be entitled to an easy return in such difficult economic times? One reason I'm so hard on the coalition is that 2008 should have provided the opportunity to think again and do things differently. Housing correction, less financial engineering and credit. We even had a hung parliament.
I am not saying they are, I am saying there are a lot of them, and they like to vote regularly. Also if you remove that way of getting a return, you will just pick up extra costs on the benefits bill as people that thought they had provided for their old age, suddenly have no provision.
Influencing YouGov would have to be very well organised ahead of time. You'd have to get people to sign up progressively across a period of time, taking the trouble to fill in a fair few surveys about television viewing and petfood buying in order to establish a track record as reliable panel members, and when asked be sure to report your past voting behaviour as something other than Labour. Then they all wait patiently for an election to come along and for the instruction to change current voting intention to Labour.
Could it be done? Yes. Has it been done? Unlikely. And, besides, the effect would solely be to put Yougov out of line with other pollsters. Even of the online pollsters, Yougov is the only one that is relatively easy to sign up to.
I think we'll know this evening. If they're all out of line with YG, then YG has a problem. If not, fine.
What does your nose tell you Nick? 8%, lower or rising?
I'm mentally preparing myself for double-digit Tory leads tonight.
Having just watched Corbyn in his interview with Andrew Neil on catch-up I suspect what will eventually sink him will be a continued lack of traction amongst the over 50's however much Theresa May tries to shoot herself in the foot over social care etc. Contrary to some slightly rose-tinted reports on here I think he came across really quite badly. With 1800 dead the IRA weren't exactly some cuddlier version of Islamic State and the man was happily fraternising with their spokesmen. Too many recall bombing outrages like the one in Deal in 1989 which "was carried out on a ceremonial military band whose only military training was geared towards saving lives. The public were also shocked by the ages of those killed, as many were new recruits to the School and most of those injured were teenagers."
Just spent the morning bundling the latest leaflets with a group of LibDems. All of them had watched the Andrew Neil interview. None of them like Corbyn but all of them felt that Andrew Neil really helped Corbyn yesterday with his bullying manner and Corbyn's calmness under fire. My wife, who hates Corbyn with a passion for some reason, reacted in the same way as she watched the interview last evening.
The rose-tinted reports you refer to may be from those that thought he came across really quite badly. Just saying.
I'm not sure a bunch of Lib Dem activists who let's be frank if push came to shove would support Corbyn over the Tory alternative and whose ages you don't specify exactly invalidate my main point. As for Neil he no more "bullied" Corbyn than any number of people I've seen him interview over very many years.
Besides, people see what they want to see. I've got Facebook posts on my feed talking about what a triumphant performance it was from the 'peaceful, beautiful man'
On Islam vs Islamism - I think it's a waste of time trying to create a firewall. How is moderate Islam to be described? Normative lslam? There are only different strands of Islam - one of which believes in the use of terrorist violence to change the modern world. If a fundamentalist christian was to blow up an abortion clinic in the US would people desist from calling them a christian? I wouldn't. It's absurd to think that violent actions can only come from a 'phoney' form of a religion. Throughout history violence and religious belief have often gone hand in hand. It's also absurd for non-believers to start lecturing others on what the true form of Christianity or Islam is. As an atheist by definition I don't believe there is such a thing.
As another atheist I suggest we have to face the world as it is, whilst working meanwhile for a better one. Trying to tar millions of innocent people with a very broad brush achieves nothing good and the downsides are obvious.
Despite Manchester we all recognise how much better our own security services have done than in France and Belgium, where the muslim communities are more marginalised and deprived than are ours. Two muslims previously phoned in to report Abedi as a potential risk; we need to make this sort of cross-community co-operation more rather than less likely.
I'm an atheist too and think all religion is quite strange and sometimes harmful, but I think we need to make a distinction between things we think are a bit odd/distateful/outdated and actually going out and murdering people. The generalised anti-Muslim agenda promoted by UKIP et al is at best a distraction and at worse promotes the "us and them" mentality that ISIS really wants.
People willing to consider murder are a tiny minority even among the most devoted religious groups. ISIS is dangeous because, like the Nazis, it gives an official structure to encourage murderers, not because they're very Muslim. If a group formally organised fanatical Christians to blow up abortion clinics, that would not be a good reason to crack down on Christianity.
Not crack down on Christianity as such but it might be a good idea to make clear to people that self-righteousness is dangerous and they should respect others' opinions in a democratic political framework. If it was clear that such ideas had some traction within Christian groups I would regard it as a priority.
There seems to be a consensus amongst PBers that this evening's might prove a defining point in the GE campaign. Attempting to come up with my own interpretation of what these might tell us, I concluded that a Tory lead of:
< 3% means a hung Parliament resulting in the probability of Corbyn becoming PM with SNP and LibDem support. May quits.
4% - 5% means a tiny Tory majority, unlikely to survive a full 5 year term. May clings on as PM. Labour certain to win next time, with or without Corbyn who looks certain to continue as their Leader.
6% - 7% means an adequate working majority of 40 - 60 seats but May considerably weakened as PM and possibly replaced within 2 - 3 years.
8% -9% means a 60 - 80 majority but still a disappointing result for the Tories who had hoped for at least a 120 seat majority. Nevertheless calling of GE by May was arguably justified.
>10% means why all the fuss as regards the polls? And it's Goodnight Vienna as regards Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott, etc.
No ramping from any of the pollsters yet? Could that be a good sign for the Tories? The biggest movements have been heavily trailed, so maybe things have calmed down a bit (I know, unlike me).
By the way, where is Sean T? Is he wisely waiting until the next batch of polls has been released? Is he on a flight to Bangkok to make the lives of dozens of prostitutes worth living? Is he demonstrating the finer points of the Kama Sutra with his 'missus', Star Terforten?
ONE of the SNP’s big donors has switched his financial support to the Conservatives over Brexit and the economy, the Herald can reveal.
Businessman Bill Samuel, who has given the SNP £60,000 over the past decade and who publicly backed a Yes vote in 2014, has now handed £10,000 to the Tories.
Mr Samuel, 74, said he switched allegiance because he feared Nicola Sturgeon’s government did not understand the way the economy worked and he also wanted Brexit to go well.
He said the SNP appeared to have passed its “apogee”, or highest point, adding: “It’s very sad in a way. What an opportunity that was, what an opportunity. It’s just so sad.”
LOL, £6K a year and given the SNP has millions a year, like you Scott these guys are not good with numbers. One old fart giving pennies will make little difference.
£ 6K a year as opposed to the £ 0.00 exiting your seldom seen wallet.
Cuckoo as ever, how much do you donate to the fascists then Monica
As I posted yesterday, all three of my kids are Corbynistas - much to their Dad's distress. My daughter even tried to put a Labour poster up in our front window. They feel - quite rightly - that things are not working right now, that well-paid jobs and leaving home, let alone owning their own places, are a pipedream. They see Brexit as the old messing things up for the young. The political establishment has let them down big time. And Corbyn is definitely not the political establishment. They will vote for him.
Why is a well paid job a pipe dream for your children? Or why do they think it is?
A well-pad job that puts them on the property ladder or even gives them the freedom to rent and save a bit of money at the same time. There are not many of them around. I earned more at his age in the early 90s (£15,000 pa) than he does now (£12,000 pa). If there are loads of opportunities, they just don't see them. I have told all three of mine that they are better off working for themselves and building something, and that is what my eldest is now trying to do. But it involves doing a lot of stuff for free in his spare time and trying to create a brand. It'll pay off and he will be fine, but when you are doing it on top of a poorly paid, boring job, and having to live at home with a mountain of debt on your head things do not always look great. The young lack experience and context, as we all know; but from where I sit it seems to me that I had it a whole lot easier than my three do now.
Hmm. It is and has always been difficult. Bright children of bright parents should be able to target a good job.
I don't want to dwell on your children but there are plenty of professions that will put well educated people on six figure salaries after five or ten years if they work hard.
My kids will be fine. They just don't know that yet.
You've probably already thought of this but don't you have any connections?
Don't have any connections? Are we back to the Victorian Era already? I suppose his daughters' marriage prospects will depend on what he can lay down by way of a settlement.
There seems to be a consensus amongst PBers that this evening's might prove a defining point in the GE campaign. Attempting to come up with my own interpretation of what these might tell us, I concluded that a Tory lead of:
< 3% means a hung Parliament resulting in the probability of Corbyn becoming PM with SNP and LibDem support. May quits.
4% - 5% means a tiny Tory majority, unlikely to survive a full 5 year term. May clings on as PM. Labour certain to win next time, with or without Corbyn who looks certain to continue as their Leader.
6% - 7% means an adequate working majority of 40 - 60 seats but May considerably weakened as PM and possibly replaced within 2 - 3 years.
8% -9% means a 60 - 80 majority but still a disappointing result for the Tories who had hoped for at least a 120 seat majority. Nevertheless calling of GE by May was arguably justified.
>10% means why all the fuss as regards the polls? And it's Goodnight Vienna as regards Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott, etc.
Yes, and of these, if it's not between 4 - 8 % , I'll be very surprised.
ONE of the SNP’s big donors has switched his financial support to the Conservatives over Brexit and the economy, the Herald can reveal.
Businessman Bill Samuel, who has given the SNP £60,000 over the past decade and who publicly backed a Yes vote in 2014, has now handed £10,000 to the Tories.
Mr Samuel, 74, said he switched allegiance because he feared Nicola Sturgeon’s government did not understand the way the economy worked and he also wanted Brexit to go well.
He said the SNP appeared to have passed its “apogee”, or highest point, adding: “It’s very sad in a way. What an opportunity that was, what an opportunity. It’s just so sad.”
LOL, £6K a year and given the SNP has millions a year, like you Scott these guys are not good with numbers. One old fart giving pennies will make little difference.
£ 6K a year as opposed to the £ 0.00 exiting your seldom seen wallet.
Cuckoo as ever, how much do you donate to the fascists then Monica
Hit a nerve, old tightwad ?
Not the full tattie,
You promised us that you'd emigrate to Southern Bavaria in the event of the Scottish people rejecting your anti-British fantasies. Unfortunately, you're a liar.
A massive tax on second property ownership is what is needed to get owner occupied rates up. I mean massive, 10% of the value or something along those lines.
Or we could get rid of green belts and make planning permission much easier to get.
If more homes were built prices would go down and people could enjoy living in larger more modern homes.
There seems to be a consensus amongst PBers that this evening's might prove a defining point in the GE campaign. Attempting to come up with my own interpretation of what these might tell us, I concluded that a Tory lead of:
< 3% means a hung Parliament resulting in the probability of Corbyn becoming PM with SNP and LibDem support. May quits.
4% - 5% means a tiny Tory majority, unlikely to survive a full 5 year term. May clings on as PM. Labour certain to win next time, with or without Corbyn who looks certain to continue as their Leader.
6% - 7% means an adequate working majority of 40 - 60 seats but May considerably weakened as PM and possibly replaced within 2 - 3 years.
8% -9% means a 60 - 80 majority but still a disappointing result for the Tories who had hoped for at least a 120 seat majority. Nevertheless calling of GE by May was arguably justified.
>10% means why all the fuss as regards the polls? And it's Goodnight Vienna as regards Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott, etc.
I would be interested to know how many Tories here would support a Conservative party who had a leader with Corbyn's credentials.
I'll start by saying - not I. I would rather be drawn and quartered.
ONE of the SNP’s big donors has switched his financial support to the Conservatives over Brexit and the economy, the Herald can reveal.
Businessman Bill Samuel, who has given the SNP £60,000 over the past decade and who publicly backed a Yes vote in 2014, has now handed £10,000 to the Tories.
Mr Samuel, 74, said he switched allegiance because he feared Nicola Sturgeon’s government did not understand the way the economy worked and he also wanted Brexit to go well.
He said the SNP appeared to have passed its “apogee”, or highest point, adding: “It’s very sad in a way. What an opportunity that was, what an opportunity. It’s just so sad.”
LOL, £6K a year and given the SNP has millions a year, like you Scott these guys are not good with numbers. One old fart giving pennies will make little difference.
£ 6K a year as opposed to the £ 0.00 exiting your seldom seen wallet.
Cuckoo as ever, how much do you donate to the fascists then Monica
Hit a nerve, old tightwad ?
Not the full tattie,
You promised us that you'd emigrate to Southern Bavaria in the event of the Scottish people rejecting your anti-British fantasies. Unfortunately, you're a liar.
I would not promise you a lick of my "you know what". A more nasty pernicious twerp than you could not be found on here and that is saying something. Go stalk someone else you moronic halfwit.
There seems to be a consensus amongst PBers that this evening's might prove a defining point in the GE campaign. Attempting to come up with my own interpretation of what these might tell us, I concluded that a Tory lead of:
< 3% means a hung Parliament resulting in the probability of Corbyn becoming PM with SNP and LibDem support. May quits.
4% - 5% means a tiny Tory majority, unlikely to survive a full 5 year term. May clings on as PM. Labour certain to win next time, with or without Corbyn who looks certain to continue as their Leader.
6% - 7% means an adequate working majority of 40 - 60 seats but May considerably weakened as PM and possibly replaced within 2 - 3 years.
8% -9% means a 60 - 80 majority but still a disappointing result for the Tories who had hoped for at least a 120 seat majority. Nevertheless calling of GE by May was arguably justified.
>10% means why all the fuss as regards the polls? And it's Goodnight Vienna as regards Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott, etc.
Yes, and of these, if it's not between 4 - 8 % , I'll be very surprised.
I think the size of the majority, assuming she keeps one, is going to be relevant only to the extent it helps or impedes her passing a BrExit settlement. If the Tories get a majority of 40, and having now got the right manifesto get all the legislation through parliament and the lords without too much of a problem, and assuming the end result is more or less acceptable to the party and the bulk of the country, May will be sitting pretty.
Conversely if she gets a massive majority, completely screws the pooch on BrExit, and we get an end result which infuriates the party and the country, she is still toast. If she has 400 MPs in parliament, it still only takes 60MPs furious with her and her settlement to start the process of replacing her.
ONE of the SNP’s big donors has switched his financial support to the Conservatives over Brexit and the economy, the Herald can reveal.
Businessman Bill Samuel, who has given the SNP £60,000 over the past decade and who publicly backed a Yes vote in 2014, has now handed £10,000 to the Tories.
Mr Samuel, 74, said he switched allegiance because he feared Nicola Sturgeon’s government did not understand the way the economy worked and he also wanted Brexit to go well.
He said the SNP appeared to have passed its “apogee”, or highest point, adding: “It’s very sad in a way. What an opportunity that was, what an opportunity. It’s just so sad.”
LOL, £6K a year and given the SNP has millions a year, like you Scott these guys are not good with numbers. One old fart giving pennies will make little difference.
£ 6K a year as opposed to the £ 0.00 exiting your seldom seen wallet.
Cuckoo as ever, how much do you donate to the fascists then Monica
Hit a nerve, old tightwad ?
Not the full tattie,
You promised us that you'd emigrate to Southern Bavaria in the event of the Scottish people rejecting your anti-British fantasies. Unfortunately, you're a liar.
I would not promise you a lick of my "you know what". A more nasty pernicious twerp than you could not be found on here and that is saying something. Go stalk someone else you moronic halfwit.
If you're looking for the nastiest most pernicious twerp on PB, review your own revolting posting history.
House prices are high because more people want houses, than there are houses available (within a given locale).
Nearly. Consider the following:
* If you keep the number of people stable but increase the amount of money available, then house prices will rise: see England between 1970 and 1990(approx)
* If you keep the number of people stable but decrease the amount of money available, then house prices will fall: see England between 1990(approx) and 1995(approx)
* If you increase the number of people but keep the amount of money stable, then house prices will rise: see England between 1997 and 2001
* If you increase the number of people and increase the amount of money available, then house prices will rise a lot: see England between 2001 and 2007
* If you increase the number of people and decrease the amount of money available a lot, then house prices will fall a lot: see England between 2007 and 2009
* If you increase the number of people and keep the amount of money stable, then house prices will rise gently: see England between 2009 and 2012(approx)
* If you increase the number of people and increase the amount of money available, then house prices will rise a lot: see England between 2012 and 2015(approx)
Those dates reflect the following
* entry into the 1990(approx) * Clarke's chancellorship and Brown's first chancellorship (1993-2001approx), inward migration started to increase about here * Brown's second chancellorship and the adoption of CDO's by Northern Rock and Halifax? (2002 approx), inward migration started to balloon * Financial crash in 2007/8, mortgages withdrawn * Introduction of no-eviction guidelines by Straw in 2009 * Introduction of help-to-buy by Osborne (spit), (2012approx)
All dates +/- 2 years: I'm doing this from memory.
1) i don't want jermey corbyn to be an mp. 2) she failed to control immigration both of eu and non-eu residents. 3) dementia tax is fair and right 4) she plans to raise taxes or national insurance. 5) she refuses to scrap business rates for small businesses. 6) she has no idea who lives in this country and where they've gone and who they met. 7) she has been on the wrong side of every public policy issue 8) i need a reason to vote for her..help!
I'm voting for her because of 1 (assuming you mean pm not mp), 3, and 4 on your list
Low levels of home ownership among the under 40s is easily the biggest threat to the Tory party. It's why I've always been so against private renting.
I have never quite followed this arguement. House prices are high because more people want houses, than there are houses available (within a given locale). Stopping private renting doesnt increase the supply of houses. At best you have the same number of houses with the same number of people chasing them, they are just all owners this time, which the less well off being squeezed out to cheaper areas.
If you are a 25 year old in the South East on 25k a year you wont be able to get an mortgage on anything, so you rent (probably with friends) or live at home. If all the rents are stopped and a lot of rental properties go on the market the prices will drop a bit, but not for long given the demand in the South East, and the price drop wont put them in reach of the 25 year old in anycase, so now they have to live at home if they can, or move out the area to somewhere cheaper, which wont make them very happy.
Surely that answer is to build a (lot) more houses, or reduce the demand, which practically means stopping enough people to fill a city the size of Sheffield arriving every couple of years.
Not really, there's no shortage of housing stock, there is a shortage of housing available for sale. A transfer of ownership from landlords to owner occupiers is what we need in this country. A value tax on second property ownership is a very simple fix that will chase landlords out and lower prices enough to make a difference. It shouldn't be necessary for someone or a household to earn six figures to buy a house in London.
Won't the landlords just put the rent up?
Here's the dilemma you have to solve: my wife and I rent a house and have never been in rent arrears. We can afford the amount we're spending on it. The mortgage on it, were we to buy it, would be less than we are paying in rent. But no bank will give us a mortgage to buy it.
Poorly designed regulation. Government can fix it
But how?
Burning the FCA to the ground would be a good start
House prices are high because more people want houses, than there are houses available (within a given locale).
Nearly. Consider the following:
* If you keep the number of people stable but increase the amount of money available, then house prices will rise: see England between 1970 and 1990(approx)
* If you keep the number of people stable but decrease the amount of money available, then house prices will fall: see England between 1990(approx) and 1995(approx)
* If you increase the number of people but keep the amount of money stable, then house prices will rise: see England between 1997 and 2001
* If you increase the number of people and increase the amount of money available, then house prices will rise a lot: see England between 2001 and 2007
* If you increase the number of people and decrease the amount of money available a lot, then house prices will fall a lot: see England between 2007 and 2009
* If you increase the number of people and keep the amount of money stable, then house prices will rise gently: see England between 2009 and 2012(approx)
* If you increase the number of people and increase the amount of money available, then house prices will rise a lot: see England between 2012 and 2015(approx)
Those dates reflect the following
* entry into the 1990(approx) * Clarke's chancellorship and Brown's first chancellorship (1993-2001approx), inward migration started to increase about here * Brown's second chancellorship and the adoption of CDO's by Northern Rock and Halifax? (2002 approx), inward migration started to balloon * Financial crash in 2007/8, mortgages withdrawn * Introduction of no-eviction guidelines by Straw in 2009 * Introduction of help-to-buy by Osborne (spit), (2012approx)
All dates +/- 2 years: I'm doing this from memory.
Germany's experience suggests that if bank mortgages are limited to ~60% LTV speculators are deterred somewhat.
It's inevitable - if you can do what amounts to spread betting on the housing market, a lot of small-time speculators will be dragged in. They're rational to prefer betting on housing to other types of betting:
There's no capital gains tax (just pretend to live in it) The gearing is 20x (with a 5% deposit).
There seems to be a consensus amongst PBers that this evening's might prove a defining point in the GE campaign. Attempting to come up with my own interpretation of what these might tell us, I concluded that a Tory lead of:
< 3% means a hung Parliament resulting in the probability of Corbyn becoming PM with SNP and LibDem support. May quits.
4% - 5% means a tiny Tory majority, unlikely to survive a full 5 year term. May clings on as PM. Labour certain to win next time, with or without Corbyn who looks certain to continue as their Leader.
6% - 7% means an adequate working majority of 40 - 60 seats but May considerably weakened as PM and possibly replaced within 2 - 3 years.
8% -9% means a 60 - 80 majority but still a disappointing result for the Tories who had hoped for at least a 120 seat majority. Nevertheless calling of GE by May was arguably justified.
>10% means why all the fuss as regards the polls? And it's Goodnight Vienna as regards Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott, etc.
There could be an argument for May going after Brexit anyway. New PM for a Brighter Britain or something
Looking forward to a new avatar later... which newspaper might oblige this election?
Well if the Tory lead is less than 25% with ComRes tonight, I've got a rather awesome headline planned.
"if"
I should be getting the embargoed copy about two hours in advance.
That'll give me some time to come up with a decent headline.
Are you allowed to bet// change spread positions during the embargo period ?
What if he is? Given the huge amount of effort TSE puts in - unpaid - to help keep this site running, would you begrudge him the odd bit of advantage?
Not in the slightest. Was just curious what if any strings are attached to the pollsters providing the information, and whether there is anything in the small print of the index firms that precludes (given their financial markets roots).
Farron is actually the worst of all of them. He'd make a worse PM than Corbyn, and I did not ever think that could be possible.
But here's where I am now - I have to, with great reluctance, concede that this poll surge is real. Corbyn on 38% with a respected polling organisation. That's 3% more than what Blair got in 2005, more than what Cameron got in both 2010 and 2015, and just 2% behind - yes, 2% - what Blair got in the 2001 landlside.
It's a perfect storm for May and the Tories. The social care fiasco. A dull, mind numbing manifesto that gives nothing and takes plenty. Massive publicity (mainly positive) for Labour's fantasy manifesto - over a whole week. Corbyn's past associations don't seem to be hurting him (and they should be).
Corbyn now has a real and viable chance of being our PM, not in a majority, but most seats in a hung parliament, with Nicola as deputy PM.
That's where we are, it makes me sick to say it, but I cannot ignore what the polls have been saying (all of them) - a remarkable and sustained narrowing of the polls. And no, not a meltdown, an acceptance of what the reailty could very well be on June 9th.
Calm down, Jason.
Remember Bob Worcester's election mantra:
Look at the share, not the lead. Look at the share, not the lead. Look at the share, not the lead. Look at the share, not the lead.
The giveaway in your panic is you're suggesting somebody who isn't even a candidate at the election might be deputy PM.
Wouldn't it be possible for Sturgeon to become deputy PM?
By the way, stating 'look at the share, not the lead' four times also implies a whiff of panic.
There will not be a Labour /SNP coalition - Corbyn has already ruled it out.
Looking forward to a new avatar later... which newspaper might oblige this election?
Well if the Tory lead is less than 25% with ComRes tonight, I've got a rather awesome headline planned.
Are you off to help TP - I've got an 8/1 bet I'd like to see come in there.
He seems in good spirits according to his twitter-feed.
Will be a decently big win for Flint ,
Considering your humiliatingly inaccurate predictions for the local elections and the 2015 and 2010 general elections you'll forgive me if I don't put any store in your opinion.
Comments
Something bothering me about data-driven punditry this election is a seeming lack of transparency over data and specific methods...If you present a 'forecast', you need to publish a comprehensive explanation of what assumptions and data it is based on. This isn't always possible in national media outlets, but is easily done on a publicly available website. If we believe that what we do is scientific, then there can be no room for debate about replication and transparency. Two election 'forecasts' I know of published in national newspapers have ignored requests to explain their method. This is the Nate Silver problem: someone who made their reputation based on (rightly) critiquing punditry, but then falling into it...Notably, authors of one of the definitive academic studies on Brexit declined to release their data. This is hugely problematic.
Any ideas who he's criticising for lack of transparency?
Did she say how many he met? Was it 30 or 300,000?
Feel free to quote an actual post, by an actual poster, to prove me wrong.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1266662/The-man-stole-old-age-How-Gordon-Brown-secretly-imposed-ruinous-tax-wrecked-retirements-millions.html
http://citywire.co.uk/money/pension-managers-let-us-down-after-gordon-browns-pension-raid/a395858
''In 1997, then chancellor Gordon Brown scrapped the tax relief on dividends paid into pension funds.
Calculations since then suggest the decision cost Britain's pension savers at least £100 billion and many say the move killed off defined benefit pensions.
Documents released under Freedom Of Information Act in 2007 show opposition to the plans was widespread and some critics said at the time 'employers would have to contribute about an extra £10 billion a year for the next 10 to 15 years to get pension scheme funding back on track'.''
Let Corbyn damn himself with his own words and evasions.
1) i don't want jermey corbyn to be an mp.
2) she failed to control immigration both of eu and non-eu residents.
3) dementia tax is fair and right
4) she plans to raise taxes or national insurance.
5) she refuses to scrap business rates for small businesses.
6) she has no idea who lives in this country and where they've gone and who they met.
7) she has been on the wrong side of every public policy issue
8) i need a reason to vote for her..help!
Attempting to come up with my own interpretation of what these might tell us, I concluded that a Tory lead of:
< 3% means a hung Parliament resulting in the probability of Corbyn becoming PM with SNP and LibDem support. May quits.
4% - 5% means a tiny Tory majority, unlikely to survive a full 5 year term. May clings on as PM. Labour certain to win next time, with or without Corbyn who looks certain to continue as their Leader.
6% - 7% means an adequate working majority of 40 - 60 seats but May considerably weakened as PM and possibly replaced within 2 - 3 years.
8% -9% means a 60 - 80 majority but still a disappointing result for the Tories who had hoped for at least a 120 seat majority. Nevertheless calling of GE by May was arguably justified.
>10% means why all the fuss as regards the polls? And it's Goodnight Vienna as regards Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott, etc.
By the way, where is Sean T? Is he wisely waiting until the next batch of polls has been released? Is he on a flight to Bangkok to make the lives of dozens of prostitutes worth living? Is he demonstrating the finer points of the Kama Sutra with his 'missus', Star Terforten?
If more homes were built prices would go down and people could enjoy living in larger more modern homes.
I'll start by saying - not I. I would rather be drawn and quartered.
Not sure of the point you're attempting to make.
Conversely if she gets a massive majority, completely screws the pooch on BrExit, and we get an end result which infuriates the party and the country, she is still toast. If she has 400 MPs in parliament, it still only takes 60MPs furious with her and her settlement to start the process of replacing her.
NEW THREAD
* If you keep the number of people stable but increase the amount of money available, then house prices will rise: see England between 1970 and 1990(approx)
* If you keep the number of people stable but decrease the amount of money available, then house prices will fall: see England between 1990(approx) and 1995(approx)
* If you increase the number of people but keep the amount of money stable, then house prices will rise: see England between 1997 and 2001
* If you increase the number of people and increase the amount of money available, then house prices will rise a lot: see England between 2001 and 2007
* If you increase the number of people and decrease the amount of money available a lot, then house prices will fall a lot: see England between 2007 and 2009
* If you increase the number of people and keep the amount of money stable, then house prices will rise gently: see England between 2009 and 2012(approx)
* If you increase the number of people and increase the amount of money available, then house prices will rise a lot: see England between 2012 and 2015(approx)
Those dates reflect the following
* entry into the 1990(approx)
* Clarke's chancellorship and Brown's first chancellorship (1993-2001approx), inward migration started to increase about here
* Brown's second chancellorship and the adoption of CDO's by Northern Rock and Halifax? (2002 approx), inward migration started to balloon
* Financial crash in 2007/8, mortgages withdrawn
* Introduction of no-eviction guidelines by Straw in 2009
* Introduction of help-to-buy by Osborne (spit), (2012approx)
All dates +/- 2 years: I'm doing this from memory.
It's inevitable - if you can do what amounts to spread betting on the housing market, a lot of small-time speculators will be dragged in. They're rational to prefer betting on housing to other types of betting:
There's no capital gains tax (just pretend to live in it)
The gearing is 20x (with a 5% deposit).
You can't do that with shares.