I wonder if unlike 2015 the austerity is catching up with the Conservatives be it school funding effecting most voter's kids including GCSE & A Level choices , departing teachers, crises in maternity units and stories of exhausted nurses and medics doing long hours , decrease in local policing, the true impact of social care crisis on the middle aged kids, and the massive loans and help kids need for uni. Its getting cumulative I think and could be cutting through to female and younger voters.
Survation have 82% of 18-24s certain to vote. I'd suggest that's a tad high: https://t.co/HitSvFb1Ar
..from electiondata...
If you were looking for a single piece of evidence that pollsters were trying to manipulate data to engineer a much closer election: Exhibit A....
For all their mass of complex algorithms, is there no common sense filter applied at Survation? Does nobody press a WTF??? button?
"pollsters were trying to manipulate data to engineer a much closer election" Why would they want to do that? What makes you think that they have the power to do that?
UK military involvement abroad increase the risk of terrorism - Survation
Agree 46% Disagree 14% Makes no difference 30% DK 10%
Across all parties, all age groups and all regions.
But useless without the follow up question: does that make it the wrong thing to do?
Useless in what sense? It's not a referendum on whether we should bomb France; it's presumably intended to tell us if voters find Jezza's contention outrageous or even wrong.
You can answer the question that yes there is a higher risk - but that risk can be a price worth paying. There is no "yes, but..." element to the question.
On the basis of that simplistic polling, we wouldn't have gone into the Second World War to defeat Nazism because of the risk of the terrorism of the Blitz...
Survation have 82% of 18-24s certain to vote. I'd suggest that's a tad high: https://t.co/HitSvFb1Ar
..from electiondata...
If you were looking for a single piece of evidence that pollsters were trying to manipulate data to engineer a much closer election: Exhibit A....
For all their mass of complex algorithms, is there no common sense filter applied at Survation? Does nobody press a WTF??? button?
Isn't that just the result of how people are responding to the question how likely are you to vote?
65-74 group is at 89%. Interesting that 25-34 is the lowest at 71%.
The problem for the pollsters I guess is if these people will actually do what they say.
I don't think anyone is seriously expecting turnout at 90% for 65-74, or 82% for 18-24.
Right. But it's possible that those polled will turn out at those levels? If you can't be bothered to vote - I guess you also can't be bothered to answer surveys?
On reflection there were 2 different discussions going on last night and the venn diagram showed them barely touching.
On the one side there was Corbyn eager to have the State spending more on just about anything really, even nuclear weapons. Happy to claim that this could all be paid for by an increase in CT (why does no one ever point out that reducing CT has increased the yield and reversing it may well have the opposite effect) and the top 5%. Really a fantasy land but not unattractive as there are a lot of things we would and should spend more money on if we had it.
On the other there was May struggling to make the books credible (balance is still fading into the distance). Stuck with the reality of government she cannot promise more money for education despite the per capita spend falling, she cannot promise more police, she needs substantially more tax to pay for proper Social Care, she needs to keep going with cuts such as means testing the WFA and she needs to do all this in the context of Brexit with the uncertainty that is undoubtedly creating.
The question for the country is do we want the fantasy or the reality? I am not completely confident what the answer is. The reality looks pretty uninviting.
Survation have 82% of 18-24s certain to vote. I'd suggest that's a tad high: https://t.co/HitSvFb1Ar
..from electiondata...
If you were looking for a single piece of evidence that pollsters were trying to manipulate data to engineer a much closer election: Exhibit A....
For all their mass of complex algorithms, is there no common sense filter applied at Survation? Does nobody press a WTF??? button?
Isn't that just the result of how people are responding to the question how likely are you to vote?
65-74 group is at 89%. Interesting that 25-34 is the lowest at 71%.
The problem for the pollsters I guess is if these people will actually do what they say.
I don't think anyone is seriously expecting turnout at 90% for 65-74, or 82% for 18-24.
That doesn't really matter for the poll, though, does it? What matters is how the actual relative turnout on June 8th compares to the relative turnout in either the poll data, or the pollsters' historically-derived model, whichever they have used to produce their final VI.
Survation have 82% of 18-24s certain to vote. I'd suggest that's a tad high: https://t.co/HitSvFb1Ar
..from electiondata...
If you were looking for a single piece of evidence that pollsters were trying to manipulate data to engineer a much closer election: Exhibit A....
For all their mass of complex algorithms, is there no common sense filter applied at Survation? Does nobody press a WTF??? button?
"pollsters were trying to manipulate data to engineer a much closer election" Why would they want to do that? What makes you think that they have the power to do that?
For those who like elections as entertainment - such as the media - having one side massively ahead is BORING.... And if that isn't changing, why are they going to pay for BORING...?
I'm not saying I subscribe to that view, but it has been suggested by some that closer polls spice up life.... And you have to ask - if May were still 22% ahead, would ANYBODY be bothering covering the election?
Survation have 82% of 18-24s certain to vote. I'd suggest that's a tad high: https://t.co/HitSvFb1Ar
..from electiondata...
If you were looking for a single piece of evidence that pollsters were trying to manipulate data to engineer a much closer election: Exhibit A....
For all their mass of complex algorithms, is there no common sense filter applied at Survation? Does nobody press a WTF??? button?
Isn't that just the result of how people are responding to the question how likely are you to vote?
65-74 group is at 89%. Interesting that 25-34 is the lowest at 71%.
The problem for the pollsters I guess is if these people will actually do what they say.
I don't think anyone is seriously expecting turnout at 90% for 65-74, or 82% for 18-24.
Right. But it's possible that those polled will turn out at those levels? If you can't be bothered to vote - I guess you also can't be bothered to answer surveys?
I can imagine some people voting but not being interested enough to fill out surveys.
I can't understand why the Tories aren't doing a proper attack ad on Shadow Cabinet. A chancellor who is a Marxist and dislikes property owners, a foreign secretary who mocks the English flag, a home secretary who has made seemingly racist comments against white people, an education secretary with no qualifications, highlight just how useless and dangerous these people are.
Survation have 82% of 18-24s certain to vote. I'd suggest that's a tad high: https://t.co/HitSvFb1Ar
..from electiondata...
If you were looking for a single piece of evidence that pollsters were trying to manipulate data to engineer a much closer election: Exhibit A....
For all their mass of complex algorithms, is there no common sense filter applied at Survation? Does nobody press a WTF??? button?
Isn't that just the result of how people are responding to the question how likely are you to vote?
65-74 group is at 89%. Interesting that 25-34 is the lowest at 71%.
The problem for the pollsters I guess is if these people will actually do what they say.
I don't think anyone is seriously expecting turnout at 90% for 65-74, or 82% for 18-24.
That doesn't really matter for the poll, though, does it? What matters is how the actual relative turnout on June 8th compares to the relative turnout in either the poll data, or the pollsters' historically-derived model, whichever they have used to produce their final VI.
If 18-24 turnout is within 10% of 65-74 turnout I'll do an Ashdown and eat my hat.
Survation have 82% of 18-24s certain to vote. I'd suggest that's a tad high: https://t.co/HitSvFb1Ar
..from electiondata...
If you were looking for a single piece of evidence that pollsters were trying to manipulate data to engineer a much closer election: Exhibit A....
For all their mass of complex algorithms, is there no common sense filter applied at Survation? Does nobody press a WTF??? button?
Isn't that just the result of how people are responding to the question how likely are you to vote?
65-74 group is at 89%. Interesting that 25-34 is the lowest at 71%.
The problem for the pollsters I guess is if these people will actually do what they say.
I don't think anyone is seriously expecting turnout at 90% for 65-74, or 82% for 18-24.
That doesn't really matter for the poll, though, does it? What matters is how the actual relative turnout on June 8th compares to the relative turnout in either the poll data, or the pollsters' historically-derived model, whichever they have used to produce their final VI.
If 18-24 turnout is within 10% of 65-74 turnout I'll do an Ashdown and eat my hat.
Survation have 82% of 18-24s certain to vote. I'd suggest that's a tad high: https://t.co/HitSvFb1Ar
..from electiondata...
If you were looking for a single piece of evidence that pollsters were trying to manipulate data to engineer a much closer election: Exhibit A....
For all their mass of complex algorithms, is there no common sense filter applied at Survation? Does nobody press a WTF??? button?
Isn't that just the result of how people are responding to the question how likely are you to vote?
65-74 group is at 89%. Interesting that 25-34 is the lowest at 71%.
The problem for the pollsters I guess is if these people will actually do what they say.
I don't think anyone is seriously expecting turnout at 90% for 65-74, or 82% for 18-24.
That doesn't really matter for the poll, though, does it? What matters is how the actual relative turnout on June 8th compares to the relative turnout in either the poll data, or the pollsters' historically-derived model, whichever they have used to produce their final VI.
If 18-24 turnout is within 10% of 65-74 turnout I'll do an Ashdown and eat my hat.
Survation have 82% of 18-24s certain to vote. I'd suggest that's a tad high: https://t.co/HitSvFb1Ar
..from electiondata...
If you were looking for a single piece of evidence that pollsters were trying to manipulate data to engineer a much closer election: Exhibit A....
For all their mass of complex algorithms, is there no common sense filter applied at Survation? Does nobody press a WTF??? button?
Isn't that just the result of how people are responding to the question how likely are you to vote?
65-74 group is at 89%. Interesting that 25-34 is the lowest at 71%.
The problem for the pollsters I guess is if these people will actually do what they say.
I don't think anyone is seriously expecting turnout at 90% for 65-74, or 82% for 18-24.
That doesn't really matter for the poll, though, does it? What matters is how the actual relative turnout on June 8th compares to the relative turnout in either the poll data, or the pollsters' historically-derived model, whichever they have used to produce their final VI.
If 18-24 turnout is within 10% of 65-74 turnout I'll do an Ashdown and eat my hat.
It's the ratio that matters, but I take the point.
Do we actually know they have used this data in producing their headline VI? As against making a separate assessment using historical and demographic data?
I can't understand why the Tories aren't doing a proper attack ad on Shadow Cabinet. A chancellor who is a Marxist and dislikes property owners, a foreign secretary who mocks the English flag, a home secretary who has made seemingly racist comments against white people, an education secretary with no qualifications, highlight just how useless and dangerous these people are.
I think we just need to be patient. Views of Jezza: the movie are accelerating - 700,000 since 4pm yesterday, and we don't want to dilute the effect of that. Still 9 days to go.
Survation have 82% of 18-24s certain to vote. I'd suggest that's a tad high: https://t.co/HitSvFb1Ar
..from electiondata...
If you were looking for a single piece of evidence that pollsters were trying to manipulate data to engineer a much closer election: Exhibit A....
For all their mass of complex algorithms, is there no common sense filter applied at Survation? Does nobody press a WTF??? button?
Isn't that just the result of how people are responding to the question how likely are you to vote?
65-74 group is at 89%. Interesting that 25-34 is the lowest at 71%.
The problem for the pollsters I guess is if these people will actually do what they say.
I don't think anyone is seriously expecting turnout at 90% for 65-74, or 82% for 18-24.
That doesn't really matter for the poll, though, does it? What matters is how the actual relative turnout on June 8th compares to the relative turnout in either the poll data, or the pollsters' historically-derived model, whichever they have used to produce their final VI.
If 18-24 turnout is within 10% of 65-74 turnout I'll do an Ashdown and eat my hat.
It's the ratio that matters, but I take the point.
Do we actually know they have used this data in producing their headline VI? As against making a separate assessment using historical and demographic data?
Yeah, I was using the ratio. This poll suggests that 18-24 turnout will be 91% that of the 65-74 turnout.
Survation have 82% of 18-24s certain to vote. I'd suggest that's a tad high: https://t.co/HitSvFb1Ar
..from electiondata...
If you were looking for a single piece of evidence that pollsters were trying to manipulate data to engineer a much closer election: Exhibit A....
For all their mass of complex algorithms, is there no common sense filter applied at Survation? Does nobody press a WTF??? button?
Isn't that just the result of how people are responding to the question how likely are you to vote?
65-74 group is at 89%. Interesting that 25-34 is the lowest at 71%.
The problem for the pollsters I guess is if these people will actually do what they say.
I don't think anyone is seriously expecting turnout at 90% for 65-74, or 82% for 18-24.
That doesn't really matter for the poll, though, does it? What matters is how the actual relative turnout on June 8th compares to the relative turnout in either the poll data, or the pollsters' historically-derived model, whichever they have used to produce their final VI.
If 18-24 turnout is within 10% of 65-74 turnout I'll do an Ashdown and eat my hat.
Survation have 82% of 18-24s certain to vote. I'd suggest that's a tad high: https://t.co/HitSvFb1Ar
..from electiondata...
If you were looking for a single piece of evidence that pollsters were trying to manipulate data to engineer a much closer election: Exhibit A....
For all their mass of complex algorithms, is there no common sense filter applied at Survation? Does nobody press a WTF??? button?
Isn't that just the result of how people are responding to the question how likely are you to vote?
65-74 group is at 89%. Interesting that 25-34 is the lowest at 71%.
The problem for the pollsters I guess is if these people will actually do what they say.
I don't think anyone is seriously expecting turnout at 90% for 65-74, or 82% for 18-24.
That doesn't really matter for the poll, though, does it? What matters is how the actual relative turnout on June 8th compares to the relative turnout in either the poll data, or the pollsters' historically-derived model, whichever they have used to produce their final VI.
If 18-24 turnout is within 10% of 65-74 turnout I'll do an Ashdown and eat my hat.
Survation have 82% of 18-24s certain to vote. I'd suggest that's a tad high: https://t.co/HitSvFb1Ar
..from electiondata...
If you were looking for a single piece of evidence that pollsters were trying to manipulate data to engineer a much closer election: Exhibit A....
For all their mass of complex algorithms, is there no common sense filter applied at Survation? Does nobody press a WTF??? button?
Isn't that just the result of how people are responding to the question how likely are you to vote?
65-74 group is at 89%. Interesting that 25-34 is the lowest at 71%.
The problem for the pollsters I guess is if these people will actually do what they say.
I don't think anyone is seriously expecting turnout at 90% for 65-74, or 82% for 18-24.
That doesn't really matter for the poll, though, does it? What matters is how the actual relative turnout on June 8th compares to the relative turnout in either the poll data, or the pollsters' historically-derived model, whichever they have used to produce their final VI.
If 18-24 turnout is within 10% of 65-74 turnout I'll do an Ashdown and eat my hat.
Survation have 82% of 18-24s certain to vote. I'd suggest that's a tad high: https://t.co/HitSvFb1Ar
..from electiondata...
If you were looking for a single piece of evidence that pollsters were trying to manipulate data to engineer a much closer election: Exhibit A....
For all their mass of complex algorithms, is there no common sense filter applied at Survation? Does nobody press a WTF??? button?
Isn't that just the result of how people are responding to the question how likely are you to vote?
65-74 group is at 89%. Interesting that 25-34 is the lowest at 71%.
The problem for the pollsters I guess is if these people will actually do what they say.
I don't think anyone is seriously expecting turnout at 90% for 65-74, or 82% for 18-24.
That doesn't really matter for the poll, though, does it? What matters is how the actual relative turnout on June 8th compares to the relative turnout in either the poll data, or the pollsters' historically-derived model, whichever they have used to produce their final VI.
If 18-24 turnout is within 10% of 65-74 turnout I'll do an Ashdown and eat my hat.
It's the ratio that matters, but I take the point.
Do we actually know they have used this data in producing their headline VI? As against making a separate assessment using historical and demographic data?
Yeah, I was using the ratio. This poll suggests that 18-24 turnout will be 91% that of the 65-74 turnout.
OK, so have they actually used this data, or are we spouting off about some irrelevant secondary question in the poll?
Survation have 82% of 18-24s certain to vote. I'd suggest that's a tad high: https://t.co/HitSvFb1Ar
..from electiondata...
If you were looking for a single piece of evidence that pollsters were trying to manipulate data to engineer a much closer election: Exhibit A....
For all their mass of complex algorithms, is there no common sense filter applied at Survation? Does nobody press a WTF??? button?
Isn't that just the result of how people are responding to the question how likely are you to vote?
65-74 group is at 89%. Interesting that 25-34 is the lowest at 71%.
The problem for the pollsters I guess is if these people will actually do what they say.
I don't think anyone is seriously expecting turnout at 90% for 65-74, or 82% for 18-24.
That doesn't really matter for the poll, though, does it? What matters is how the actual relative turnout on June 8th compares to the relative turnout in either the poll data, or the pollsters' historically-derived model, whichever they have used to produce their final VI.
If 18-24 turnout is within 10% of 65-74 turnout I'll do an Ashdown and eat my hat.
The idea that turnout amongst that age group will somehow double is ridiculous, especially since they were the only age cohort to see turnout drop between 2015 and the referendum.
Survation have 82% of 18-24s certain to vote. I'd suggest that's a tad high: https://t.co/HitSvFb1Ar
..from electiondata...
If you were looking for a single piece of evidence that pollsters were trying to manipulate data to engineer a much closer election: Exhibit A....
For all their mass of complex algorithms, is there no common sense filter applied at Survation? Does nobody press a WTF??? button?
Isn't that just the result of how people are responding to the question how likely are you to vote?
65-74 group is at 89%. Interesting that 25-34 is the lowest at 71%.
The problem for the pollsters I guess is if these people will actually do what they say.
I don't think anyone is seriously expecting turnout at 90% for 65-74, or 82% for 18-24.
That doesn't really matter for the poll, though, does it? What matters is how the actual relative turnout on June 8th compares to the relative turnout in either the poll data, or the pollsters' historically-derived model, whichever they have used to produce their final VI.
If 18-24 turnout is within 10% of 65-74 turnout I'll do an Ashdown and eat my hat.
Survation have 82% of 18-24s certain to vote. I'd suggest that's a tad high: https://t.co/HitSvFb1Ar
..from electiondata...
If you were looking for a single piece of evidence that pollsters were trying to manipulate data to engineer a much closer election: Exhibit A....
For all their mass of complex algorithms, is there no common sense filter applied at Survation? Does nobody press a WTF??? button?
Isn't that just the result of how people are responding to the question how likely are you to vote?
65-74 group is at 89%. Interesting that 25-34 is the lowest at 71%.
The problem for the pollsters I guess is if these people will actually do what they say.
I don't think anyone is seriously expecting turnout at 90% for 65-74, or 82% for 18-24.
That doesn't really matter for the poll, though, does it? What matters is how the actual relative turnout on June 8th compares to the relative turnout in either the poll data, or the pollsters' historically-derived model, whichever they have used to produce their final VI.
If 18-24 turnout is within 10% of 65-74 turnout I'll do an Ashdown and eat my hat.
It's the ratio that matters, but I take the point.
Do we actually know they have used this data in producing their headline VI? As against making a separate assessment using historical and demographic data?
Yeah, I was using the ratio. This poll suggests that 18-24 turnout will be 91% that of the 65-74 turnout.
OK, so have they actually used this data, or are we spouting off about some irrelevant secondary question in the poll?
Their weighting scheme is described on page 2. Tried to copy and paste but it wouldn't let me select it.
Bit of a disconnect. Council tax is a land value tax. All this is is a big rise in Council Tax.
No it's not council tax is a land occupation tax as it's paid by the occupier not the owner.
Eh ?
In my case that's the same person. But surely Labour should tax the OWNERS - this stinks to high heaven if it is on the occupiers ! More taxes for generation rent - is this right ?
If it's a proper Land Value Tax it should be on the owners, not the occupiers, because it's a tax on the potential fully exploited value of the land. ie you would pay the same tax on an undeveloped piece of land as on one with houses built on it, assuming the first has planning permission. The benefit claimed for LVT is that unlike other taxes its incentives are beneficial, not perverse. By contrast income tax discourages employment; rates discourage development.
How do you stop landlords passing it on to their tenants through increased rent?
I've got no idea about labours plans, but on LVT - I think the theory is, once land/property loses its (mostly) tax free status, prices/values will come down - significantly - and the yield investors/landlords get will readjust.
Rough figures;
Current property value= 400k. 0% tax = -£0k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -£8k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >£8k/year or £625 PCM
After LVT value = 100K. 5% tax = -5k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -2k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >7K/year or £563 PCM
So a 5% tax will cause a 75% reduction in land value?
Seems like there might be an error in the maths there.
Unclear here as to why the landlord who brought the property for 400k suddenly has how much his mortgage is to 100k. In reality he still has a 400k mortgage @ 8k per annum and now has an extra 2k tax on top making 10k per annum making viable rent now 833 pcm.
Of course maybe I am being naive and all the existing mortgage companies are going to say hey your land has dropped in value so we are adjusting the amount you borrowed down to compensate.
A landlord will pay more and will put the rent up accordingly just as they will if there is an interest rise and here in the south east at least they will still find people to rent it
On reflection there were 2 different discussions going on last night and the venn diagram showed them barely touching.
On the one side there was Corbyn eager to have the State spending more on just about anything really, even nuclear weapons. Happy to claim that this could all be paid for by an increase in CT (why does no one ever point out that reducing CT has increased the yield and reversing it may well have the opposite effect) and the top 5%. Really a fantasy land but not unattractive as there are a lot of things we would and should spend more money on if we had it.
On the other there was May struggling to make the books credible (balance is still fading into the distance). Stuck with the reality of government she cannot promise more money for education despite the per capita spend falling, she cannot promise more police, she needs substantially more tax to pay for proper Social Care, she needs to keep going with cuts such as means testing the WFA and she needs to do all this in the context of Brexit with the uncertainty that is undoubtedly creating.
The question for the country is do we want the fantasy or the reality? I am not completely confident what the answer is. The reality looks pretty uninviting.
I can't understand why the Tories aren't doing a proper attack ad on Shadow Cabinet. A chancellor who is a Marxist and dislikes property owners, a foreign secretary who mocks the English flag, a home secretary who has made seemingly racist comments against white people, an education secretary with no qualifications, highlight just how useless and dangerous these people are.
Because the Tories understand politics, as does the shadow chancellor. And as does Jack Sparrow.
"A land value tax? That's the most stupid idea I've ever heard of."
Why oh why are Labour not making more of the dropping of the tax lock?
They can quite rightly claim that Tories will hammer working people with tax whereas they will protect everyone earning up to 80k
Because, ultimately, they fear that people don't believe them?
I think it's more likely they realised a lot of their voters will be in 80k in London...
Tax rises are not a vote winner, never worth emphasising. Just look at the Dementia tax.
Tories are continuing to harp on about long forgotton history. They should have the tax rises front and centre. No floating voter is bothered who said what to whom 30 years ago, they care about their wallets now.
It isnt helped that Tories have dumped their pledges to freeze tax and NI, and the triple lock though.
Imagine it would be out of the same money the Tories borrow on a regular basis, not a big sum over 5 years, just spent on better things than bombs and submarines.
On reflection there were 2 different discussions going on last night and the venn diagram showed them barely touching.
On the one side there was Corbyn eager to have the State spending more on just about anything really, even nuclear weapons. Happy to claim that this could all be paid for by an increase in CT (why does no one ever point out that reducing CT has increased the yield and reversing it may well have the opposite effect) and the top 5%. Really a fantasy land but not unattractive as there are a lot of things we would and should spend more money on if we had it.
On the other there was May struggling to make the books credible (balance is still fading into the distance). Stuck with the reality of government she cannot promise more money for education despite the per capita spend falling, she cannot promise more police, she needs substantially more tax to pay for proper Social Care, she needs to keep going with cuts such as means testing the WFA and she needs to do all this in the context of Brexit with the uncertainty that is undoubtedly creating.
The question for the country is do we want the fantasy or the reality? I am not completely confident what the answer is. The reality looks pretty uninviting.
The SNP will seek to exploit divisions within Labour to build a Westminster alliance against the renewal of Trident after the election.
Nicola Sturgeon is expected to unveil a manifesto today to “build a cross-party coalition” that will aim to “scrap Trident as quickly and safely as possible”.
The text suggests that SNP MPs will reach out to Labour counterparts who favour unilateral nuclear disarmament, a position that clashes with the UK party’s official position despite Jeremy Corbyn’s backing for disarmament.
Bit of a disconnect. Council tax is a land value tax. All this is is a big rise in Council Tax.
No it's not council tax is a land occupation tax as it's paid by the occupier not the owner.
Eh ?
In my case that's the same person. But surely Labour should tax the OWNERS - this stinks to high heaven if it is on the occupiers ! More taxes for generation rent - is this right ?
If it's a proper Land Value Tax it should be on the owners
How do you stop landlords passing it on to their tenants through increased rent?
I've got no idea about labours plans, but on LVT - I think the theory is, once land/property loses its (mostly) tax free status, prices/values will come down - significantly - and the yield investors/landlords get will readjust.
Rough figures;
Current property value= 400k. 0% tax = -£0k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -£8k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >£8k/year or £625 PCM
After LVT value = 100K. 5% tax = -5k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -2k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >7K/year or £563 PCM
So a 5% tax will cause a 75% reduction in land value?
Seems like there might be an error in the maths there.
Unclear here as to why the landlord who brought the property for 400k suddenly has how much his mortgage is to 100k. In reality he still has a 400k mortgage @ 8k per annum and now has an extra 2k tax on top making 10k per annum making viable rent now 833 pcm.
Of course maybe I am being naive and all the existing mortgage companies are going to say hey your land has dropped in value so we are adjusting the amount you borrowed down to compensate.
A landlord will pay more and will put the rent up accordingly just as they will if there is an interest rise and here in the south east at least they will still find people to rent it
How do you adjust for different usage?
Agricultural land would no longer be viable, neither would public amenities like parks, places of worship or even schools and roads, if all taxed at a flat rate.
In practice there would need to be a lot of exemptions, until we wound up with something very similar to council tax.
Where would a labour government find the time to introduce their manifesto when completely tied up with brexit and the necessary domestic law changes?
What direction will the party go in after a win? More left wing and a party conferencekeento put abolishment of the monarchy and unilateral nuclear disarmament in the manifesto retrospectively?
Unclear here as to why the landlord who brought the property for 400k suddenly has how much his mortgage is to 100k. In reality he still has a 400k mortgage @ 8k per annum and now has an extra 2k tax on top making 10k per annum making viable rent now 833 pcm.
So long as you can afford the mortgage and you like the house ^_~
If 18-24 turnout is within 10% of 65-74 turnout I'll do an Ashdown and eat my hat.
18-24 turnout may not be that high, but I think it will be much higher than 43% (2015). It may well beat the 64% achieved in the EU referendum. Tuition fees and maintenance grants are a very important issue in many families.
If 18-24 turnout is within 10% of 65-74 turnout I'll do an Ashdown and eat my hat.
18-24 turnout may not be that high, but I think it will be much higher than 43% (2015). It may well beat the 64% achieved in the EU referendum. Tuition fees and maintenance grants are a very important issue in many families.
According to the FT chart, 18-24 turnout was even lower in the referendum than in 2015.
Survation have 82% of 18-24s certain to vote. I'd suggest that's a tad high: https://t.co/HitSvFb1Ar
..from electiondata...
If you were looking for a single piece of evidence that pollsters were trying to manipulate data to engineer a much closer election: Exhibit A....
For all their mass of complex algorithms, is there no common sense filter applied at Survation? Does nobody press a WTF??? button?
for t.
I don't think anyone is seriously expecting turnout at 90% for 65-74, or 82% for 18-24.
If 18-24 turnout is within 10% of 65-74 turnout I'll do an Ashdown and eat my hat.
Do we actually know they have used this data in producing their headline VI? As against making a separate assessment using historical and demographic data?
Yeah, I was using the ratio. This poll suggests that 18-24 turnout will be 91% that of the 65-74 turnout.
OK, so have they actually used this data, or are we spouting off about some irrelevant secondary question in the poll?
Their weighting scheme is described on page 2. Tried to copy and paste but it wouldn't let me select it.
Interesting, thanks for the link.
The biggest source of error in the poll is one we haven't yet spotted. The description on page two says that the sample is weighted first by demography and second by stated intention to vote. So far so good (except with the potential bias noted downthread). It then says that anyone who said they were undecided, or refused to say, is eliminated from the sample used to produce the final VI.
If you look at the detailed data, it is striking that significantly fewer of the 18-24 cohort say they were undecided, or refused to say, than the older age groups. The young are all fired up for Corbyn and willing to say (which in my mind does suggest that their turnout may surprise on the upside).
But the effect of eliminating the DKs and WSs without any further balancing is to reduce the proportions of middle aged people remaining in the sample below that of the youngsters. Yet some of these respondents will vote, as they always do, and I don't believe that the relative uncertainty as to VI amongst the middle aged cohorts will translate into lower turnout? With VI so differentiated by age, the age balance of the final sample is the single key factor in polling correctly.
I went to say goodnight to my 19 year old daughter last night and she was watching the PM debate on Facebook, bless her. She is going to be heartbroken on 9th June. I think kids are a lot more engaged than maybe they have been in the past, but nowhere near enough to make any meaningful difference. I would not be surprised to see a 100 seat Tory majority. For a lot of voters Corbyn is just not worth the perceived risk, while for many older ones his baggage means he is actively repellent.
Survation have 82% of 18-24s certain to vote. I'd suggest that's a tad high: https://t.co/HitSvFb1Ar
..from electiondata...
If you were looking for a single piece of evidence that pollsters were trying to manipulate data to engineer a much closer election: Exhibit A....
For all their mass of complex algorithms, is there no common sense filter applied at Survation? Does nobody press a WTF??? button?
Isn't that just the result of how people are responding to the question how likely are you to vote?
65-74 group is at 89%. Interesting that 25-34 is the lowest at 71%.
The problem for the pollsters I guess is if these people will actually do what they say.
I don't think anyone is seriously expecting turnout at 90% for 65-74, or 82% for 18-24.
That doesn't really matter for the poll, though, does it? What matters is how the actual relative turnout on June 8th compares to the relative turnout in either the poll data, or the pollsters' historically-derived model, whichever they have used to produce their final VI.
If 18-24 turnout is within 10% of 65-74 turnout I'll do an Ashdown and eat my hat.
The idea that turnout amongst that age group will somehow double is ridiculous, especially since they were the only age cohort to see turnout drop between 2015 and the referendum.
Where would a labour government find the time to introduce their manifesto when completely tied up with brexit and the necessary domestic law changes?
What direction will the party go in after a win? More left wing and a party conferencekeento put abolishment of the monarchy and unilateral nuclear disarmament in the manifesto retrospectively?
Wouldn't that be great? It's unlikely, though. Even if Prince Charles makes himself some crap-awful publicity, the pro-Trident nuke boys in the PLP will do their bit for the rich and posh.
The biggest source of error in the poll is one we haven't yet spotted. The description on page two says that the sample is weighted first by demography and second by stated intention to vote. So far so good (except with the potential bias noted downthread). It then says that anyone who said they were undecided, or refused to say, is eliminated from the sample used to produce the final VI.
If you look at the detailed data, it is striking that significantly fewer of the 18-24 cohort say they were undecided, or refused to say, than the older age groups. The young are all fired up for Corbyn and willing to say (which in my mind does suggest that their turnout may surprise on the upside).
But the effect of eliminating the DKs and WSs without any further balancing is to reduce the proportions of middle aged people remaining in the sample below that of the youngsters. Yet some of these respondents will vote, as they always do, and I don't believe that the relative uncertainty as to VI amongst the middle aged cohorts will translate into lower turnout? With VI so differentiated by age, the age balance of the final sample is the single key factor in polling correctly.
Surely they would re-weight the final sample without DKs and WSs to match the electorate. Agree turnout will be up amongst 18-24 y/o. It won't be up 40 points (i.e., almost doubling)
I went to say goodnight to my 19 year old daughter last night and she was watching the PM debate on Facebook, bless her. She is going to be heartbroken on 9th June. I think kids are a lot more engaged than maybe they have been in the past, but nowhere near enough to make any meaningful difference. I would not be surprised to see a 100 seat Tory majority. For a lot of voters Corbyn is just not worth the perceived risk, while for many older ones his baggage means he is actively repellent.
The youngsters just have to persuade their parents!
If 18-24 turnout is within 10% of 65-74 turnout I'll do an Ashdown and eat my hat.
18-24 turnout may not be that high, but I think it will be much higher than 43% (2015). It may well beat the 64% achieved in the EU referendum. Tuition fees and maintenance grants are a very important issue in many families.
According to the FT chart, 18-24 turnout was even lower in the referendum than in 2015.
It is worth noting that many 18-24s are double registered, and those individuals will only ever manage 50% turnout.
A fair number of middle aged second home owners are double registered too.
Survation have 82% of 18-24s certain to vote. I'd suggest that's a tad high: https://t.co/HitSvFb1Ar
..from electiondata...
If you were looking for a single piece of evidence that pollsters were trying to manipulate data to engineer a much closer election: Exhibit A....
For all their mass of complex algorithms, is there no common sense filter applied at Survation? Does nobody press a WTF??? button?
Isn't that just the result of how people are responding to the question how likely are you to vote?
65-74 group is at 89%. Interesting that 25-34 is the lowest at 71%.
The problem for the pollsters I guess is if these people will actually do what they say.
I don't think anyone is seriously expecting turnout at 90% for 65-74, or 82% for 18-24.
That doesn't really matter for the poll, though, does it? What matters is how the actual relative turnout on June 8th compares to the relative turnout in either the poll data, or the pollsters' historically-derived model, whichever they have used to produce their final VI.
If 18-24 turnout is within 10% of 65-74 turnout I'll do an Ashdown and eat my hat.
The idea that turnout amongst that age group will somehow double is ridiculous, especially since they were the only age cohort to see turnout drop between 2015 and the referendum.
I went to say goodnight to my 19 year old daughter last night and she was watching the PM debate on Facebook, bless her. She is going to be heartbroken on 9th June. I think kids are a lot more engaged than maybe they have been in the past, but nowhere near enough to make any meaningful difference. I would not be surprised to see a 100 seat Tory majority. For a lot of voters Corbyn is just not worth the perceived risk, while for many older ones his baggage means he is actively repellent.
I've been getting a flavour of the online debate via my kids too. The young are a lot better informed than I was at that age. And way better informed than some of us old buffers on here.
If 18-24 turnout is within 10% of 65-74 turnout I'll do an Ashdown and eat my hat.
18-24 turnout may not be that high, but I think it will be much higher than 43% (2015). It may well beat the 64% achieved in the EU referendum. Tuition fees and maintenance grants are a very important issue in many families.
According to the FT chart, 18-24 turnout was even lower in the referendum than in 2015.
It is worth noting that many 18-24s are double registered, and those individuals will only ever manage 50% turnout.
A fair number of middle aged second home owners are double registered too.
Maximum 25% of the cohort? About half go to uni for about half that age range.
On reflection there were 2 different discussions going on last night and the venn diagram showed them barely touching.
On the one side there was Corbyn eager to have the State spending more on just about anything really, even nuclear weapons. Happy to claim that this could all be paid for by an increase in CT (why does no one ever point out that reducing CT has increased the yield and reversing it may well have the opposite effect) and the top 5%. Really a fantasy land but not unattractive as there are a lot of things we would and should spend more money on if we had it.
On the other there was May struggling to make the books credible (balance is still fading into the distance). Stuck with the reality of government she cannot promise more money for education despite the per capita spend falling, she cannot promise more police, she needs substantially more tax to pay for proper Social Care, she needs to keep going with cuts such as means testing the WFA and she needs to do all this in the context of Brexit with the uncertainty that is undoubtedly creating.
The question for the country is do we want the fantasy or the reality? I am not completely confident what the answer is. The reality looks pretty uninviting.
She is promising a Brexit deal that will improve living standards. That is one hell of a promise and one that is not necessarily grounded in any kind of reality.
If 18-24 turnout is within 10% of 65-74 turnout I'll do an Ashdown and eat my hat.
18-24 turnout may not be that high, but I think it will be much higher than 43% (2015). It may well beat the 64% achieved in the EU referendum. Tuition fees and maintenance grants are a very important issue in many families.
According to the FT chart, 18-24 turnout was even lower in the referendum than in 2015.
It is worth noting that many 18-24s are double registered, and those individuals will only ever manage 50% turnout.
A fair number of middle aged second home owners are double registered too.
The rules on registering at a second property are much tighter than they used to be (although I get the impression are only being checked for new registrations).
Nevertheless there is no demographic data (formally) associated with the ER; the pollsters will be using census-derived demographics to weight their polls. So double registration shouldn't introduce any bias into the polling. Similarly the post-election turnout data comes from polling - asking people whether they voted - and is not tied back to the ER.
If it's a proper Land Value Tax it should be on the owners
How do you stop landlords passing it on to their tenants through increased rent?
I've got no idea about labours plans, but on LVT - I think the theory is, once land/property loses its (mostly) tax free status, prices/values will come down - significantly - and the yield investors/landlords get will readjust.
Rough figures;
Current property value= 400k. 0% tax = -£0k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -£8k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >£8k/year or £625 PCM
After LVT value = 100K. 5% tax = -5k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -2k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >7K/year or £563 PCM
So a 5% tax will cause a 75% reduction in land value?
Seems like there might be an error in the maths there.
Unclear here as to why the landlord who brought the property for 400k suddenly has how much his mortgage is to 100k. In reality he still has a 400k mortgage @ 8k per annum and now has an extra 2k tax on top making 10k per annum making viable rent now 833 pcm.
Of course maybe I am being naive and all the existing mortgage companies are going to say hey your land has dropped in value so we are adjusting the amount you borrowed down to compensate.
A landlord will pay more and will put the rent up accordingly just as they will if there is an interest rise and here in the south east at least they will still find people to rent it
How do you adjust for different usage?
Agricultural land would no longer be viable, neither would public amenities like parks, places of worship or even schools and roads, if all taxed at a flat rate.
In practice there would need to be a lot of exemptions, until we wound up with something very similar to council tax.
Its not me advocating for land tax its pong, I was just pointing out the fallacy in his maths even if land values crashed by his predicted 75%. Also refuting his claim that rent would get cheaper and that any tax wouldn't inevitably be heaped on the backs of the tenants
The biggest source of error in the poll is one we haven't yet spotted. The description on page two says that the sample is weighted first by demography and second by stated intention to vote. So far so good (except with the potential bias noted downthread). It then says that anyone who said they were undecided, or refused to say, is eliminated from the sample used to produce the final VI.
If you look at the detailed data, it is striking that significantly fewer of the 18-24 cohort say they were undecided, or refused to say, than the older age groups. The young are all fired up for Corbyn and willing to say (which in my mind does suggest that their turnout may surprise on the upside).
But the effect of eliminating the DKs and WSs without any further balancing is to reduce the proportions of middle aged people remaining in the sample below that of the youngsters. Yet some of these respondents will vote, as they always do, and I don't believe that the relative uncertainty as to VI amongst the middle aged cohorts will translate into lower turnout? With VI so differentiated by age, the age balance of the final sample is the single key factor in polling correctly.
Very good spot. We have seen on here that a bunch of folk are still not sure how best to express their dislike of Corbyn - stick with Labour but holding their nose, vote Tory to keep Corbyn out but they are really LibDems, vote LibDem to keep out Corbyn but they are really Labour, go Tory for the first time even though they have previously always voted Labour.....
When those Don't Knows finally resolve their conscience and decide how to vote, I don't see it being anything but bad news for Labour on 8th June.
I wonder if unlike 2015 the austerity is catching up with the Conservatives be it school funding effecting most voter's kids including GCSE & A Level choices , departing teachers, crises in maternity units and stories of exhausted nurses and medics doing long hours , decrease in local policing, the true impact of social care crisis on the middle aged kids, and the massive loans and help kids need for uni. Its getting cumulative I think and could be cutting through to female and younger voters.
Nope. A major lesson of this campaign is that a left wing message could resonate, but it has to be delivered by someone who does not come with the baggage that Corbyn brings.
If it's a proper Land Value Tax it should be on the owners
How do you stop landlords passing it on to their tenants through increased rent?
I've got no idea about labours plans, but on LVT - I think the theory is, once land/property loses its (mostly) tax free status, prices/values will come down - significantly - and the yield investors/landlords get will readjust.
Rough figures;
Current property value= 400k. 0% tax = -£0k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -£8k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >£8k/year or £625 PCM
After LVT value = 100K. 5% tax = -5k 100% mortgage @ 2% interest only = -2k Rent (in order for investment to be viable) = >7K/year or £563 PCM
So a 5% tax will cause a 75% reduction in land value?
Seems like there might be an error in the maths there.
Unclear here as to why the landlord who brought the property for 400k suddenly has how much his mortgage is to 100k. In reality he still has a 400k mortgage @ 8k per annum and now has an extra 2k tax on top making 10k per annum making viable rent now 833 pcm.
Of course maybe I am being naive and all the existing mortgage companies are going to say hey your land has dropped in value so we are adjusting the amount you borrowed down to compensate.
A landlord will pay more and will put the rent up accordingly just as they will if there is an interest rise and here in the south east at least they will still find people to rent it
How do you adjust for different usage?
Agricultural land would no longer be viable, neither would public amenities like parks, places of worship or even schools and roads, if all taxed at a flat rate.
In practice there would need to be a lot of exemptions, until we wound up with something very similar to council tax.
Its not me advocating for land tax its pong, I was just pointing out the fallacy in his maths even if land values crashed by his predicted 75%. Also refuting his claim that rent would get cheaper and that any tax wouldn't inevitably be heaped on the backs of the tenants
It would however be more sensible to take stamp duty - which affects only people who move - and turn it into some sort of annual tax linked to land or property. On average people move every seven years, yet stamp duty falls only on those who move, and so discourages moving to a new job, downsizing (or upsizing for a new family), all things we shouldn't be discouraging.
I wonder if unlike 2015 the austerity is catching up with the Conservatives be it school funding effecting most voter's kids including GCSE & A Level choices , departing teachers, crises in maternity units and stories of exhausted nurses and medics doing long hours , decrease in local policing, the true impact of social care crisis on the middle aged kids, and the massive loans and help kids need for uni. Its getting cumulative I think and could be cutting through to female and younger voters.
Nope. A major lesson of this campaign is that a left wing message could resonate, but it has to be delivered by someone who does not come with the baggage that Corbyn brings.
I hope for your sake that McDonnell doesn't win any future leadership election.
Danny565's predictions for the GE from last night seem very credible to me.
My model came out with almost identical figures based on entirely rational reported polling swings in different regions.
Yet it makes no sense when you hear of Labour MP's panicking, box pops in north and Midlands, locals, Copeland by election etc
I'm going to trust my gut rather than my model. Tory maj of 100+
As well as Copeland there was Stoke, where a flawed candidate swept home comfortably, in a WWC pro Brexit seat. The Nuclear factor must be a large part of the difference, so may not generalise well.
Danny565's figures look plausible to me, though I tip the Con majority a little higher at 76.
The biggest source of error in the poll is one we haven't yet spotted. The description on page two says that the sample is weighted first by demography and second by stated intention to vote. So far so good (except with the potential bias noted downthread). It then says that anyone who said they were undecided, or refused to say, is eliminated from the sample used to produce the final VI.
If you look at the detailed data, it is striking that significantly fewer of the 18-24 cohort say they were undecided, or refused to say, than the older age groups. The young are all fired up for Corbyn and willing to say (which in my mind does suggest that their turnout may surprise on the upside).
But the effect of eliminating the DKs and WSs without any further balancing is to reduce the proportions of middle aged people remaining in the sample below that of the youngsters. Yet some of these respondents will vote, as they always do, and I don't believe that the relative uncertainty as to VI amongst the middle aged cohorts will translate into lower turnout? With VI so differentiated by age, the age balance of the final sample is the single key factor in polling correctly.
Very good spot. We have seen on here that a bunch of folk are still not sure how best to express their dislike of Corbyn - stick with Labour but holding their nose, vote Tory to keep Corbyn out but they are really LibDems, vote LibDem to keep out Corbyn but they are really Labour, go Tory for the first time even though they have previously always voted Labour.....
When those Don't Knows finally resolve their conscience and decide how to vote, I don't see it being anything but bad news for Labour on 8th June.
Yep. To win power (rather than keep it) Labour need to be strongly in the lead, because don't knows are likely to cling to nurse...
On reflection there were 2 different discussions going on last night and the venn diagram showed them barely touching.
On the one side there was Corbyn eager to have the State spending more on just about anything really, even nuclear weapons. Happy to claim that this could all be paid for by an increase in CT (why does no one ever point out that reducing CT has increased the yield and reversing it may well have the opposite effect) and the top 5%. Really a fantasy land but not unattractive as there are a lot of things we would and should spend more money on if we had it.
On the other there was May struggling to make the books credible (balance is still fading into the distance). Stuck with the reality of government she cannot promise more money for education despite the per capita spend falling, she cannot promise more police, she needs substantially more tax to pay for proper Social Care, she needs to keep going with cuts such as means testing the WFA and she needs to do all this in the context of Brexit with the uncertainty that is undoubtedly creating.
The question for the country is do we want the fantasy or the reality? I am not completely confident what the answer is. The reality looks pretty uninviting.
A tad partisan? The Conservatives have dropped the tax lock. Some might think that is because they intend to increase tax. The Chancellor has not been sighted since the old king died, presumably so he cannot be questioned about this.
Labour has said what it will do and how it will pay for it. You might take the view that its projections are unrealistic or goals undesirable: that's fine; that's democracy.
But surely it is the Conservatives in fantasy land, and they know it, with its uncosted manifesto and the pretence that all will be well with no tax increase despite giving themselves space to increase taxes, and having attempted to do so just a few weeks back (remember the strong and stable U-turn on the budget NIC increases).
It would however be more sensible to take stamp duty - which affects only people who move - and turn it into some sort of annual tax linked to land or property. On average people move every seven years, yet stamp duty falls only on those who move, and so discourages moving to a new job, downsizing (or upsizing for a new family), all things we shouldn't be discouraging.
Doesn't change the fact that any annual tax you put on property owners will land on the back of tenants not property owners. By definition the have nots of our society.
I have had to rent for the last 13 years as can no longer get a mortgage and I can assure you from my experience and that of my friends that an increase in the landlords costs get passed straight down
Danny565's predictions for the GE from last night seem very credible to me.
My model came out with almost identical figures based on entirely rational reported polling swings in different regions.
Yet it makes no sense when you hear of Labour MP's panicking, box pops in north and Midlands, locals, Copeland by election etc
I'm going to trust my gut rather than my model. Tory maj of 100+
As well as Copeland there was Stoke, where a flawed candidate swept home comfortably, in a WWC pro Brexit seat. The Nuclear factor must be a large part of the difference, so may not generalise well.
Danny565's figures look plausible to me, though I tip the Con majority a little higher at 76.
The Tories came third by about 78 votes despite fielding a 21 year old...
If 18-24 turnout is within 10% of 65-74 turnout I'll do an Ashdown and eat my hat.
18-24 turnout may not be that high, but I think it will be much higher than 43% (2015). It may well beat the 64% achieved in the EU referendum. Tuition fees and maintenance grants are a very important issue in many families.
If 18-24 turnout is within 10% of 65-74 turnout I'll do an Ashdown and eat my hat.
18-24 turnout may not be that high, but I think it will be much higher than 43% (2015). It may well beat the 64% achieved in the EU referendum. Tuition fees and maintenance grants are a very important issue in many families.
I went to say goodnight to my 19 year old daughter last night and she was watching the PM debate on Facebook, bless her. She is going to be heartbroken on 9th June. I think kids are a lot more engaged than maybe they have been in the past, but nowhere near enough to make any meaningful difference. I would not be surprised to see a 100 seat Tory majority. For a lot of voters Corbyn is just not worth the perceived risk, while for many older ones his baggage means he is actively repellent.
The youngsters just have to persuade their parents!
It's a learning process. I remember being absolutely devastated in 1983 and 1987. But the simple fact is that in order to be successful left wing parties have to be prepared to make accommodations with the voting public. That begins with being comfortable in the presence of a Union Jack and being absolutely unequivocal on security and defence. It is only then that you will get a hearing on everything else. My daughter, who is as patriotic as any teenage girl and probably does not even give that a second thought, will grow to realise this; and she will start to hold in contempt anyone on the left who does not.
I wonder if unlike 2015 the austerity is catching up with the Conservatives be it school funding effecting most voter's kids including GCSE & A Level choices , departing teachers, crises in maternity units and stories of exhausted nurses and medics doing long hours , decrease in local policing, the true impact of social care crisis on the middle aged kids, and the massive loans and help kids need for uni. Its getting cumulative I think and could be cutting through to female and younger voters.
Nope. A major lesson of this campaign is that a left wing message could resonate, but it has to be delivered by someone who does not come with the baggage that Corbyn brings.
I hope for your sake that McDonnell doesn't win any future leadership election.
As a mate put it in a txt yesterday, Corbyn isn't the worst Labour could offer. Only the third worst behind Abott and McDonnell...
Danny565's predictions for the GE from last night seem very credible to me.
My model came out with almost identical figures based on entirely rational reported polling swings in different regions.
Yet it makes no sense when you hear of Labour MP's panicking, box pops in north and Midlands, locals, Copeland by election etc
I'm going to trust my gut rather than my model. Tory maj of 100+
As well as Copeland there was Stoke, where a flawed candidate swept home comfortably, in a WWC pro Brexit seat. The Nuclear factor must be a large part of the difference, so may not generalise well.
Danny565's figures look plausible to me, though I tip the Con majority a little higher at 76.
The Tories came third by about 78 votes despite fielding a 21 year old...
Stoke central goes Tory in 10 days time....
This is the sort of bet that I constantly wonder if it is actually "on" or not.
If 18-24 turnout is within 10% of 65-74 turnout I'll do an Ashdown and eat my hat.
18-24 turnout may not be that high, but I think it will be much higher than 43% (2015). It may well beat the 64% achieved in the EU referendum. Tuition fees and maintenance grants are a very important issue in many families.
Even the 50%+ who don't go to university?
Chatting to a bright 18 year old on Friday. When I suggested that free education for some would be paid by the taxes of those who would never got the opportunity and places more competitive because there would undoubtedly be a reintroduction of caps on places, he finally twigged why tuition fees made sense...
On reflection there were 2 different discussions going on last night and the venn diagram showed them barely touching.
On the one side there was Corbyn eager to have the State spending more on just about anything really, even nuclear weapons. Happy to claim that this could all be paid for by an increase in CT (why does no one ever point out that reducing CT has increased the yield and reversing it may well have the opposite effect) and the top 5%. Really a fantasy land but not unattractive as there are a lot of things we would and should spend more money on if we had it.
On the other there was May struggling to make the books credible (balance is still fading into the distance). Stuck with the reality of government she cannot promise more money for education despite the per capita spend falling, she cannot promise more police, she needs substantially more tax to pay for proper Social Care, she needs to keep going with cuts such as means testing the WFA and she needs to do all this in the context of Brexit with the uncertainty that is undoubtedly creating.
The question for the country is do we want the fantasy or the reality? I am not completely confident what the answer is. The reality looks pretty uninviting.
A tad partisan? The Conservatives have dropped the tax lock. Some might think that is because they intend to increase tax. The Chancellor has not been sighted since the old king died, presumably so he cannot be questioned about this.
Labour has said what it will do and how it will pay for it. You might take the view that its projections are unrealistic or goals undesirable: that's fine; that's democracy.
But surely it is the Conservatives in fantasy land, and they know it, with its uncosted manifesto and the pretence that all will be well with no tax increase despite giving themselves space to increase taxes, and having attempted to do so just a few weeks back (remember the strong and stable U-turn on the budget NIC increases).
Danny565's predictions for the GE from last night seem very credible to me.
My model came out with almost identical figures based on entirely rational reported polling swings in different regions.
Yet it makes no sense when you hear of Labour MP's panicking, box pops in north and Midlands, locals, Copeland by election etc
I'm going to trust my gut rather than my model. Tory maj of 100+
As well as Copeland there was Stoke, where a flawed candidate swept home comfortably, in a WWC pro Brexit seat. The Nuclear factor must be a large part of the difference, so may not generalise well.
Danny565's figures look plausible to me, though I tip the Con majority a little higher at 76.
The Tories came third by about 78 votes despite fielding a 21 year old...
Stoke central goes Tory in 10 days time....
This is the sort of bet that I constantly wonder if it is actually "on" or not.
Hm, surely depressed turnout in the by-election was the reason the Tories came a close third?
The biggest source of error in the poll is one we haven't yet spotted. The description on page two says that the sample is weighted first by demography and second by stated intention to vote. So far so good (except with the potential bias noted downthread). It then says that anyone who said they were undecided, or refused to say, is eliminated from the sample used to produce the final VI.
If you look at the detailed data, it is striking that significantly fewer of the 18-24 cohort say they were undecided, or refused to say, than the older age groups. The young are all fired up for Corbyn and willing to say (which in my mind does suggest that their turnout may surprise on the upside).
But the effect of eliminating the DKs and WSs without any further balancing is to reduce the proportions of middle aged people remaining in the sample below that of the youngsters. Yet some of these respondents will vote, as they always do, and I don't believe that the relative uncertainty as to VI amongst the middle aged cohorts will translate into lower turnout? With VI so differentiated by age, the age balance of the final sample is the single key factor in polling correctly.
Very good spot. We have seen on here that a bunch of folk are still not sure how best to express their dislike of Corbyn - stick with Labour but holding their nose, vote Tory to keep Corbyn out but they are really LibDems, vote LibDem to keep out Corbyn but they are really Labour, go Tory for the first time even though they have previously always voted Labour.....
When those Don't Knows finally resolve their conscience and decide how to vote, I don't see it being anything but bad news for Labour on 8th June.
The undecideds are just as likely to be those repelled by May as Corbyn.
They also tend to be younger women (men seem more decisive in polls), a demographic more likely to break for Labour.
I wonder if unlike 2015 the austerity is catching up with the Conservatives be it school funding effecting most voter's kids including GCSE & A Level choices , departing teachers, crises in maternity units and stories of exhausted nurses and medics doing long hours , decrease in local policing, the true impact of social care crisis on the middle aged kids, and the massive loans and help kids need for uni. Its getting cumulative I think and could be cutting through to female and younger voters.
Nope. A major lesson of this campaign is that a left wing message could resonate, but it has to be delivered by someone who does not come with the baggage that Corbyn brings.
I hope for your sake that McDonnell doesn't win any future leadership election.
As a mate put it in a txt yesterday, Corbyn isn't the worst Labour could offer. Only the third worst behind Abott and McDonnell...
To be fair to Corbyn Labour polled 2% more under him than with Cooper and Umunna with yougov a fortnight ago and just 1% behind Khan
It may be my political bias but I think if both leaders were injected with truth serum then May would say pretty much what she's been saying whereas Corbyn would come out with the most hair raising left wing crap
The biggest source of error in the poll is one we haven't yet spotted. The description on page two says that the sample is weighted first by demography and second by stated intention to vote. So far so good (except with the potential bias noted downthread). It then says that anyone who said they were undecided, or refused to say, is eliminated from the sample used to produce the final VI.
If you look at the detailed data, it is striking that significantly fewer of the 18-24 cohort say they were undecided, or refused to say, than the older age groups. The young are all fired up for Corbyn and willing to say (which in my mind does suggest that their turnout may surprise on the upside).
But the effect of eliminating the DKs and WSs without any further balancing is to reduce the proportions of middle aged people remaining in the sample below that of the youngsters. Yet some of these respondents will vote, as they always do, and I don't believe that the relative uncertainty as to VI amongst the middle aged cohorts will translate into lower turnout? With VI so differentiated by age, the age balance of the final sample is the single key factor in polling correctly.
Very good spot. We have seen on here that a bunch of folk are still not sure how best to express their dislike of Corbyn - stick with Labour but holding their nose, vote Tory to keep Corbyn out but they are really LibDems, vote LibDem to keep out Corbyn but they are really Labour, go Tory for the first time even though they have previously always voted Labour.....
When those Don't Knows finally resolve their conscience and decide how to vote, I don't see it being anything but bad news for Labour on 8th June.
The undecideds are just as likely to be those repelled by May as Corbyn.
They also tend to be younger women (men seem more decisive in polls), a demographic more likely to break for Labour.
Are there any stats on this, or is it all just guesswork at this point? Would have thought undecideds were more likely to stick with the status quo.
On reflection there were 2 different discussions going on last night and the venn diagram showed them barely touching.
On the one side there was Corbyn eager to have the State spending more on just about anything really, even nuclear weapons. Happy to claim that this could all be paid for by an increase in CT (why does no one ever point out that reducing CT has increased the yield and reversing it may well have the opposite effect) and the top 5%. Really a fantasy land but not unattractive as there are a lot of things we would and should spend more money on if we had it.
On the other there was May struggling to make the books credible (balance is still fading into the distance). Stuck with the reality of government she cannot promise more money for education despite the per capita spend falling, she cannot promise more police, she needs substantially more tax to pay for proper Social Care, she needs to keep going with cuts such as means testing the WFA and she needs to do all this in the context of Brexit with the uncertainty that is undoubtedly creating.
The question for the country is do we want the fantasy or the reality? I am not completely confident what the answer is. The reality looks pretty uninviting.
She is promising a Brexit deal that will improve living standards. That is one hell of a promise and one that is not necessarily grounded in any kind of reality.
Listening to the boss of Ryanair who have just made record profits say in relation to Brexit "if we don't manage to negotiate another 'Open Sky' policy with the EU from 2019 we will literally not be able to fly to Europe".
It's becoming obvious that not only have we got the worst poker players at the table but also the worst deck.
The biggest source of error in the poll is one we haven't yet spotted. The description on page two says that the sample is weighted first by demography and second by stated intention to vote. So far so good (except with the potential bias noted downthread). It then says that anyone who said they were undecided, or refused to say, is eliminated from the sample used to produce the final VI.
If you look at the detailed data, it is striking that significantly fewer of the 18-24 cohort say they were undecided, or refused to say, than the older age groups. The young are all fired up for Corbyn and willing to say (which in my mind does suggest that their turnout may surprise on the upside).
But the effect of eliminating the DKs and WSs without any further balancing is to reduce the proportions of middle aged people remaining in the sample below that of the youngsters. Yet some of these respondents will vote, as they always do, and I don't believe that the relative uncertainty as to VI amongst the middle aged cohorts will translate into lower turnout? With VI so differentiated by age, the age balance of the final sample is the single key factor in polling correctly.
Very good spot. We have seen on here that a bunch of folk are still not sure how best to express their dislike of Corbyn - stick with Labour but holding their nose, vote Tory to keep Corbyn out but they are really LibDems, vote LibDem to keep out Corbyn but they are really Labour, go Tory for the first time even though they have previously always voted Labour.....
When those Don't Knows finally resolve their conscience and decide how to vote, I don't see it being anything but bad news for Labour on 8th June.
The undecideds are just as likely to be those repelled by May as Corbyn.
They also tend to be younger women (men seem more decisive in polls), a demographic more likely to break for Labour.
Are there any stats on this, or is it all just guesswork at this point? Would have thought undecideds were more likely to stick with the status quo.
I don't agree with Mark that they are necessarily less likely to vote for Corbyn - but the point is that they will break with the rest of their age group. Eliminating them from the sample is downweighting their demographic in the final VI.
My experience is that won't says are almost always Conservative. As soon as anyone starts the "between me and the ballot box" speech my card is already marked with a tick in the Tory column.
If 18-24 turnout is within 10% of 65-74 turnout I'll do an Ashdown and eat my hat.
18-24 turnout may not be that high, but I think it will be much higher than 43% (2015). It may well beat the 64% achieved in the EU referendum. Tuition fees and maintenance grants are a very important issue in many families.
Even the 50%+ who don't go to university?
Not so much for them, but going to university will look more attractive for some people when grants are available and they won't have to be in huge debt when they leave.
Reintroducing grants for fees and maintenance would be a major poke in the eye for the banks but it may be difficult for the Trident group in Labour to scupper.
On reflection there were 2 different discussions going on last night and the venn diagram showed them barely touching.
On the one side there was Corbyn eager to have the State spending more on just about anything really, even nuclear weapons. Happy to claim that this could all be paid for by an increase in CT (why does no one ever point out that reducing CT has increased the yield and reversing it may well have the opposite effect) and the top 5%. Really a fantasy land but not unattractive as there are a lot of things we would and should spend more money on if we had it.
On the other there was May struggling to make the books credible (balance is still fading into the distance). Stuck with the reality of government she cannot promise more money for education despite the per capita spend falling, she cannot promise more police, she needs substantially more tax to pay for proper Social Care, she needs to keep going with cuts such as means testing the WFA and she needs to do all this in the context of Brexit with the uncertainty that is undoubtedly creating.
The question for the country is do we want the fantasy or the reality? I am not completely confident what the answer is. The reality looks pretty uninviting.
She is promising a Brexit deal that will improve living standards. That is one hell of a promise and one that is not necessarily grounded in any kind of reality.
Listening to the boss of Ryanair who have just made record profits say in relation to Brexit "if we don't manage to negotiate another 'Open Sky' policy with the EU from 2019 we will literally not be able to fly to Europe".
It's becoming obvious that not only have we got the worst poker players at the table but we've also got the worst deck.
The boss of Ryanair? Michael O'Leary? Who is Irish? Who has made a fortune by resenting having to carry his passengers?
Comments
Why would they want to do that?
What makes you think that they have the power to do that?
65-74 group is at 89%. Interesting that 25-34 is the lowest at 71%.
The problem for the pollsters I guess is if these people will actually do what they say.
On the basis of that simplistic polling, we wouldn't have gone into the Second World War to defeat Nazism because of the risk of the terrorism of the Blitz...
The trend over time is clear though. TM has not convinced that she is strong and stable, and there is a major kickback on austerity.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-40086276
If you can't be bothered to vote - I guess you also can't be bothered to answer surveys?
On the one side there was Corbyn eager to have the State spending more on just about anything really, even nuclear weapons. Happy to claim that this could all be paid for by an increase in CT (why does no one ever point out that reducing CT has increased the yield and reversing it may well have the opposite effect) and the top 5%. Really a fantasy land but not unattractive as there are a lot of things we would and should spend more money on if we had it.
On the other there was May struggling to make the books credible (balance is still fading into the distance). Stuck with the reality of government she cannot promise more money for education despite the per capita spend falling, she cannot promise more police, she needs substantially more tax to pay for proper Social Care, she needs to keep going with cuts such as means testing the WFA and she needs to do all this in the context of Brexit with the uncertainty that is undoubtedly creating.
The question for the country is do we want the fantasy or the reality? I am not completely confident what the answer is. The reality looks pretty uninviting.
They can quite rightly claim that Tories will hammer working people with tax whereas they will protect everyone earning up to 80k
I'm not saying I subscribe to that view, but it has been suggested by some that closer polls spice up life.... And you have to ask - if May were still 22% ahead, would ANYBODY be bothering covering the election?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DA_BSkOXgAAGihY.jpg
Do we actually know they have used this data in producing their headline VI? As against making a separate assessment using historical and demographic data?
78% for 65+.
Estimated for 2015.
http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout15.htm
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Final-GMB-GE2017-IV-Tables-260517TOCH-1c0d0h9.pdf
Of course maybe I am being naive and all the existing mortgage companies are going to say hey your land has dropped in value so we are adjusting the amount you borrowed down to compensate.
A landlord will pay more and will put the rent up accordingly just as they will if there is an interest rise and here in the south east at least they will still find people to rent it
"A land value tax? That's the most stupid idea I've ever heard of."
"Yes, but you've heard of it."
The first stage is getting control of the agenda.
SNP 29%
SLAB 20%
Tories are continuing to harp on about long forgotton history. They should have the tax rises front and centre. No floating voter is bothered who said what to whom 30 years ago, they care about their wallets now.
It isnt helped that Tories have dumped their pledges to freeze tax and NI, and the triple lock though.
PS who is Steve Peers?
Tezza is making a speech today claiming all the really bad things that will happen if we don't get a good Brexit deal.
So what does "no deal" look like...
My guess is that will be pretty close with the small detail of the Tory and SNP shares being switched.
Nicola Sturgeon is expected to unveil a manifesto today to “build a cross-party coalition” that will aim to “scrap Trident as quickly and safely as possible”.
The text suggests that SNP MPs will reach out to Labour counterparts who favour unilateral nuclear disarmament, a position that clashes with the UK party’s official position despite Jeremy Corbyn’s backing for disarmament.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/snp-vows-to-scrap-trident-with-the-backing-of-labour-rebels-d3bvpzlbx
Agricultural land would no longer be viable, neither would public amenities like parks, places of worship or even schools and roads, if all taxed at a flat rate.
In practice there would need to be a lot of exemptions, until we wound up with something very similar to council tax.
What direction will the party go in after a win? More left wing and a party conferencekeento put abolishment of the monarchy and unilateral nuclear disarmament in the manifesto retrospectively?
Worked well last year after all!
The biggest source of error in the poll is one we haven't yet spotted. The description on page two says that the sample is weighted first by demography and second by stated intention to vote. So far so good (except with the potential bias noted downthread). It then says that anyone who said they were undecided, or refused to say, is eliminated from the sample used to produce the final VI.
If you look at the detailed data, it is striking that significantly fewer of the 18-24 cohort say they were undecided, or refused to say, than the older age groups. The young are all fired up for Corbyn and willing to say (which in my mind does suggest that their turnout may surprise on the upside).
But the effect of eliminating the DKs and WSs without any further balancing is to reduce the proportions of middle aged people remaining in the sample below that of the youngsters. Yet some of these respondents will vote, as they always do, and I don't believe that the relative uncertainty as to VI amongst the middle aged cohorts will translate into lower turnout? With VI so differentiated by age, the age balance of the final sample is the single key factor in polling correctly.
A fair number of middle aged second home owners are double registered too.
Nevertheless there is no demographic data (formally) associated with the ER; the pollsters will be using census-derived demographics to weight their polls. So double registration shouldn't introduce any bias into the polling. Similarly the post-election turnout data comes from polling - asking people whether they voted - and is not tied back to the ER.
Yet it makes no sense when you hear of Labour MP's panicking, box pops in north and Midlands, locals, Copeland by election etc
I'm going to trust my gut rather than my model. Tory maj of 100+
When those Don't Knows finally resolve their conscience and decide how to vote, I don't see it being anything but bad news for Labour on 8th June.
Danny565's figures look plausible to me, though I tip the Con majority a little higher at 76.
Labour has said what it will do and how it will pay for it. You might take the view that its projections are unrealistic or goals undesirable: that's fine; that's democracy.
But surely it is the Conservatives in fantasy land, and they know it, with its uncosted manifesto and the pretence that all will be well with no tax increase despite giving themselves space to increase taxes, and having attempted to do so just a few weeks back (remember the strong and stable U-turn on the budget NIC increases).
I have had to rent for the last 13 years as can no longer get a mortgage and I can assure you from my experience and that of my friends that an increase in the landlords costs get passed straight down
Stoke central goes Tory in 10 days time....
Had to admit, didn't see much at all of the programme last night, largely because I was watching the first episode of Continuum. Interesting so far.
They also tend to be younger women (men seem more decisive in polls), a demographic more likely to break for Labour.
It's becoming obvious that not only have we got the worst poker players at the table but also the worst deck.
My experience is that won't says are almost always Conservative. As soon as anyone starts the "between me and the ballot box" speech my card is already marked with a tick in the Tory column.
Reintroducing grants for fees and maintenance would be a major poke in the eye for the banks but it may be difficult for the Trident group in Labour to scupper.
OK, then.