Why has he appointed Seamus Milne and Andrew Murray - two avowed Stalinists - to his leadership team? Those were decisions taken in the here and now.
For the same reason as he appointed McDonnell and Thornberry. He's very influenced by the Blair/Brown saga, during which we spent years chewing over every leak and counter-leak, and he attaches a lot of importance to having a core team that is personally loyal. I don't know much about Murray apart from his communist past (which I share, but we all move on) and his StopTheWar leadership (not a big minus in current perspective). Milne has been an intelligent left-wing commentator for years and while he probably doesn't agree with Corbyn on quie a few issues he's apparently not leaked a single word since he was appointed. A lot of the old issues - what do we think of Eurocommunism vs the Soviet Union and all that - are mainly of interest to historians now.
It's clearly a weakness that the PLP insurgency has limited Corbyn's scope to appoint a wider range of intimates from outside the personal loyal circle, and he'd like to - hence e.g. Starmer and Rayner, who aren't notably Corbynistas. If he wins I expect to see the circle widen as the PLP won't renew the insurrection against a winner. A key decision which I expect would be to bring Hillary Benn back into the Cabinet.
Incidentally, I opposed appointing McDonnell as I thought Corbyn should take a centrist shadow Chancllor. He's pleasantly surprised me by his hard-headed approach - he's more rigorous than EdB was, someone whom he in some ways otherwise resembles (in joviality combined with a tough streak).
I don't recall Ed Balls' joviality extending to jokes about knee-capping or assassinating Thatcher.
I'm astonished, ASTONISHED, I tell you to see that YouGovs broadly criticised model is shifting gradually towards blues in seat numbers and I'll be equally astonished as it continues to over the next few days.
A glorious morning in London Town and I hope for similar next week. Democracy only really works if as many participate as possible. The more who absent themselves from the process the easier it is for the extremes on both sides to gain a foothold.
Irrespective of political perspective (or lack of it), the one message ALL activists and campaigners should be shouting is for people to get out and vote. I can't honestly say from limited discussions with my contemporaries and acquaintances I detect huge enthusiasm for anyone in this election.
I don't claim that from speaking to a few people I have any kind of insight into the mood of the country any more than knocking on a few doors in one part of England, Scotland, Wales or Ulster immediately provides insight into all other areas.
I didn't watch the debate last night - I understand the rationale behind Theresa May's non-attendance and it always looks good to be above the ferrets. The only problem is the voters are in the sack as well. More heat than light from what I've read and inevitable with seven runners as the farcical GOP debates last year illustrated. Two or three is probably the optimum number for these to work well.
Disagree about May sitting it out (in retrospect - before the event I thought May was right to sit it out, though that was when Corbyn wasn't going either). May should have gone. Would she have done OK? Who knows? She's hardly the most nimble on her toes but she does know her stuff. The biggest risk would have been that she'd have parroted the same line for 90 minutes and sounded false and robotic, while simultaneously missing several open goals. But that's a risk she could have controlled by not being so f*cking controlled.
However, not being there just looked awful.
In terms of invitees, I fully agree that seven is far too many. There should be a 5% qualification: you only get in if you are projected to win either 5%+ of the votes or 5%+ of the seats. Obviously, there'd need to be some sort of agreement on methodology about how you do that but it's not beyond the wit of man. If those criteria were applied, Plaid and the Greens would be out and UKIP borderline. Four participants is manageable; five a bit topside but perhaps the limit for what can be a genuine debate.
The ludicrous idea of having a 7 way debate only came to pass because Cameron wanted to dilute the impact Farage would have on him at GE 2015. Why it has become a precedent is beyond me, it was a one off fudge.
I thought that one-off fudges becoming precedent was the essence of the British Constitution?
Without that the economy would be booming, Corbyn and his thugs would be an irrelevance, and we would welcome our European friends as allies against the insanity of Trump
Hey ho...
It is exceedingly difficult not to agree. And now erstwhile Leavers are cacking themselves.
We have to take our pleasures where we find them.
@Indigo is already abroad, Max has left, and now @Casino is thinking of fucking off.
At this rate there won't be any PB Leavers left living in the UK.
Just Tyndall in his fortress in Lincolnshire having to pop out and pick the sprouts from time to time before they rot on the stem.
Mr Casino is going??? I am shocked!
It's the election of a dogmatically Marxist Corbyn/McDonnell led Government that would lead me to seek to work and live overseas, not Brexit.
As a working full-time professional earning £70k-£80k, and about to start a family and buying a family home, it's precisely my money he'd be after.
I don't see Brexit and Conservative Government until (hopefully) GE2027 as any threat to my livelihood at all, although I know that disappoints some Remainers.
I'd give free degrees to students who do proper degrees*, at red brick Unis.
Snobbish and elitist I knoow, but it's for the greater good.
*Medical degrees, maths, the real sciences, like physics and chemistry, engineering, legal degrees, and history.
It's not snobbish and elitist.
It's simply the way that government investment in education should be viewed: a social good that has positive externalities and therefore should be encouraged. To argue that certain courses have great social utility than others is very reasonable
Why has he appointed Seamus Milne and Andrew Murray - two avowed Stalinists - to his leadership team? Those were decisions taken in the here and now.
For the same reason as he appointed McDonnell and Thornberry. He's very influenced by the Blair/Brown saga, during which we spent years chewing over every leak and counter-leak, and he attaches a lot of importance to having a core team that is personally loyal. I don't know much about Murray apart from his communist past (which I share, but we all move on) and his StopTheWar leadership (not a big minus in current perspective). Milne has been an intelligent left-wing commentator for years and while he probably doesn't agree with Corbyn on quie a few issues he's apparently not leaked a single word since he was appointed. A lot of the old issues - what do we think of Eurocommunism vs the Soviet Union and all that - are mainly of interest to historians now.
It's clearly a weakness that the PLP insurgency has limited Corbyn's scope to appoint a wider range of intimates from outside the personal loyal circle, and he'd like to - hence e.g. Starmer and Rayner, who aren't notably Corbynistas. If he wins I expect to see the circle widen as the PLP won't renew the insurrection against a winner. A key decision which I expect would be to bring Hillary Benn back into the Cabinet.
Incidentally, I opposed appointing McDonnell as I thought Corbyn should take a centrist shadow Chancllor. He's pleasantly surprised me by his hard-headed approach - he's more rigorous than EdB was, someone whom he in some ways otherwise resembles (in joviality combined with a tough streak).
I don't recall Ed Balls' joviality extending to jokes about knee-capping or assassinating Thatcher.
On Mrs May herself, I would acknowledge she is not a natural, charismatic campaigner. Yet that isn't her pitch is it? She pitches as serious, experienced, competent. I don't believe that the social care policy is enough to undo 7 years plus of Government experience in voters eyes. Does it mean she doesn't fight another GE, I don't know. Certainly you would expect more of the team to come forward in future campaigns, but Angela Merkel seems to keep fighting elections with the same reputation doesn't she?
We are in a wierd and unfair situation to Mrs May that seemingly if May wins a majority of say 100 (best Tory performance since the 1980's) she will gain no credit because it will be down to Corbyn, yet if she doesn't increase her majority it will be all her fault - she can't win!
Fairness implies some connection between contribution and outcome.
Unfairness can just as equally mean the lucky being rewarded as the virtuous going unrecognised.
Three children and one toy flute. Who should get the flute?
Alice is the only one who can play the flute. She should get it as the others can't make use of it.
Bob has no toys. The other two have plenty of toys. Bob should get the flute because it would give him more happiness.
Colin was lucky enough to find the flute. He should get. Finders keepers.
What is fair and just?
Selling the flute and investing the proceeds to pay for their education?
Send Alice out busking and use the proceeds to buy toys for them all
Isn't that covered by the social reforms introduced by the Tories*?
Iain Dale really pissed off with Yasmin Alibhai Brown saying sending Rudd was cruel because her father had died. Dale says I KNOW she was given the choice and it's what her father would have wanted, that's why she did it.
YouGov are estimating, for each seat, a mean and standard deviation for each party. So the number of parameters they are fitting are 650 * 4.5 *3 = 8775 (where I have taken an average of 4.5 parties standing in each seat).
Number of pieces of data = 50000 (the sample size)
Number of datapoints / Number of parameters to be estimated is approx 6
Conclusion: They will not be able to find any meaningful parameter estimation. Their model will give flat, broad posterior distributions for the parameters.
Agreed if you take the top Tory seat range and the low Lab one it may be closer to the result
Without that the economy would be booming, Corbyn and his thugs would be an irrelevance, and we would welcome our European friends as allies against the insanity of Trump
Hey ho...
It is exceedingly difficult not to agree. And now erstwhile Leavers are cacking themselves.
We have to take our pleasures where we find them.
@Indigo is already abroad, Max has left, and now @Casino is thinking of fucking off.
At this rate there won't be any PB Leavers left living in the UK.
Just Tyndall in his fortress in Lincolnshire having to pop out and pick the sprouts from time to time before they rot on the stem.
Mr Casino is going??? I am shocked!
It's the election of a dogmatically Marxist Corbyn/McDonnell led Government that would lead me to seek to work and live overseas, not Brexit.
As a working full-time professional earning £70k-£80k, and about to start a family and buying a family home, it's precisely my money he'd be after.
I don't see Brexit and Conservative Government until (hopefully) GE2027 as any threat to my livelihood at all, although I know that disappoints some Remainers.
I felt the same way about Gordon Brown back in 1997 when it became clear that he was out for a money grab.
I should be clear that my main antipathy to Brexit is an economic one. I believe it will have a horrendous impact on the UK economy and all this talk of "short term pain for long term gain" is myopic at best. What is "short term"? 5 years? 10 years? 50 years? In terms of UK history 50 years is nothing. Any gains might not come about until after I and my children are dead but we will be here for all the problems and hardships.
I do not believe that the pain will be worth the gain.
I'm astonished, ASTONISHED, I tell you to see that YouGovs broadly criticised model is shifting gradually towards blues in seat numbers and I'll be equally astonished as it continues to over the next few days.
On Mrs May herself, I would acknowledge she is not a natural, charismatic campaigner. Yet that isn't her pitch is it? She pitches as serious, experienced, competent. I don't believe that the social care policy is enough to undo 7 years plus of Government experience in voters eyes. Does it mean she doesn't fight another GE, I don't know. Certainly you would expect more of the team to come forward in future campaigns, but Angela Merkel seems to keep fighting elections with the same reputation doesn't she?
We are in a wierd and unfair situation to Mrs May that seemingly if May wins a majority of say 100 (best Tory performance since the 1980's) she will gain no credit because it will be down to Corbyn, yet if she doesn't increase her majority it will be all her fault - she can't win!
Fairness implies some connection between contribution and outcome.
Unfairness can just as equally mean the lucky being rewarded as the virtuous going unrecognised.
Three children and one toy flute. Who should get the flute?
Alice is the only one who can play the flute. She should get it as the others can't make use of it.
Bob has no toys. The other two have plenty of toys. Bob should get the flute because it would give him more happiness.
Colin was lucky enough to find the flute. He should get. Finders keepers.
What is fair and just?
Cut the flute into three pieces...
I was going to suggest destroying the flute. Problem solved...
Iain Dale really pissed off with Yasmin Alibhai Brown saying sending Rudd was cruel because her father had died. Dale says I KNOW she was given the choice and it's what her father would have wanted, that's why she did it.
It wasn’t quite as unwatchable as it threatened to be. It was good to be reminded that Tim Farron existed. He was quite good. His opening statement was the most straightforward. His pitch was a penny on income tax for the NHS and social care, and giving the people the final say on Brexit. His folksy relating of every question to his personal experience is easy to mock but an effective way of getting his message across.
But there were only two people in this debate, Jeremy Corbyn and Amber Rudd. Neither of them was very good. The Labour leader thought he had made his point by turning up. He made no reference to Theresa May’s absence in his opening statement. That seemed quite statesmanlike, but I assumed he was saving it up for later. He wasn’t. His was an underpowered performance in front of an audience that seemed ready to support him.
Why has he appointed Seamus Milne and Andrew Murray - two avowed Stalinists - to his leadership team? Those were decisions taken in the here and now.
For the same reason as he appointed McDonnell and Thornberry. He's very influenced by the Blair/Brown saga, during which we spent years chewing over every leak and counter-leak, and he attaches a lot of importance to having a core team that is personally loyal. I don't know much about Murray apart from his communist past (which I share, but we all move on) and his StopTheWar leadership (not a big minus in current perspective). Milne has been an intelligent left-wing commentator for years and while he probably doesn't agree with Corbyn on quie a few issues he's apparently not leaked a single word since he was appointed. A lot of the old issues - what do we think of Eurocommunism vs the Soviet Union and all that - are mainly of interest to historians now.
It's clearly a weakness that the PLP insurgency has limited Corbyn's scope to appoint a wider range of intimates from outside the personal loyal circle, and he'd like to - hence e.g. Starmer and Rayner, who aren't notably Corbynistas. If he wins I expect to see the circle widen as the PLP won't renew the insurrection against a winner. A key decision which I expect would be to bring Hillary Benn back into the Cabinet.
Incidentally, I opposed appointing McDonnell as I thought Corbyn should take a centrist shadow Chancllor. He's pleasantly surprised me by his hard-headed approach - he's more rigorous than EdB was, someone whom he in some ways otherwise resembles (in joviality combined with a tough streak).
Do you really believe this crap?
It's the anomie of the politically over-engaged. You see it on left and right but it's far worse on the left I think.
I think the problem is that people (rightly or wrongly) see dementia as an illness which falls under the remit of free at the point of use care. This is why so many people are surprised to find out about the current situation where you already pay for care if your assets are worth more than £23,000.
There is a legitimate question to ask as to why someone with terminal cancer should get free palliative care but someone with dementia should not. Both are diseases which are linked to longer life (although obviously there are exceptions in both cases) and both are thought to have elements of both genetic predisposition and lifestyle causes. It would be very difficult to define a water tight logical argument as to why each should be treated differently in terms of care provision and payment.
Very valid points and of course both cancer and dementia operate at a range of levels and intensities. My mother died of cancer but never went into a hospice - my father (with help) cared for her at home and we had a McMillan nurse for the last couple of days. I can only imagine how difficult dealing with dementia is and anyone who is in that situation deserves nothing but understanding.
I believe these are deeper questions than medical conditions - they cut to the core of how we deal with age and death and these aren't easy questions to debate. There's more to treating the elderly with respect than providing them with free tv licences and a winter fuel allowance. If anything, the differentiation is a form of patronising behaviour.
There are core human values such as independence, dignity, value, self-worth and all that which are taken by dementia and by age in general. My father was 89 on Monday - mercifully he has full mental faculties but he is frail and walks with a stick and for all he is still my father, the strong, vital, confident, towering presence of my childhood is gone.
There may be those who argue he is better in a care home or he is better moving in with one of the family - perhaps but he is and always has been his own man and looked after himself and there's a balance between what's best for him and what's best for me and that's a line we all have to walk some times.
On Mrs May herself, I would acknowledge she is not a natural, charismatic campaigner. Yet that isn't her pitch is it? She pitches as serious, experienced, competent. I don't believe that the social care policy is enough to undo 7 years plus of Government experience in voters eyes. Does it mean she doesn't fight another GE, I don't know. Certainly you would expect more of the team to come forward in future campaigns, but Angela Merkel seems to keep fighting elections with the same reputation doesn't she?
We are in a wierd and unfair situation to Mrs May that seemingly if May wins a majority of say 100 (best Tory performance since the 1980's) she will gain no credit because it will be down to Corbyn, yet if she doesn't increase her majority it will be all her fault - she can't win!
Fairness implies some connection between contribution and outcome.
Unfairness can just as equally mean the lucky being rewarded as the virtuous going unrecognised.
Three children and one toy flute. Who should get the flute?
Alice is the only one who can play the flute. She should get it as the others can't make use of it.
Bob has no toys. The other two have plenty of toys. Bob should get the flute because it would give him more happiness.
Colin was lucky enough to find the flute. He should get. Finders keepers.
What is fair and just?
Cut the flute into three pieces...
I was going to suggest destroying the flute. Problem solved...
Corbyn tells NME he will be looking at ways to reduce or alter the existing student loan back book. Yeah, all costed. Fully costed. Costco costed. They are all taking the piss now.
Why has he appointed Seamus Milne and Andrew Murray - two avowed Stalinists - to his leadership team? Those were decisions taken in the here and now.
For the same reason as he appointed McDonnell and Thornberry. He's very influenced by the Blair/Brown saga, during which we spent years chewing over every leak and counter-leak, and he attaches a lot of importance to having a core team that is personally loyal. I don't know much about Murray apart from his communist past (which I share, but we all move on) and his StopTheWar leadership (not a big minus in current perspective). Milne has been an intelligent left-wing commentator for years and while he probably doesn't agree with Corbyn on quie a few issues he's apparently not leaked a single word since he was appointed. A lot of the old issues - what do we think of Eurocommunism vs the Soviet Union and all that - are mainly of interest to historians now.
It's clearly a weakness that the PLP insurgency has limited Corbyn's scope to appoint a wider range of intimates from outside the personal loyal circle, and he'd like to - hence e.g. Starmer and Rayner, who aren't notably Corbynistas. If he wins I expect to see the circle widen as the PLP won't renew the insurrection against a winner. A key decision which I expect would be to bring Hillary Benn back into the Cabinet.
Incidentally, I opposed appointing McDonnell as I thought Corbyn should take a centrist shadow Chancllor. He's pleasantly surprised me by his hard-headed approach - he's more rigorous than EdB was, someone whom he in some ways otherwise resembles (in joviality combined with a tough streak).
Do you really believe this crap?
It's the anomie of the politically over-engaged. You see it on left and right but it's far worse on the left I think.
YouGov's tracker has an implied four point lead for the Conservatives (42:38) and the central points for seat numbers have moved from 310:257 to 319:252.
Oh goody ...... so the Tories now need only a further 7 seats from this central position to be in a position to form a majority Government. I'm wetting my knickers with excitement!
Because dementia is a slow degradation of natural brain function as a result of the aging process. It's basically old age.
Cancer is something going wrong with the cell messaging systems results in continuous cell division.
Which is also associated with the aging process. As is osteoarthritis, osteoporosis and a whole host of other diseases.
The inmprovement in general health means life expectancy has increased and the degenerative disorders become more prevelant. Degenerative disorders are not immediately life threatening but treatment is long term and costly. This goes for some forms of cancer as well.
The NHS is mainly for acute conditions - treat and get well or die.
For longer term conditions we need to establish a method of paying/providing this. The ageing population will only make the problem bigger.
The only party to have put forward any form of realistic approach without impoverishing the families of those impacted is the Tories, and I disagree with the cap on social care fees.
I have said many times before that the social care issue needs to be addressed urgently. A lot of older patients with degenerative disorders cannot be discharged to the community as there is no provision. They then 'bed block' and increase the pressure on the acute tratment the NHS can offer.
Unfortunately, rational discussion on this issue is impossible during the fevered GE campaign but at least the Tories have put something forward and it will be looked at seriously during the course of the next parliament being a part of the manifesto.
This is assuming that the inmates don't get put in charge of the asylum.
I am an OAP. I know lots of OAPs. Many of them are now basically going gaga (not perjorative- factual) and require 24 hour care and handling. The more obese require twe people handling them. And they require a multitude of drugs, many of which have side effects which come and go. So doctors are frequently consulted to change dosages, change drugs etc.
The quality of life for many is frankly rubbish. Basically living semi cabbages..
And 20% of the population are going soon to be OAPs.. Anyone who seriously thinks caring for such people is not going to impoverish the state is deluded. The young cannot afford the tax burden needed to fund it.So any solution which relies on general taxation is fatally flawed.
She obviously can't stand the pressure. It is embarrassing to watch. She couldn't run a bath, let alone Brexit. This is way beyond forgetting a number or having a brain fart, which we all do sometimes. She is not even CLOSE to being up to the job.
It wasn’t quite as unwatchable as it threatened to be. It was good to be reminded that Tim Farron existed. He was quite good. His opening statement was the most straightforward. His pitch was a penny on income tax for the NHS and social care, and giving the people the final say on Brexit. His folksy relating of every question to his personal experience is easy to mock but an effective way of getting his message across.
But there were only two people in this debate, Jeremy Corbyn and Amber Rudd. Neither of them was very good. The Labour leader thought he had made his point by turning up. He made no reference to Theresa May’s absence in his opening statement. That seemed quite statesmanlike, but I assumed he was saving it up for later. He wasn’t. His was an underpowered performance in front of an audience that seemed ready to support him.
The NHS disproportionately helps wealthy pensioners, taxing working people to pay for that is regressive.
yebbut I was thinking if you earn £12,000 and have to pay 1p extra on income tax it will affect you more than if you are earning £40,000 and hence regressive.
While 3d printing is cool Building the shell of a house isn't the big cost or time sink on prepared land. Fit out and foundations/ground prep cost&time will dwarf it as would the land cost.
Colin should retain ownership of the flute, he can rent it to Alice who can then be paid for performances.
Colin's rent and Alice's fees should be taxed at 25%, which then goes to buy a toy for Bob.
Then Colin can securitise the expected rental from the flute, pay himself a hefty dividend and retire to Monaco.
He can also package up the future rental flows from the flute together with the expected flows from some battered old recorder, have it rated AAA and sell that bundle to investors.
Never trust anything written in the passive. Who's doing the telling? Lib Dems? Conservatives? Other journalists? Pollsters?
Farron being in trouble points towards Tory outperformance outside the cities.
Westmorland is hardly typical of non-city seats! It's one of the most rural seats in the country, and has the 14th-biggest pensioner population.
The big question is how the two parties are performing in the compact, medium-sized urban towns and small cities. Ipswich, Milton Keynes, Wrexham, Wolverhampton, etc. These were often quite Brexit-y, and they're usually not "metropolitan" (favouring Tories), but they tend to not have that many elderly people there (favouring Labour).
I felt the same way about Gordon Brown back in 1997 when it became clear that he was out for a money grab.
I should be clear that my main antipathy to Brexit is an economic one. I believe it will have a horrendous impact on the UK economy and all this talk of "short term pain for long term gain" is myopic at best. What is "short term"? 5 years? 10 years? 50 years? In terms of UK history 50 years is nothing. Any gains might not come about until after I and my children are dead but we will be here for all the problems and hardships.
I do not believe that the pain will be worth the gain.
There's no reason to believe there will be a long term gain. There will be considerable short term pain extending into the medium term. Long term we will still be worse off, all other things being equal As you go further out, it gets a lot less predictable, so other things almost certainly won't be equal. It doesn't mean it will necessarily get better; it may get worse again. We just don't know and in the long term we will be dead, and no-one will be bothered by a counterfactual that ran out decades before.
Irish independence is a good example. Ireland had a basketcase economy that lasted sixty years. It was eventually rescued by the first wave of globalisation in the 1990's, when American companies were looking for a base in the EU and found Ireland, partly due to cultural links between the countries, as well as a pool of highly educated English speakers, benign tax rules and loads of Eurodosh. That was completely unpredictable in 1921 at the time of independence.
Colin should retain ownership of the flute, he can rent it to Alice who can then be paid for performances.
Colin's rent and Alice's fees should be taxed at 25%, which then goes to buy a toy for Bob.
Then Colin can securitise the expected rental from the flute, pay himself a hefty dividend and retire to Monaco.
He can also package up the future rental flows from the flute together with the expected flows from some battered old recorder, have it rated AAA and sell that bundle to investors.
He'd need to move to a non-extradition country afterwards, Monte Carlo wouldn't work. Maybe Belize?
Never trust anything written in the passive. Who's doing the telling? Lib Dems? Conservatives? Other journalists? Pollsters?
Farron being in trouble points towards Tory outperformance outside the cities.
I'm not going to give this particular report much credence until I find out whether it comes from Lib Dem HQ or Mr Fish Finger.
I believe the poster on here a view from Cumbria has been saying for a long time he was in trouble.I said that I thought leaders were usually safe due to extra coverage.He replied at that stage the national coverage was doing him harm locally.However I think he did well in the debate last night so might help his cause.
I'd give free degrees to students who do proper degrees*, at red brick Unis.
Snobbish and elitist I knoow, but it's for the greater good.
*Medical degrees, maths, the real sciences, like physics and chemistry, engineering, legal degrees, and history.
If they genuinely use those degrees they constructively are free. They will earn far more than they cost to obtain.
The richest person I remember from school did a classics degree at Cambridge and is now a hedge fund millionaire. A physicist I knew from Oxbridge of similar vintage earns £35k a year and lives in a terrace in Stafford.
If you think back to the 80s, the personal tax allowance was low and the base rate high. A graduate in effect started paying back in tax immediately - 25% of everything over £3k. Today loan repayments are added to a lower tax that starts much higher up. I suspect a graduate today pays no more than graduates have always paid.
The current system is fairer, but what's missing is that bad courses that cost thousands and don't get you a job need to be withdrawn through lack of interest, and bad universities that offer too many of those, or poor versions of useful courses, need to be allowed to go bust. I have never heard anyone in a position to affect the matter discuss how many universities we actually need. It's probably more than 20 but certainly fewer than 150.
Iain Dale really pissed off with Yasmin Alibhai Brown saying sending Rudd was cruel because her father had died. Dale says I KNOW she was given the choice and it's what her father would have wanted, that's why she did it.
When the PM gives you the "choice" of doing their bidding or opting out, it's hardly likely you'll say no. In any event the PM, knowing Rudd's situation should have simply have excused her. Rudd had a valid excuse, the Prime Minister didn't.
We have a choice between a "Poundshop Prime Minister" in May and a "Bankrupt Stock LotO" in Jezza. Some choice ....
IF you take the £11bn the student loan is currently estimated to cost then 'assuming' 30m taxpayers, thats £336 it'll cost every tax payer. If you have only higher rate tax payers paying it, (which is about 4m people), then they'll have to pay £2,750 per year. Just for that one policy.
Labour will have, very quickly to start putting taxes up for more and more people.
Iain Dale really pissed off with Yasmin Alibhai Brown saying sending Rudd was cruel because her father had died. Dale says I KNOW she was given the choice and it's what her father would have wanted, that's why she did it.
Some people seem to think Amber Rudd is some shrinking violet who can be bullied into appearing on TV against her wishes...
Not the powerful, independent woman who went on telly and implied Boris Johnson was a sex pest last year...
It wasn’t quite as unwatchable as it threatened to be. It was good to be reminded that Tim Farron existed. He was quite good. His opening statement was the most straightforward. His pitch was a penny on income tax for the NHS and social care, and giving the people the final say on Brexit. His folksy relating of every question to his personal experience is easy to mock but an effective way of getting his message across.
But there were only two people in this debate, Jeremy Corbyn and Amber Rudd. Neither of them was very good. The Labour leader thought he had made his point by turning up. He made no reference to Theresa May’s absence in his opening statement. That seemed quite statesmanlike, but I assumed he was saving it up for later. He wasn’t. His was an underpowered performance in front of an audience that seemed ready to support him.
The NHS disproportionately helps wealthy pensioners, taxing working people to pay for that is regressive.
yebbut I was thinking if you earn £12,000 and have to pay 1p extra on income tax it will affect you more than if you are earning £40,000 and hence regressive.
In that sense it definitely is. I've always wondered why no party wants to take the the hold step of eliminating the higher rate and bringing the 45p rate down to £70k. A back of the envelope calculation shows it to be revenue neutral and I think over time it would be revenue generating as it leaves more money in people's hands that are the most likely to spend it on high multiplier goods and services.
Hamlet without the prince was never going to get a high audience rating. The open question is how many people who didn't watch it will remember that the prince refused to turn up for the play.
Don't forget Gertrude didn't turn up either last night, and sent Claudius in her place.
It's clear some on here would like nothing better than to see the LDs turfed out of Parliament completely but everyone within the Party knows it's going to be a dog fight to save what we can.
The nadir in terms of seats and votes was 2.8% and 6 seats in 1951 followed by 7.5% and 6 seats in 1970. I suspect we won't go below the 1951 vote share but there's a real danger the party could be left with 1-3 MPs.
Would that be the end ? Hardly.
Once the Conservatives lurch into the long spell of mid-term unpopularity, there'll be plenty of council seats to take and constituencies to rebuild - looking forward to it.
IF you take the £11bn the student loan is currently estimated to cost then 'assuming' 30m taxpayers, thats £336 it'll cost every tax payer. If you have only higher rate tax payers paying it, (which is about 4m people), then they'll have to pay £2,750 per year. Just for that one policy.
Labour will have, very quickly to start putting taxes up for more and more people.
That's not the only policy which needs paying for, every single Labour policy involves billions in additional spending and yet we're told that 2-3m higher and additional rate payers are going to shoulder the whole burden? It's madness.
Despite my comments about Dan Hodges' tweet, I'm getting increasingly gloomy about the Lib Dems' prospects. You can back the Lib Dems to get under 10 seats at odds of 2.8 or so on Betfair. It seems to me closer to an evens shot now.
It's clear some on here would like nothing better than to see the LDs turfed out of Parliament completely but everyone within the Party knows it's going to be a dog fight to save what we can.
The nadir in terms of seats and votes was 2.8% and 6 seats in 1951 followed by 7.5% and 6 seats in 1970. I suspect we won't go below the 1951 vote share but there's a real danger the party could be left with 1-3 MPs.
Would that be the end ? Hardly.
Once the Conservatives lurch into the long spell of mid-term unpopularity, there'll be plenty of council seats to take and constituencies to rebuild - looking forward to it.
IF you take the £11bn the student loan is currently estimated to cost then 'assuming' 30m taxpayers, thats £336 it'll cost every tax payer. If you have only higher rate tax payers paying it, (which is about 4m people), then they'll have to pay £2,750 per year. Just for that one policy.
Labour will have, very quickly to start putting taxes up for more and more people.
That's not the only policy which needs paying for, every single Labour policy involves billions in additional spending and yet we're told that 2-3m higher and additional rate payers are going to shoulder the whole burden? It's madness.
Exactly. There simply in pure numbers aren't enough rich people to get large amounts of money from.
Never trust anything written in the passive. Who's doing the telling? Lib Dems? Conservatives? Other journalists? Pollsters?
Farron being in trouble points towards Tory outperformance outside the cities.
It feels as though there are two different election campaigns going on. One on the doorstep, and one in the media/here/etc.
"So we have swingy polls, heightened media interest in the polls, frenzied analysis of the media interest and the polls... when the result was the same all along - The opinion polls, coverage of opinion polls, and reaction to coverage of opinion polls feed off each other to create an unrepresentative echo chamber. "
Despite my comments about Dan Hodges' tweet, I'm getting increasingly gloomy about the Lib Dems' prospects. You can back the Lib Dems to get under 10 seats at odds of 2.8 or so on Betfair. It seems to me closer to an evens shot now.
It's clear some on here would like nothing better than to see the LDs turfed out of Parliament completely but everyone within the Party knows it's going to be a dog fight to save what we can.
The nadir in terms of seats and votes was 2.8% and 6 seats in 1951 followed by 7.5% and 6 seats in 1970. I suspect we won't go below the 1951 vote share but there's a real danger the party could be left with 1-3 MPs.
Would that be the end ? Hardly.
Once the Conservatives lurch into the long spell of mid-term unpopularity, there'll be plenty of council seats to take and constituencies to rebuild - looking forward to it.
But but but.... if the LDs fall to say 3 seats in a Tory dominated HoC and the moderates split from Jezza, will the desire to join up and be fish in the bigger joint pond be irresistable?
Iain Dale really pissed off with Yasmin Alibhai Brown saying sending Rudd was cruel because her father had died. Dale says I KNOW she was given the choice and it's what her father would have wanted, that's why she did it.
Some people seem to think Amber Rudd is some shrinking violet who can be bullied into appearing on TV against her wishes...
Not the powerful, independent woman who went on telly and implied Boris Johnson was a sex pest last year...
Quite so.
However she's not the leader of the her party and Mrs May should explicitly have exempted Rudd from attending.
The Conservative are going to romp home despite the PM's best efforts.
IF you take the £11bn the student loan is currently estimated to cost then 'assuming' 30m taxpayers, thats £336 it'll cost every tax payer. If you have only higher rate tax payers paying it, (which is about 4m people), then they'll have to pay £2,750 per year. Just for that one policy.
Labour will have, very quickly to start putting taxes up for more and more people.
That's not the only policy which needs paying for, every single Labour policy involves billions in additional spending and yet we're told that 2-3m higher and additional rate payers are going to shoulder the whole burden? It's madness.
Exactly. There simply in pure numbers aren't enough rich people to get large amounts of money from.
Yes, and they can't even count all higher rate payers since they have said it will be people earning £80k+ that will take the hit, there are surely fewer than 1m of them in the whole country. This is why they are looking at garden taxes and other such revenue raising measures, the capacity to raise that much money from so few (highly mobile) people doesn't exist.
I'd give free degrees to students who do proper degrees*, at red brick Unis.
Snobbish and elitist I knoow, but it's for the greater good.
*Medical degrees, maths, the real sciences, like physics and chemistry, engineering, legal degrees, and history.
Degrees in trade subjects such as medicine and law should be abolished. Pursue academic studies for their own interest or go to a trade school.
Pre-war, most doctors did not have medical degrees. It used to be common for lawyers, especially solicitors, to leave school and qualify via articles and evening classes; even now, it is common to graduate in something interesting and do a conversion course into law. Similarly for nurses and accountants. So yes, the idea of trade schools has a certain appeal.
Iain Dale really pissed off with Yasmin Alibhai Brown saying sending Rudd was cruel because her father had died. Dale says I KNOW she was given the choice and it's what her father would have wanted, that's why she did it.
When the PM gives you the "choice" of doing their bidding or opting out, it's hardly likely you'll say no. In any event the PM, knowing Rudd's situation should have simply have excused her. Rudd had a valid excuse, the Prime Minister didn't.
We have a choice between a "Poundshop Prime Minister" in May and a "Bankrupt Stock LotO" in Jezza. Some choice ....
Don't talk rubbish, you have no idea what the personal situations involved here are. Quite frankly I think it's a bit offensive to suggest the PM, no matter how hopeless she is, would either directly or indirectly force anyone to work in that situation.
I think the problem is that people (rightly or wrongly) see dementia as an illness which falls under the remit of free at the point of use care. This is why so many people are surprised to find out about the current situation where you already pay for care if your assets are worth more than £23,000.
There is a legitimate question to ask as to why someone with terminal cancer should get free palliative care but someone with dementia should not. Both are diseases which are linked to longer life (although obviously there are exceptions in both cases) and both are thought to have elements of both genetic predisposition and lifestyle causes. It would be very difficult to define a water tight logical argument as to why each should be treated differently in terms of care provision and payment.
Very valid points and of course both cancer and dementia operate at a range of levels and intensities. My mother died of cancer but never went into a hospice - my father (with help) cared for her at home and we had a McMillan nurse for the last couple of days. I can only imagine how difficult dealing with dementia is and anyone who is in that situation deserves nothing but understanding.
I believe these are deeper questions than medical conditions - they cut to the core of how we deal with age and death and these aren't easy questions to debate. There's more to treating the elderly with respect than providing them with free tv licences and a winter fuel allowance. If anything, the differentiation is a form of patronising behaviour.
There are core human values such as independence, dignity, value, self-worth and all that which are taken by dementia and by age in general. My father was 89 on Monday - mercifully he has full mental faculties but he is frail and walks with a stick and for all he is still my father, the strong, vital, confident, towering presence of my childhood is gone.
There may be those who argue he is better in a care home or he is better moving in with one of the family - perhaps but he is and always has been his own man and looked after himself and there's a balance between what's best for him and what's best for me and that's a line we all have to walk some times.
Whatever the view on the wisdom of featuring care reform in the Tory manifesto at least more people are aware is the issue and thinking about how to improve it.
It is an issue that has been ducked for too long. I hope that whatever the outcome of the election it doesn't get kicked into the long grass again.
Prior to the election, I was drafting a letter to my MP about the crisis in care and related issues. She is likely to get returned again so I am hoping she will respond and get involved in campaigning. It is something I intend to get involved in myself.
I don't wish what happened to my father to happen to anyone else.
Diane Abbott saying no problem with the Muslim community, will not accept there is a problem. Says the answer is to review Prevent because that's something we are doing to them not with them.
I felt the same way about Gordon Brown back in 1997 when it became clear that he was out for a money grab.
I should be clear that my main antipathy to Brexit is an economic one. I believe it will have a horrendous impact on the UK economy and all this talk of "short term pain for long term gain" is myopic at best. What is "short term"? 5 years? 10 years? 50 years? In terms of UK history 50 years is nothing. Any gains might not come about until after I and my children are dead but we will be here for all the problems and hardships.
I do not believe that the pain will be worth the gain.
There's no reason to believe there will be a long term gain. There will be considerable short term pain extending into the medium term. Long term we will still be worse off, all other things being equal As you go further out, it gets a lot less predictable, so other things almost certainly won't be equal. It doesn't mean it will necessarily get better; it may get worse again. We just don't know and in the long term we will be dead, and no-one will be bothered by a counterfactual that ran out decades before.
Irish independence is a good example. Ireland had a basketcase economy that lasted sixty years. It was eventually rescued by the first wave of globalisation in the 1990's, when American companies were looking for a base in the EU and found Ireland, partly due to cultural links between the countries, as well as a pool of highly educated English speakers, benign tax rules and loads of Eurodosh. That was completely unpredictable in 1921 at the time of independence.
Ireland is a good example and has been in my mind when I hear all this "short term pain" malarkey. It is like Labour's favourite weasel-phrase "... all we are asking is that xxxxx should pay a little bit more ..."
It is the reason that I sorted out the paperwork - so my kids have an escape if they want or need it. All they need to do now is sort out a small piece of paperwork and their Irish/EU citizenship is sorted and they can go elsewhere with considerable ease.
It's clear some on here would like nothing better than to see the LDs turfed out of Parliament completely but everyone within the Party knows it's going to be a dog fight to save what we can.
The nadir in terms of seats and votes was 2.8% and 6 seats in 1951 followed by 7.5% and 6 seats in 1970. I suspect we won't go below the 1951 vote share but there's a real danger the party could be left with 1-3 MPs.
Would that be the end ? Hardly.
Once the Conservatives lurch into the long spell of mid-term unpopularity, there'll be plenty of council seats to take and constituencies to rebuild - looking forward to it.
The timing of this election is dire for the Lib Dems. They need to reposition themselves for the post-Brexit politica world that is somewhat 19thC in feel. Their role, I think, is as a party of an open Britain, business-friendly and moderate on welfare issues, possibly extending into social democracy. Pretty much where the party was in the Victorian age.
Never trust anything written in the passive. Who's doing the telling? Lib Dems? Conservatives? Other journalists? Pollsters?
Farron being in trouble points towards Tory outperformance outside the cities.
It feels as though there are two different election campaigns going on. One on the doorstep, and one in the media/here/etc.
"So we have swingy polls, heightened media interest in the polls, frenzied analysis of the media interest and the polls... when the result was the same all along - The opinion polls, coverage of opinion polls, and reaction to coverage of opinion polls feed off each other to create an unrepresentative echo chamber. "
The polls are telling us something but it's not particularly clear what. I subscribe to the Martin Boon/isam theory that polling samples remain unrepresentative. The question is what can be done about that. I'm not sure that ICM's remedy is particularly effective either. Anyone who bets the house on one particular model is brave/foolhardy.
Annoyingly though, it's equally brave/foolhardy to bet the house based on experience on the doorstep in one particular area. This is an election for breaking down old coalitions and building up new coalitions, and Labour are probably going to win seats in some areas and lose seats in others.
Ultimately I'm of the @JackW school of thought that the Conservatives are well ahead in the polls and that ultimately will see them home very nicely indeed. But I'm a lot less certain of myself than usual. The voters are in a surly and strange mood at present. With the choice in front of them, who can blame them?
I woke up in the middle of the night to see CON 400-449 seats available at 6.0 (5/1) when it had previously been 2.8ish. I've been sitting on my hands for a while but am now calling peak Labour and have taken that bet. Can't see Lib Dems having a net gain against the tories, tories should have a net gain of 5-8 over SNP and with the smaller parties being squeezed, only a small increase in the lead over Labour from 2015 will mean many gains.
I simply do not believe that, come the day, May has been poor enough to make significant numbers switch to Corbyn
Never trust anything written in the passive. Who's doing the telling? Lib Dems? Conservatives? Other journalists? Pollsters?
Farron being in trouble points towards Tory outperformance outside the cities.
It feels as though there are two different election campaigns going on. One on the doorstep, and one in the media/here/etc.
Remember in 2015 there was a swing from the Tories to Labour in England.
Yet the Tories still managed to increase their seat number and end up with a majority.
It is entirely possible that the something similar happens in 2017
I wouldn't be surprised if Labour built up votes in urban centres where they are already massively ahead and lost in the marginals handing the Tories a 60-80 seat majority with a 7-9 point vote share lead in GB (similar to 2015).
To avoid a total collapse in confidence, what the Tories and their inevitably dispirited troops badly need today or tomorrow are a couple of polls giving them solid, double digit leads or something very close thereto. Anyone know from which polling firms we are expecting to hear next?
Despite my comments about Dan Hodges' tweet, I'm getting increasingly gloomy about the Lib Dems' prospects. You can back the Lib Dems to get under 10 seats at odds of 2.8 or so on Betfair. It seems to me closer to an evens shot now.
The SNP seem to have stabilised, the fervour for the reds if it happens will be in places like Cambridge & Headingley and the pensioners have the fear of God of Corbyn which for most of them means voting blue. Vince Cable, Ed Davey and Alistair Carmichael perhaps the three left.
It's clear some on here would like nothing better than to see the LDs turfed out of Parliament completely but everyone within the Party knows it's going to be a dog fight to save what we can.
The nadir in terms of seats and votes was 2.8% and 6 seats in 1951 followed by 7.5% and 6 seats in 1970. I suspect we won't go below the 1951 vote share but there's a real danger the party could be left with 1-3 MPs.
Would that be the end ? Hardly.
Once the Conservatives lurch into the long spell of mid-term unpopularity, there'll be plenty of council seats to take and constituencies to rebuild - looking forward to it.
But but but.... if the LDs fall to say 3 seats in a Tory dominated HoC and the moderates split from Jezza, will the desire to join up and be fish in the bigger joint pond be irresistable?
Don't worry - The Economist has endorsed the Lib Dems.....
Never trust anything written in the passive. Who's doing the telling? Lib Dems? Conservatives? Other journalists? Pollsters?
Farron being in trouble points towards Tory outperformance outside the cities.
It feels as though there are two different election campaigns going on. One on the doorstep, and one in the media/here/etc.
"So we have swingy polls, heightened media interest in the polls, frenzied analysis of the media interest and the polls... when the result was the same all along - The opinion polls, coverage of opinion polls, and reaction to coverage of opinion polls feed off each other to create an unrepresentative echo chamber. "
The polls are telling us something but it's not particularly clear what. I subscribe to the Martin Boon/isam theory that polling samples remain unrepresentative. The question is what can be done about that. I'm not sure that ICM's remedy is particularly effective either. Anyone who bets the house on one particular model is brave/foolhardy.
Annoyingly though, it's equally brave/foolhardy to bet the house based on experience on the doorstep in one particular area. This is an election for breaking down old coalitions and building up new coalitions, and Labour are probably going to win seats in some areas and lose seats in others.
Ultimately I'm of the @JackW school of thought that the Conservatives are well ahead in the polls and that ultimately will see them home very nicely indeed. But I'm a lot less certain of myself than usual. The voters are in a surly and strange mood at present. With the choice in front of them, who can blame them?
I think the politicians would do well to leave them alone for the next five years!
The French seemed able to get accurate opinion polls without much trouble. I wonder if we've got a unique problem/difficulty in our system. The raw polls have the Tories only ~ 3% in front. No other country has such deviation from what the pollsters are told and what will actually happen.
Our pollsters are like the beginner trying to steer a boat by always correcting for their previous mistake.
I too would like to know why in France they were spot on. With four leading candidates, rapidly shifting allegiances and complex geographical and demographic voting patterns, the French situation was hardly straightforward for any pollster to sample.
Nowhere near the same age and age-turnout differentials that we have.
Yes, you may very well be right that it all comes down to turnout. Perhaps the answer to my question earlier is that the British are particularly, and unpredictably, bad at turning out to vote.
They came out in huge numbers in 1992 when Prime Minister Kinnock was one option.... Same when it is Prime Minister Corbyn? Those that love him REALLY love him; those that don't REALLY don't. They came out in record numbers for John Major. John FUCKING MAJOR!!!! My experience is they will come out for Theresa May too.
When things got tough, Major did at least get stuck in. May just snuck off.
Iain Dale really pissed off with Yasmin Alibhai Brown saying sending Rudd was cruel because her father had died. Dale says I KNOW she was given the choice and it's what her father would have wanted, that's why she did it.
When the PM gives you the "choice" of doing their bidding or opting out, it's hardly likely you'll say no. In any event the PM, knowing Rudd's situation should have simply have excused her. Rudd had a valid excuse, the Prime Minister didn't.
We have a choice between a "Poundshop Prime Minister" in May and a "Bankrupt Stock LotO" in Jezza. Some choice ....
Don't talk rubbish, you have no idea what the personal situations involved here are. Quite frankly I think it's a bit offensive to suggest the PM, no matter how hopeless she is, would either directly or indirectly force anyone to work in that situation.
It was Rudd's call.
Even allowing Amber Rudd agreed to take part, who precisely was twisting the Prime Minister's arm not to and what should we infer of May's character -- that she allowed herself to be browbeaten by a media adviser in a shiny suit or that she wimped out?
Iain Dale really pissed off with Yasmin Alibhai Brown saying sending Rudd was cruel because her father had died. Dale says I KNOW she was given the choice and it's what her father would have wanted, that's why she did it.
When the PM gives you the "choice" of doing their bidding or opting out, it's hardly likely you'll say no. In any event the PM, knowing Rudd's situation should have simply have excused her. Rudd had a valid excuse, the Prime Minister didn't.
We have a choice between a "Poundshop Prime Minister" in May and a "Bankrupt Stock LotO" in Jezza. Some choice ....
Don't talk rubbish, you have no idea what the personal situations involved here are. Quite frankly I think it's a bit offensive to suggest the PM, no matter how hopeless she is, would either directly or indirectly force anyone to work in that situation.
It wasn’t quite as unwatchable as it threatened to be. It was good to be reminded that Tim Farron existed. He was quite good. His opening statement was the most straightforward. His pitch was a penny on income tax for the NHS and social care, and giving the people the final say on Brexit. His folksy relating of every question to his personal experience is easy to mock but an effective way of getting his message across.
But there were only two people in this debate, Jeremy Corbyn and Amber Rudd. Neither of them was very good. The Labour leader thought he had made his point by turning up. He made no reference to Theresa May’s absence in his opening statement. That seemed quite statesmanlike, but I assumed he was saving it up for later. He wasn’t. His was an underpowered performance in front of an audience that seemed ready to support him.
But but but.... if the LDs fall to say 3 seats in a Tory dominated HoC and the moderates split from Jezza, will the desire to join up and be a big fish in the joint pond be irresistable?
I think a lot will depend on what is being said, who is saying it and the tone.
I doubt the LDs will be interested in hooking up with the New Blairites but if what's being said sounds more like genuine social democracy that would be different. In particular, if the breakaway Labour group talked a very similar language on Brexit (as soft as possible, second referendum etc) it would be hard to ignore.
I think what a number on here expected was a slump for Labour in the campaign (will they poll sub 25% was a popular meme, not heard so much now) with the LDs perhaps picking up the anti-Conservative vote but the LDs are now in a classic third party squeeze (as are the Greens, UKIP and to some extent PC and SNP).
The polarisation of May and Corbyn has squeezed out the middle ground - if you don't want Corbyn there's only one option, if you don't want May there's only one option. Even though 27% are torn between the two (apparently), a forced choice compels a decision.
To avoid a total collapse in confidence, what the Tories and their inevitably dispirited troops badly need today or tomorrow are a couple of polls giving them solid, double digit leads or something very close thereto. Anyone know from which polling firms we are expecting to hear next?
Ireland had a basketcase economy that lasted sixty years. It was eventually rescued by the first wave of globalisation in the 1990's, when American companies were looking for a base in the EU and found Ireland, partly due to cultural links between the countries, as well as a pool of highly educated English speakers, benign tax rules and loads of Eurodosh.
That might apply to a few hectares in Dublin, money laundering, tax evasion, and shenanigans involving paperwork and companies such as Google. But only a few years ago a huge proportion of the Irish economy was in construction. Finance capital realised that a badly educated population (this is Ireland FFS) was highly amenable to promises of a new life in newly built houses financed with huge personal debt. They drooled all down their fangs at the opportunity.
About the only good side was that the thugs and wide boys who'd been making money out of the troubles moved into the profit-making areas that were opened up by the surge in debt, including construction. They didn't have to go around waving their shooters any more. Well, except for the occasional "tiger" robbery. Strange that the same word, "tiger", was used with an old-style gangster meaning and also to denote the debt-fuelled insanity whereby everyone was supposed to become a cappuccino drinker. Kind of like a leprechaun on cocaine. Except for bringing a welcome end to the troubles, the boom was an utter disaster for most people. Some of those houses have already started falling down.
Without that the economy would be booming, Corbyn and his thugs would be an irrelevance, and we would welcome our European friends as allies against the insanity of Trump
Hey ho...
It is exceedingly difficult not to agree. And now erstwhile Leavers are cacking themselves.
We have to take our pleasures where we find them.
@Indigo is already abroad, Max has left, and now @Casino is thinking of fucking off.
At this rate there won't be any PB Leavers left living in the UK.
Just Tyndall in his fortress in Lincolnshire having to pop out and pick the sprouts from time to time before they rot on the stem.
Mr Casino is going??? I am shocked!
It's the election of a dogmatically Marxist Corbyn/McDonnell led Government that would lead me to seek to work and live overseas, not Brexit.
As a working full-time professional earning £70k-£80k, and about to start a family and buying a family home, it's precisely my money he'd be after.
I don't see Brexit and Conservative Government until (hopefully) GE2027 as any threat to my livelihood at all, although I know that disappoints some Remainers.
Thought it was over 80k in their manifesto.?
You believe John "lots to be learn from Das Kapital" McDonnell?
He'll be coming after the incomes of the middle classes.
To avoid a total collapse in confidence, what the Tories and their inevitably dispirited troops badly need today or tomorrow are a couple of polls giving them solid, double digit leads or something very close thereto. Anyone know from which polling firms we are expecting to hear next?
We had a couple of double digit leads in the last few days. It's all be drowned out by YouGov.
It's clear some on here would like nothing better than to see the LDs turfed out of Parliament completely but everyone within the Party knows it's going to be a dog fight to save what we can.
The nadir in terms of seats and votes was 2.8% and 6 seats in 1951 followed by 7.5% and 6 seats in 1970. I suspect we won't go below the 1951 vote share but there's a real danger the party could be left with 1-3 MPs.
Would that be the end ? Hardly.
Once the Conservatives lurch into the long spell of mid-term unpopularity, there'll be plenty of council seats to take and constituencies to rebuild - looking forward to it.
But but but.... if the LDs fall to say 3 seats in a Tory dominated HoC and the moderates split from Jezza, will the desire to join up and be fish in the bigger joint pond be irresistable?
Don't worry - The Economist has endorsed the Lib Dems.....
It's clear some on here would like nothing better than to see the LDs turfed out of Parliament completely but everyone within the Party knows it's going to be a dog fight to save what we can.
The nadir in terms of seats and votes was 2.8% and 6 seats in 1951 followed by 7.5% and 6 seats in 1970. I suspect we won't go below the 1951 vote share but there's a real danger the party could be left with 1-3 MPs.
Would that be the end ? Hardly.
Once the Conservatives lurch into the long spell of mid-term unpopularity, there'll be plenty of council seats to take and constituencies to rebuild - looking forward to it.
I thought Labour voters would now vote tactically for Lib Dem where it counted in marginals against the Conservatives.Do you think the recent coalition government is still a drag on this support ?
I'm still a NOTA and I'm tempted to abstain, but I've finally decided. To keep up my record of voting in every GE since I was eligible, I will vote for the candidate who is first in alphabetical order.
Unless it's a Green. I can stand Corbyn turning us into Venezuela, but I can't take Lucas taking us back into the stone age. Come January, those cave mouths don't half let the draught in.
To avoid a total collapse in confidence, what the Tories and their inevitably dispirited troops badly need today or tomorrow are a couple of polls giving them solid, double digit leads or something very close thereto. Anyone know from which polling firms we are expecting to hear next?
Panelbase later on today
Who warn of a further narrowing of the Con lead (although from the highs of 15).
Iain Dale really pissed off with Yasmin Alibhai Brown saying sending Rudd was cruel because her father had died. Dale says I KNOW she was given the choice and it's what her father would have wanted, that's why she did it.
When the PM gives you the "choice" of doing their bidding or opting out, it's hardly likely you'll say no. In any event the PM, knowing Rudd's situation should have simply have excused her. Rudd had a valid excuse, the Prime Minister didn't.
We have a choice between a "Poundshop Prime Minister" in May and a "Bankrupt Stock LotO" in Jezza. Some choice ....
Don't talk rubbish, you have no idea what the personal situations involved here are. Quite frankly I think it's a bit offensive to suggest the PM, no matter how hopeless she is, would either directly or indirectly force anyone to work in that situation.
It's also offensive to Amber Rudd herself...
The left need to be careful about pushing it, it is akin to the Sun attack on Brown over the handwritten condolence letter. Step too far.
Without that the economy would be booming, Corbyn and his thugs would be an irrelevance, and we would welcome our European friends as allies against the insanity of Trump
Hey ho...
It is exceedingly difficult not to agree. And now erstwhile Leavers are cacking themselves.
We have to take our pleasures where we find them.
@Indigo is already abroad, Max has left, and now @Casino is thinking of fucking off.
At this rate there won't be any PB Leavers left living in the UK.
Just Tyndall in his fortress in Lincolnshire having to pop out and pick the sprouts from time to time before they rot on the stem.
Mr Casino is going??? I am shocked!
It's the election of a dogmatically Marxist Corbyn/McDonnell led Government that would lead me to seek to work and live overseas, not Brexit.
As a working full-time professional earning £70k-£80k, and about to start a family and buying a family home, it's precisely my money he'd be after.
I don't see Brexit and Conservative Government until (hopefully) GE2027 as any threat to my livelihood at all, although I know that disappoints some Remainers.
Thought it was over 80k in their manifesto.?
You believe John "lots to be learn from Das Kapital" McDonnell?
He'll be coming after the incomes of the middle classes.
He will need to, the maths doesn't work raising taxes on the million or so £80k+ workers in the UK.
IF you take the £11bn the student loan is currently estimated to cost then 'assuming' 30m taxpayers, thats £336 it'll cost every tax payer. If you have only higher rate tax payers paying it, (which is about 4m people), then they'll have to pay £2,750 per year. Just for that one policy.
Labour will have, very quickly to start putting taxes up for more and more people.
There really is a massive tax bombshell under this Labour manifesto. So why aren't we hearing about it?
The only thing I can think is that May somehow wanted a non-partisan backing for her Brexit negotiations with Brussels, so didn't want to get into a party political election campaign. Which would be plain crazy.
It's clear some on here would like nothing better than to see the LDs turfed out of Parliament completely but everyone within the Party knows it's going to be a dog fight to save what we can.
The nadir in terms of seats and votes was 2.8% and 6 seats in 1951 followed by 7.5% and 6 seats in 1970. I suspect we won't go below the 1951 vote share but there's a real danger the party could be left with 1-3 MPs.
Would that be the end ? Hardly.
Once the Conservatives lurch into the long spell of mid-term unpopularity, there'll be plenty of council seats to take and constituencies to rebuild - looking forward to it.
But but but.... if the LDs fall to say 3 seats in a Tory dominated HoC and the moderates split from Jezza, will the desire to join up and be fish in the bigger joint pond be irresistable?
Don't worry - The Economist has endorsed the Lib Dems.....
The French seemed able to get accurate opinion polls without much trouble. I wonder if we've got a unique problem/difficulty in our system. The raw polls have the Tories only ~ 3% in front. No other country has such deviation from what the pollsters are told and what will actually happen.
Our pollsters are like the beginner trying to steer a boat by always correcting for their previous mistake.
I too would like to know why in France they were spot on. With four leading candidates, rapidly shifting allegiances and complex geographical and demographic voting patterns, the French situation was hardly straightforward for any pollster to sample.
Nowhere near the same age and age-turnout differentials that we have.
Yes, you may very well be right that it all comes down to turnout. Perhaps the answer to my question earlier is that the British are particularly, and unpredictably, bad at turning out to vote.
They came out in huge numbers in 1992 when Prime Minister Kinnock was one option.... Same when it is Prime Minister Corbyn? Those that love him REALLY love him; those that don't REALLY don't. They came out in record numbers for John Major. John FUCKING MAJOR!!!! My experience is they will come out for Theresa May too.
When things got tough, Major did at least get stuck in. May just snuck off.
Perhaps this suggests things are not tough for May. For my money if Tory internal polling suggested issues we would be hearing from former PMs, MI5 heads, business leaders and police chiefs.
Comments
It's simply the way that government investment in education should be viewed: a social good that has positive externalities and therefore should be encouraged. To argue that certain courses have great social utility than others is very reasonable
https://twitter.com/martinboon/status/870015254343712768
https://twitter.com/caprosser/status/870022661912616961
https://twitter.com/caprosser/status/870022931908362241
Also suggest ICM/Comres at all might not necessarily get turnout estimates correct.
* Lord Shaftsbury
I should be clear that my main antipathy to Brexit is an economic one. I believe it will have a horrendous impact on the UK economy and all this talk of "short term pain for long term gain" is myopic at best. What is "short term"? 5 years? 10 years? 50 years? In terms of UK history 50 years is nothing. Any gains might not come about until after I and my children are dead but we will be here for all the problems and hardships.
I do not believe that the pain will be worth the gain.
(But this is a slightly pointless argument)
OGH was supposed to be posting from his sources inside the LibDems about how their ground game was going to surprise us on the upside.....
(Although these were the same sources that couldn't see them dropping below 28 in 2015.)
I believe these are deeper questions than medical conditions - they cut to the core of how we deal with age and death and these aren't easy questions to debate. There's more to treating the elderly with respect than providing them with free tv licences and a winter fuel allowance. If anything, the differentiation is a form of patronising behaviour.
There are core human values such as independence, dignity, value, self-worth and all that which are taken by dementia and by age in general. My father was 89 on Monday - mercifully he has full mental faculties but he is frail and walks with a stick and for all he is still my father, the strong, vital, confident, towering presence of my childhood is gone.
There may be those who argue he is better in a care home or he is better moving in with one of the family - perhaps but he is and always has been his own man and looked after himself and there's a balance between what's best for him and what's best for me and that's a line we all have to walk some times.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/870167665842814977
Yeah, all costed. Fully costed. Costco costed. They are all taking the piss now.
The quality of life for many is frankly rubbish. Basically living semi cabbages..
And 20% of the population are going soon to be OAPs.. Anyone who seriously thinks caring for such people is not going to impoverish the state is deluded. The young cannot afford the tax burden needed to fund it.So any solution which relies on general taxation is fatally flawed.
The old HAVE to pay. Period.
Theresa May failing to cope
She obviously can't stand the pressure. It is embarrassing to watch. She couldn't run a bath, let alone Brexit. This is way beyond forgetting a number or having a brain fart, which we all do sometimes. She is not even CLOSE to being up to the job.
As OGH keeps telling us, this is the question which always gives us the election winner.
Maybe Lib Dems switching to Corbyn?
The big question is how the two parties are performing in the compact, medium-sized urban towns and small cities. Ipswich, Milton Keynes, Wrexham, Wolverhampton, etc. These were often quite Brexit-y, and they're usually not "metropolitan" (favouring Tories), but they tend to not have that many elderly people there (favouring Labour).
Irish independence is a good example. Ireland had a basketcase economy that lasted sixty years. It was eventually rescued by the first wave of globalisation in the 1990's, when American companies were looking for a base in the EU and found Ireland, partly due to cultural links between the countries, as well as a pool of highly educated English speakers, benign tax rules and loads of Eurodosh. That was completely unpredictable in 1921 at the time of independence.
The richest person I remember from school did a classics degree at Cambridge and is now a hedge fund millionaire. A physicist I knew from Oxbridge of similar vintage earns £35k a year and lives in a terrace in Stafford.
If you think back to the 80s, the personal tax allowance was low and the base rate high. A graduate in effect started paying back in tax immediately - 25% of everything over £3k. Today loan repayments are added to a lower tax that starts much higher up. I suspect a graduate today pays no more than graduates have always paid.
The current system is fairer, but what's missing is that bad courses that cost thousands and don't get you a job need to be withdrawn through lack of interest, and bad universities that offer too many of those, or poor versions of useful courses, need to be allowed to go bust. I have never heard anyone in a position to affect the matter discuss how many universities we actually need. It's probably more than 20 but certainly fewer than 150.
We have a choice between a "Poundshop Prime Minister" in May and a "Bankrupt Stock LotO" in Jezza.
Some choice ....
Labour will have, very quickly to start putting taxes up for more and more people.
Not the powerful, independent woman who went on telly and implied Boris Johnson was a sex pest last year...
The nadir in terms of seats and votes was 2.8% and 6 seats in 1951 followed by 7.5% and 6 seats in 1970. I suspect we won't go below the 1951 vote share but there's a real danger the party could be left with 1-3 MPs.
Would that be the end ? Hardly.
Once the Conservatives lurch into the long spell of mid-term unpopularity, there'll be plenty of council seats to take and constituencies to rebuild - looking forward to it.
http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/the-problem-with-opinion-polls-polls.html?m=1
However she's not the leader of the her party and Mrs May should explicitly have exempted Rudd from attending.
The Conservative are going to romp home despite the PM's best efforts.
It was Rudd's call.
It is an issue that has been ducked for too long. I hope that whatever the outcome of the election it doesn't get kicked into the long grass again.
Prior to the election, I was drafting a letter to my MP about the crisis in care and related issues. She is likely to get returned again so I am hoping she will respond and get involved in campaigning. It is something I intend to get involved in myself.
I don't wish what happened to my father to happen to anyone else.
It is the reason that I sorted out the paperwork - so my kids have an escape if they want or need it. All they need to do now is sort out a small piece of paperwork and their Irish/EU citizenship is sorted and they can go elsewhere with considerable ease.
Yet the Tories still managed to increase their seat number and end up with a majority.
It is entirely possible that the something similar happens in 2017
Annoyingly though, it's equally brave/foolhardy to bet the house based on experience on the doorstep in one particular area. This is an election for breaking down old coalitions and building up new coalitions, and Labour are probably going to win seats in some areas and lose seats in others.
Ultimately I'm of the @JackW school of thought that the Conservatives are well ahead in the polls and that ultimately will see them home very nicely indeed. But I'm a lot less certain of myself than usual. The voters are in a surly and strange mood at present. With the choice in front of them, who can blame them?
I simply do not believe that, come the day, May has been poor enough to make significant numbers switch to Corbyn
Anyone know from which polling firms we are expecting to hear next?
Vince Cable, Ed Davey and Alistair Carmichael perhaps the three left.
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21722855-leaders-both-main-parties-have-turned-away-decades-old-vision-open-liberal
I doubt the LDs will be interested in hooking up with the New Blairites but if what's being said sounds more like genuine social democracy that would be different. In particular, if the breakaway Labour group talked a very similar language on Brexit (as soft as possible, second referendum etc) it would be hard to ignore.
I think what a number on here expected was a slump for Labour in the campaign (will they poll sub 25% was a popular meme, not heard so much now) with the LDs perhaps picking up the anti-Conservative vote but the LDs are now in a classic third party squeeze (as are the Greens, UKIP and to some extent PC and SNP).
The polarisation of May and Corbyn has squeezed out the middle ground - if you don't want Corbyn there's only one option, if you don't want May there's only one option. Even though 27% are torn between the two (apparently), a forced choice compels a decision.
About the only good side was that the thugs and wide boys who'd been making money out of the troubles moved into the profit-making areas that were opened up by the surge in debt, including construction. They didn't have to go around waving their shooters any more. Well, except for the occasional "tiger" robbery. Strange that the same word, "tiger", was used with an old-style gangster meaning and also to denote the debt-fuelled insanity whereby everyone was supposed to become a cappuccino drinker. Kind of like a leprechaun on cocaine. Except for bringing a welcome end to the troubles, the boom was an utter disaster for most people. Some of those houses have already started falling down.
He'll be coming after the incomes of the middle classes.
Unless it's a Green. I can stand Corbyn turning us into Venezuela, but I can't take Lucas taking us back into the stone age. Come January, those cave mouths don't half let the draught in.
The only thing I can think is that May somehow wanted a non-partisan backing for her Brexit negotiations with Brussels, so didn't want to get into a party political election campaign. Which would be plain crazy.