Thinking about second election betting (StanJames offering roughly 1/3 on no second election this year) - how late in the year do we have to get before there simply isn't time? I guess it depends on how the election is called.
Vote of no confidence is 5 weeks, right? That's 2 weeks for a second confidence vote not to pass and then 3 weeks for the campaign. But anything else would be slower?
If the Tories chose to have a second election, might they avoid a winter date? 1974 was Feb and October, but we're already in June. Not long now if we don't want a freezing campaign. On the other hand, MPs may not have that level of control. If the DUP deal collapses it's election right now.
DYOR, but I don't feel that a second election imminently is likely, even 25% likely (for 1/3 being value on it not happening).The Tories haven't gone for one over the weekend, and they are close enough to 325 that I imagine they'll try to form a minority even if the DUP don't agree. A no confidence vote could be forced, but as some have discussed below no-one bar Labour (and possibly even some of them) want a snap election.
From informal soundings I've taken over the weekend, Tories are utterly terrified of a further election and will do everything possible to avoid one.
You would have to be mad, as a Cons minister, to interpret the GE result as the peak of Lab's achievement, rather than a stage on the way to govt.
Indeed in a Survation (ie an accurate) poll taken over the weekend, Labour have swung into the lead. It was something like Lab +5 Con -5, from memory, but I don't have the numbers to hand so don't quote me on it.
Or check the social media feed of any Scottish person interested in politics when the DUP thing was mooted and note how they all say " No, what, fuck no. No May, don't do it"
"Loosing the house is scarying everyone shame your party proposed it for care in your own home."
Wrong in every detail. Well done.
1. They are not my party 2. There was no proposal to lose the house. No money would be taken until the person in care had died. Unlike now when you lose the house as soon as you have to go into care.
So rather different from the Labour party and their stupid inheritance taxes on everyone not just those with dementia.
If you are going to argue these things at least get your facts right.
Two things about that Dementia Tax
Firstly, why should the state guarantee the inheritance of wealthy middle aged people?
Secondly, why isn't dementia care free on the NHS? Hospitals are being closed left, right and centre. Four near me in the last 15 years or so inc the one where I was born! (blue plaque) They could be NHS Old peoples homes
Two downgrades in in Ealing and many other London councils. It is clear why the NHS has gone near the top of the most important issues. Could explain a lot of the result on Thursday.
This one, next to the estate I grew up on, has been empty for ages. Absolutely massive, owned by the NHS, ready to rock as a Geriatric Hospice
The hospital I was born in was closed about 5 years ago, and the extensive site turned into overpriced new build houses, which young people living in the area can't afford.
Do Tory commentators really think so little of Scottish politics that they think being a bag-carrier at the UK cabinet table is so obviously superior to being a major Scottish party leader?
After all of that, Momentum, shortly before the GE posted on their Twitter a video of McDonnell and Mason clarifying some things about the LVT - mainly that it wouldn't actually apply to residential property - but only on business property.
FWIW, I agree with you. There aren't many "secret" Conservative non-voters.
The Conservatives have to take votes directly from Labour, probably focused on women and those in the 35-44 age bracket (with young children, or children approaching university age) in the first instance, and hold onto everything else.
They do. Also worth noting, though, that Labour will also need to find a way of taking votes from current Tory voters, while keeping its existing coalition together. Tacking even further left may not be ideal. The good news for Labour is that Scotland looks very promising after seven very bleak years. It's quite possible that at the next GE Labour could win 20+ seats there.
If 39 percent still support the Tories after the last few days they are going to take some shifting. Corbyn puts a noticeable ceiling on the Labour vote.
The reverse is so. The Tories are going to lose the UKIP wing of 5-10% share. There is no sign of a ceiling on the Labour vote. What do you mean by noticeable?
LD candidates lost 375 deposits, Farron must be wary of a push for another General Election.
They also increased their number of seats by 50%, and came within about four hundred votes of doubling their representation. Another election might well see them capture St Ives, Richmond Park, Fife NE and Cheltenham.
While things obviously didn't play out as well for them as they'd hoped at the beginning of the campaign, I suspect senior LibDems feel they've done OK.
Although Southport showed that when an LibDem retires they struggle to hold the seat.
Which means they'll now have problems getting back Ceredigion, Leeds NW and Hallam and also suggests that we need to keep a track of how old the LibDem MPs are.
Sure.
But the seats they gained this time were all ex-LD seats - Edinburgh West, OxWAb, Bath, CS&ER, Twickenham, Kingston, Eastbourne. And of those, the first four were all with new candidates.
Frankly, the LDs need a new leader and a bit of luck. If they get that, they can be back at 20-odd seats next time around.
The Tories lost too many of those seats due to the dementia tax policy. OxWAb, Bath, Twickenham and Eastbourne all have high value property anda fairly large number of older voters.
I hadn't spotted that as a particular feature. Are all the LD seats in areas with older than average populations? It would make sense of where they won, and where they lost to Labour.
Thinking about second election betting (StanJames offering roughly 1/3 on no second election this year) - how late in the year do we have to get before there simply isn't time? I guess it depends on how the election is called.
Vote of no confidence is 5 weeks, right? That's 2 weeks for a second confidence vote not to pass and then 3 weeks for the campaign. But anything else would be slower?
If the Tories chose to have a second election, might they avoid a winter date? 1974 was Feb and October, but we're already in June. Not long now if we don't want a freezing campaign. On the other hand, MPs may not have that level of control. If the DUP deal collapses it's election right now.
DYOR, but I don't feel that a second election imminently is likely, even 25% likely (for 1/3 being value on it not happening).The Tories haven't gone for one over the weekend, and they are close enough to 325 that I imagine they'll try to form a minority even if the DUP don't agree. A no confidence vote could be forced, but as some have discussed below no-one bar Labour (and possibly even some of them) want a snap election.
From informal soundings I've taken over the weekend, Tories are utterly terrified of a further election and will do everything possible to avoid one.
You would have to be mad, as a Cons minister, to interpret the GE result as the peak of Lab's achievement, rather than a stage on the way to govt.
Indeed in a Survation (ie an accurate) poll taken over the weekend, Labour have swung into the lead. It was something like Lab +5 Con -5, from memory, but I don't have the numbers to hand so don't quote me on it.
Do Tory commentators really think so little of Scottish politics that they think being a bag-carrier at the UK cabinet table is so obviously superior to being a major Scottish party leader?
Alex Massie has been on a bit of a rant on the subject.
The SNP would be desperate to avoid one. In the near future they'd be carved apart by tactical voting everywhere. The voters would now know exactly how to oust them.
The tricky question for them is how to avoid being seen to be propping up Tories.
Do you not think project Tory-DUP retox gives the SNP a bit of pushback. I think Scotland is going to remember why it hates the Tories again... Of course the obvious beneficiary of both currents is ... Scottish Labour - a force written off only two years ago !
There are more supporters of the Orange Order in Scotland than in the entirety of England and Wales combined
There also more people who think the Orange Order are total twats in Scotland than in England and Wales combined.
Evidence? The main complaints about the DUP have come from leftwing London liberals, even Salmond in 2015 said he could work with the DUP
I honestly don't know how to respond to this. Maybe you need to speak to a couple of west coast Catholics or something.
FWIW, I agree with you. There aren't many "secret" Conservative non-voters.
The Conservatives have to take votes directly from Labour, probably focused on women and those in the 35-44 age bracket (with young children, or children approaching university age) in the first instance, and hold onto everything else.
Yes, I'd agree with you there too. I'd also say that I think the Conservatives may have to make a dent in Labour's monopoly on my age group - as it appears we made the difference in places such as Canterbury. The Conservative Party are unlikely to win over a majority of young voters, but it's perfectly possible for them to win over a sizable share if they respond to concerns regarding tuition fees and housing (especially the latter).
What's interesting to me, is how Blue Labour - and idea which was seen by quite a few as one which could generate potential electoral success - turns out not to be that great in electoral terms after all.
Generation rent+ tuition fees. No wonder they're turning to Corbyn.
Why did the government possibly think increasing them to £9000 was ever a good idea ? Did they just make the calculation that young people would never actually vote ?
Yes, I think they assumed that.
Even if we hadn't turned out at this GE, in future elections those issues still would have relevant - issues with housing aren't going anywhere, and paying off tuition fees is something students will be facing in their thirties and forties.
Wasn’t the 9k a decision of the Coalition Government ? Why was this not critical in the 2015 election?
One thing that has not yet been mentioned is that the attitude of the Universities. The Universities were in general in favour of tuition fees. This is because when the Government paid them, the Universities did not receive form the Government the true cost of tuition, so were making a loss on each student.
The Universities are already under a lot of pressure (redundancies at Manchester and Bangor were announced in the last few weeks).
They won’t want to go back to relying on Government funding for fees unless the true cost is paid.
"Loosing the house is scarying everyone shame your party proposed it for care in your own home."
Wrong in every detail. Well done.
1. They are not my party 2. There was no proposal to lose the house. No money would be taken until the person in care had died. Unlike now when you lose the house as soon as you have to go into care.
So rather different from the Labour party and their stupid inheritance taxes on everyone not just those with dementia.
If you are going to argue these things at least get your facts right.
Two things about that Dementia Tax
Firstly, why should the state guarantee the inheritance of wealthy middle aged people?
Secondly, why isn't dementia care free on the NHS? Hospitals are being closed left, right and centre. Four near me in the last 15 years or so inc the one where I was born! (blue plaque) They could be NHS Old peoples homes
Dementia Care:
Care home fees are 30 to 35 k a year. Higher for very serious dementia.
There are about 350,000 elderly people in care. That is a bill of 30 * 350 k = 10 billion year.
For comparison, the Labour Party manifesto estimated that the cost of a National Care Service was 3 billion a year.
FWIW, I like the idea of a National Care Service, but it will require a lot of money. Much more than has so far been budgeted for.
There is sooooooo much waste in society that we should be able to find that dough easily. What is more important than caring for ill?
How much will HS2 cost? Get rid, build the care homes (or revamp the old hospitals) and allow elderly people the dignity and attention they deserve
"Loosing the house is scarying everyone shame your party proposed it for care in your own home."
Wrong in every detail. Well done.
1. They are not my party 2. There was no proposal to lose the house. No money would be taken until the person in care had died. Unlike now when you lose the house as soon as you have to go into care.
So rather different from the Labour party and their stupid inheritance taxes on everyone not just those with dementia.
If you are going to argue these things at least get your facts right.
Two things about that Dementia Tax
Firstly, why should the state guarantee the inheritance of wealthy middle aged people?
Secondly, why isn't dementia care free on the NHS? Hospitals are being closed left, right and centre. Four near me in the last 15 years or so inc the one where I was born! (blue plaque) They could be NHS Old peoples homes
Dementia Care:
Care home fees are 30 to 35 k a year. Higher for very serious dementia.
There are about 350,000 elderly people in care. That is a bill of 30 * 350 k = 10 billion year.
For comparison, the Labour Party manifesto estimated that the cost of a National Care Service was 3 billion a year.
FWIW, I like the idea of a National Care Service, but it will require a lot of money. Much more than has so far been budgeted for.
That's a good summary and I haven't done the research but some of that £10bn must already be covered by the state... lots of people have no way of funding it themselves.
I actually thought the Tory plans for social care were a valid attempt to address the issue. The problem was the totally crap u-turn which let the subject run and run and toxified it completely.
I think May did try Blue Labour - socially conservative (tough stance on immigration for example) and shifted more to the left economically.
That's the May who many people on here today, Tories mostly, are saying was in hock to the right wing headbangers? We will definitely have to disagree on that.
Do Tory commentators really think so little of Scottish politics that they think being a bag-carrier at the UK cabinet table is so obviously superior to being a major Scottish party leader?
The SNP would be desperate to avoid one. In the near future they'd be carved apart by tactical voting everywhere. The voters would now know exactly how to oust them.
The tricky question for them is how to avoid being seen to be propping up Tories.
Do you not think project Tory-DUP retox gives the SNP a bit of pushback. I think Scotland is going to remember why it hates the Tories again... Of course the obvious beneficiary of both currents is ... Scottish Labour - a force written off only two years ago !
There are more supporters of the Orange Order in Scotland than in the entirety of England and Wales combined
There also more people who think the Orange Order are total twats in Scotland than in England and Wales combined.
Evidence? The main complaints about the DUP have come from leftwing London liberals, even Salmond in 2015 said he could work with the DUP
I honestly don't know how to respond to this. Maybe you need to speak to a couple of west coast Catholics or something.
FWIW, I agree with you. There aren't many "secret" Conservative non-voters.
The Conservatives have to take votes directly from Labour, probably focused on women and those in the 35-44 age bracket (with young children, or children approaching university age) in the first instance, and hold onto everything else.
Yes, I'd agree with you there too. I'd also say that I think the Conservatives may have to make a dent in Labour's monopoly on my age group - as it appears we made the difference in places such as Canterbury. The Conservative Party are unlikely to win over a majority of young voters, but it's perfectly possible for them to win over a sizable share if they respond to concerns regarding tuition fees and housing (especially the latter).
What's interesting to me, is how Blue Labour - and idea which was seen by quite a few as one which could generate potential electoral success - turns out not to be that great in electoral terms after all.
Generation rent+ tuition fees. No wonder they're turning to Corbyn.
Why did the government possibly think increasing them to £9000 was ever a good idea ? Did they just make the calculation that young people would never actually vote ?
Perhaps they were looking at it through a generational prism.
The people who thought that £9k tuition fees were a good idea were 40+. When they had gone to university it was usually a route to a good career and good earnings and £27k to be paid back over a working life might have seemed reasonable. And as the people approving the increase to £9k were from rich backgrounds they didn't comprehend how much it is to those less privileged than themselves.
But for many graduates now there is little hope of a good career and good earnings and they will continue to have tens of thousands of student debts throughout their lives.
"Loosing the house is scarying everyone shame your party proposed it for care in your own home."
Wrong in every detail. Well done.
1. They are not my party 2. There was no proposal to lose the house. No money would be taken until the person in care had died. Unlike now when you lose the house as soon as you have to go into care.
So rather different from the Labour party and their stupid inheritance taxes on everyone not just those with dementia.
If you are going to argue these things at least get your facts right.
Two things about that Dementia Tax
Firstly, why should the state guarantee the inheritance of wealthy middle aged people?
Secondly, why isn't dementia care free on the NHS? Hospitals are being closed left, right and centre. Four near me in the last 15 years or so inc the one where I was born! (blue plaque) They could be NHS Old peoples homes
Dementia Care:
Care home fees are 30 to 35 k a year. Higher for very serious dementia.
There are about 350,000 elderly people in care. That is a bill of 30 * 350 k = 10 billion year.
For comparison, the Labour Party manifesto estimated that the cost of a National Care Service was 3 billion a year.
FWIW, I like the idea of a National Care Service, but it will require a lot of money. Much more than has so far been budgeted for.
There is sooooooo much waste in society that we should be able to find that dough easily. What is more important than caring for ill?
How much will HS2 cost? Get rid, build the care homes (or revamp the old hospitals) and allow elderly people the dignity and attention they deserve
LD candidates lost 375 deposits, Farron must be wary of a push for another General Election.
My view is that Farron organises campaigns well. He got the LDs fighting every council by-election, and he (sensibly) ran General Election as 20 by-elections.
Who forecast the LDs would win Eastbourne or came within a whisker of taking St Ives? (Not me.)
But he's repellent to approximately 92% of voters, and - let us not forget this - under his watch the LibDems went backwards from their worst result in 50 years in terms of vote share. A better leader, banging the drum for a Swiss-type arrangement with the EU, could probably get 15% of the vote.
I was surprised about Eastbourne - I would have expected Lewes to be more likely for the LibDems.
I suspect that in St Ives Andrew George has a big personal vote. The problem is he's now nearly 60.
Worryingly for the LibDems is that they're now out of contention in many seats they won in 2005 and 2010.
You're thinking about this like the LibDems are looking to be in contention to win elections generally.
They're not. They're looking to build a base of MPs comparable to what they had in the 1980s and early 1990s. They're looking to add councillors and be in with a shout in about 15 years time. They are slowly rebuilding.
Will they succeed? Who knows.
But it was probably the right decision to fight as they did. Imagine if they'd added 4% to their vote share, and gotten to 12%, but the entire election had gone with UNS. In which case, they would likely have ended up on about six seats around the country.
I'm not a LibDem but I find that whole plan so depressing.
Work hard for decades to get up to 50 MPs and a coalition government and then get destroyed and have to start again.
That is politics for you.
Most governments usually start to leak votes and seats from the day they win office. It happens to all political parties. The tide flows in and then it goes out again. I do wonder if the same can be said of public opinion on Britain's membership of the EU. It could come back again!
After all of that, Momentum, shortly before the GE posted on their Twitter a video of McDonnell and Mason clarifying some things about the LVT - mainly that it wouldn't actually apply to residential property - but only on business property.
FWIW, I agree with you. There aren't many "secret" Conservative non-voters.
The Conservatives have to take votes directly from Labour, probably focused on women and those in the 35-44 age bracket (with young children, or children approaching university age) in the first instance, and hold onto everything else.
They do. Also worth noting, though, that Labour will also need to find a way of taking votes from current Tory voters, while keeping its existing coalition together. Tacking even further left may not be ideal. The good news for Labour is that Scotland looks very promising after seven very bleak years. It's quite possible that at the next GE Labour could win 20+ seats there.
If 39 percent still support the Tories after the last few days they are going to take some shifting. Corbyn puts a noticeable ceiling on the Labour vote.
The reverse is so. The Tories are going to lose the UKIP wing of 5-10% share. There is no sign of a ceiling on the Labour vote. What do you mean by noticeable?
As I said if 39 percent still support the Tories now after all thats happened they're probably not in it for the short haul. Corbyn is simply not an option for a lot of voters particularly the elderly. He couldn't even beat May.
As someone who was actually worried about the impact of a LVT on their parents, a worry which I now know was based on lies, it's the kind of nonsense spread about Labour's LVT tax by The Telegraph, Mail, Express, The Sun etc that is the reason as to why so many no longer take these publications seriously and feel so free as to dismiss their content as BS. It is people not taking them seriously because they cried wolf too many times that mean that we have to question to what extent future attacks on Corbyn would be effective from these publications. The groups which tend to rely on newspapers the most as a source of news are 65+ voters - younger voters access their news online (and are more likely to do so via social media) - and so it will not be critiques from outlets which they don't trust anyway which will impact their vote.
The right wing press has been humiliated by this general election. Labour found other ways to speak to its target audiences. The Tories will need to do the same.
I also think that the Lab social media campaign worked very much better than the Tory targeted adds. People are much more likely to watch FB viral shares by friends than paid for adverts, that get scrolled by ASAP.
As we hear on here. People notice Facebook shares.
After all of that, Momentum, shortly before the GE posted on their Twitter a video of McDonnell and Mason clarifying some things about the LVT - mainly that it wouldn't actually apply to residential property - but only on business property.
FWIW, I agree with you. There aren't many "secret" Conservative non-voters.
The Conservatives have to take votes directly from Labour, probably focused on women and those in the 35-44 age bracket (with young children, or children approaching university age) in the first instance, and hold onto everything else.
They do. Also worth noting, though, that Labour will also need to find a way of taking votes from current Tory voters, while keeping its existing coalition together. Tacking even further left may not be ideal. The good news for Labour is that Scotland looks very promising after seven very bleak years. It's quite possible that at the next GE Labour could win 20+ seats there.
If 39 percent still support the Tories after the last few days they are going to take some shifting. Corbyn puts a noticeable ceiling on the Labour vote.
The reverse is so. The Tories are going to lose the UKIP wing of 5-10% share. There is no sign of a ceiling on the Labour vote. What do you mean by noticeable?
As polls a few months ago showed there is also no floor and with the minor parties nowhere we are facing potentially wild swings over the next decade, especially if Corbyn gets in and we become Venezuela without the sunshine as is likely
Thinking about second election betting (StanJames offering roughly 1/3 on no second election this year) - how late in the year do we have to get before there simply isn't time? I guess it depends on how the election is called.
Vote of no confidence is 5 weeks, right? That's 2 weeks for a second confidence vote not to pass and then 3 weeks for the campaign. But anything else would be slower?
If the Tories chose to have a second election, might they avoid a winter date? 1974 was Feb and October, but we're already in June. Not long now if we don't want a freezing campaign. On the other hand, MPs may not have that level of control. If the DUP deal collapses it's election right now.
DYOR, but I don't feel that a second election imminently is likely, even 25% likely (for 1/3 being value on it not happening).The Tories haven't gone for one over the weekend, and they are close enough to 325 that I imagine they'll try to form a minority even if the DUP don't agree. A no confidence vote could be forced, but as some have discussed below no-one bar Labour (and possibly even some of them) want a snap election.
From informal soundings I've taken over the weekend, Tories are utterly terrified of a further election and will do everything possible to avoid one.
You would have to be mad, as a Cons minister, to interpret the GE result as the peak of Lab's achievement, rather than a stage on the way to govt.
Indeed in a Survation (ie an accurate) poll taken over the weekend, Labour have swung into the lead. It was something like Lab +5 Con -5, from memory, but I don't have the numbers to hand so don't quote me on it.
"Loosing the house is scarying everyone shame your party proposed it for care in your own home."
Wrong in every detail. Well done.
1. They are not my party 2. There was no proposal to lose the house. No money would be taken until the person in care had died. Unlike now when you lose the house as soon as you have to go into care.
So rather different from the Labour party and their stupid inheritance taxes on everyone not just those with dementia.
If you are going to argue these things at least get your facts right.
Two things about that Dementia Tax
Firstly, why should the state guarantee the inheritance of wealthy middle aged people?
Secondly, why isn't dementia care free on the NHS? Hospitals are being closed left, right and centre. Four near me in the last 15 years or so inc the one where I was born! (blue plaque) They could be NHS Old peoples homes
Dementia Care:
Care home fees are 30 to 35 k a year. Higher for very serious dementia.
There are about 350,000 elderly people in care. That is a bill of 30 * 350 k = 10 billion year.
For comparison, the Labour Party manifesto estimated that the cost of a National Care Service was 3 billion a year.
FWIW, I like the idea of a National Care Service, but it will require a lot of money. Much more than has so far been budgeted for.
There is sooooooo much waste in society that we should be able to find that dough easily. What is more important than caring for ill?
How much will HS2 cost? Get rid, build the care homes (or revamp the old hospitals) and allow elderly people the dignity and attention they deserve
For about five years I keep thinking "maybe they'll ditch HS2?" Well, maybe they will this time.
So Govey's back! That should put a spring in the step of those Labour supporters still not fully onboard with Corbyn. Poor Mrs May. She's giving Caligula a run for his money
"Loosing the house is scarying everyone shame your party proposed it for care in your own home."
Wrong in every detail. Well done.
1. They are not my party 2. There was no proposal to lose the house. No money would be taken until the person in care had died. Unlike now when you lose the house as soon as you have to go into care.
So rather different from the Labour party and their stupid inheritance taxes on everyone not just those with dementia.
If you are going to argue these things at least get your facts right.
Two things about that Dementia Tax
Firstly, why should the state guarantee the inheritance of wealthy middle aged people?
Secondly, why isn't dementia care free on the NHS? Hospitals are being closed left, right and centre. Four near me in the last 15 years or so inc the one where I was born! (blue plaque) They could be NHS Old peoples homes
Dementia Care:
Care home fees are 30 to 35 k a year. Higher for very serious dementia.
There are about 350,000 elderly people in care. That is a bill of 30 * 350 k = 10 billion year.
For comparison, the Labour Party manifesto estimated that the cost of a National Care Service was 3 billion a year.
FWIW, I like the idea of a National Care Service, but it will require a lot of money. Much more than has so far been budgeted for.
There is sooooooo much waste in society that we should be able to find that dough easily. What is more important than caring for ill?
How much will HS2 cost? Get rid, build the care homes (or revamp the old hospitals) and allow elderly people the dignity and attention they deserve
+1
PS Trident??
I'd get rid.
I almost joined CND once, but when they phoned up to talk to me about marches etc I thought it was one of my Dads mates on the wind up!
"Loosing the house is scarying everyone shame your party proposed it for care in your own home."
Wrong in every detail. Well done.
1. They are not my party 2. There was no proposal to lose the house. No money would be taken until the person in care had died. Unlike now when you lose the house as soon as you have to go into care.
So rather different from the Labour party and their stupid inheritance taxes on everyone not just those with dementia.
If you are going to argue these things at least get your facts right.
Two things about that Dementia Tax
Firstly, why should the state guarantee the inheritance of wealthy middle aged people?
Secondly, why isn't dementia care free on the NHS? Hospitals are being closed left, right and centre. Four near me in the last 15 years or so inc the one where I was born! (blue plaque) They could be NHS Old peoples homes
Dementia Care:
Care home fees are 30 to 35 k a year. Higher for very serious dementia.
There are about 350,000 elderly people in care. That is a bill of 30 * 350 k = 10 billion year.
For comparison, the Labour Party manifesto estimated that the cost of a National Care Service was 3 billion a year.
FWIW, I like the idea of a National Care Service, but it will require a lot of money. Much more than has so far been budgeted for.
That's a good summary and I haven't done the research but some of that £10bn must already be covered by the state... lots of people have no way of funding it themselves.
I actually thought the Tory plans for social care were a valid attempt to address the issue. The problem was the totally crap u-turn which let the subject run and run and toxified it completely.
You are right that some of the 10 bn is in the system already. But not that much -- you only get your fees paid if you have less than 21k in assets. Most people are paying themselves. My late mother paid all her fees for 5 years.
The National Care Service must also cover the costs of people who don’t need residential care, but also need care in the home (more of that money is covered by the state already)
"Loosing the house is scarying everyone shame your party proposed it for care in your own home."
Wrong in every detail. Well done.
1. They are not my party 2. There was no proposal to lose the house. No money would be taken until the person in care had died. Unlike now when you lose the house as soon as you have to go into care.
So rather different from the Labour party and their stupid inheritance taxes on everyone not just those with dementia.
If you are going to argue these things at least get your facts right.
Two things about that Dementia Tax
Firstly, why should the state guarantee the inheritance of wealthy middle aged people?
Secondly, why isn't dementia care free on the NHS? Hospitals are being closed left, right and centre. Four near me in the last 15 years or so inc the one where I was born! (blue plaque) They could be NHS Old peoples homes
Dementia Care:
Care home fees are 30 to 35 k a year. Higher for very serious dementia.
There are about 350,000 elderly people in care. That is a bill of 30 * 350 k = 10 billion year.
For comparison, the Labour Party manifesto estimated that the cost of a National Care Service was 3 billion a year.
FWIW, I like the idea of a National Care Service, but it will require a lot of money. Much more than has so far been budgeted for.
There is sooooooo much waste in society that we should be able to find that dough easily. What is more important than caring for ill?
How much will HS2 cost? Get rid, build the care homes (or revamp the old hospitals) and allow elderly people the dignity and attention they deserve
For about five years I keep thinking "maybe they'll ditch HS2?" Well, maybe they will this time.
If we don't do something with the railways we will reach capacity at some point soon.
Want me to post the bar chart showing the number of net gains Cameron made vs the number of net gains Mrs May made?
I don't even have to go all Lib Dem to make that bar chart look bad.
Go ahead, but it won't change my opinion the Cameron screwed up the referendum and that Osborne is a berk.
I've just got off the phone to my father, a life-long Tory.
He told me the one thing the Tories must stop doing is fighting amongst themselves if they want to avoid a crushing defeat, and this is very obvious at the moment.
He even said that the "Tories can be real bastards", I was stunned as he hardly ever swears. But he's right.
Think about it.
I spoke about this to you the other day. Look at Osborne's ego in the clip/thread header, it reviles ordinary people. Stop smearing and start being optimistic and positive. Some of the pb tories are vile. Not all, I hasten to add.
After all of that, Momentum, shortly before the GE posted on their Twitter a video of McDonnell and Mason clarifying some things about the LVT - mainly that it wouldn't actually apply to residential property - but only on business property.
FWIW, I agree with you. There aren't many "secret" Conservative non-voters.
The Conservatives have to take votes directly from Labour, probably focused on women and those in the 35-44 age bracket (with young children, or children approaching university age) in the first instance, and hold onto everything else.
They do. Also worth noting, though, that Labour will also need to find a way of taking votes from current Tory voters, while keeping its existing coalition together. Tacking even further left may not be ideal. The good news for Labour is that Scotland looks very promising after seven very bleak years. It's quite possible that at the next GE Labour could win 20+ seats there.
If 39 percent still support the Tories after the last few days they are going to take some shifting. Corbyn puts a noticeable ceiling on the Labour vote.
The reverse is so. The Tories are going to lose the UKIP wing of 5-10% share. There is no sign of a ceiling on the Labour vote. What do you mean by noticeable?
As I said if 39 percent still support the Tories now after all thats happened they're probably not in it for the short haul. Corbyn is simply not an option for a lot of voters particularly the elderly. He couldn't even beat May.
Exactly. Corbyn promised his voters the Earth, while May promised hers a punch in the face - and he still fell short by 64 seats.
If the next Conservative leader has a brain and writes a 100% feel-good manifesto, Corbyn loses half his advantage.
Want me to post the bar chart showing the number of net gains Cameron made vs the number of net gains Mrs May made?
I don't even have to go all Lib Dem to make that bar chart look bad.
Go ahead, but it won't change my opinion the Cameron screwed up the referendum and that Osborne is a berk.
I've just got off the phone to my father, a life-long Tory.
He told me the one thing the Tories must stop doing is fighting amongst themselves if they want to avoid a crushing defeat, and this is very obvious at the moment.
He even said that the "Tories can be real bastards", I was stunned as he hardly ever swears. But he's right.
Think about it.
I spoke about this to you the other day. Look at Osborne's ego in the clip/thread header, it reviles ordinary people. Stop smearing and start being optimistic and positive. Some of the pb tories are vile. Not all, I hasten to add.
"Loosing the house is scarying everyone shame your party proposed it for care in your own home."
Wrong in every detail. Well done.
1. They are not my party 2. There was no proposal to lose the house. No money would be taken until the person in care had died. Unlike now when you lose the house as soon as you have to go into care.
So rather different from the Labour party and their stupid inheritance taxes on everyone not just those with dementia.
If you are going to argue these things at least get your facts right.
Two things about that Dementia Tax
Firstly, why should the state guarantee the inheritance of wealthy middle aged people?
Secondly, why isn't dementia care free on the NHS? Hospitals are being closed left, right and centre. Four near me in the last 15 years or so inc the one where I was born! (blue plaque) They could be NHS Old peoples homes
Dementia Care:
Care home fees are 30 to 35 k a year. Higher for very serious dementia.
There are about 350,000 elderly people in care. That is a bill of 30 * 350 k = 10 billion year.
For comparison, the Labour Party manifesto estimated that the cost of a National Care Service was 3 billion a year.
FWIW, I like the idea of a National Care Service, but it will require a lot of money. Much more than has so far been budgeted for.
There is sooooooo much waste in society that we should be able to find that dough easily. What is more important than caring for ill?
I think if “we can find that dough easily”, the problem of social care for the elderly would have been fixed a long time ago.
There is a reason why Tony Blair, & Gordon Brown, & the Coalition & David Cameron didn’t fix the problem of social care.
It is expensive, and the bill is getting bigger because of demographics.
I think May did try Blue Labour - socially conservative (tough stance on immigration for example) and shifted more to the left economically.
That's the May who many people on here today, Tories mostly, are saying was in hock to the right wing headbangers? We will definitely have to disagree on that.
May pursuing a kind of Blue Labour strategy and being in hock to right-wing papers aren't necessarily two contradicting things.
- As stated before Blue Labour was socially conservative on immigration - May is pursuing a Hard Brexit - Hard Brexit is influenced in part because of a political necessity to be 'tough on immigration' - Right-wing press are very socially conservative on the subject of immigration and The Sun/Mail appear to want a Hard Brexit.
If 39 percent still support the Tories after the last few days they are going to take some shifting. Corbyn puts a noticeable ceiling on the Labour vote.
As someone who was actually worried about the impact of a LVT on their parents, a worry which I now know was based on lies, it's the kind of nonsense spread about Labour's LVT tax by The Telegraph, Mail, Express, The Sun etc that is the reason as to why so many no longer take these publications seriously and feel so free as to dismiss their content as BS. It is people not taking them seriously because they cried wolf too many times that mean that we have to question to what extent future attacks on Corbyn would be effective from these publications. The groups which tend to rely on newspapers the most as a source of news are 65+ voters - younger voters access their news online (and are more likely to do so via social media) - and so it will not be critiques from outlets which they don't trust anyway which will impact their vote.
The right wing press has been humiliated by this general election. Labour found other ways to speak to its target audiences. The Tories will need to do the same.
I also think that the Lab social media campaign worked very much better than the Tory targeted adds. People are much more likely to watch FB viral shares by friends than paid for adverts, that get scrolled by ASAP.
As we hear on here. People notice Facebook shares.
I might re-engage with Facebook.
I'll get abuse, and lots of it, but I kept off the whole thing for this election because it was wall-to-wall Corbyn from everyone, and anyone posting anything Tory got pounced upon.
After all of that, Momentum, shortly before the GE posted on their Twitter a video of McDonnell and Mason clarifying some things about the LVT - mainly that it wouldn't actually apply to residential property - but only on business property.
FWIW, I agree with you. There aren't many "secret" Conservative non-voters.
The Conservatives have to take votes directly from Labour, probably focused on women and those in the 35-44 age bracket (with young children, or children approaching university age) in the first instance, and hold onto everything else.
They do. Also worth noting, though, that Labour will also need to find a way of taking votes from current Tory voters, while keeping its existing coalition together. Tacking even further left may not be ideal. The good news for Labour is that Scotland looks very promising after seven very bleak years. It's quite possible that at the next GE Labour could win 20+ seats there.
If 39 percent still support the Tories after the last few days they are going to take some shifting. Corbyn puts a noticeable ceiling on the Labour vote.
The reverse is so. The Tories are going to lose the UKIP wing of 5-10% share. There is no sign of a ceiling on the Labour vote. What do you mean by noticeable?
As I said if 39 percent still support the Tories now after all thats happened they're probably not in it for the short haul. Corbyn is simply not an option for a lot of voters particularly the elderly. He couldn't even beat May.
Exactly. Corbyn promised his voters the Earth, while May promised hers a punch in the face - and he still fell short by 64 seats.
If the next Conservative leader has a brain and writes a 100% feel-good manifesto, Corbyn loses half his advantage.
Or Tory credibility is shot with those voters and no-matter what they say people suspect the dementia tax will be implemented. It's hard to tell how the public perceives parties, but they often don't treat their promises equally.
"Loosing the house is scarying everyone shame your party proposed it for care in your own home."
Wrong in every detail. Well done.
1. They are not my party 2. There was no proposal to lose the house. No money would be taken until the person in care had died. Unlike now when you lose the house as soon as you have to go into care.
So rather different from the Labour party and their stupid inheritance taxes on everyone not just those with dementia.
If you are going to argue these things at least get your facts right.
Two things about that Dementia Tax
Firstly, why should the state guarantee the inheritance of wealthy middle aged people?
Secondly, why isn't dementia care free on the NHS? Hospitals are being closed left, right and centre. Four near me in the last 15 years or so inc the one where I was born! (blue plaque) They could be NHS Old peoples homes
Two downgrades in in Ealing and many other London councils. It is clear why the NHS has gone near the top of the most important issues. Could explain a lot of the result on Thursday.
This one, next to the estate I grew up on, has been empty for ages. Absolutely massive, owned by the NHS, ready to rock as a Geriatric Hospice
The hospital I was born in was closed about 5 years ago, and the extensive site turned into overpriced new build houses, which young people living in the area can't afford.
Here are three more, all within 5 miles of each other (Rush Green has a small nursing home on the remains, but mostly cheap housing). Beam Park is about to be made into a kind of new town
Not sure he fully understands Ukip! I suspect Ukip picked up some of the NOTA vote from the Lib Dems in 2015, but I think the majority of their voters from that election want to get out of the Single Market.
LD candidates lost 375 deposits, Farron must be wary of a push for another General Election.
They also increased their number of seats by 50%, and came within about four hundred votes of doubling their representation. Another election might well see them capture St Ives, Richmond Park, Fife NE and Cheltenham.
While things obviously didn't play out as well for them as they'd hoped at the beginning of the campaign, I suspect senior LibDems feel they've done OK.
Although Southport showed that when an LibDem retires they struggle to hold the seat.
Which means they'll now have problems getting back Ceredigion, Leeds NW and Hallam and also suggests that we need to keep a track of how old the LibDem MPs are.
Sure.
But the seats they gained this time were all ex-LD seats - Edinburgh West, OxWAb, Bath, CS&ER, Twickenham, Kingston, Eastbourne. And of those, the first four were all with new candidates.
Frankly, the LDs need a new leader and a bit of luck. If they get that, they can be back at 20-odd seats next time around.
As someone who was actually worried about the impact of a LVT on their parents, a worry which I now know was based on lies, it's the kind of nonsense spread about Labour's LVT tax by The Telegraph, Mail, Express, The Sun etc that is the reason as to why so many no longer take these publications seriously and feel so free as to dismiss their content as BS. It is people not taking them seriously because they cried wolf too many times that mean that we have to question to what extent future attacks on Corbyn would be effective from these publications. The groups which tend to rely on newspapers the most as a source of news are 65+ voters - younger voters access their news online (and are more likely to do so via social media) - and so it will not be critiques from outlets which they don't trust anyway which will impact their vote.
The right wing press has been humiliated by this general election. Labour found other ways to speak to its target audiences. The Tories will need to do the same.
It is more like the establishment have been humiliated and are in mortal danger, because they cannot control the narrative anymore.
It took 15 years or so but the internet and particularly smartphones have just blown it all wide open. But really it is just a case of one form of misinformation replacing another.
This only leads to one conclusion: government control of the internet. See Turkey, China, etc
"Loosing the house is scarying everyone shame your party proposed it for care in your own home."
Wrong in every detail. Well done.
1. They are not my party 2. There was no proposal to lose the house. No money would be taken until the person in care had died. Unlike now when you lose the house as soon as you have to go into care.
So rather different from the Labour party and their stupid inheritance taxes on everyone not just those with dementia.
If you are going to argue these things at least get your facts right.
Two things about that Dementia Tax
Firstly, why should the state guarantee the inheritance of wealthy middle aged people?
Secondly, why isn't dementia care free on the NHS? Hospitals are being closed left, right and centre. Four near me in the last 15 years or so inc the one where I was born! (blue plaque) They could be NHS Old peoples homes
Dementia Care:
Care home fees are 30 to 35 k a year. Higher for very serious dementia.
There are about 350,000 elderly people in care. That is a bill of 30 * 350 k = 10 billion year.
For comparison, the Labour Party manifesto estimated that the cost of a National Care Service was 3 billion a year.
FWIW, I like the idea of a National Care Service, but it will require a lot of money. Much more than has so far been budgeted for.
There is sooooooo much waste in society that we should be able to find that dough easily. What is more important than caring for ill?
How much will HS2 cost? Get rid, build the care homes (or revamp the old hospitals) and allow elderly people the dignity and attention they deserve
For about five years I keep thinking "maybe they'll ditch HS2?" Well, maybe they will this time.
Spending £50bn on posh rail for people with expense accounts isn't the cleverest thing when oldies are worried about losing their homes, workers have stagnating incomes and students are being saddled with £27k debt.
Exactly. Corbyn promised his voters the Earth, while May promised hers a punch in the face - and he still fell short by 64 seats.
If the next Conservative leader has a brain and writes a 100% feel-good manifesto, Corbyn loses half his advantage.
I agree with that. The Tories can spend the next few weeks/months/year fighting internal ideological battles and let Corbyn in to completely screw up the country, or they can start preparing for the next general election. That will mean doing some very not-Tory things like building lots of houses, keeping house prices down, sorting out university education once and for all, and finding a form or Brexit that most people in Britain find acceptable. This is all very doable even with parliament divided as it is, but it will means listening to the public not backbenchers and local party officials.
One good thing about Labour's relative success is that their manifesto was so transparent that it shouldn't be too hard to figure out what issues are salient.
"Loosing the house is scarying everyone shame your party proposed it for care in your own home."
Wrong in every detail. Well done.
1. They are not my party 2. There was no proposal to lose the house. No money would be taken until the person in care had died. Unlike now when you lose the house as soon as you have to go into care.
So rather different from the Labour party and their stupid inheritance taxes on everyone not just those with dementia.
If you are going to argue these things at least get your facts right.
Two things about that Dementia Tax
Firstly, why should the state guarantee the inheritance of wealthy middle aged people?
Secondly, why isn't dementia care free on the NHS? Hospitals are being closed left, right and centre. Four near me in the last 15 years or so inc the one where I was born! (blue plaque) They could be NHS Old peoples homes
Dementia Care:
Care home fees are 30 to 35 k a year. Higher for very serious dementia.
There are about 350,000 elderly people in care. That is a bill of 30 * 350 k = 10 billion year.
For comparison, the Labour Party manifesto estimated that the cost of a National Care Service was 3 billion a year.
FWIW, I like the idea of a National Care Service, but it will require a lot of money. Much more than has so far been budgeted for.
There is sooooooo much waste in society that we should be able to find that dough easily. What is more important than caring for ill?
How much will HS2 cost? Get rid, build the care homes (or revamp the old hospitals) and allow elderly people the dignity and attention they deserve
For about five years I keep thinking "maybe they'll ditch HS2?" Well, maybe they will this time.
If we don't do something with the railways we will reach capacity at some point soon.
I think the future is flexible season tickets. I know there have been issues with the smartcard technology but I can imagine over the coming years more people will be encouraged to work from home sometimes. Journeys on GTR fell in 2016-17 (not surprising given the trouble) but they also fell on SWT. The idea that rail use is going to continue to go up and up is flawed in my opinion.
HS2 was simply the Tories' excuse to say they wouldn't allow a third runway at Heathrow. A lot of water has gone unde the bridge since then. It's time for the Tories to do the right thing and ditch Osborne's vanity project.
After all of that, Momentum, shortly before the GE posted on their Twitter a video of McDonnell and Mason clarifying some things about the LVT - mainly that it wouldn't actually apply to residential property - but only on business property.
FWIW, I agree with you. There aren't many "secret" Conservative non-voters.
The Conservatives have to take votes directly from Labour, probably focused on women and those in the 35-44 age bracket (with young children, or children approaching university age) in the first instance, and hold onto everything else.
They do. Also worth noting, though, that Labour will also need to find a way of taking votes from current Tory voters, while keeping its existing coalition together. Tacking even further left may not be ideal. The good news for Labour is that Scotland looks very promising after seven very bleak years. It's quite possible that at the next GE Labour could win 20+ seats there.
If 39 percent still support the Tories after the last few days they are going to take some shifting. Corbyn puts a noticeable ceiling on the Labour vote.
The reverse is so. The Tories are going to lose the UKIP wing of 5-10% share. There is no sign of a ceiling on the Labour vote. What do you mean by noticeable?
As I said if 39 percent still support the Tories now after all thats happened they're probably not in it for the short haul. Corbyn is simply not an option for a lot of voters particularly the elderly. He couldn't even beat May.
Exactly. Corbyn promised his voters the Earth, while May promised hers a punch in the face - and he still fell short by 64 seats.
If the next Conservative leader has a brain and writes a 100% feel-good manifesto, Corbyn loses half his advantage.
Or Tory credibility is shot with those voters and no-matter what they say people suspect the dementia tax will be implemented. It's hard to tell how the public perceives parties, but they often don't treat their promises equally.
Of course that's also possible. However, May's weak position means - I would hope - that there's no chance of a dementia tax or similar idiocy in this Parliament, which should reassure voters at the next election.
Want me to post the bar chart showing the number of net gains Cameron made vs the number of net gains Mrs May made?
I don't even have to go all Lib Dem to make that bar chart look bad.
Go ahead, but it won't change my opinion the Cameron screwed up the referendum and that Osborne is a berk.
I've just got off the phone to my father, a life-long Tory.
He told me the one thing the Tories must stop doing is fighting amongst themselves if they want to avoid a crushing defeat, and this is very obvious at the moment.
He even said that the "Tories can be real bastards", I was stunned as he hardly ever swears. But he's right.
Think about it.
I spoke about this to you the other day. Look at Osborne's ego in the clip/thread header, it reviles ordinary people. Stop smearing and start being optimistic and positive. Some of the pb tories are vile. Not all, I hasten to add.
I understand.
Thanks, you're a decent bloke who did a great job for Leave. The tory image right now is as toxic as its ever been and it needn't be.
I'd never vote for Corbyn but he refrains from personal attacks, the tories do nothing but.
Not sure he fully understands Ukip! I suspect Ukip picked up some of the NOTA vote from the Lib Dems in 2015, but I think the majority of their voters from that election want to get out of the Single Market.
I think UKIP voters have killed that off.
Priority number one of the Tories now will be to exit the EU in a way that does as little damage as possible to the UK economy, so they can face up to Corbyn again at the inevitable election with Brexit behind them and a new agenda.
The priorities for me are: (1) getting out the EU, (2) ensuring all parties are bound into that settlement, and, (3) stopping Corbyn.
LD candidates lost 375 deposits, Farron must be wary of a push for another General Election.
They also increased their number of seats by 50%, and came within about four hundred votes of doubling their representation. Another election might well see them capture St Ives, Richmond Park, Fife NE and Cheltenham.
While things obviously didn't play out as well for them as they'd hoped at the beginning of the campaign, I suspect senior LibDems feel they've done OK.
Although Southport showed that when an LibDem retires they struggle to hold the seat.
Which means they'll now have problems getting back Ceredigion, Leeds NW and Hallam and also suggests that we need to keep a track of how old the LibDem MPs are.
Sure.
But the seats they gained this time were all ex-LD seats - Edinburgh West, OxWAb, Bath, CS&ER, Twickenham, Kingston, Eastbourne. And of those, the first four were all with new candidates.
Frankly, the LDs need a new leader and a bit of luck. If they get that, they can be back at 20-odd seats next time around.
Jo Swinson is a name that's being bandied about.
Complete anecdote, but the members of my local party who I know seem to really like her. I don't actually know much about her, but they talk about her like she walks on water. So if the other members in my area and other areas are the same then she'll walk the next leadership election.
Which is rather what the odds suggest too, with Cable also favoured.
I try not to bet on leadership elections though, barring good polling (rare) it's too hard to get a representative sense of the electorate.
Want me to post the bar chart showing the number of net gains Cameron made vs the number of net gains Mrs May made?
I don't even have to go all Lib Dem to make that bar chart look bad.
Go ahead, but it won't change my opinion the Cameron screwed up the referendum and that Osborne is a berk.
I've just got off the phone to my father, a life-long Tory.
He told me the one thing the Tories must stop doing is fighting amongst themselves if they want to avoid a crushing defeat, and this is very obvious at the moment.
He even said that the "Tories can be real bastards", I was stunned as he hardly ever swears. But he's right.
Think about it.
I spoke about this to you the other day. Look at Osborne's ego in the clip/thread header, it reviles ordinary people. Stop smearing and start being optimistic and positive. Some of the pb tories are vile. Not all, I hasten to add.
I understand.
Thanks, you're a decent bloke who did a great job for Leave. The tory image right now is as toxic as its ever been and it needn't be.
I'd never vote for Corbyn but he refrains from personal attacks, the tories do nothing but.
FWIW, I agree with you. There aren't many "secret" Conservative non-voters.
The Conservatives have to take votes directly from Labour, probably focused on women and those in the 35-44 age bracket (with young children, or children approaching university age) in the first instance, and hold onto everything else.
Yes, I'd agree with you there too. I'd also say that I think the Conservatives may have to make a dent in Labour's monopoly on my age group - as it appears we made the difference in places such as Canterbury. The Conservative Party are unlikely to win over a majority of young voters, but it's perfectly possible for them to win over a sizable share if they respond to concerns regarding tuition fees and housing (especially the latter).
What's interesting to me, is how Blue Labour - and idea which was seen by quite a few as one which could generate potential electoral success - turns out not to be that great in electoral terms after all.
Generation rent+ tuition fees. No wonder they're turning to Corbyn.
Why did the government possibly think increasing them to £9000 was ever a good idea ? Did they just make the calculation that young people would never actually vote ?
It's in excess of £10k now, the promise to index the £21k threshold has been broken, and interest rates on them are no longer limited to inflation.
Effectively, what it means is that today's younger people will pay a rate of income tax 9% in excess of that paid by those aged in their mid 40s for the same earnings for pretty well the rest of their life.
Wouldn't you feel pissed off with the party that gave you this?
I used to think that the Tories' advantage amongst older voters was an advantage. Now I think it's a disadvantage. Younger people do after all vote. Meanwhile the difference in VI amongst the generations is so extreme that it's unlikely to fully unravel as people age. That means that as today's 65+ age group of Tory ultras dies off, they're unlikely to be replaced with a cohort of such entrenched voting patterns.
After all of that, Momentum, shortly before the GE posted on their Twitter a video of McDonnell and Mason clarifying some things about the LVT - mainly that it wouldn't actually apply to residential property - but only on business property.
FWIW, I agree with you. There aren't many "secret" Conservative non-voters.
The Conservatives have to take votes directly from Labour, probably focused on women and those in the 35-44 age bracket (with young children, or children approaching university age) in the first instance, and hold onto everything else.
They do. Also worth noting, though, that Labour will also need to find a way of taking votes from current Tory voters, while keeping its existing coalition together. Tacking even further left may not be ideal. The good news for Labour is that Scotland looks very promising after seven very bleak years. It's quite possible that at the next GE Labour could win 20+ seats there.
If 39 percent still support the Tories after the last few days they are going to take some shifting. Corbyn puts a noticeable ceiling on the Labour vote.
The reverse is so. The Tories are going to lose the UKIP wing of 5-10% share. There is no sign of a ceiling on the Labour vote. What do you mean by noticeable?
As I said if 39 percent still support the Tories now after all thats happened they're probably not in it for the short haul. Corbyn is simply not an option for a lot of voters particularly the elderly. He couldn't even beat May.
Exactly. Corbyn promised his voters the Earth, while May promised hers a punch in the face - and he still fell short by 64 seats.
If the next Conservative leader has a brain and writes a 100% feel-good manifesto, Corbyn loses half his advantage.
Or Tory credibility is shot with those voters and no-matter what they say people suspect the dementia tax will be implemented. It's hard to tell how the public perceives parties, but they often don't treat their promises equally.
Of course that's also possible. However, May's weak position means - I would hope - that there's no chance of a dementia tax or similar idiocy in this Parliament, which should reassure voters at the next election.
And if the Dementia tax is linked to May explicitly the next leader won't have that baggage to carry. Which is another reason to get rid asap.
After all of that, Momentum, shortly before the GE posted on their Twitter a video of McDonnell and Mason clarifying some things about the LVT - mainly that it wouldn't actually apply to residential property - but only on business property.
FWIW, I agree with you. There aren't many "secret" Conservative non-voters.
The Conservatives have to take votes directly from Labour, probably focused on women and those in the 35-44 age bracket (with young children, or children approaching university age) in the first instance, and hold onto everything else.
They do. Also worth noting, though, that Labour will also need to find a way of taking votes from current Tory voters, while keeping its existing coalition together. Tacking even further left may not be ideal. The good news for Labour is that Scotland looks very promising after seven very bleak years. It's quite possible that at the next GE Labour could win 20+ seats there.
If 39 percent still support the Tories after the last few days they are going to take some shifting. Corbyn puts a noticeable ceiling on the Labour vote.
The reverse is so. The Tories are going to lose the UKIP wing of 5-10% share. There is no sign of a ceiling on the Labour vote. What do you mean by noticeable?
As I said if 39 percent still support the Tories now after all thats happened they're probably not in it for the short haul. Corbyn is simply not an option for a lot of voters particularly the elderly. He couldn't even beat May.
Exactly. Corbyn promised his voters the Earth, while May promised hers a punch in the face - and he still fell short by 64 seats.
If the next Conservative leader has a brain and writes a 100% feel-good manifesto, Corbyn loses half his advantage.
Or Tory credibility is shot with those voters and no-matter what they say people suspect the dementia tax will be implemented. It's hard to tell how the public perceives parties, but they often don't treat their promises equally.
That is easily dealt with. They just keep pointing out that there is already a dementia tax, it was introduced by Labour, you only get to keep £23K instead of £100K and you lose your house straight away instead of when you die.
The Tories need to keep plugging this message day in day out. Labour's hidden dementia tax. If you have dementia you are already paying it.
Firstly, why should the state guarantee the inheritance of wealthy middle aged people?
Secondly, why isn't dementia care free on the NHS? Hospitals are being closed left, right and centre. Four near me in the last 15 years or so inc the one where I was born! (blue plaque) They could be NHS Old peoples homes
Dementia Care:
Care home fees are 30 to 35 k a year. Higher for very serious dementia.
There are about 350,000 elderly people in care. That is a bill of 30 * 350 k = 10 billion year.
For comparison, the Labour Party manifesto estimated that the cost of a National Care Service was 3 billion a year.
FWIW, I like the idea of a National Care Service, but it will require a lot of money. Much more than has so far been budgeted for.
There is sooooooo much waste in society that we should be able to find that dough easily. What is more important than caring for ill?
How much will HS2 cost? Get rid, build the care homes (or revamp the old hospitals) and allow elderly people the dignity and attention they deserve
For about five years I keep thinking "maybe they'll ditch HS2?" Well, maybe they will this time.
If we don't do something with the railways we will reach capacity at some point soon.
I think the future is flexible season tickets. I know there have been issues with the smartcard technology but I can imagine over the coming years more people will be encouraged to work from home sometimes. Journeys on GTR fell in 2016-17 (not surprising given the trouble) but they also fell on SWT. The idea that rail use is going to continue to go up and up is flawed in my opinion.
HS2 was simply the Tories' excuse to say they wouldn't allow a third runway at Heathrow. A lot of water has gone unde the bridge since then. It's time for the Tories to do the right thing and ditch Osborne's vanity project.
I wasn't just thinking of commuters, even at times for casual rail users (like me) they are getting more and more busy. The internet has made people travel more often rather than reducing it as people expected, because you can keep in contact with people from further away. We have a group of friends in London that we go down and see regularly still, and my girlfriend has been up here (Nottingham) four years now. Working from home will stem the flow for a while, but as the population grows the usage will still rise.
After all of that, Momentum, shortly before the GE posted on their Twitter a video of McDonnell and Mason clarifying some things about the LVT - mainly that it wouldn't actually apply to residential property - but only on business property.
FWIW, I agree with you. There aren't many "secret" Conservative non-voters.
The Conservatives have to take votes directly from Labour, probably focused on women and those in the 35-44 age bracket (with young children, or children approaching university age) in the first instance, and hold onto everything else.
They do. Also worth noting, though, that Labour will also need to find a way of taking votes from current Tory voters, while keeping its existing coalition together. Tacking even further left may not be ideal. The good news for Labour is that Scotland looks very promising after seven very bleak years. It's quite possible that at the next GE Labour could win 20+ seats there.
If 39 percent still support the Tories after the last few days they are going to take some shifting. Corbyn puts a noticeable ceiling on the Labour vote.
The reverse is so. The Tories are going to lose the UKIP wing of 5-10% share. There is no sign of a ceiling on the Labour vote. What do you mean by noticeable?
As polls a few months ago showed there is also no floor and with the minor parties nowhere we are facing potentially wild swings over the next decade, especially if Corbyn gets in and we become Venezuela without the sunshine as is likely
Corbyn's only chance of getting in is if there is an early election. If not, he'll now be able to re-engineer the party machinery to ensure a far left candidate gets nominated for the leadership each time there's a contest. Then he'll stand down a hero.
It is more like the establishment have been humiliated and are in mortal danger, because they cannot control the narrative anymore.
It took 15 years or so but the internet and particularly smartphones have just blown it all wide open. But really it is just a case of one form of misinformation replacing another.
This only leads to one conclusion: government control of the internet. See Turkey, China, etc
I've made that point a few times over the last few days. It's not a left versus right issue, all parties will have this problem to contend with, and the incumbent of any hue will be vulnerable. Surprise results and anti-establishment politics is going to be a common feature of elections all over the world for many years to come.
"Loosing the house is scarying everyone shame your party proposed it for care in your own home."
Wrong in every detail. Well done.
1. They are not my party 2. There was no proposal to lose the house. No money would be taken until the person in care had died. Unlike now when you lose the house as soon as you have to go into care.
So rather different from the Labour party and their stupid inheritance taxes on everyone not just those with dementia.
If you are going to argue these things at least get your facts right.
Two things about that Dementia Tax
Firstly, why should the state guarantee the inheritance of wealthy middle aged people?
Secondly, why isn't dementia care free on the NHS? Hospitals are being closed left, right and centre. Four near me in the last 15 years or so inc the one where I was born! (blue plaque) They could be NHS Old peoples homes
Dementia Care:
Care home fees are 30 to 35 k a year. Higher for very serious dementia.
There are about 350,000 elderly people in care. That is a bill of 30 * 350 k = 10 billion year.
For comparison, the Labour Party manifesto estimated that the cost of a National Care Service was 3 billion a year.
FWIW, I like the idea of a National Care Service, but it will require a lot of money. Much more than has so far been budgeted for.
There is sooooooo much waste in society that we should be able to find that dough easily. What is more important than caring for ill?
How much will HS2 cost? Get rid, build the care homes (or revamp the old hospitals) and allow elderly people the dignity and attention they deserve
For about five years I keep thinking "maybe they'll ditch HS2?" Well, maybe they will this time.
I do hope so. It is the white elephant of all white elephants.
FWIW, I agree with you. There aren't many "secret" Conservative non-voters.
The Conservatives have to take votes directly from Labour, probably focused on women and those in the 35-44 age bracket (with young children, or children approaching university age) in the first instance, and hold onto everything else.
Yes, I'd agree with you there too. I'd also say that I think the Conservatives may have to make a dent in Labour's monopoly on my age group - as it appears we made the difference in places such as Canterbury. The Conservative Party are unlikely to win over a majority of young voters, but it's perfectly possible for them to win over a sizable share if they respond to concerns regarding tuition fees and housing (especially the latter).
What's interesting to me, is how Blue Labour - and idea which was seen by quite a few as one which could generate potential electoral success - turns out not to be that great in electoral terms after all.
Generation rent+ tuition fees. No wonder they're turning to Corbyn.
Why did the government possibly think increasing them to £9000 was ever a good idea ? Did they just make the calculation that young people would never actually vote ?
It's in excess of £10k now, the promise to index the £21k threshold has been broken, and interest rates on them are no longer limited to inflation.
Effectively, what it means is that today's younger people will pay a rate of income tax 9% in excess of that paid by those aged in their mid 40s for the same earnings for pretty well the rest of their life.
Wouldn't you feel pissed off with the party that gave you this?
I used to think that the Tories' advantage amongst older voters was an advantage. Now I think it's a disadvantage. Younger people do after all vote. Meanwhile the difference in VI amongst the generations is so extreme that it's unlikely to fully unravel as people age. That means that as today's 65+ age group of Tory ultras dies off, they're unlikely to be replaced with a cohort of such entrenched voting patterns.
The problem was that to sustain the numbers going through Universities the government were going to have to invest an awful lot of money into the system from somewhere, and this would mean taxing people that had never gone to university to pay for it. And thus piss them off.
"Loosing the house is scarying everyone shame your party proposed it for care in your own home."
Wrong in every detail. Well done.
1. They are not my party 2. There was no proposal to lose the house. No money would be taken until the person in care had died. Unlike now when you lose the house as soon as you have to go into care.
So rather different from the Labour party and their stupid inheritance taxes on everyone not just those with dementia.
If you are going to argue these things at least get your facts right.
Two things about that Dementia Tax
Firstly, why should the state guarantee the inheritance of wealthy middle aged people?
Secondly, why isn't dementia care free on the NHS? Hospitals are being closed left, right and centre. Four near me in the last 15 years or so inc the one where I was born! (blue plaque) They could be NHS Old peoples homes
Two downgrades in in Ealing and many other London councils. It is clear why the NHS has gone near the top of the most important issues. Could explain a lot of the result on Thursday.
This one, next to the estate I grew up on, has been empty for ages. Absolutely massive, owned by the NHS, ready to rock as a Geriatric Hospice
The hospital I was born in was closed about 5 years ago, and the extensive site turned into overpriced new build houses, which young people living in the area can't afford.
Here are three more, all within 5 miles of each other (Rush Green has a small nursing home on the remains, but mostly cheap housing). Beam Park is about to be made into a kind of new town
Care in the community, and Social Care generally, is stealth privatisation of NHS care of the elderly and mentally infirm. The principle of care closer to home is laudable, but the effect is that the individual or their family pays for what was once paid for by the state. Inevitable and nessecary perhaps, but a significant shift of costs.
LD candidates lost 375 deposits, Farron must be wary of a push for another General Election.
They also increased their number of seats by 50%, and came within about four hundred votes of doubling their representation. Another election might well see them capture St Ives, Richmond Park, Fife NE and Cheltenham.
While things obviously didn't play out as well for them as they'd hoped at the beginning of the campaign, I suspect senior LibDems feel they've done OK.
Although Southport showed that when an LibDem retires they struggle to hold the seat.
Which means they'll now have problems getting back Ceredigion, Leeds NW and Hallam and also suggests that we need to keep a track of how old the LibDem MPs are.
Sure.
But the seats they gained this time were all ex-LD seats - Edinburgh West, OxWAb, Bath, CS&ER, Twickenham, Kingston, Eastbourne. And of those, the first four were all with new candidates.
Frankly, the LDs need a new leader and a bit of luck. If they get that, they can be back at 20-odd seats next time around.
Jo Swinson is a name that's being bandied about.
Complete anecdote, but the members of my local party who I know seem to really like her. I don't actually know much about her, but they talk about her like she walks on water. So if the other members in my area and other areas are the same then she'll walk the next leadership election.
Which is rather what the odds suggest too, with Cable also favoured.
I try not to bet on leadership elections though, barring good polling (rare) it's too hard to get a representative sense of the electorate.
FWIW, I agree with you. There aren't many "secret" Conservative non-voters.
The Conservatives have to take votes directly from Labour, probably focused on women and those in the 35-44 age bracket (with young children, or children approaching university age) in the first instance, and hold onto everything else.
Yes, I'd agree with you there too. I'd also say that I think the Conservatives may have to make a dent in Labour's monopoly on my age group - as it appears we made the difference in places such as Canterbury. The Conservative Party are unlikely to win over a majority of young voters, but it's perfectly possible for them to win over a sizable share if they respond to concerns regarding tuition fees and housing (especially the latter).
What's interesting to me, is how Blue Labour - and idea which was seen by quite a few as one which could generate potential electoral success - turns out not to be that great in electoral terms after all.
Generation rent+ tuition fees. No wonder they're turning to Corbyn.
Why did the government possibly think increasing them to £9000 was ever a good idea ? Did they just make the calculation that young people would never actually vote ?
It's in excess of £10k now, the promise to index the £21k threshold has been broken, and interest rates on them are no longer limited to inflation.
Effectively, what it means is that today's younger people will pay a rate of income tax 9% in excess of that paid by those aged in their mid 40s for the same earnings for pretty well the rest of their life.
Wouldn't you feel pissed off with the party that gave you this.
It was a bomb that went off first in the Lib Dems' faces, and then in the Conservatives'.
After all of that, Momentum, shortly before the GE posted on their Twitter a video of McDonnell and Mason clarifying some things about the LVT - mainly that it wouldn't actually apply to residential property - but only on business property.
FWIW, I agree with you. There aren't many "secret" Conservative non-voters.
The Conservatives have to take votes directly from Labour, probably focused on women and those in the 35-44 age bracket (with young children, or children approaching university age) in the first instance, and hold onto everything else.
They do. Also worth noting, though, that Labour will also need to find a way of taking votes from current Tory voters, while keeping its existing coalition together. Tacking even further left may not be ideal. The good news for Labour is that Scotland looks very promising after seven very bleak years. It's quite possible that at the next GE Labour could win 20+ seats there.
If 39 percent still support the Tories after the last few days they are going to take some shifting. Corbyn puts a noticeable ceiling on the Labour vote.
The reverse is so. The Tories are going to lose the UKIP wing of 5-10% share. There is no sign of a ceiling on the Labour vote. What do you mean by noticeable?
As polls a few months ago showed there is also no floor and with the minor parties nowhere we are facing potentially wild swings over the next decade, especially if Corbyn gets in and we become Venezuela without the sunshine as is likely
Corbyn's only chance of getting in is if there is an early election. If not, he'll now be able to re-engineer the party machinery to ensure a far left candidate gets nominated for the leadership each time there's a contest. Then he'll stand down a hero.
After all of that, Momentum, shortly before the GE posted on their Twitter a video of McDonnell and Mason clarifying some things about the LVT - mainly that it wouldn't actually apply to residential property - but only on business property.
FWIW, I agree with you. There aren't many "secret" Conservative non-voters.
The Conservatives have to take votes directly from Labour, probably focused on women and those in the 35-44 age bracket (with young children, or children approaching university age) in the first instance, and hold onto everything else.
They do. Also worth noting, though, that Labour will also need to find a way of taking votes from current Tory voters, while keeping its existing coalition together. Tacking even further left may not be ideal. The good news for Labour is that Scotland looks very promising after seven very bleak years. It's quite possible that at the next GE Labour could win 20+ seats there.
If 39 percent still support the Tories after the last few days they are going to take some shifting. Corbyn puts a noticeable ceiling on the Labour vote.
The reverse is so. The Tories are going to lose the UKIP wing of 5-10% share. There is no sign of a ceiling on the Labour vote. What do you mean by noticeable?
As I said if 39 percent still support the Tories now after all thats happened they're probably not in it for the short haul. Corbyn is simply not an option for a lot of voters particularly the elderly. He couldn't even beat May.
Yup. One of the few advantages of being recently disavowed of a dose of hubris is that you can then see it more clearly when it rears its head elsewhere. Labour are very much at risk Of this at the moment; he lost as badly as Brown did with a giveaway manifesto that was totally undeliverable.
Will we ever hear 'no deal is better than a bad deal' again? If not what will replace it? 'Getting on with the job?'
"Now let's get to work"
Which in her case meant getting to work on what to say in a hastily arranged interview to try and undo the further damage of the horlicks of a statement she had just made.
FWIW, I agree with you. There aren't many "secret" Conservative non-voters.
The Conservatives have to take votes directly from Labour, probably focused on women and those in the 35-44 age bracket (with young children, or children approaching university age) in the first instance, and hold onto everything else.
Yes, I'd agree with you there too. I'd also say that I think the Conservatives may have to make a dent in Labour's monopoly on my age group - as it appears we made the difference in places such as Canterbury. The Conservative Party are unlikely to win over a majority of young voters, but it's perfectly possible for them to win over a sizable share if they respond to concerns regarding tuition fees and housing (especially the latter).
What's interesting to me, is how Blue Labour - and idea which was seen by quite a few as one which could generate potential electoral success - turns out not to be that great in electoral terms after all.
Generation rent+ tuition fees. No wonder they're turning to Corbyn.
Why did the government possibly think increasing them to £9000 was ever a good idea ? Did they just make the calculation that young people would never actually vote ?
It's in excess of £10k now, the promise to index the £21k threshold has been broken, and interest rates on them are no longer limited to inflation.
Effectively, what it means is that today's younger people will pay a rate of income tax 9% in excess of that paid by those aged in their mid 40s for the same earnings for pretty well the rest of their life.
Wouldn't you feel pissed off with the party that gave you this?
I used to think that the Tories' advantage amongst older voters was an advantage. Now I think it's a disadvantage. Younger people do after all vote. Meanwhile the difference in VI amongst the generations is so extreme that it's unlikely to fully unravel as people age. That means that as today's 65+ age group of Tory ultras dies off, they're unlikely to be replaced with a cohort of such entrenched voting patterns.
They should start by scrapping tuition fees for those students studying in subjects we want to help the economy. STEM subjects and those with practical applications. We should never have gone down the route of using university as a means of keeping the young off the unemployment register by encouraging them to waste 3 or 4 years getting a worthless degree and then having to introduce student loans to pay for it.
What we need is to show that the alternatives such as apprenticeships are just as valuable and valued and get the university entrants back down to 15-20% of the school-leavers
If truth be told, a lot of Tories are as fed up of "close down local hospitals", "abolish Berkshire/Cheshire", "sell our water companies to the French", "give Toby Young a billion to set up a school for his mates", "let the feckless beg" etc. as everybody else, perhaps even more so. Yet their party has got a reputation of asset-strippers. New Labour had a flavour of this too, but that's why Corbyn and co. have move the party left. And rather than keep the wealthy from supporting the party it's had the opposite effect, since based on their own experiences a lot of well-off people really don't believe the country is too poor to be decent.
It's in excess of £10k now, the promise to index the £21k threshold has been broken, and interest rates on them are no longer limited to inflation.
Effectively, what it means is that today's younger people will pay a rate of income tax 9% in excess of that paid by those aged in their mid 40s for the same earnings for pretty well the rest of their life.
Wouldn't you feel pissed off with the party that gave you this?
I used to think that the Tories' advantage amongst older voters was an advantage. Now I think it's a disadvantage. Younger people do after all vote. Meanwhile the difference in VI amongst the generations is so extreme that it's unlikely to fully unravel as people age. That means that as today's 65+ age group of Tory ultras dies off, they're unlikely to be replaced with a cohort of such entrenched voting patterns.
I agree with what you say completely, we're looking around wondering why we have to pay a 9% higher tax rate on everything earnt above the bare minimum, while rents are stratospheric, and wage growth stagnant. Was it a shock when a) us getting screwed lead us to getting disengaged, and b) someone offering to change the system that was loaded against us to one only slightly loaded against came along, that we voted for them.
Also, question to the floor, on this website there's been one or two posters that have called the young as 'selfish' and 'vengeful' for voting for what was in their self-interest, how is that any different for the elderly voting for the triple lock, winter fuel payments, and free bus passes etc.?
After all of that, Momentum, shortly before the GE posted on their Twitter a video of McDonnell and Mason clarifying some things about the LVT - mainly that it wouldn't actually apply to residential property - but only on business property.
FWIW, I agree with you. There aren't many "secret" Conservative non-voters.
The Conservatives have to take votes directly from Labour, probably focused on women and those in the 35-44 age bracket (with young children, or children approaching university age) in the first instance, and hold onto everything else.
They do. Also worth noting, though, that Labour will also need to find a way of taking votes from current Tory voters, while keeping its existing coalition together. Tacking even further left may not be ideal. The good news for Labour is that Scotland looks very promising after seven very bleak years. It's quite possible that at the next GE Labour could win 20+ seats there.
If 39 percent still support the Tories after the last few days they are going to take some shifting. Corbyn puts a noticeable ceiling on the Labour vote.
The reverse is so. The Tories are going to lose the UKIP wing of 5-10% share. There is no sign of a ceiling on the Labour vote. What do you mean by noticeable?
As polls a few months ago showed there is also no floor and with the minor parties nowhere we are facing potentially wild swings over the next decade, especially if Corbyn gets in and we become Venezuela without the sunshine as is likely
Corbyn's only chance of getting in is if there is an early election. If not, he'll now be able to re-engineer the party machinery to ensure a far left candidate gets nominated for the leadership each time there's a contest. Then he'll stand down a hero.
"Nemesis really does follow hubris, particularly in the world of politics."
It really doesn't, you are just cherry-picking the evidence. If Clinton had been impeached over the Lewinsky thing, you would hail that as the greatest proof since Nixon of the hubris - nemesis claim. He wasn't. Nemesis really does follow hubris, particularly in the world of politics, except when it doesn't.
To counter all the inevitable comments and jokes, actually it is one of the few papers that has not 'gone tabloid' in terms of content. It may be from the other side of the fence to me in terms of its politics but it remains one of the best Newspapers we have in Britain now that the Telegraph is going all Daily Mail.
The Guardian and the Times are the only two papers worth reading these days.
If truth be told, a lot of Tories are as fed up of "close down local hospitals", "abolish Berkshire/Cheshire", "sell our water companies to the French", "give Toby Young a billion to set up a school for his mates", "let the feckless beg" etc. as everybody else, perhaps even more so. Yet their party has got a reputation of asset-strippers. New Labour had a flavour of this too, but that's why Corbyn and co. have move the party left. And rather than keep the wealthy from supporting the party it's had the opposite effect, since based on their own experiences a lot of well-off people really don't believe the country is too poor to be decent.
Yup. Copying the New Labour play book, which looked great for short term wins, was not very strategically clever of the Tory party.
And if the Dementia tax is linked to May explicitly the next leader won't have that baggage to carry. Which is another reason to get rid asap.
I definitely want May to go before the next election, but replacing her immediately creates serious problems:
1. Another unelected PM with no mandate, needing another election to get one.
2. You only get a honeymoon bounce once, which means the new leader would need to call an election within his first 6 months at the very most.
Therefore, if we replace May now, that means another election later this year, in the middle of Brexit, with Corbyn and Labour still riding high on their current momentum.
Perhaps it's better to let May get Brexit done as her penance for her shiteness, act as a lightning rod / scapegoat for anything that goes wrong in the meantime, and have the new leader appointed after the initial deal is done to fight the election?
Generation rent+ tuition fees. No wonder they're turning to Corbyn.
Why did the government possibly think increasing them to £9000 was ever a good idea ? Did they just make the calculation that young people would never actually vote ?
It's in excess of £10k now, the promise to index the £21k threshold has been broken, and interest rates on them are no longer limited to inflation.
Effectively, what it means is that today's younger people will pay a rate of income tax 9% in excess of that paid by those aged in their mid 40s for the same earnings for pretty well the rest of their life.
Wouldn't you feel pissed off with the party that gave you this?
I used to think that the Tories' advantage amongst older voters was an advantage. Now I think it's a disadvantage. Younger people do after all vote. Meanwhile the difference in VI amongst the generations is so extreme that it's unlikely to fully unravel as people age. That means that as today's 65+ age group of Tory ultras dies off, they're unlikely to be replaced with a cohort of such entrenched voting patterns.
They should start by scrapping tuition fees for those students studying in subjects we want to help the economy. STEM subjects and those with practical applications. We should never have gone down the route of using university as a means of keeping the young off the unemployment register by encouraging them to waste 3 or 4 years getting a worthless degree and then having to introduce student loans to pay for it.
What we need is to show that the alternatives such as apprenticeships are just as valuable and valued and get the university entrants back down to 15-20% of the school-leavers
A bursary for core subjects would be a start, plus one for nurses and midwives (which I think got dumped recently). Making it free for all it pointless.
That is easily dealt with. They just keep pointing out that there is already a dementia tax, it was introduced by Labour, you only get to keep £23K instead of £100K and you lose your house straight away instead of when you die.
The Tories need to keep plugging this message day in day out. Labour's hidden dementia tax. If you have dementia you are already paying it.
This was very much a perception election. It was all about how people perceived was the right choice. Corbyn (somehow) managed to come across as the nice guy who would help you, and May came across as the witch who would take your house.
The Tories need to be decimating the whole of Corbynomics day-in day-out from now to the next election. They cannot let him get away with that again.
FWIW, I agree with you. There aren't many "secret" Conservative non-voters.
The Conservatives have to take votes directly from Labour, probably focused on women and those in the 35-44 age bracket (with young children, or children approaching university age) in the first instance, and hold onto everything else.
Yes, I'd agree with you there too. I'd also say that I think the Conservatives may have to make a dent in Labour's monopoly on my age group - as it appears we made the difference in places such as Canterbury. The Conservative Party are unlikely to win over a majority of young voters, but it's perfectly possible for them to win over a sizable share if they respond to concerns regarding tuition fees and housing (especially the latter).
What's interesting to me, is how Blue Labour - and idea which was seen by quite a few as one which could generate potential electoral success - turns out not to be that great in electoral terms after all.
Generation rent+ tuition fees. No wonder they're turning to Corbyn.
Why did the government possibly think increasing them to £9000 was ever a good idea ? Did they just make the calculation that young people would never actually vote ?
It's in excess of £10k now, the promise to index the £21k threshold has been broken, and interest rates on them are no longer limited to inflation.
Effectively, what it means is that today's younger people will pay a rate of income tax 9% in excess of that paid by those aged in their mid 40s for the same earnings for pretty well the rest of their life.
Wouldn't you feel pissed off with the party that gave you this?
I used to think that the Tories' advantage amongst older voters was an advantage. Now I think it's a disadvantage. Younger people do after all vote. Meanwhile the difference in VI amongst the generations is so extreme that it's unlikely to fully unravel as people age. That means that as today's 65+ age group of Tory ultras dies off, they're unlikely to be replaced with a cohort of such entrenched voting patterns.
FWIW, I agree with you. There aren't many "secret" Conservative non-voters.
The Conservatives have to take votes directly from Labour, probably focused on women and those in the 35-44 age bracket (with young children, or children approaching university age) in the first instance, and hold onto everything else.
Yes, I'd agree with you there too. I'd also say that I think the Conservatives may have to make a dent in Labour's monopoly on my age group - as it appears we made the difference in places such as Canterbury. The Conservative Party are unlikely to win over a majority of young voters, but it's perfectly possible for them to win over a sizable share if they respond to concerns regarding tuition fees and housing (especially the latter).
What's interesting to me, is how Blue Labour - and idea which was seen by quite a few as one which could generate potential electoral success - turns out not to be that great in electoral terms after all.
Generation rent+ tuition fees. No wonder they're turning to Corbyn.
Why did the government possibly think increasing them to £9000 was ever a good idea ? Did they just make the calculation that young people would never actually vote ?
It's in excess of £10k now, the promise to index the £21k threshold has been broken, and interest rates on them are no longer limited to inflation.
Effectively, what it means is that today's younger people will pay a rate of income tax 9% in excess of that paid by those aged in their mid 40s for the same earnings for pretty well the rest of their life.
Wouldn't you feel pissed off with the party that gave you this?
I used to think that the Tories' advantage amongst older voters was an advantage. Now I think it's a disadvantage. Younger people do after all vote. Meanwhile the difference in VI amongst the generations is so extreme that it's unlikely to fully unravel as people age. That means that as today's 65+ age group of Tory ultras dies off, they're unlikely to be replaced with a cohort of such entrenched voting patterns.
That's a fair point.
However, it doesn't explain the voters in the 30-45 age groups, who also went heavily for Corbyn, particularly amongst women, where I think public services and austerity played a far greater role.
If truth be told, a lot of Tories are as fed up of "close down local hospitals", "abolish Berkshire/Cheshire", "sell our water companies to the French", "give Toby Young a billion to set up a school for his mates", "let the feckless beg" etc. as everybody else, perhaps even more so. Yet their party has got a reputation of asset-strippers. New Labour had a flavour of this too, but that's why Corbyn and co. have move the party left. And rather than keep the wealthy from supporting the party it's had the opposite effect, since based on their own experiences a lot of well-off people really don't believe the country is too poor to be decent.
After all of that, Momentum, shortly before the GE posted on their Twitter a video of McDonnell and Mason clarifying some things about the LVT - mainly that it wouldn't actually apply to residential property - but only on business property.
FWIW, I agree with you. There aren't many "secret" Conservative non-voters.
The Conservatives have to take votes directly from Labour, probably focused on women and those in the 35-44 age bracket (with young children, or children approaching university age) in the first instance, and hold onto everything else.
They do. Also worth noting, though, that Labour will also need to find a way of taking votes from current Tory voters, while keeping its existing coalition together. Tacking even further left may not be ideal. The good news for Labour is that Scotland looks very promising after seven very bleak years. It's quite possible that at the next GE Labour could win 20+ seats there.
If 39 percent still support the Tories after the last few days they are going to take some shifting. Corbyn puts a noticeable ceiling on the Labour vote.
The reverse is so. The Tories are going to lose the UKIP wing of 5-10% share. There is no sign of a ceiling on the Labour vote. What do you mean by noticeable?
As I said if 39 percent still support the Tories now after all thats happened they're probably not in it for the short haul. Corbyn is simply not an option for a lot of voters particularly the elderly. He couldn't even beat May.
Yup. One of the few advantages of being recently disavowed of a dose of hubris is that you can then see it more clearly when it rears its head elsewhere. Labour are very much at risk Of this at the moment; he lost as badly as Brown did with a giveaway manifesto that was totally undeliverable.
Corbyn's campaign was good and the Brown comparison is unfair and misses the point.
But for all that, it's a dangerous moment for Corbyn. Cool heads are required. He is in danger of being intoxicated by the hype.
Corbyn's only chance of getting in is if there is an early election. If not, he'll now be able to re-engineer the party machinery to ensure a far left candidate gets nominated for the leadership each time there's a contest. Then he'll stand down a hero.
I would love to hear what moderates in the Labour Party think of what has happened, and what plans they had for Thursday evening that were stood down. In private some of them must be terrified that Corbyn and his pals will now have free rein to do what he likes with the Labour Party.
If truth be told, a lot of Tories are as fed up of "close down local hospitals", "abolish Berkshire/Cheshire", "sell our water companies to the French", "give Toby Young a billion to set up a school for his mates", "let the feckless beg" etc. as everybody else, perhaps even more so. Yet their party has got a reputation of asset-strippers. New Labour had a flavour of this too, but that's why Corbyn and co. have move the party left. And rather than keep the wealthy from supporting the party it's had the opposite effect, since based on their own experiences a lot of well-off people really don't believe the country is too poor to be decent.
Yup. Copying the New Labour play book, which looked great for short term wins, was not very strategically clever of the Tory party.
Try telling that to the Telegraph, which today is saying that the way forward for the Tories is "to re-embrace classical liberal economics" and "free-market solutions to social problems"
Corbyn's only chance of getting in is if there is an early election. If not, he'll now be able to re-engineer the party machinery to ensure a far left candidate gets nominated for the leadership each time there's a contest. Then he'll stand down a hero.
I would love to hear what moderates in the Labour Party think of what has happened, and what plans they had for Thursday evening that were stood down. In private some of them must be terrified that Corbyn and his pals will now have free rein to do what he likes with the Labour Party.
Moderates? They are happy their team almost won.
Everything else is forgiven, and principles forgotten.
If truth be told, a lot of Tories are as fed up of "close down local hospitals", "abolish Berkshire/Cheshire", "sell our water companies to the French", "give Toby Young a billion to set up a school for his mates", "let the feckless beg" etc. as everybody else, perhaps even more so. Yet their party has got a reputation of asset-strippers. New Labour had a flavour of this too, but that's why Corbyn and co. have move the party left. And rather than keep the wealthy from supporting the party it's had the opposite effect, since based on their own experiences a lot of well-off people really don't believe the country is too poor to be decent.
Yup. Copying the New Labour play book, which looked great for short term wins, was not very strategically clever of the Tory party.
Try telling that to the Telegraph, which today is saying that the way forward for the Tories is "to re-embrace classical liberal economics" and "free-market solutions to social problems"
Not sure they get it yet!
They would say that if the Tories had two MP's left.
And if the Dementia tax is linked to May explicitly the next leader won't have that baggage to carry. Which is another reason to get rid asap.
I definitely want May to go before the next election, but replacing her immediately creates serious problems:
1. Another unelected PM with no mandate, needing another election to get one.
2. You only get a honeymoon bounce once, which means the new leader would need to call an election within his first 6 months at the very most.
Therefore, if we replace May now, that means another election later this year, in the middle of Brexit, with Corbyn and Labour still riding high on their current momentum.
Perhaps it's better to let May get Brexit done as her penance for her shiteness, act as a lightning rod / scapegoat for anything that goes wrong in the meantime, and have the new leader appointed after the initial deal is done to fight the election?
The Tories got the most seats, and the electorate decided they were just about good enough to carry on rather than having Corbyn's lot in. The mandate for Brexit was given in 2016, so May needs to get on with that. What is very clear is that there is no mandate for the dementia tax.
Yes, I'd agree with you there too. I'd also say that I think the Conservatives may have to make a dent in Labour's monopoly on my age group - as it appears we made the difference in places such as Canterbury. The Conservative Party are unlikely to win over a majority of young voters, but it's perfectly possible for them to win over a sizable share if they respond to concerns regarding tuition fees and housing (especially the latter).
What's interesting to me, is how Blue Labour - and idea which was seen by quite a few as one which could generate potential electoral success - turns out not to be that great in electoral terms after all.
Generation rent+ tuition fees. No wonder they're turning to Corbyn.
Why did the government possibly think increasing them to £9000 was ever a good idea ? Did they just make the calculation that young people would never actually vote ?
It's in excess of £10k now, the promise to index the £21k threshold has been broken, and interest rates on them are no longer limited to inflation.
Effectively, what it means is that today's younger people will pay a rate of income tax 9% in excess of that paid by those aged in their mid 40s for the same earnings for pretty well the rest of their life.
Wouldn't you feel pissed off with the party that gave you this?
I used to think that the Tories' advantage amongst older voters was an advantage. Now I think it's a disadvantage. Younger people do after all vote. Meanwhile the difference in VI amongst the generations is so extreme that it's unlikely to fully unravel as people age. That means that as today's 65+ age group of Tory ultras dies off, they're unlikely to be replaced with a cohort of such entrenched voting patterns.
They should start by scrapping tuition fees for those students studying in subjects we want to help the economy. STEM subjects and those with practical applications. We should never have gone down the route of using university as a means of keeping the young off the unemployment register by encouraging them to waste 3 or 4 years getting a worthless degree and then having to introduce student loans to pay for it.
What we need is to show that the alternatives such as apprenticeships are just as valuable and valued and get the university entrants back down to 15-20% of the school-leavers
Totally agree.
Not to mention we're then told we need immigrants to do the jobs that half the students could have trained to do.
A bursary for core subjects would be a start, plus one for nurses and midwives (which I think got dumped recently). Making it free for all it pointless.
Yep. Agreed. I had forgotten the nurses/midwives apologies. But that is the principle. If you are going to study a subject that will benefit the country (and yourself) instead of just getting 'a degree' then you should be supported.
Things really aren't entirely gloomy for the tories. Corbyn is (inexplicably to me) a political rock star, his successor won't be and will be either someone useless like that Welsh bloke who challenged him last year, or someone a bit more serious, like Thornberry, who is as ghastly as May and who would have to wriggle so far to the left to get elected leader that she would be an easy target for accusations of turncoatery. Tories just need to reverse the coalition university fee hike, explain clearly what the current care funding crisis is really about and demand a cross-party approach, and replace May with a later model of android, and they are back in contention.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDMzaa3msrY
One thing that has not yet been mentioned is that the attitude of the Universities. The Universities were in general in favour of tuition fees. This is because when the Government paid them, the Universities did not receive form the Government the true cost of tuition, so were making a loss on each student.
The Universities are already under a lot of pressure (redundancies at Manchester and Bangor were announced in the last few weeks).
They won’t want to go back to relying on Government funding for fees unless the true cost is paid.
How much will HS2 cost? Get rid, build the care homes (or revamp the old hospitals) and allow elderly people the dignity and attention they deserve
I actually thought the Tory plans for social care were a valid attempt to address the issue. The problem was the totally crap u-turn which let the subject run and run and toxified it completely.
The people who thought that £9k tuition fees were a good idea were 40+. When they had gone to university it was usually a route to a good career and good earnings and £27k to be paid back over a working life might have seemed reasonable. And as the people approving the increase to £9k were from rich backgrounds they didn't comprehend how much it is to those less privileged than themselves.
But for many graduates now there is little hope of a good career and good earnings and they will continue to have tens of thousands of student debts throughout their lives.
PS Trident??
Corbyn is simply not an option for a lot of voters particularly the elderly. He couldn't even beat May.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/the-rise-of-the-alt-left?utm_term=.xgle07vpk#.jyRAM6eVa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
I almost joined CND once, but when they phoned up to talk to me about marches etc I thought it was one of my Dads mates on the wind up!
The National Care Service must also cover the costs of people who don’t need residential care, but also need care in the home (more of that money is covered by the state already)
https://twitter.com/ScotSecofState/status/873992177579421696
If the next Conservative leader has a brain and writes a 100% feel-good manifesto, Corbyn loses half his advantage.
There is a reason why Tony Blair, & Gordon Brown, & the Coalition & David Cameron didn’t fix the problem of social care.
It is expensive, and the bill is getting bigger because of demographics.
- As stated before Blue Labour was socially conservative on immigration
- May is pursuing a Hard Brexit
- Hard Brexit is influenced in part because of a political necessity to be 'tough on immigration'
- Right-wing press are very socially conservative on the subject of immigration and The Sun/Mail appear to want a Hard Brexit.
I'll get abuse, and lots of it, but I kept off the whole thing for this election because it was wall-to-wall Corbyn from everyone, and anyone posting anything Tory got pounced upon.
http://www.beamparklands.co.uk/history/dagenham-hospital/
http://ezitis.myzen.co.uk/haroldwood.html
http://ezitis.myzen.co.uk/rushgreen.html
It took 15 years or so but the internet and particularly smartphones have just blown it all wide open. But really it is just a case of one form of misinformation replacing another.
This only leads to one conclusion: government control of the internet. See Turkey, China, etc
One good thing about Labour's relative success is that their manifesto was so transparent that it shouldn't be too hard to figure out what issues are salient.
HS2 was simply the Tories' excuse to say they wouldn't allow a third runway at Heathrow. A lot of water has gone unde the bridge since then. It's time for the Tories to do the right thing and ditch Osborne's vanity project.
I'd never vote for Corbyn but he refrains from personal attacks, the tories do nothing but.
Priority number one of the Tories now will be to exit the EU in a way that does as little damage as possible to the UK economy, so they can face up to Corbyn again at the inevitable election with Brexit behind them and a new agenda.
The priorities for me are: (1) getting out the EU, (2) ensuring all parties are bound into that settlement, and, (3) stopping Corbyn.
Which is rather what the odds suggest too, with Cable also favoured.
I try not to bet on leadership elections though, barring good polling (rare) it's too hard to get a representative sense of the electorate.
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/873996625378766848
Effectively, what it means is that today's younger people will pay a rate of income tax 9% in excess of that paid by those aged in their mid 40s for the same earnings for pretty well the rest of their life.
Wouldn't you feel pissed off with the party that gave you this?
I used to think that the Tories' advantage amongst older voters was an advantage. Now I think it's a disadvantage. Younger people do after all vote. Meanwhile the difference in VI amongst the generations is so extreme that it's unlikely to fully unravel as people age. That means that as today's 65+ age group of Tory ultras dies off, they're unlikely to be replaced with a cohort of such entrenched voting patterns.
The Tories need to keep plugging this message day in day out. Labour's hidden dementia tax. If you have dementia you are already paying it.
We have a group of friends in London that we go down and see regularly still, and my girlfriend has been up here (Nottingham) four years now.
Working from home will stem the flow for a while, but as the population grows the usage will still rise.
Is AV used ?
Keep him onside in Lab leader books now
Of this at the moment; he lost as badly as Brown did with a giveaway manifesto
that was totally undeliverable.
Which in her case meant getting to work on what to say in a hastily arranged interview to try and undo the further damage of the horlicks of a statement she had just made.
What we need is to show that the alternatives such as apprenticeships are just as valuable and valued and get the university entrants back down to 15-20% of the school-leavers
Also, question to the floor, on this website there's been one or two posters that have called the young as 'selfish' and 'vengeful' for voting for what was in their self-interest, how is that any different for the elderly voting for the triple lock, winter fuel payments, and free bus passes etc.?
No problem so long as Labour win, right?
It really doesn't, you are just cherry-picking the evidence. If Clinton had been impeached over the Lewinsky thing, you would hail that as the greatest proof since Nixon of the hubris - nemesis claim. He wasn't. Nemesis really does follow hubris, particularly in the world of politics, except when it doesn't.
The Guardian and the Times are the only two papers worth reading these days.
I definitely want May to go before the next election, but replacing her immediately creates serious problems:
1. Another unelected PM with no mandate, needing another election to get one.
2. You only get a honeymoon bounce once, which means the new leader would need to call an election within his first 6 months at the very most.
Therefore, if we replace May now, that means another election later this year, in the middle of Brexit, with Corbyn and Labour still riding high on their current momentum.
Perhaps it's better to let May get Brexit done as her penance for her shiteness, act as a lightning rod / scapegoat for anything that goes wrong in the meantime, and have the new leader appointed after the initial deal is done to fight the election?
This was very much a perception election. It was all about how people perceived was the right choice. Corbyn (somehow) managed to come across as the nice guy who would help you, and May came across as the witch who would take your house.
The Tories need to be decimating the whole of Corbynomics day-in day-out from now to the next election. They cannot let him get away with that again.
Someone gets it.
However, it doesn't explain the voters in the 30-45 age groups, who also went heavily for Corbyn, particularly amongst women, where I think public services and austerity played a far greater role.
But for all that, it's a dangerous moment for Corbyn. Cool heads are required. He is in danger of being intoxicated by the hype.
Corbyn did after over three-quarters of his MPs no-confidenced him last year.
Not sure they get it yet!
Everything else is forgiven, and principles forgotten.
The mandate for Brexit was given in 2016, so May needs to get on with that. What is very clear is that there is no mandate for the dementia tax.
Not to mention we're then told we need immigrants to do the jobs that half the students could have trained to do.
That could be Monday evening or 2019.
Who the feck knows.