If the young did not vote this time they are unlikely to do so next time and the Tories will also have dumped the dementia tax which hit them with the middle aged, Brexit may be difficult but again I don't see many 2017 Tories switching to Corbyn because of it
Well, you may be right - time will tell... but I heard the argument about the young not voting before GE and then it turned out that more than expected did, albeit there are still plenty more for Jezza & co to go after.
Corbyn will have his own dementia tax if he restates his IHT and LVA tax proposals at the next GE
Indeed and with the dementia tax dumped the Tories can make that case
I am sure dyed-in-the-wool tories will be apoplectic but they were never going to vote Labour, so no votes lost for JC... The under 40's however generally couldn't give a stuff about either of those two things. The Tories have to find a way to start getting more of that under 40 vote if they are to survive...
The under 40's will if they see their inheritance attacked
The next election is probably five years away. Everyone will be older.
Although (sadly) quite a few of the 70+ group will be no longer around to vote and the current crop of Glastonbury-watching teenagers will be elegible.
The assumption that the Orange is some kind of Paisleyite machine does seem to be one that is generally made in England. The cartoons since the MAYDUP deal are so odd that I do wonder if all papers should hire a new NI staffer ASAP.
The Mail one of the drunk DUPers drinking Guinness almost beggared belief.
The English know less about Northern Ireland than they do about New Zealand.
Presumably they will secure a guarantee that government will allow a vote to lift cap later. They aren't going to crash the government for this....
If true though it shows how Corbyn is really making the running.
To be honest Corbyn doesn't enter my mind on this, the last three months terrorist and fire outrages and the work of the emergency services drives my desire to see them receive a better than 1% pay rise
The Tories approach to public service employees is pretty poor...they view them as a predominantly oppositional voting bloc on the whole....
But it is in all our interests to have a motivated public work force that attracts good candidates....and most people want their public servants to reflect the communities they live in. So we have to pay them to attract people, retain them, and keep them happy. It is not rocket science.
The Lab-Con electoral bias was pretty much zero this election by the way:
41.15% each for Lab and Con would have yielded (On UNS)
Con 298 (Inc Bercow) (Middlesborough East the 17th loss to Lab) Lab 287 (25 gains) SNP 29 (Stirling Held, Lab gain down to 'Dunfermline and Fife West') L Dem 14 (Gain Richmond Park and St Ives) Plaid 3 (Lose Arfon to Lab) DUP 10 SF 7
Lab + SNP + Plaid = 319 Con + DUP = 308.
So the only choice for the Lib Dems would be to support Corbyn or force another election.
Jezza has played the EU subject very well. I'm 80% certain he's a Leaver, but I'm 100% certain he's in favour of FOM. This mixture could have been bad news politically, hence the high wire act.
Instead of losing electors on each count, he's gained two sets instead. Can he keep it up?
Corbyn, I think almost uniquely, doesn't care one way or another about Brexit. It's not that important to him.
Yes, he cares, but not very much. That, at least, is what I am told by Corbynistas of my acquaintance, some of whom are fairly close to him and Labour's Islington epicentre.
Aside from the rhetoric on immigration, it would be difficult to put a cigarette paper between Labour's 1983 Manifesto and LePen's 2017 bid for the French presidency.
I am genuinely worried by populism...
I think the Labour Party should offer Jeremy his commitment to non renewal trident in return for a positive approach to Brexit....
It is certainly hard to imagine any other Labour Leader getting away policies on immigration and policing that were as right wing as those in the manifesto.
On Brexit can we just accept that no one has a clue how it will work out including all UK and EU politicians.
We can. The problem is that business and individuals are acting accordingly, and not to the interest of the UK.
The pound is rising (1.30) and as long as the QS gets through it is unlikely the government will fall in the short term. However why would anyone invest at present and that is a worry. It has to be hoped that once Merkel gets elected (if she does) this Autumn negotiations will become more pragmatic and solutions sought. I cannot see any pathway that does not lead to a soft Brexit
Cliff edge is the default. Anything softer requires agreement. That depends on our lot making an offer to the EU that is interesting to them and gives them things they don't already have. No-one in our government except possibly Philip Hammond is in that mind-space. And he is trimming to not alienate his party's hardcore.
There is a deal to be done and I am confident that it will be done. Better than nothing but worse than what we have is a big negotiating space. I expect an outcome that is a lot better than nothing and substantially worse than what we have. I also expect the uncertainty to drag on for years unless we sign up with enthusiasm for EEA + CU + FoM. Enthusiasm is important because the other side have to agree. Unlikely IMO.
Other EU nations put controls on FoM in 2004 when they introduced transition controls for 7 years on migration from the new accession countries
Other EU nations haven't left the EU. What happens to them and what happens to us on the way out is chalk and cheese. We don't have any influence any more. In any case the 7 years eventually ran out.
Maybe but it is difficult for those EU nations to argue against the UK imposing similar controls they imposed albeit they would not accept a permanent end to free movement
I didn't express it well. We want the EU to agree to a whole new relationship - and by the way, no FoM and we're not offering anything very much. Other countries want to modify FoM rules as part of the normal horsetrading within the EU. You can see the difference?
Other EU nations have already put controls on FoM unlike the UK, there is no reason we cannot impose the same controls they did
The assumption that the Orange is some kind of Paisleyite machine does seem to be one that is generally made in England. The cartoons since the MAYDUP deal are so odd that I do wonder if all papers should hire a new NI staffer ASAP.
The Mail one of the drunk DUPers drinking Guinness almost beggared belief.
The English know less about Northern Ireland than they do about New Zealand.
I'm pretty sure I knew more about the place than that even before I moved here (or became linked to it).
I've never lived in Wales but I know the sterotypes of everyone loving rugby and having carnal relations with sheep are, er. I'll stop there.
Actually plenty of those under 40s in London and the South East stand to inherit a fat wad when their parents pass away and care greatly about both the dementia tax and IHT
Is there evidence to back that up?
I understand lots of wealthy older people don't want to pay for their own social care - and want to pass their housing wealth onto their kids (at the expense of the children of their less wealthy friends) - but is there any evidence that those kids themselves care greatly about receiving an unearned inheritance that their friends who don't have parents with significant assets/housing wealth won't receive?
"Quite how these shy Tories voted I don’t know. My guess is that some abstained and that some others actually voted Labour."
Just from complete anecdata and my peers, a lot of the shy tory stuff came from the mid-30s cohort and they voted Labour to support/oppose a local candidate.
This is very much in line with what I saw - the huge polling leads really made people think twice.
But for several days prior to polling day the Tory lead was pretty narrow in quite a few polls. I am sure that most people were well aware that things had narrowed a lot!
It is certainly hard to imagine any other Labour Leader getting away policies on immigration and policing that were as right wing as those in the manifesto.
Did anyone notice? For Labour this was an ageing rock-star election, not a policy election.
Mr. Tyson, doubt it'll start from the centre right. The Conservatives are in government and have more to lose, and whilst they're not taken with May, she isn't far right in the way Corbyn is far left.
A new mostly PLP party could've taken from the Lib Dems and some left Con MPs, though.
What if the Tories start polling in the low thirties, or even lower? What if the divisions in the Tory party become even worse as either the Tory right or Tory left lose confidence in the Brexit negotiations? What if the prospect of an emboldened Corbyn with an even more populist regime becomes ever more likely?
Do you think the Tories will walk into an election like 1997 again? Five years is a long, long, long time...particularly when you are saddled with a party that is so toxic that you couldn't even name it in the last election...and now running a weak Govt....
As said, I think many of you Tories are completely out of touch and do not realise what a catastrophic and existential state your party is in.....
Just think if Corbyn had won an extra 7 seats or so...the pressure would be on the other foot...but that narrow victory may prove to be the undoing of the Tory party...
It was absolutely the best possible result for Labour - Tories own Brexit, the Economy, the Hung Parliament, the whole f*cking mess. Meanwhile JC can tempt the public with all manner of delicious goodies safe in the knowledge that he's not going to have to deliver any time soon.
This situation won't last forever but while it does, every day is Christmas Day for Team Corbyn.
Obviously I completely agree....the absolute best result for Labour was a minority Tory Govt, especially one that has to go into coalition with the DUP for all the reasons you said.. When I saw that exit poll I went absolutely bonkers...I was at Wembley when Dickov equalised against Gillingham in the 95 minute, or when Aguerroooooooo scored against QPR in the last minute, kind of felt like that.
Doubtless you have had some very memorable and enjoyable moments on the horses that have delighted you...how did that exit poll compare?
Actually plenty of those under 40s in London and the South East stand to inherit a fat wad when their parents pass away and care greatly about both the dementia tax and IHT
Is there evidence to back that up?
I understand lots of wealthy older people don't want to pay for their own social care - and want to pass their housing wealth onto their kids (at the expense of the children of their less wealthy friends) - but is there any evidence that those kids themselves care greatly about receiving an unearned inheritance that their friends who don't have parents with housing wealth won't receive?
Are you mad? Of course they do, it is one of the main ways they themselves will climb the housing ladder. Osborne's IHT cut was the main reason many middle aged voters voted Tory in 2015, May's dementia tax was the main reason many did not in 2017
Mr. Cooke, normally, I'd agree. But look at the UK party situation.
Plaid, Lib Dems and UKIP are on their back (Lib Dems a bit better than the other two). The SNP's high tide has receded. Labour's led by a far left economically illiterate unilateralist friend of Hamas. The Conservatives look tired and far from overflowing with talent.
If Corbyn had lost seats and the PLP actually grown a spine and 150 or so of them broken off to form New New Labour, or whatever you want to call it, I could see them leading in the polls right now. Lib Dems, soft Conservatives, could be tempted. Those wanting a centrist approach would be relieved to have another option on the table, without May's rubbishness or Corbyn's hard left socialism.
Instead, the PLP has decided to get down on their knees and worship at the altar of Corbyn. A few have chosen resistance (kudos to Flint and Leslie, both of whom have risen in my estimation). Most have chosen Vichy.
Actually plenty of those under 40s in London and the South East stand to inherit a fat wad when their parents pass away and care greatly about both the dementia tax and IHT
Is there evidence to back that up?
I understand lots of wealthy older people don't want to pay for their own social care - and want to pass their housing wealth onto their kids (at the expense of the children of their less wealthy friends) - but is there any evidence that those kids themselves care greatly about receiving an unearned inheritance that their friends who don't have parents with housing wealth won't receive?
Other EU nations have already put controls on FoM unlike the UK, there is no reason we cannot impose the same controls they did
We can do what we want, but it doesn't help us get the deal. Other EU countries are in the EU and and don't need a deal. In addition they can use internal mechanisms to get what they want. We're just not in the necessary mindset of doing a sales job on the EU. They get to decide and need to be wooed.
Actually plenty of those under 40s in London and the South East stand to inherit a fat wad when their parents pass away and care greatly about both the dementia tax and IHT
Is there evidence to back that up?
I understand lots of wealthy older people don't want to pay for their own social care - and want to pass their housing wealth onto their kids (at the expense of the children of their less wealthy friends) - but is there any evidence that those kids themselves care greatly about receiving an unearned inheritance that their friends who don't have parents with housing wealth won't receive?
My prior would be that young people feel awkward and don't want to think about inheritance because it's thinking about your parents dying... They would rather earn their money themselves.
Yougov poll showed 70% of over 60s support IHT threshold rise in 2015 vs 53% of 18-24.
So inheritance *tax* is generally unpopular but particularly unpopular among the elderly?
Actually plenty of those under 40s in London and the South East stand to inherit a fat wad when their parents pass away and care greatly about both the dementia tax and IHT
Is there evidence to back that up?
I understand lots of wealthy older people don't want to pay for their own social care - and want to pass their housing wealth onto their kids (at the expense of the children of their less wealthy friends) - but is there any evidence that those kids themselves care greatly about receiving an unearned inheritance that their friends who don't have parents with housing wealth won't receive?
Actually plenty of those under 40s in London and the South East stand to inherit a fat wad when their parents pass away and care greatly about both the dementia tax and IHT
Is there evidence to back that up?
I understand lots of wealthy older people don't want to pay for their own social care - and want to pass their housing wealth onto their kids (at the expense of the children of their less wealthy friends) - but is there any evidence that those kids themselves care greatly about receiving an unearned inheritance that their friends who don't have parents with significant assets/housing wealth won't receive?
If you ever administered an estate, you would know the answer to that question.
Actually plenty of those under 40s in London and the South East stand to inherit a fat wad when their parents pass away and care greatly about both the dementia tax and IHT
Is there evidence to back that up?
I understand lots of wealthy older people don't want to pay for their own social care - and want to pass their housing wealth onto their kids (at the expense of the children of their less wealthy friends) - but is there any evidence that those kids themselves care greatly about receiving an unearned inheritance that their friends who don't have parents with housing wealth won't receive?
Wow! Just wow!
Speaking personally, I can confirm that my children are extremely interested in an unearned inheritance. Current indications are that they are prepared to wait until I croak, but my guess is their patience may wear out soon.
Other EU nations have already put controls on FoM unlike the UK, there is no reason we cannot impose the same controls they did
We can do what we want, but it doesn't help us get the deal. Other EU countries are in the EU and and don't need a deal. In addition they can use internal mechanisms to get what they want. We're just not in the necessary mindset of doing a sales job on the EU. They get to decide and need to be wooed.
It's marketing 101. Who makes the buy decisions? What do they really want? What can we offer that they want? How do we promote our offer? At what cost (what do we want in return)?
Could mean a shift to the blues next time around. Not large, but given how many close contests there were last time it could still be significant.
Labour will win circa a further 25 seats in Scotland next time - mainly - though perhaps not exclusively - at the expense of the SNP.
Makes no difference to labour's strength in the HOC
It does actually - in that it gives them 25 extra seats!. Moreover, 2 or 3 could be gains from the Tories in Scotland.
I genuinely think to May's credit and her legacy...that election may well be seen as saving the union. The 2017 election decapitated Scottish nationalism...and it was worth 130 million just for that.
I do believe that Sturgeon's announcement for a 2nd referendum was a huge factor for May's change of mind for the GE and without it, May would have hung on. May saw the possibilities in Scotland, but misread the mood in England.....
Actually plenty of those under 40s in London and the South East stand to inherit a fat wad when their parents pass away and care greatly about both the dementia tax and IHT
Is there evidence to back that up?
I understand lots of wealthy older people don't want to pay for their own social care - and want to pass their housing wealth onto their kids (at the expense of the children of their less wealthy friends) - but is there any evidence that those kids themselves care greatly about receiving an unearned inheritance that their friends who don't have parents with housing wealth won't receive?
Wow! Just wow!
Speaking personally, I can confirm that my children are extremely interested in an unearned inheritance. Current indications are that they are prepared to wait until I croak, but my guess is their patience may wear out soon.
It's when they start hinting about cheap one-way flights to Zurich that you need to get worried.
Actually plenty of those under 40s in London and the South East stand to inherit a fat wad when their parents pass away and care greatly about both the dementia tax and IHT
Is there evidence to back that up?
I understand lots of wealthy older people don't want to pay for their own social care - and want to pass their housing wealth onto their kids (at the expense of the children of their less wealthy friends) - but is there any evidence that those kids themselves care greatly about receiving an unearned inheritance that their friends who don't have parents with housing wealth won't receive?
Wow! Just wow!
Speaking personally, I can confirm that my children are extremely interested in an unearned inheritance. Current indications are that they are prepared to wait until I croak, but my guess is their patience may wear out soon.
Mr. Tyson, doubt it'll start from the centre right. The Conservatives are in government and have more to lose, and whilst they're not taken with May, she isn't far right in the way Corbyn is far left.
A new mostly PLP party could've taken from the Lib Dems and some left Con MPs, though.
What if the Tories start polling in the low thirties, or even lower? What if the divisions in the Tory party become even worse as either the Tory right or Tory left lose confidence in the Brexit negotiations? What if the prospect of an emboldened Corbyn with an even more populist regime becomes ever more likely?
Do you think the Tories will walk into an election like 1997 again? Five years is a long, long, long time...particularly when you are saddled with a party that is so toxic that you couldn't even name it in the last election...and now running a weak Govt....
As said, I think many of you Tories are completely out of touch and do not realise what a catastrophic and existential state your party is in.....
Just think if Corbyn had won an extra 7 seats or so...the pressure would be on the other foot...but that narrow victory may prove to be the undoing of the Tory party...
It was absolutely the best possible result for Labour - Tories own Brexit, the Economy, the Hung Parliament, the whole f*cking mess. Meanwhile JC can tempt the public with all manner of delicious goodies safe in the knowledge that he's not going to have to deliver any time soon.
This situation won't last forever but while it does, every day is Christmas Day for Team Corbyn.
Obviously I completely agree....the absolute best result for Labour was a minority Tory Govt, especially one that has to go into coalition with the DUP for all the reasons you said.. When I saw that exit poll I went absolutely bonkers...I was at Wembley when Dickov equalised against Gillingham in the 95 minute, or when Aguerroooooooo scored against QPR in the last minute, kind of felt like that.
Doubtless you have had some very memorable and enjoyable moments on the horses that have delighted you...how did that exit poll compare?
Mr. Cooke, normally, I'd agree. But look at the UK party situation.
Plaid, Lib Dems and UKIP are on their back (Lib Dems a bit better than the other two). The SNP's high tide has receded. Labour's led by a far left economically illiterate unilateralist friend of Hamas. The Conservatives look tired and far from overflowing with talent.
If Corbyn had lost seats and the PLP actually grown a spine and 150 or so of them broken off to form New New Labour, or whatever you want to call it, I could see them leading in the polls right now. Lib Dems, soft Conservatives, could be tempted. Those wanting a centrist approach would be relieved to have another option on the table, without May's rubbishness or Corbyn's hard left socialism.
Instead, the PLP has decided to get down on their knees and worship at the altar of Corbyn. A few have chosen resistance (kudos to Flint and Leslie, both of whom have risen in my estimation). Most have chosen Vichy.
Which seats would they win? Labour have a hard core in 100-150 seats that would prove all but unshakeable. If the name of the party isn't "Labour", they don't win there. The Tories have their 100+ true blue constituencies. That leaves only about 400 in the mix, and in each of these, it would be a multi-way fight. The new party has no record. Con voters would dabble with the idea and then look to nurse for fear of worse. Lab voters would be torn between the believers and the newbie party - but the fact that the Alliance and later Lib Dems had a far, far harder task in trying to prise Labour seats away than Tory seats underlines how solid they are.
I could see a new party - if it was insanely popular, to the tune of occasionally polling into the forties - getting 10-30 seats in their first election against a polling score in the high twenties before dying away.= over the next two elections.
Actually plenty of those under 40s in London and the South East stand to inherit a fat wad when their parents pass away and care greatly about both the dementia tax and IHT
Is there evidence to back that up?
I understand lots of wealthy older people don't want to pay for their own social care - and want to pass their housing wealth onto their kids (at the expense of the children of their less wealthy friends) - but is there any evidence that those kids themselves care greatly about receiving an unearned inheritance that their friends who don't have parents with housing wealth won't receive?
Wow! Just wow!
Speaking personally, I can confirm that my children are extremely interested in an unearned inheritance. Current indications are that they are prepared to wait until I croak, but my guess is their patience may wear out soon.
It's when they start hinting about cheap one-way flights to Zurich that you need to get worried.
These days I'm always secretly armed when visiting them.
Mr. Tyson, doubt it'll start from the centre right. The Conservatives are in government and have more to lose, and whilst they're not taken with May, she isn't far right in the way Corbyn is far left.
A new mostly PLP party could've taken from the Lib Dems and some left Con MPs, though.
What if the Tories start polling in the low thirties, or even lower? What if the divisions in the Tory party become even worse as either the Tory right or Tory left lose confidence in the Brexit negotiations? What if the prospect of an emboldened Corbyn with an even more populist regime becomes ever more likely?
Do you think the Tories will walk into an election like 1997 again? Five years is a long, long, long time...particularly when you are saddled with a party that is so toxic that you couldn't even name it in the last election...and now running a weak Govt....
As said, I think many of you Tories are completely out of touch and do not realise what a catastrophic and existential state your party is in.....
Just think if Corbyn had won an extra 7 seats or so...the pressure would be on the other foot...but that narrow victory may prove to be the undoing of the Tory party...
It was absolutely the best possible result for Labour - Tories own Brexit, the Economy, the Hung Parliament, the whole f*cking mess. Meanwhile JC can tempt the public with all manner of delicious goodies safe in the knowledge that he's not going to have to deliver any time soon.
This situation won't last forever but while it does, every day is Christmas Day for Team Corbyn.
Obviously I completely agree....the absolute best result for Labour was a minority Tory Govt, especially one that has to go into coalition with the DUP for all the reasons you said.. When I saw that exit poll I went absolutely bonkers...I was at Wembley when Dickov equalised against Gillingham in the 95 minute, or when Aguerroooooooo scored against QPR in the last minute, kind of felt like that.
Doubtless you have had some very memorable and enjoyable moments on the horses that have delighted you...how did that exit poll compare?
I just laughed out loud.
I just thought of my CON sell spread bets at 393 and got my calculator out to work out my winnings
It's marketing 101. Who makes the buy decisions? What do they really want? What can we offer that they want? How do we promote our offer? At what cost (what do we want in return)?
They want our money, we want a trade deal and a smooth transition (and they'd quite like those too, for that matter). Stripping away all the cant and posturing, it's really quite simple. The question is what's the price, and what do we get in return.
Actually plenty of those under 40s in London and the South East stand to inherit a fat wad when their parents pass away and care greatly about both the dementia tax and IHT
Is there evidence to back that up?
I understand lots of wealthy older people don't want to pay for their own social care - and want to pass their housing wealth onto their kids (at the expense of the children of their less wealthy friends) - but is there any evidence that those kids themselves care greatly about receiving an unearned inheritance that their friends who don't have parents with significant assets/housing wealth won't receive?
If you ever administered an estate, you would know the answer to that question.
I had a lot of involvement in this field in my career - take it from me the children were very well aware of their inheritance
Actually plenty of those under 40s in London and the South East stand to inherit a fat wad when their parents pass away and care greatly about both the dementia tax and IHT
Is there evidence to back that up?
I understand lots of wealthy older people don't want to pay for their own social care - and want to pass their housing wealth onto their kids (at the expense of the children of their less wealthy friends) - but is there any evidence that those kids themselves care greatly about receiving an unearned inheritance that their friends who don't have parents with housing wealth won't receive?
Wow! Just wow!
Speaking personally, I can confirm that my children are extremely interested in an unearned inheritance. Current indications are that they are prepared to wait until I croak, but my guess is their patience may wear out soon.
I have given my two their inheritance now. It was an old savings policy that matured and so they got a got cash lump sum dribbled out to them over a few years.
Thanks to Brexit I intend to retire early, grow old disgracefully and myself and Mr C will blow the rest
Mr. Tyson, doubt it'll start from the centre right. The Conservatives are in government and have more to lose, and whilst they're not taken with May, she isn't far right in the way Corbyn is far left.
A new mostly PLP party could've taken from the Lib Dems and some left Con MPs, though.
What if the Tories start polling in the low thirties, or even lower? What if the divisions in the Tory party become even worse as either the Tory right or Tory left lose confidence in the Brexit negotiations? What if the prospect of an emboldened Corbyn with an even more populist regime becomes ever more likely?
Do you think the Tories will walk into an election like 1997 again? Five years is a long, long, long time...particularly when you are saddled with a party that is so toxic that you couldn't even name it in the last election...and now running a weak Govt....
As said, I think many of you Tories are completely out of touch and do not realise what a catastrophic and existential state your party is in.....
Just think if Corbyn had won an extra 7 seats or so...the pressure would be on the other foot...but that narrow victory may prove to be the undoing of the Tory party...
It was absolutely the best possible result for Labour - Tories own Brexit, the Economy, the Hung Parliament, the whole f*cking mess. Meanwhile JC can tempt the public with all manner of delicious goodies safe in the knowledge that he's not going to have to deliver any time soon.
This situation won't last forever but while it does, every day is Christmas Day for Team Corbyn.
Obviously I completely agree....the absolute best result for Labour was a minority Tory Govt, especially one that has to go into coalition with the DUP for all the reasons you said.. When I saw that exit poll I went absolutely bonkers...I was at Wembley when Dickov equalised against Gillingham in the 95 minute, or when Aguerroooooooo scored against QPR in the last minute, kind of felt like that.
Doubtless you have had some very memorable and enjoyable moments on the horses that have delighted you...how did that exit poll compare?
I just laughed out loud.
I love your dog by the way. Sorry we missed each other in Broxtowe 2015.
Mr. Cooke, normally, I'd agree. But look at the UK party situation.
Plaid, Lib Dems and UKIP are on their back (Lib Dems a bit better than the other two). The SNP's high tide has receded. Labour's led by a far left economically illiterate unilateralist friend of Hamas. The Conservatives look tired and far from overflowing with talent.
If Corbyn had lost seats and the PLP actually grown a spine and 150 or so of them broken off to form New New Labour, or whatever you want to call it, I could see them leading in the polls right now. Lib Dems, soft Conservatives, could be tempted. Those wanting a centrist approach would be relieved to have another option on the table, without May's rubbishness or Corbyn's hard left socialism.
Instead, the PLP has decided to get down on their knees and worship at the altar of Corbyn. A few have chosen resistance (kudos to Flint and Leslie, both of whom have risen in my estimation). Most have chosen Vichy.
But Flint and Leslie haven't really done anything apart from some public sniping. The moderates had the chance to make their case, they got their second chance to challenge Corbyn - I didn't see Leslie or Flint put their names in, leaving it to Owen Thingy. The moderates had the chance pre-election to split off and form a new party, they didn't take it. The moderates have quite simply lost that fight, and the two options are either accept defeat, and work with the leadership to try and get their influence heard. Or, leave the party and form a new grouping, if they are unwilling to work under Corbyn (entirely fair enough of course). It's time to shit or get off the pot for the Corbyn refuseniks - both options are fine but they had their chance to make a case and they blew it.
Actually plenty of those under 40s in London and the South East stand to inherit a fat wad when their parents pass away and care greatly about both the dementia tax and IHT
Is there evidence to back that up?
I understand lots of wealthy older people don't want to pay for their own social care - and want to pass their housing wealth onto their kids (at the expense of the children of their less wealthy friends) - but is there any evidence that those kids themselves care greatly about receiving an unearned inheritance that their friends who don't have parents with housing wealth won't receive?
Wow! Just wow!
Speaking personally, I can confirm that my children are extremely interested in an unearned inheritance. Current indications are that they are prepared to wait until I croak, but my guess is their patience may wear out soon.
I have given my two their inheritance now. It was an old savings policy that matured and so they got a got cash lump sum dribbled out to them over a few years.
Thanks to Brexit I intend to retire early, grow old disgracefully and myself and Mr C will blow the rest
Actually plenty of those under 40s in London and the South East stand to inherit a fat wad when their parents pass away and care greatly about both the dementia tax and IHT
Is there evidence to back that up?
I understand lots of wealthy older people don't want to pay for their own social care - and want to pass their housing wealth onto their kids (at the expense of the children of their less wealthy friends) - but is there any evidence that those kids themselves care greatly about receiving an unearned inheritance that their friends who don't have parents with housing wealth won't receive?
My prior would be that young people feel awkward and don't want to think about inheritance because it's thinking about your parents dying... They would rather earn their money themselves.
Yougov poll showed 70% of over 60s support IHT threshold rise in 2015 vs 53% of 18-24.
So inheritance *tax* is generally unpopular but particularly unpopular among the elderly?
Yeah, I suspect attitudes change in late thirties or later. I'm late twenties and there's definitely a disparity within my friends of how much they will inherit. I don't think any of us are thinking "wow, isn't it great that we'll be inheriting the inequalities of the previous generation?" Nor is it close enough for us to really plan for it
But I'm perfectly willing to believe that in a decade or two, when that inheritance becomes a much more concrete part of our financial future and planning, and when we've started thinking of ourselves in the role of giving to our own kids, things may feel different.
Actually plenty of those under 40s in London and the South East stand to inherit a fat wad when their parents pass away and care greatly about both the dementia tax and IHT
Is there evidence to back that up?
I understand lots of wealthy older people don't want to pay for their own social care - and want to pass their housing wealth onto their kids (at the expense of the children of their less wealthy friends) - but is there any evidence that those kids themselves care greatly about receiving an unearned inheritance that their friends who don't have parents with housing wealth won't receive?
Wow! Just wow!
Speaking personally, I can confirm that my children are extremely interested in an unearned inheritance. Current indications are that they are prepared to wait until I croak, but my guess is their patience may wear out soon.
I have given my two their inheritance now. It was an old savings policy that matured and so they got a got cash lump sum dribbled out to them over a few years.
Thanks to Brexit I intend to retire early, grow old disgracefully and myself and Mr C will blow the rest
Other EU nations have already put controls on FoM unlike the UK, there is no reason we cannot impose the same controls they did
We can do what we want, but it doesn't help us get the deal. Other EU countries are in the EU and and don't need a deal. In addition they can use internal mechanisms to get what they want. We're just not in the necessary mindset of doing a sales job on the EU. They get to decide and need to be wooed.
Yet today the EU is saying they will lose 12% of their budget if they get no continued payments from the UK, they want a deal too just one not completely incompatible with single market rules
Actually plenty of those under 40s in London and the South East stand to inherit a fat wad when their parents pass away and care greatly about both the dementia tax and IHT
Is there evidence to back that up?
I understand lots of wealthy older people don't want to pay for their own social care - and want to pass their housing wealth onto their kids (at the expense of the children of their less wealthy friends) - but is there any evidence that those kids themselves care greatly about receiving an unearned inheritance that their friends who don't have parents with housing wealth won't receive?
Wow! Just wow!
Speaking personally, I can confirm that my children are extremely interested in an unearned inheritance. Current indications are that they are prepared to wait until I croak, but my guess is their patience may wear out soon.
I have given my two their inheritance now. It was an old savings policy that matured and so they got a got cash lump sum dribbled out to them over a few years.
Thanks to Brexit I intend to retire early, grow old disgracefully and myself and Mr C will blow the rest
My parents gave us all about 14k as leg up in the late 1990's instead of us hanging on for their deaths. My mum, the last remaining parent, died last year...and I received an additional 20k from her final estate.
I like to think of myself as self made in life...but I'm not. That initial 14k actually enabled us to make choices and investments that irrevocably changed our lives. The last 20k doesn't change anything.
So well done to you for thinking about your kids when that money is potentially life changing...
Which seats would they win? Labour have a hard core in 100-150 seats that would prove all but unshakeable. If the name of the party isn't "Labour", they don't win there. The Tories have their 100+ true blue constituencies. That leaves only about 400 in the mix, and in each of these, it would be a multi-way fight. The new party has no record. Con voters would dabble with the idea and then look to nurse for fear of worse. Lab voters would be torn between the believers and the newbie party - but the fact that the Alliance and later Lib Dems had a far, far harder task in trying to prise Labour seats away than Tory seats underlines how solid they are.
I could see a new party - if it was insanely popular, to the tune of occasionally polling into the forties - getting 10-30 seats in their first election against a polling score in the high twenties before dying away.= over the next two elections.
There's currently about 30% of the population that is looking for open internationalist liberal politics. They are split between those that want generous welfare and those that want welfare cut back. As both the Conservatives and Labour have turned their back on globalisation, there is an opening for the Lib Dems to increase their vote share. It means repositioning to be unashamedly globalist. They will lose voters in their remaining heartlands but hopefully gain more across the country. They will need to take a neutral position on welfare, maybe mildly social democratic or a somewhat social market economy. The aim is to remove welfare as a reason for not voting for the party if you are a globalist.
Talking of ageing rock stars, is the youngsters' apparent love of gerontocracy going to transfer to Vince now?
Depends on how he navigates tuition fees.
He starts off with credibility problem.
Vince was perceived to have sold off the Mail a bit cheap, was the architect of £9000 tuition fees and even considers FoM a bit off.
He has a potentially tricky start to the job with the membership
The other LibDem problem is that a revival in the Eurosceptic West Country might mean they need to stop banging on about Remain.
The two best Tory facing results outside the SW London bubble were Eastbourne and Norfolk North where both Stephen Lloyd and Norman Lamb are both far more sensible on Europe than the official party line.
Mr. Tyson, doubt it'll start from the centre right. The Conservatives are in government and have more to lose, and whilst they're not taken with May, she isn't far right in the way Corbyn is far left.
A new mostly PLP party could've taken from the Lib Dems and some left Con MPs, though.
What if the Tories start polling in the low thirties, or even lower? What if the divisions in the Tory party become even worse as either the Tory right or Tory left lose confidence in the Brexit negotiations? What if the prospect of an emboldened Corbyn with an even more populist regime becomes ever more likely?
Do you think the Tories will walk into an election like 1997 again? Five years is a long, long, long time...particularly when you are saddled with a party that is so toxic that you couldn't even name it in the last election...and now running a weak Govt....
As said, I think many of you Tories are completely out of touch and do not realise what a catastrophic and existential state your party is in.....
Just think if Corbyn had won an extra 7 seats or so...the pressure would be on the other foot...but that narrow victory may prove to be the undoing of the Tory party...
It was absolutely the best possible result for Labour - Tories own Brexit, the Economy, the Hung Parliament, the whole f*cking mess. Meanwhile JC can tempt the public with all manner of delicious goodies safe in the knowledge that he's not going to have to deliver any time soon.
This situation won't last forever but while it does, every day is Christmas Day for Team Corbyn.
Obviously I completely agree....the absolute best result for Labour was a minority Tory Govt, especially one that has to go into coalition with the DUP for all the reasons you said.. When I saw that exit poll I went absolutely bonkers...I was at Wembley when Dickov equalised against Gillingham in the 95 minute, or when Aguerroooooooo scored against QPR in the last minute, kind of felt like that.
Doubtless you have had some very memorable and enjoyable moments on the horses that have delighted you...how did that exit poll compare?
I just laughed out loud.
I just thought of my CON sell spread bets at 393 and got my calculator out to work out my winnings
When the exit poll came out, I didn't believe it. I spent quarter of an hour texting friends with the basic message that this had to be utter bollx.
Could mean a shift to the blues next time around. Not large, but given how many close contests there were last time it could still be significant.
Labour will win circa a further 25 seats in Scotland next time - mainly - though perhaps not exclusively - at the expense of the SNP.
Makes no difference to labour's strength in the HOC
It does actually - in that it gives them 25 extra seats!. Moreover, 2 or 3 could be gains from the Tories in Scotland.
I genuinely think to May's credit and her legacy...that election may well be seen as saving the union. The 2017 election decapitated Scottish nationalism...and it was worth 130 million just for that.
I do believe that Sturgeon's announcement for a 2nd referendum was a huge factor for May's change of mind for the GE and without it, May would have hung on. May saw the possibilities in Scotland, but misread the mood in England.....
Agree totally with that. I expect the SNP to fall back to circa 15 seats next time and very largely to Labour's benefit.
Actually plenty of those under 40s in London and the South East stand to inherit a fat wad when their parents pass away and care greatly about both the dementia tax and IHT
Is there evidence to back that up?
I understand lots of wealthy older people don't want to pay for their own social care - and want to pass their housing wealth onto their kids (at the expense of the children of their less wealthy friends) - but is there any evidence that those kids themselves care greatly about receiving an unearned inheritance that their friends who don't have parents with housing wealth won't receive?
Wow! Just wow!
Speaking personally, I can confirm that my children are extremely interested in an unearned inheritance. Current indications are that they are prepared to wait until I croak, but my guess is their patience may wear out soon.
I have given my two their inheritance now. It was an old savings policy that matured and so they got a got cash lump sum dribbled out to them over a few years.
Thanks to Brexit I intend to retire early, grow old disgracefully and myself and Mr C will blow the rest
My parents gave us all about 14k as leg up in the late 1990's instead of us hanging on for their deaths. My mum, the last remaining parent, died last year...and I received an additional 20k from her final estate.
I like to think of myself as self made in life...but I'm not. That initial 14k actually enabled us to make choices and investments that irrevocably changed our lives. The last 20k doesn't change anything.
So well done to you for thinking about your kids when that money is potentially life changing...
Good point. £5K thirty years ago would've been very significant and the effects of that would still be being felt by us now in a positive sense had we had it. We didn't. £5K (or even an inflation adjusted £15K) now would not remotely have the same effect.
Other EU nations have already put controls on FoM unlike the UK, there is no reason we cannot impose the same controls they did
We can do what we want, but it doesn't help us get the deal. Other EU countries are in the EU and and don't need a deal. In addition they can use internal mechanisms to get what they want. We're just not in the necessary mindset of doing a sales job on the EU. They get to decide and need to be wooed.
Yet today the EU is saying they will lose 12% of their budget if they get no continued payments from the UK, they want a deal too just one not completely incompatible with single market rules
That's what I am talking about with marketing. What the EU really wants is money. Fine. We offer to double our current contributions to £20 billion a year net. And make a big splash about it. Now we are interesting to them.
Actually plenty of those under 40s in London and the South East stand to inherit a fat wad when their parents pass away and care greatly about both the dementia tax and IHT
Is there evidence to back that up?
I understand lots of wealthy older people don't want to pay for their own social care - and want to pass their housing wealth onto their kids (at the expense of the children of their less wealthy friends) - but is there any evidence that those kids themselves care greatly about receiving an unearned inheritance that their friends who don't have parents with housing wealth won't receive?
My prior would be that young people feel awkward and don't want to think about inheritance because it's thinking about your parents dying... They would rather earn their money themselves.
Yougov poll showed 70% of over 60s support IHT threshold rise in 2015 vs 53% of 18-24.
So inheritance *tax* is generally unpopular but particularly unpopular among the elderly?
Yeah, I suspect attitudes change in late thirties or later. I'm late twenties and there's definitely a disparity within my friends of how much they will inherit. I don't think any of us are thinking "wow, isn't it great that we'll be inheriting the inequalities of the previous generation?" Nor is it close enough for us to really plan for it
But I'm perfectly willing to believe that in a decade or two, when that inheritance becomes a much more concrete part of our financial future and planning, and when we've started thinking of ourselves in the role of giving to our own kids, things may feel different.
Indeed.
Ideally I suppose there would be no inheritance at all, we'd all have a equality of opportunity up our early twenties and make ourselves from there. However, life is messier than that and views will tend to change as one ages, and the ideal will tend to cede to the pragmatic, if only because you get second chances at 20, you don't at 60.
Actually plenty of those under 40s in London and the South East stand to inherit a fat wad when their parents pass away and care greatly about both the dementia tax and IHT
Is there evidence to back that up?
I understand lots of wealthy older people don't want to pay for their own social care - and want to pass their housing wealth onto their kids (at the expense of the children of their less wealthy friends) - but is there any evidence that those kids themselves care greatly about receiving an unearned inheritance that their friends who don't have parents with housing wealth won't receive?
Wow! Just wow!
Speaking personally, I can confirm that my children are extremely interested in an unearned inheritance. Current indications are that they are prepared to wait until I croak, but my guess is their patience may wear out soon.
I have given my two their inheritance now. It was an old savings policy that matured and so they got a got cash lump sum dribbled out to them over a few years.
Thanks to Brexit I intend to retire early, grow old disgracefully and myself and Mr C will blow the rest
My parents gave us all about 14k as leg up in the late 1990's instead of us hanging on for their deaths. My mum, the last remaining parent, died last year...and I received an additional 20k from her final estate.
I like to think of myself as self made in life...but I'm not. That initial 14k actually enabled us to make choices and investments that irrevocably changed our lives. The last 20k doesn't change anything.
So well done to you for thinking about your kids when that money is potentially life changing...
Thanks Mr Tyson - and well done for your parents too!
I never got a penny piece from my father who, reputedly, died quite wealthy (I had not seen him in 20 years since he emigrated) so I was determined to see that my kids got a better start. The deal with the money was it would be dispensed for life enhancing stuff, not for holidays or frivolous experiences. One daughter is keeping hers as a start on her own house deposit.
Actually plenty of those under 40s in London and the South East stand to inherit a fat wad when their parents pass away and care greatly about both the dementia tax and IHT
Is there evidence to back that up?
I understand lots of wealthy older people don't want to pay for their own social care - and want to pass their housing wealth onto their kids (at the expense of the children of their less wealthy friends) - but is there any evidence that those kids themselves care greatly about receiving an unearned inheritance that their friends who don't have parents with significant assets/housing wealth won't receive?
Put like that it sounds very grasping; they do care in my experience, not because they want a cushioned trustafarian existence, but because they have the more modest desire to own their own house, and where else will the deposit come from?
edit: Snap! with Beverley.
I asked my youngest a bit ago whether he wanted help with university fees and he said naah, he would sort that out with loans and ask me to hang on to whatever money I can offer him till he needs it for a house.
Actually plenty of those under 40s in London and the South East stand to inherit a fat wad when their parents pass away and care greatly about both the dementia tax and IHT
Is there evidence to back that ive?
My prior would be that young people feel awkward and don't want to think about inheritance because it's thinking about your parents dying... They would rather earn their money themselves.
Yougov poll showed 70% of over 60s support IHT threshold rise in 2015 vs 53% of 18-24.
So inheritance *tax* is generally unpopular but particularly unpopular among the elderly?
Yeah, I suspect attitudes change in late thirties or later. I'm late twenties and there's definitely a disparity within my friends of how much they will inherit. I don't think any of us are thinking "wow, isn't it great that we'll be inheriting the inequalities of the previous generation?" Nor is it close enough for us to really plan for it
But I'm perfectly willing to believe that in a decade or two, when that inheritance becomes a much more concrete part of our financial future and planning, and when we've started thinking of ourselves in the role of giving to our own kids, things may feel different.
It's a tough one. On the one hand, the process of passing down property and wealth is somewhat perpetuating the old class distinctions, although home ownership rocketing has to an extent flattened the field. It's all rather macabre. Personally I stand to inherit half a semi detached house in Norfolk but thats of no real relevance, the cost of that inheritance is the loss of my parents, so it's not and never shall be a sum I make any plan or provision for. More important are the sentimental items. My father is a great bookworm and I have promised to keep his extensive collection of reference books all of which are well thumbed over decades. Similarly my mum has items from her family history like meat platters etc that she wants remaining in the family. I'm 45 and have no children and whilst my partner and I are talking about the possibility of a family it's not a certainty. I'm not intending to leave anything other than support for my partner as she is younger than me. I don't own a house and don't want to, not in the UK in any case at the ridiculous prices here for a pile of bricks. It's simply not on my radar, yet I acknowledge it does form a large part of many people's hope and planning. And of course should my partner become pregnant I'm sure I'll suddenly find the idea of a family home to pass on all the more appealing. It's all a bit meh.
Actually plenty of those under 40s in London and the South East stand to inherit a fat wad when their parents pass away and care greatly about both the dementia tax and IHT
Is there evidence to back that up?
I understand lots of wealthy older people don't want to pay for their own social care - and want to pass their housing wealth onto their kids (at the expense of the children of their less wealthy friends) - but is there any evidence that those kids themselves care greatly about receiving an unearned inheritance that their friends who don't have parents with housing wealth won't receive?
Wow! Just wow!
Speaking personally, I can confirm that my children are extremely interested in an unearned inheritance. Current indications are that they are prepared to wait until I croak, but my guess is their patience may wear out soon.
I have given my two their inheritance now. It was an old savings policy that matured and so they got a got cash lump sum dribbled out to them over a few years.
Thanks to Brexit I intend to retire early, grow old disgracefully and myself and Mr C will blow the rest
My parents gave us all about 14k as leg up in the late 1990's instead of us hanging on for their deaths. My mum, the last remaining parent, died last year...and I received an additional 20k from her final estate.
I like to think of myself as self made in life...but I'm not. That initial 14k actually enabled us to make choices and investments that irrevocably changed our lives. The last 20k doesn't change anything.
So well done to you for thinking about your kids when that money is potentially life changing...
Thanks Mr Tyson - and well done for your parents too!
I never got a penny piece from my father who, reputedly, died quite wealthy (I had not seen him in 20 years since he emigrated) so I was determined to see that my kids got a better start. The deal with the money was it would be dispensed for life enhancing stuff, not for holidays or frivolous experiences. One daughter is keeping hers as a start on her own house deposit.
We did get a couple of hundred quid in our mid twenties from a distant aunt. Being exuberant and frivolous youths we blew it - on roof repairs on our first two up two down house. The old responsible parents wisely invested their slice on - a holiday.
Nothing like feckless oldies to piss off the hardworking youth......
I've spent a while playing around with the demographic data from Mori's long-running series on "How Britain Voted", and used it to create cohorts that were 21 years old for each election as it came (the centre of the 18-24 range) and used interpolation to follow them across the elections from 1974 (October) to 2017.
It's - strange.
The well-recorded "people get more Tory as they get older" does seem to be a thing, but it's not a solid pattern. Obviously, the country as a whole has surged pro-Tory, anti-Tory, and pro-Tory since then, so that cycle is overlaid on it, but while the cohorts from 1933 births to 1962 births do seem to follow very similar patterns, the 1971 births onwards seem to be creating a new pattern. The 1966 birth cohort could go either way, but seem to be weakly following their predecessors.
They seem more variable (swingy) than before, and net more anti-Tory than their predecessors at similar ages, as well as resisting the pro-Tory push.
This is only very weak and preliminary conclusions taken from looking at the graph overlaying all of them - and the 2017 election could cause a significant part of this due to the unprecedented age divergence involved.
Actually plenty of those under 40s in London and the South East stand to inherit a fat wad when their parents pass away and care greatly about both the dementia tax and IHT
Is there evidence to back that up?
I understand lots of wealthy older people don't want to pay for their own social care - and want to pass their housing wealth onto their kids (at the expense of the children of their less wealthy friends) - but is there any evidence that those kids themselves care greatly about receiving an unearned inheritance that their friends who don't have parents with significant assets/housing wealth won't receive?
If you ever administered an estate, you would know the answer to that question.
I had a lot of involvement in this field in my career - take it from me the children were very well aware of their inheritance
I was surprised to get anything at all when the old man died. It may well depend on how financially sophisticated each family is (and whether there is anything much to leave, of course).
I've spent a while playing around with the demographic data from Mori's long-running series on "How Britain Voted", and used it to create cohorts that were 21 years old for each election as it came (the centre of the 18-24 range) and used interpolation to follow them across the elections from 1974 (October) to 2017.
It's - strange.
The well-recorded "people get more Tory as they get older" does seem to be a thing, but it's not a solid pattern. Obviously, the country as a whole has surged pro-Tory, anti-Tory, and pro-Tory since then, so that cycle is overlaid on it, but while the cohorts from 1933 births to 1962 births do seem to follow very similar patterns, the 1971 births onwards seem to be creating a new pattern. The 1966 birth cohort could go either way, but seem to be weakly following their predecessors.
They seem more variable (swingy) than before, and net more anti-Tory than their predecessors at similar ages, as well as resisting the pro-Tory push.
This is only very weak and preliminary conclusions taken from looking at the graph overlaying all of them - and the 2017 election could cause a significant part of this due to the unprecedented age divergence involved.
Anyone born from 1933 to 1962 will have memories of the Winter of discontent and old Labour governments unlike anyone born from 1971
I've spent a while playing around with the demographic data from Mori's long-running series on "How Britain Voted", and used it to create cohorts that were 21 years old for each election as it came (the centre of the 18-24 range) and used interpolation to follow them across the elections from 1974 (October) to 2017.
It's - strange.
The well-recorded "people get more Tory as they get older" does seem to be a thing, but it's not a solid pattern. Obviously, the country as a whole has surged pro-Tory, anti-Tory, and pro-Tory since then, so that cycle is overlaid on it, but while the cohorts from 1933 births to 1962 births do seem to follow very similar patterns, the 1971 births onwards seem to be creating a new pattern. The 1966 birth cohort could go either way, but seem to be weakly following their predecessors.
They seem more variable (swingy) than before, and net more anti-Tory than their predecessors at similar ages, as well as resisting the pro-Tory push.
This is only very weak and preliminary conclusions taken from looking at the graph overlaying all of them - and the 2017 election could cause a significant part of this due to the unprecedented age divergence involved.
Interesting. I think that it's generally accepted that the country as a whole has become more small 'l' liberal over the years and the Tory party has probably reflected that. Also, what does one do with the Blair years, where New Labour seemed barely distinguishable from One Nation Toryism.
I've spent a while playing around with the demographic data from Mori's long-running series on "How Britain Voted", and used it to create cohorts that were 21 years old for each election as it came (the centre of the 18-24 range) and used interpolation to follow them across the elections from 1974 (October) to 2017.
It's - strange.
The well-recorded "people get more Tory as they get older" does seem to be a thing, but it's not a solid pattern. Obviously, the country as a whole has surged pro-Tory, anti-Tory, and pro-Tory since then, so that cycle is overlaid on it, but while the cohorts from 1933 births to 1962 births do seem to follow very similar patterns, the 1971 births onwards seem to be creating a new pattern. The 1966 birth cohort could go either way, but seem to be weakly following their predecessors.
They seem more variable (swingy) than before, and net more anti-Tory than their predecessors at similar ages, as well as resisting the pro-Tory push.
This is only very weak and preliminary conclusions taken from looking at the graph overlaying all of them - and the 2017 election could cause a significant part of this due to the unprecedented age divergence involved.
Sounds like that roughly lines up with the switch from boomers to Gen X. The "more conservative as you get older" fits the popular boomer stereotype, I wouldn't be shocked if it turned out to be at least partially unique to them
If you ever administered an estate, you would know the answer to that question.
I've never personally inherited anything or had to administer an estate, but from close family and friends I know what a huge can of worms this opens. Everybody wants their "fair" share, and boy does it create a lot of bad blood when people start arguing about wills. Their may be a few saintly people who really don't care about what they inherit but they are few in number it would seem.
I've spent a while playing around with the demographic data from Mori's long-running series on "How Britain Voted", and used it to create cohorts that were 21 years old for each election as it came (the centre of the 18-24 range) and used interpolation to follow them across the elections from 1974 (October) to 2017.
It's - strange.
The well-recorded "people get more Tory as they get older" does seem to be a thing, but it's not a solid pattern. Obviously, the country as a whole has surged pro-Tory, anti-Tory, and pro-Tory since then, so that cycle is overlaid on it, but while the cohorts from 1933 births to 1962 births do seem to follow very similar patterns, the 1971 births onwards seem to be creating a new pattern. The 1966 birth cohort could go either way, but seem to be weakly following their predecessors.
They seem more variable (swingy) than before, and net more anti-Tory than their predecessors at similar ages, as well as resisting the pro-Tory push.
This is only very weak and preliminary conclusions taken from looking at the graph overlaying all of them - and the 2017 election could cause a significant part of this due to the unprecedented age divergence involved.
Sounds like that roughly lines up with the switch from boomers to Gen X. The "more conservative as you get older" fits the popular boomer stereotype, I wouldn't be shocked if it turned out to be at least partially unique to them
Well, actually those ranges are a bit off from generational boundaries, but could be down to lack of granularity in the data
Mr. Tyson, doubt it'll start from the centre right. The Conservatives are in government and have more to lose, and whilst they're not taken with May, she isn't far right in the way Corbyn is far left.
A new mostly PLP party could've taken from the Lib Dems and some left Con MPs, though.
What if the Tories start polling in the low thirties, or even lower? What if the divisions in the Tory party become even worse as either the Tory right or Tory left lose confidence in the Brexit negotiations? What if the prospect of an emboldened Corbyn with an even more populist regime becomes ever more likely?
Do you think the Tories will walk into an election like 1997 again? Five years is a long, long, long time...particularly when you are saddled with a party that is so toxic that you couldn't even name it in the last election...and now running a weak Govt....
As said, I think many of you Tories are completely out of touch and do not realise what a catastrophic and existential state your party is in.....
Just think if Corbyn had won an extra 7 seats or so...the pressure would be on the other foot...but that narrow victory may prove to be the undoing of the Tory party...
It was absolutely the best possible result for Labour - Tories own Brexit, the Economy, the Hung Parliament, the whole f*cking mess. Meanwhile JC can tempt the public with all manner of delicious goodies safe in the knowledge that he's not going to have to deliver any time soon.
This situation won't last forever but while it does, every day is Christmas Day for Team Corbyn.
Obviously I completely agree....the absolute best result for Labour was a minority Tory Govt, especially one that has to go into coalition with the DUP for all the reasons you said.. When I saw that exit poll I went absolutely bonkers...I was at Wembley when Dickov equalised against Gillingham in the 95 minute, or when Aguerroooooooo scored against QPR in the last minute, kind of felt like that.
Doubtless you have had some very memorable and enjoyable moments on the horses that have delighted you...how did that exit poll compare?
I just laughed out loud.
I just thought of my CON sell spread bets at 393 and got my calculator out to work out my winnings
When the exit poll came out, I didn't believe it. I spent quarter of an hour texting friends with the basic message that this had to be utter bollx.
Question for those who've had chance to study the Con-DUP deal, which I haven't. Indeed, I don't know if it's even available.
Does it cover Brexit at all? If so, to what extent?
Confidence and Supply doesn't explicitly include amendments to the Queens Speech but the DUP voted down the amendment anyway. Now, you could argue that that comes under 'supply' as had it passed, it would have produced an unfunded commitment but that's at least arguable. It will be interesting to watch just how far the scope of the agreement runs.
Crucially, and following on from last night's implied 'supply aspect', to what extent does Brexit count as 'confidence'? On a narrow basis, nothing counts as 'confidence' these days bar an explicity VoNC: not a Queens Speech, not a Budget (though that would obviously be 'supply'). But Brexit is so intrinsic to this government's purpose that a major defeat couldn't just be swept under the carpet; it would be a resignation matter i.e. a Confidence one.
It includes all Queen's speeches, budgets and Brexit-related legislation.
Question for those who've had chance to study the Con-DUP deal, which I haven't. Indeed, I don't know if it's even available.
Does it cover Brexit at all? If so, to what extent?
Confidence and Supply doesn't explicitly include amendments to the Queens Speech but the DUP voted down the amendment anyway. Now, you could argue that that comes under 'supply' as had it passed, it would have produced an unfunded commitment but that's at least arguable. It will be interesting to watch just how far the scope of the agreement runs.
Crucially, and following on from last night's implied 'supply aspect', to what extent does Brexit count as 'confidence'? On a narrow basis, nothing counts as 'confidence' these days bar an explicity VoNC: not a Queens Speech, not a Budget (though that would obviously be 'supply'). But Brexit is so intrinsic to this government's purpose that a major defeat couldn't just be swept under the carpet; it would be a resignation matter i.e. a Confidence one.
Why on Earth would you offer £20 billion a year to get tariff free access to the single market when the total tariffs that would be payable under WTO for our exports is about £5 billion a year? Not including of course the larger amount of tariffs that would be payable to us on EU imports?
You would be better off writing a cheque for UK companies and keeping the remaining £5 billion from our current contributions.
Other EU nations have already put controls on FoM unlike the UK, there is no reason we cannot impose the same controls they did
We can do what we want, but it doesn't help us get the deal. Other EU countries are in the EU and and don't need a deal. In addition they can use internal mechanisms to get what they want. We're just not in the necessary mindset of doing a sales job on the EU. They get to decide and need to be wooed.
Yet today the EU is saying they will lose 12% of their budget if they get no continued payments from the UK, they want a deal too just one not completely incompatible with single market rules
That's what I am talking about with marketing. What the EU really wants is money. Fine. We offer to double our current contributions to £20 billion a year net. And make a big splash about it. Now we are interesting to them.
If you ever administered an estate, you would know the answer to that question.
I've never personally inherited anything or had to administer an estate, but from close family and friends I know what a huge can of worms this opens. Everybody wants their "fair" share, and boy does it create a lot of bad blood when people start arguing about wills. Their may be a few saintly people who really don't care about what they inherit but they are few in number it would seem.
The only people who don't care about an inheritance are the already rich and the ascetic, for those on average incomes or below a sizeable inheritance can buy a better house, a better car, a fancy holiday, pay for school fees etc
Talking of Brexit and self-made people, I've been reading Ivanka Trump's book of business advice, and on negotiation, she says: Know what you want. It’s the number one rule going into any negotiation, yet most people don’t give it a thought. They’ll start in on a series of discussions and figure their objectives will become clear to them in time. If you take this approach you’ll allow the other party to define your goals, instead of the other way around.
I suspect this, and not the usually suggested unwillingness to walk away, is what scuppered David Cameron's deal and what will also plague our Brexit talks since there does not seem to be any consensus of what deal we want to strike.
Actually plenty of those under 40s in London and the South East stand to inherit a fat wad when their parents pass away and care greatly about both the dementia tax and IHT
Is there evidence to back that up?
I understand lots of wealthy older people don't want to pay for their own social care - and want to pass their housing wealth onto their kids (at the expense of the children of their less wealthy friends) - but is there any evidence that those kids themselves care greatly about receiving an unearned inheritance that their friends who don't have parents with housing wealth won't receive?
Wow! Just wow!
Speaking personally, I can confirm that my children are extremely interested in an unearned inheritance. Current indications are that they are prepared to wait until I croak, but my guess is their patience may wear out soon.
I have given my two their inheritance now. It was an old savings policy that matured and so they got a got cash lump sum dribbled out to them over a few years.
Thanks to Brexit I intend to retire early, grow old disgracefully and myself and Mr C will blow the rest
My parents gave us all about 14k as leg up in the late 1990's instead of us hanging on for their deaths. My mum, the last remaining parent, died last year...and I received an additional 20k from her final estate.
I like to think of myself as self made in life...but I'm not. That initial 14k actually enabled us to make choices and investments that irrevocably changed our lives. The last 20k doesn't change anything.
So well done to you for thinking about your kids when that money is potentially life changing...
Thanks Mr Tyson - and well done for your parents too!
I never got a penny piece from my father who, reputedly, died quite wealthy (I had not seen him in 20 years since he emigrated) so I was determined to see that my kids got a better start. The deal with the money was it would be dispensed for life enhancing stuff, not for holidays or frivolous experiences. One daughter is keeping hers as a start on her own house deposit.
We did get a couple of hundred quid in our mid twenties from a distant aunt. Being exuberant and frivolous youths we blew it - on roof repairs on our first two up two down house. The old responsible parents wisely invested their slice on - a holiday.
Nothing like feckless oldies to piss off the hardworking youth......
Actually plenty of those under 40s in London and the South East stand to inherit a fat wad when their parents pass away and care greatly about both the dementia tax and IHT
Is there evidence to back that up?
I understand lots of wealthy older people don't want to pay for their own social care - and want to pass their housing wealth onto their kids (at the expense of the children of their less wealthy friends) - but is there any evidence that those kids themselves care greatly about receiving an unearned inheritance that their friends who don't have parents with housing wealth won't receive?
My prior would be that young people feel awkward and don't want to think about inheritance because it's thinking about your parents dying... They would rather earn their money themselves.
Yougov poll showed 70% of over 60s support IHT threshold rise in 2015 vs 53% of 18-24.
So inheritance *tax* is generally unpopular but particularly unpopular among the elderly?
Yeah, I suspect attitudes change in late thirties or later. I'm late twenties and there's definitely a disparity within my friends of how much they will inherit. I don't think any of us are thinking "wow, isn't it great that we'll be inheriting the inequalities of the previous generation?" Nor is it close enough for us to really plan for it
But I'm perfectly willing to believe that in a decade or two, when that inheritance becomes a much more concrete part of our financial future and planning, and when we've started thinking of ourselves in the role of giving to our own kids, things may feel different.
I've seen a few and heard about a lot of family squabbles about inheritance and some fairly staggering cases of hypocrisy. (Personal favourite is hippie, atheist, leftie deciding that his family inheritance should be divided according to Islamic law - meaning he received double the share of his sisters).
I think (perhaps naively) my sister and I are too smart for that crap. I don't plan to be in a position that I need an inheritance of any sort - but I appreciate I have no idea what a family costs.
My parents did their job by giving me a great childhood, top education and place to crash when I came home from university.
Why on Earth would you offer £20 billion a year to get tariff free access to the single market when the total tariffs that would be payable under WTO for our exports is about £5 billion a year? Not including of course the larger amount of tariffs that would be payable to us on EU imports?
You would be better off writing a cheque for UK companies and keeping the remaining £5 billion from our current contributions.
Other EU nations have already put controls on FoM unlike the UK, there is no reason we cannot impose the same controls they did
We can do what we want, but it doesn't help us get the deal. Other EU countries are in the EU and and don't need a deal. In addition they can use internal mechanisms to get what they want. We're just not in the necessary mindset of doing a sales job on the EU. They get to decide and need to be wooed.
Yet today the EU is saying they will lose 12% of their budget if they get no continued payments from the UK, they want a deal too just one not completely incompatible with single market rules
That's what I am talking about with marketing. What the EU really wants is money. Fine. We offer to double our current contributions to £20 billion a year net. And make a big splash about it. Now we are interesting to them.
It's been a long conversation. The starting point is whether we want a meaningful deal or a car crash. It's up to us persuade the other side in ways that are compelling to them, so they give us what we want, which roughly speaking is continuity and ongoing influence. Money is one thing they want Another is respect for the EU as an institution. That wouldn't cost us anything. It would be things like working with the EU Army, co-ordinating with the EU on diplomacy, Russian sanctions, votes in the UN etc. That would give us kudos with Germany, which is a powerful player, NL and liberal nordics. Treating East European citizens as first rather then second class. The DExEU proposal is detrimental for that. The East Europeans have lots of votes in the EU. If we offer money, respect for the EU as an institution and a welcome to EU citizens, we would have a good negotiating position in my view
Seems almost rational. After all, May has lowered the bar rather a lot...
The bar can only get lower if buried underground. I remember Ms Leadsom's last attempt and she came across as utterly, utterly clueless. She appeared to do nothing other than spout vacuous soundbites. It was incredible that anyone thought she was a contender.
Amber Rudd may have a majority of only 346 but she would be a better choice. I am struggling to think of other candidates.
I've spent a while playing around with the demographic data from Mori's long-running series on "How Britain Voted", and used it to create cohorts that were 21 years old for each election as it came (the centre of the 18-24 range) and used interpolation to follow them across the elections from 1974 (October) to 2017.
It's - strange.
The well-recorded "people get more Tory as they get older" does seem to be a thing, but it's not a solid pattern. Obviously, the country as a whole has surged pro-Tory, anti-Tory, and pro-Tory since then, so that cycle is overlaid on it, but while the cohorts from 1933 births to 1962 births do seem to follow very similar patterns, the 1971 births onwards seem to be creating a new pattern. The 1966 birth cohort could go either way, but seem to be weakly following their predecessors.
They seem more variable (swingy) than before, and net more anti-Tory than their predecessors at similar ages, as well as resisting the pro-Tory push.
This is only very weak and preliminary conclusions taken from looking at the graph overlaying all of them - and the 2017 election could cause a significant part of this due to the unprecedented age divergence involved.
Anyone born from 1933 to 1962 will have memories of the Winter of discontent and old Labour governments unlike anyone born from 1971
Anyone my age or younger came of age at the height of Thatcherism and a very divisive and socially conservative time that was. Pop culture was quite alternative with punk and indy music as well as alternative comedy.
Many of us have a deep dislike of the Tories as a result, and I dont think that will lessen over time.
Seems almost rational. After all, May has lowered the bar rather a lot...
The bar can only get lower if buried underground. I remember Ms Leadsom's last attempt and she came across as utterly, utterly clueless. She appeared to do nothing other than spout vacuous soundbites. It was incredible that anyone thought she was a contender.
Amber Rudd may have a majority of only 346 but she would be a better choice. I am struggling to think of other candidates.
Initially I thought Rudds majority would rule her out, too risky that she has to spend too long in her own seat. But actually it would offer a sort of do-or-die attitude to her campaign. She would have to be convincing to the country because her own place in parliament would be on the line. It would certainly offer a leader who comes across less entitled than most Tories, seeing as she has only just survived her own brush with political death. There is always a small risk she wins the campaign but loses her own seat, although I am sceptical that a decapitation strategy would work in this case.
I think Rudd may just be the roll of the dice the Tories need.
Why do you say that if there is no deal there is a 'car crash'? I have told you the figure for WTO tariffs on UK goods. The UK could offer to reimburse UK exporters for any EU tariffs, apply zero tariffs on EU imports and financially the UK would be £5 billion a year ahead and nothing much would have changed, except prices of non-EU imports to the UK consumers would fall and therefore UK citizens would be better off.
We should not do this however, because the EU needs to treat the UK with respect. Free trade is free, not free on whatever the EU want it to be and costing the UK on everything else. We should only do a deal if it is in our financial interests, and that means we want decent access to sell services into the EU.
Seems to me you are just determined to kowtow to the EU.
Why on Earth would you offer £20 billion a year to get tariff free access to the single market when the total tariffs that would be payable under WTO for our exports is about £5 billion a year? Not including of course the larger amount of tariffs that would be payable to us on EU imports?
You would be better off writing a cheque for UK companies and keeping the remaining £5 billion from our current contributions.
That's what I am talking about with marketing. What the EU really wants is money. Fine. We offer to double our current contributions to £20 billion a year net. And make a big splash about it. Now we are interesting to them.
It's been a long conversation. The starting point is whether we want a meaningful deal or a car crash. It's up to us persuade the other side in ways that are compelling to them, so they give us what we want, which roughly speaking is continuity and ongoing influence. Money is one thing they want Another is respect for the EU as an institution. That wouldn't cost us anything. It would be things like working with the EU Army, co-ordinating with the EU on diplomacy, Russian sanctions, votes in the UN etc. That would give us kudos with Germany, which is a powerful player, NL and liberal nordics. Treating East European citizens as first rather then second class. The DExEU proposal is detrimental for that. The East Europeans have lots of votes in the EU. If we offer money, respect for the EU as an institution and a welcome to EU citizens, we would have a good negotiating position in my view
I've spent a while playing around with the demographic data from Mori's long-running series on "How Britain Voted", and used it to create cohorts that were 21 years old for each election as it came (the centre of the 18-24 range) and used interpolation to follow them across the elections from 1974 (October) to 2017.
It's - strange.
The well-recorded "people get more Tory as they get older" does seem to be a thing, but it's not a solid pattern. Obviously, the country as a whole has surged pro-Tory, anti-Tory, and pro-Tory since then, so that cycle is overlaid on it, but while the cohorts from 1933 births to 1962 births do seem to follow very similar patterns, the 1971 births onwards seem to be creating a new pattern. The 1966 birth cohort could go either way, but seem to be weakly following their predecessors.
They seem more variable (swingy) than before, and net more anti-Tory than their predecessors at similar ages, as well as resisting the pro-Tory push.
This is only very weak and preliminary conclusions taken from looking at the graph overlaying all of them - and the 2017 election could cause a significant part of this due to the unprecedented age divergence involved.
Anyone born from 1933 to 1962 will have memories of the Winter of discontent and old Labour governments unlike anyone born from 1971
Anyone my age or younger came of age at the height of Thatcherism and a very divisive and socially conservative time that was. Pop culture was quite alternative with punk and indy music as well as alternative comedy.
Many of us have a deep dislike of the Tories as a result, and I dont think that will lessen over time.
I'm surprised you freely admit to being a petrified and senile Rik from The Young Ones. Although you blatantly are one.
I've spent a while playing around with the demographic data from Mori's long-running series on "How Britain Voted", and used it to create cohorts that were 21 years old for each election as it came (the centre of the 18-24 range) and used interpolation to follow them across the elections from 1974 (October) to 2017.
It's - strange.
The well-recorded "people get more Tory as they get older" does seem to be a thing, but it's not a solid pattern. Obviously, the country as a whole has surged pro-Tory, anti-Tory, and pro-Tory since then, so that cycle is overlaid on it, but while the cohorts from 1933 births to 1962 births do seem to follow very similar patterns, the 1971 births onwards seem to be creating a new pattern. The 1966 birth cohort could go either way, but seem to be weakly following their predecessors.
They seem more variable (swingy) than before, and net more anti-Tory than their predecessors at similar ages, as well as resisting the pro-Tory push.
This is only very weak and preliminary conclusions taken from looking at the graph overlaying all of them - and the 2017 election could cause a significant part of this due to the unprecedented age divergence involved.
Anyone born from 1933 to 1962 will have memories of the Winter of discontent and old Labour governments unlike anyone born from 1971
Anyone my age or younger came of age at the height of Thatcherism and a very divisive and socially conservative time that was. Pop culture was quite alternative with punk and indy music as well as alternative comedy.
Many of us have a deep dislike of the Tories as a result, and I dont think that will lessen over time.
Thatcher of course only got elected because the previous Labour government oversaw permanent strikes, falling gdp per capita, rising inflation and a country heading for bankruptcy
Seems almost rational. After all, May has lowered the bar rather a lot...
The bar can only get lower if buried underground. I remember Ms Leadsom's last attempt and she came across as utterly, utterly clueless. She appeared to do nothing other than spout vacuous soundbites. It was incredible that anyone thought she was a contender.
Amber Rudd may have a majority of only 346 but she would be a better choice. I am struggling to think of other candidates.
Come on give Mrs Leadsom a break! She's a mum after all, so much better suited than Theresa.
I've spent a while playing around with the demographic data from Mori's long-running series on "How Britain Voted", and used it to create cohorts that were 21 years old for each election as it came (the centre of the 18-24 range) and used interpolation to follow them across the elections from 1974 (October) to 2017.
It's - strange.
The well-recorded "people get more Tory as they get older" does seem to be a thing, but it's not a solid pattern. Obviously, the country as a whole has surged pro-Tory, anti-Tory, and pro-Tory since then, so that cycle is overlaid on it, but while the cohorts from 1933 births to 1962 births do seem to follow very similar patterns, the 1971 births onwards seem to be creating a new pattern. The 1966 birth cohort could go either way, but seem to be weakly following their predecessors.
They seem more variable (swingy) than before, and net more anti-Tory than their predecessors at similar ages, as well as resisting the pro-Tory push.
This is only very weak and preliminary conclusions taken from looking at the graph overlaying all of them - and the 2017 election could cause a significant part of this due to the unprecedented age divergence involved.
Anyone born from 1933 to 1962 will have memories of the Winter of discontent and old Labour governments unlike anyone born from 1971
Anyone my age or younger came of age at the height of Thatcherism and a very divisive and socially conservative time that was. Pop culture was quite alternative with punk and indy music as well as alternative comedy.
Many of us have a deep dislike of the Tories as a result, and I dont think that will lessen over time.
I'm surprised you freely admit to being a petrified and senile Rik from The Young Ones. Although you blatantly are one.
More Neil but less hairy, but being Rik is better that than being Alan B'stard!
On which note the excellent comedy "White Gold" is useful nostalgia for Eighties attitudes.
Why do you say that if there is no deal there is a 'car crash'? I have told you the figure for WTO tariffs on UK goods. The UK could offer to reimburse UK exporters for any EU tariffs, apply zero tariffs on EU imports and financially the UK would be £5 billion a year ahead and nothing much would have changed, except prices of non-EU imports to the UK consumers would fall and therefore UK citizens would be better off.
We should not do this however, because the EU needs to treat the UK with respect. Free trade is free, not free on whatever the EU want it to be and costing the UK on everything else. We should only do a deal if it is in our financial interests, and that means we want decent access to sell services into the EU.
Seems to me you are just determined to kowtow to the EU.
Why on Earth would you offer £20 billion a year to get tariff free access to the single market when the total tariffs that would be payable under WTO for our exports is about £5 billion a year? Not including of course the larger amount of tariffs that would be payable to us on EU imports?
You would be better off writing a cheque for UK companies and keeping the remaining £5 billion from our current contributions.
That's what I am talking about with marketing. What the EU really wants is money. Fine. We offer to double our current contributions to £20 billion a year net. And make a big splash about it. Now we are interesting to them.
It's been a long conversation. The starting point is whether we want a meaningful deal or a car crash. It's up to us persuade the other side in ways that are compelling to them, so they give us what we want, which roughly speaking is continuity and ongoing influence. Money is one thing they want Another is respect for the EU as an institution. That wouldn't cost us anything. It would be things like working with the EU Army, co-ordinating with the EU on diplomacy, Russian sanctions, votes in the UN etc. That would give us kudos with Germany, which is a powerful player, NL and liberal nordics. Treating East European citizens as first rather then second class. The DExEU proposal is detrimental for that. The East Europeans have lots of votes in the EU. If we offer money, respect for the EU as an institution and a welcome to EU citizens, we would have a good negotiating position in my view
No they can't reimburse tariffs - it's against WTO rules.
Why on Earth would you offer £20 billion a year to get tariff free access to the single market when the total tariffs that would be payable under WTO for our exports is about £5 billion a year? Not including of course the larger amount of tariffs that would be payable to us on EU imports?
You would be better off writing a cheque for UK companies and keeping the remaining £5 billion from our current contributions.
Other EU nations have already put controls on FoM unlike the UK, there is no reason we cannot impose the same controls they did
We can do what we want, but it doesn't help us get the deal. Other EU countries are in the EU and and don't need a deal. In addition they can use internal mechanisms to get what they want. We're just not in the necessary mindset of doing a sales job on the EU. They get to decide and need to be wooed.
Yet today the EU is saying they will lose 12% of their budget if they get no continued payments from the UK, they want a deal too just one not completely incompatible with single market rules
That's what I am talking about with marketing. What the EU really wants is money. Fine. We offer to double our current contributions to £20 billion a year net. And make a big splash about it. Now we are interesting to them.
It's been a long conversation. The starting point is whether we want a meaningful deal or a car crash. It's up to us persuade the other side in ways that are compelling to them, so they give us what we want, which roughly speaking is continuity and ongoing influence. Money is one thing they want Another is respect for the EU as an institution. That wouldn't cost us anything. It would be things like working with the EU Army, co-ordinating with the EU on diplomacy, Russian sanctions, votes in the UN etc. That would give us kudos with Germany, which is a powerful player, NL and liberal nordics. Treating East European citizens as first rather then second class. The DExEU proposal is detrimental for that. The East Europeans have lots of votes in the EU. If we offer money, respect for the EU as an institution and a welcome to EU citizens, we would have a good negotiating position in my view
All fine in theory but continued big payments to the EU and no free movement controls at all will be no Brexit at all for most Leave voters and a gift to UKIP, we cannot get everything we want certainly but that does not mean we capitulate at the first hurdle either
Seems almost rational. After all, May has lowered the bar rather a lot...
The bar can only get lower if buried underground. I remember Ms Leadsom's last attempt and she came across as utterly, utterly clueless. She appeared to do nothing other than spout vacuous soundbites. It was incredible that anyone thought she was a contender.
Amber Rudd may have a majority of only 346 but she would be a better choice. I am struggling to think of other candidates.
Initially I thought Rudds majority would rule her out, too risky that she has to spend too long in her own seat. But actually it would offer a sort of do-or-die attitude to her campaign. She would have to be convincing to the country because her own place in parliament would be on the line. It would certainly offer a leader who comes across less entitled than most Tories, seeing as she has only just survived her own brush with political death. There is always a small risk she wins the campaign but loses her own seat, although I am sceptical that a decapitation strategy would work in this case.
I think Rudd may just be the roll of the dice the Tories need.
There is also the other consideration that the Tories prospects at the next election might be no better than Mrs Rudds. The scenarios for the next election results are
1: She wins & Tories lose 2: She wins & Tories Win 3: She loses & Tories lose 4: She loses & Tories Win
So only scenario '4' requires a new PM to be selected from the Tories. There is no downside in 3 out of 4 outcomes assuming she makes no unforced errors and has to resign.
Comments
The next election is probably five years away. Everyone will be older.
Although (sadly) quite a few of the 70+ group will be no longer around to vote and the current crop of Glastonbury-watching teenagers will be elegible.
But it is in all our interests to have a motivated public work force that attracts good candidates....and most people want their public servants to reflect the communities they live in. So we have to pay them to attract people, retain them, and keep them happy. It is not rocket science.
41.15% each for Lab and Con would have yielded (On UNS)
Con 298 (Inc Bercow) (Middlesborough East the 17th loss to Lab)
Lab 287 (25 gains)
SNP 29 (Stirling Held, Lab gain down to 'Dunfermline and Fife West')
L Dem 14 (Gain Richmond Park and St Ives)
Plaid 3 (Lose Arfon to Lab)
DUP 10
SF 7
Lab + SNP + Plaid = 319
Con + DUP = 308.
So the only choice for the Lib Dems would be to support Corbyn or force another election.
I've never lived in Wales but I know the sterotypes of everyone loving rugby and having carnal relations with sheep are, er. I'll stop there.
I understand lots of wealthy older people don't want to pay for their own social care - and want to pass their housing wealth onto their kids (at the expense of the children of their less wealthy friends) - but is there any evidence that those kids themselves care greatly about receiving an unearned inheritance that their friends who don't have parents with significant assets/housing wealth won't receive?
Doubtless you have had some very memorable and enjoyable moments on the horses that have delighted you...how did that exit poll compare?
Plaid, Lib Dems and UKIP are on their back (Lib Dems a bit better than the other two). The SNP's high tide has receded. Labour's led by a far left economically illiterate unilateralist friend of Hamas. The Conservatives look tired and far from overflowing with talent.
If Corbyn had lost seats and the PLP actually grown a spine and 150 or so of them broken off to form New New Labour, or whatever you want to call it, I could see them leading in the polls right now. Lib Dems, soft Conservatives, could be tempted. Those wanting a centrist approach would be relieved to have another option on the table, without May's rubbishness or Corbyn's hard left socialism.
Instead, the PLP has decided to get down on their knees and worship at the altar of Corbyn. A few have chosen resistance (kudos to Flint and Leslie, both of whom have risen in my estimation). Most have chosen Vichy.
We're no further on. They are still going through the motions but. God it's boring.
He starts off with credibility problem.
Yougov poll showed 70% of over 60s support IHT threshold rise in 2015 vs 53% of 18-24.
So inheritance *tax* is generally unpopular but particularly unpopular among the elderly?
Rolls-Royce safeguards 7,000 jobs in East Midlands
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-40441018
I do believe that Sturgeon's announcement for a 2nd referendum was a huge factor for May's change of mind for the GE and without it, May would have hung on. May saw the possibilities in Scotland, but misread the mood in England.....
He has a potentially tricky start to the job with the membership
Labour have a hard core in 100-150 seats that would prove all but unshakeable. If the name of the party isn't "Labour", they don't win there.
The Tories have their 100+ true blue constituencies.
That leaves only about 400 in the mix, and in each of these, it would be a multi-way fight. The new party has no record. Con voters would dabble with the idea and then look to nurse for fear of worse.
Lab voters would be torn between the believers and the newbie party - but the fact that the Alliance and later Lib Dems had a far, far harder task in trying to prise Labour seats away than Tory seats underlines how solid they are.
I could see a new party - if it was insanely popular, to the tune of occasionally polling into the forties - getting 10-30 seats in their first election against a polling score in the high twenties before dying away.= over the next two elections.
Thanks to Brexit I intend to retire early, grow old disgracefully and myself and Mr C will blow the rest
http://www.skysports.com/cricket/news/12123/10930344/watch-west-indies-women-v-india-women-live-stream
But I'm perfectly willing to believe that in a decade or two, when that inheritance becomes a much more concrete part of our financial future and planning, and when we've started thinking of ourselves in the role of giving to our own kids, things may feel different.
I like to think of myself as self made in life...but I'm not. That initial 14k actually enabled us to make choices and investments that irrevocably changed our lives. The last 20k doesn't change anything.
So well done to you for thinking about your kids when that money is potentially life changing...
Wrong.
Ideally I suppose there would be no inheritance at all, we'd all have a equality of opportunity up our early twenties and make ourselves from there. However, life is messier than that and views will tend to change as one ages, and the ideal will tend to cede to the pragmatic, if only because you get second chances at 20, you don't at 60.
I never got a penny piece from my father who, reputedly, died quite wealthy (I had not seen him in 20 years since he emigrated) so I was determined to see that my kids got a better start. The deal with the money was it would be dispensed for life enhancing stuff, not for holidays or frivolous experiences. One daughter is keeping hers as a start on her own house deposit.
edit: Snap! with Beverley.
I asked my youngest a bit ago whether he wanted help with university fees and he said naah, he would sort that out with loans and ask me to hang on to whatever money I can offer him till he needs it for a house.
I'm 45 and have no children and whilst my partner and I are talking about the possibility of a family it's not a certainty. I'm not intending to leave anything other than support for my partner as she is younger than me. I don't own a house and don't want to, not in the UK in any case at the ridiculous prices here for a pile of bricks. It's simply not on my radar, yet I acknowledge it does form a large part of many people's hope and planning. And of course should my partner become pregnant I'm sure I'll suddenly find the idea of a family home to pass on all the more appealing.
It's all a bit meh.
Nothing like feckless oldies to piss off the hardworking youth......
It's - strange.
The well-recorded "people get more Tory as they get older" does seem to be a thing, but it's not a solid pattern. Obviously, the country as a whole has surged pro-Tory, anti-Tory, and pro-Tory since then, so that cycle is overlaid on it, but while the cohorts from 1933 births to 1962 births do seem to follow very similar patterns, the 1971 births onwards seem to be creating a new pattern. The 1966 birth cohort could go either way, but seem to be weakly following their predecessors.
They seem more variable (swingy) than before, and net more anti-Tory than their predecessors at similar ages, as well as resisting the pro-Tory push.
This is only very weak and preliminary conclusions taken from looking at the graph overlaying all of them - and the 2017 election could cause a significant part of this due to the unprecedented age divergence involved.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/tory-mps-urge-andrea-leadsom-to-run-for-conservative-leader-2017-6
You would be better off writing a cheque for UK companies and keeping the remaining £5 billion from our current contributions.
I suspect this, and not the usually suggested unwillingness to walk away, is what scuppered David Cameron's deal and what will also plague our Brexit talks since there does not seem to be any consensus of what deal we want to strike.
Oh no!
It is NOT 1st April
I think (perhaps naively) my sister and I are too smart for that crap. I don't plan to be in a position that I need an inheritance of any sort - but I appreciate I have no idea what a family costs.
My parents did their job by giving me a great childhood, top education and place to crash when I came home from university.
Amber Rudd may have a majority of only 346 but she would be a better choice. I am struggling to think of other candidates.
Many of us have a deep dislike of the Tories as a result, and I dont think that will lessen over time.
I think Rudd may just be the roll of the dice the Tories need.
We should not do this however, because the EU needs to treat the UK with respect. Free trade is free, not free on whatever the EU want it to be and costing the UK on everything else. We should only do a deal if it is in our financial interests, and that means we want decent access to sell services into the EU.
Seems to me you are just determined to kowtow to the EU.
She's a mum after all, so much better suited than Theresa.
On which note the excellent comedy "White Gold" is useful nostalgia for Eighties attitudes.
1: She wins & Tories lose
2: She wins & Tories Win
3: She loses & Tories lose
4: She loses & Tories Win
So only scenario '4' requires a new PM to be selected from the Tories. There is no downside in 3 out of 4 outcomes assuming she makes no unforced errors and has to resign.