Owen Who has a majority of 11,000 in Pontypridd... If Labour MPs with majorities of 10,000+ are thinking their seats are gone then a political earthquake could be on the way...
Owen Who has a majority of 11,000 in Pontypridd... If Labour MPs with majorities of 10,000+ are thinking their seats are gone then a political earthquake could be on the way...
Boris should be a better campaigner than May anyway... Hopefully this time he won't come up with a manifesto that threatens his own voters... That'd help!
.
The poor will vote Labour anyway, it is the skilled working class and lower middle class Leave voters the Tories need and many of them would quite like some tax cuts
Labour could offer the same. The Tories can hardly pledge uncosted spending/tax cuts and then attack Labour for the same without creating problems for the Tories...
No, that just neutralises the issue for the Tories (unlike May's tax rise and spending cuts agenda of 2017 which Labour exploited) while the Tories go on Brexit and squeeze Labour in the middle with the LDs picking up Remainers on the other side
So what is each parties policy for ending the dementia tax? because remember we go into this election with unfair dementia tax in place.
Neither party will introduce a dementia tax or go near that suggestion, at most they would offload the issue into a Royal Commission
We are already in a dementia tax situation as tabloids from left to right have frequently reminded us the last two years.
We have been in dementia tax situation for decades. The phrase was originally coined by the Alzheimers Society in the days of Tony Blair.
It has been an injustice in the care system for much, much longer than two years.
That tells you all you need to know. Successive Governments of different political persuasions have adroitly brushed it under the carpet for many years.
Theresa May in her cack-handed manner has ensured that the carpet-brushing will continue for a long time yet,
Okay, let’s all come together and sort it out. No politics or tricks,
if you have more than £23,250 in assets you have to pay for your own care. That’s current policy under Boris? This means pensioners' life savings can be drained while they languish in a home.
How about this for a solution replace this with a much higher 'floor' of £100,000 Demos centrist think tank says “hundreds of thousands of the poorest older people” will benefit – mostly pensioners who've got savings, but could never afford a house. For those who do own a house, make it clear no one has to sell it during their lifetime to pay fees, Instead, payments will be 'deferred' until both the care home resident and their partner die.
Could that be an improvement on current injustice and far better than sweeping under carpet?
LOL So the LibDems & the SNP, having started the election ball rolling, abstained and let Corbyn less 100 of his MPs finish the job. Try explaining that to anyone who's missed a twist in the story.
It has been an extraordinary farce. Underneath the rubble there is some substance. Polling day set in statute, extension look legally binding and on the books, no WAIB. It's also precedent setting. How do we override the FTPA in future ? We now have a model.
But clearly if " the usual channels " were still working all of this could have been sorted out last week.
Boris should be a better campaigner than May anyway... Hopefully this time he won't come up with a manifesto that threatens his own voters... That'd help!
.
The poor will vote Labour anyway, it is the skilled working class and lower middle class Leave voters the Tories need and many of them would quite like some tax cuts
Labour could offer the same. The Tories can hardly pledge uncosted spending/tax cuts and then attack Labour for the same without creating problems for the Tories...
No, that just neutralises the issue for the Tories (unlike May's tax rise and spending cuts agenda of 2017 which Labour exploited) while the Tories go on Brexit and squeeze Labour in the middle with the LDs picking up Remainers on the other side
So what is each parties policy for ending the dementia tax? because remember we go into this election with unfair dementia tax in place.
Neither party will introduce a dementia tax or go near that suggestion, at most they would offload the issue into a Royal Commission
We are already in a dementia tax situation as tabloids from left to right have frequently reminded us the last two years.
We have been in dementia tax situation for decades. The phrase was originally coined by the Alzheimers Society in the days of Tony Blair.
It has been an injustice in the care system for much, much longer than two years.
That tells you all you need to know. Successive Governments of different political persuasions have adroi time yet,
Okay, let’s all come together and sort it out. No politics or tricks,
if you have more than £23,250 in assets you have to pay for your own care. That’s current policy under Boris? This means pensioners' life savings can be drained while they languish in a home.
How about this for a solution replace this with a much higher 'floor' of £100,000 Demos centrist think tank says “hundreds of thousands of the poorest older people” will benefit – mostly pensioners who've got savings, but could never afford a house. For those who do own a house, make it clear no one has to sell it during their lifetime to pay fees, Instead, payments will be 'deferred' until both the care home resident and their partner die.
Could that be an improvement on current injustice and far better than sweeping under carpet?
No, not if you own your own property and have at home care only, then it is far worse for both you and your children
If you were The Sunday Times and you thought you had an explosive revaluation left about Boris, when would you publish it? Or might Murdoch find a way to spike it now.
I think that being a cad is baked into the BoZo vote, 40% of the population simply do not care of his low moral character. It is like anti-semitism and the IRA for Jezza. Anyone who cares about these things made their minds up ages ago.
40%?
I imagine 99% of the population simply do not care of his allegedly low moral character.
Passionate Remainers/left wingers hate Boris because he is a Tory/Leaver, they don't give a damn about character.
Tories/Leavers largely back him, they don't give a damn about character.
This is 2019. Our voters aren't puritans and don't expect our politicians to be either, we expect them to agree with us and damn those who don't.
I expect even politicians I dislike to not have been fired twice for lying
Yet its only those who dislike his politics that go on about it. Funny that!
More generally that's true in other instances. Generally, the people who confidently come on here to predict that an action of Johnson will lead to his political demise are always those who would not vote for him in a month of Sundays.
Take Johnson's failure to get us out by 31st October. Ever since the Benn Act was passed, Remainers were asserting that they had him over a barrel with his support bound to collapse as it became clear that we would pass that date while still in the EU. Yet it's clearly wishful thinking. I've never once seen a Leaver castigating Johnson on here for his resolute efforts to achieve just that, and the polls if anything have strengthened in Johnson's favour as the blocking efforts in parliament became ever more overt.
Owen Who has a majority of 11,000 in Pontypridd... If Labour MPs with majorities of 10,000+ are thinking their seats are gone then a political earthquake could be on the way...
Owen Who has a majority of 11,000 in Pontypridd... If Labour MPs with majorities of 10,000+ are thinking their seats are gone then a political earthquake could be on the way...
When the commentators and 3 opposition leaders were saying definitely no election I was piling on there will be.
For my next moment of genius I s.
On the current BBC poll average of 36% Tories, 24% Labour and 18% LD, the Tories would pick up 47 Labour seats and lose 11 to the LDs. That is a net Tory gain of 36 seats and with most Scottish polls showing around 8 Tory losses to the SNP at most, still a net Tory gain of 28 seats even including Scotland, enough for a clear Tory majority.
But I’m betting against it as I expect Polls to change between now and exit poll Because parliament v people narrative will change to partypolitics once Parliament is shut Brexit party to hurt tories And remain voters to be canny with their vote
LD voters despise Corbyn now and will not tactically vote Labour unlike 2017
If I was so convinced by you there wouldn’t be any point betting against you then would it
🤣 🤣 🤣
But I suspect people you are counting as despising corbyn because polls in recent months say they are voting libdem might not be as hardcore libdem as you claim.
They are hardcore Remainers and as far as they are now concerned Corbyn is not
Corbyny:
Exactly.
It was Labour MPs votes which helped the WA pass (even if they did want to add a CU that is still Brexit for diehard Remainers and they will not forget nor forgive it)
😁. A small number, defying a whip, for a meaningless second reading.
Carry on trying till you land a proper punch
It made the difference for it to pass, as the Labour conference made clear Labour is not a Remain party and is not committed to campaign for Remain and hence less than half of Remainers are now voting Labour
Okay, let’s all come together and sort it out. No politics or tricks,
if you have more than £23,250 in assets you have to pay for your own care. That’s current policy under Boris? This means pensioners' life savings can be drained while they languish in a home.
How about this for a solution replace this with a much higher 'floor' of £100,000 Demos centrist think tank says “hundreds of thousands of the poorest older people” will benefit – mostly pensioners who've got savings, but could never afford a house. For those who do own a house, make it clear no one has to sell it during their lifetime to pay fees, Instead, payments will be 'deferred' until both the care home resident and their partner die.
Could that be an improvement on current injustice and far better than sweeping under carpet?
Isn't that roughly Theresa May's proposal, shorn of 17 strong and stables?
Okay, let’s all come together and sort it out. No politics or tricks,
if you have more than £23,250 in assets you have to pay for your own care. That’s current policy under Boris? This means pensioners' life savings can be drained while they languish in a home.
How about this for a solution replace this with a much higher 'floor' of £100,000 Demos centrist think tank says “hundreds of thousands of the poorest older people” will benefit – mostly pensioners who've got savings, but could never afford a house. For those who do own a house, make it clear no one has to sell it during their lifetime to pay fees, Instead, payments will be 'deferred' until both the care home resident and their partner die.
Could that be an improvement on current injustice and far better than sweeping under carpet?
It is not very different from Theresa May's policy. In fact, isn't it almost identical?
This is May's proposal. "People needing social care at home would have to pay for it until the value of their assets – including their home – reached a floor of £100,000. May also promised that a family home would never need to be sold in a person’s lifetime, with costs instead recouped after death." (From the Guardian, 2017)
After what happened to May, no-one is ever going to propose anything like that again.
Apologies if I am missing something as work means I have not been spending as much time on PB as I would like but is evens on a Conservative majority not a spectacular price given current polling?
Of course polling can can change as it did in 2017 but right now that looks like a steal.
It does seem so. What price were Theresa Mays Tories to get a majority on the day she called her GE?
Or maybe not. Maybe more focus because of what happened last time. And with that media will smell blood if policy that does something about such injustice doesn’t stand up.
What's the LibDem policy, what's Labour's policy? Whatever, Boris will match it.
Boris is desperate to win the election. He will promise whatever he has to. Same with the Remainers, they will promise willy-nilly.
All the promises (Tory, Labour or LibDem) won't be worth anything, because no-one will be interested in how much something costs, and how the money will actually be raised.
The Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Tories have all been in power while this injustice has been taking place. If they actually wanted to do something -- rather than grandstand -- they could have.
I think it may even be that the Labour Party created this injustice, as it stems from health-care reforms under Blair. Not 100 per cent sure, but I'd be intrigued to know.
You are right in your last paragraph, current policy came from reforms in Blair years. But What was it like before reform, worse? Is it a growing problem since and long due further reform.
You are wrong in rest of what you say though, because different reforms may benefit different social and voter groups. Something that helps Sunday mirror reading never owned own homes but have some savings may be a stealth tax on Mail on Sunday reading home owners. And vice versa for example. Note my conversation on this with HY. A proper conversation with HY. On Proper policy. 😏
Owen Who has a majority of 11,000 in Pontypridd... If Labour MPs with majorities of 10,000+ are thinking their seats are gone then a political earthquake could be on the way...
In his case, I think it's nothing to do with the risk of losing his seat, or in reality the lack of such risk. It's that he knows that he will have absolutely no influence in the Labour Party if re-elected. It is better to move on and do something more useful with his life than to spend yet more of it bashing his head against a brick wall in order to collect a pay cheque.
If you were The Sunday Times and you thought you had an explosive revaluation left about Boris, when would you publish it? Or might Murdoch find a way to spike it now.
I think that being a cad is baked into the BoZo vote, 40% of the population simply do not care of his low moral character. It is like anti-semitism and the IRA for Jezza. Anyone who cares about these things made their minds up ages ago.
40%?
I imagine 99% of the population simply do not care of his allegedly low moral character.
Passionate Remainers/left wingers hate Boris because he is a Tory/Leaver, they don't give a damn about character.
Tories/Leavers largely back him, they don't give a damn about character.
This is 2019. Our voters aren't puritans and don't expect our politicians to be either, we expect them to agree with us and damn those who don't.
I expect even politicians I dislike to not have been fired twice for lying
Yet its only those who dislike his politics that go on about it. Funny that!
More generally that's true in other instances. Generally, the people who confidently come on here to predict that an action of Johnson will lead to his political demise are always those who would not vote for him in a month of Sundays.
Take Johnson's failure to get us out by 31st October. Ever since the Benn Act was passed, Remainers were asserting that they had him over a barrel with his support bound to collapse as it became clear that we would pass that date while still in the EU. Yet it's clearly wishful thinking. I've never once seen a Leaver castigating Johnson on here for his resolute efforts to achieve just that, and the polls if anything have strengthened in Johnson's favour as the blocking efforts in parliament became ever more overt.
Indeed its never a good idea to drink your own koolaid!
Brexiteers abandoned May because after she voluntarily opted for an extension we felt her heart was never really in it and she wasn't on our side.
That isn't the case with Boris - and thanks to the actions of Parliamentarians, with a special headnod to Joanna Cherry, the entire country knows that they blocked Boris not that Boris betrayed his voters. Oops.
something has to change in the next couple of years. aren't the current boundaries are based on the 2001 census?
Boundaries are based on electoral rolls rather than the census, aren't they? But as the last review was in 2007, I agree something needs to change. And I've never understood why we need 15% more MPs than France, despite very similar populations.
Should be based on census. If you live in a constituency your MP is your MP regardless of whether you are on the electoral roll.
Okay, let’s all come together and sort it out. No politics or tricks,
if you have more than £23,250 in assets you have to pay for your own care. That’s current policy under Boris? This means pensioners' life savings can be drained while they languish in a home.
How about this for a solution replace this with a much higher 'floor' of £100,000 Demos centrist think tank says “hundreds of thousands of the poorest older people” will benefit – mostly pensioners who've got savings, but could never afford a house. For those who do own a house, make it clear no one has to sell it during their lifetime to pay fees, Instead, payments will be 'deferred' until both the care home resident and their partner die.
Could that be an improvement on current injustice and far better than sweeping under carpet?
It is not very different from Theresa May's policy. In fact, isn't it almost identical?
This is May's proposal. "People needing social care at home would have to pay for it until the value of their assets – including their home – reached a floor of £100,000. May also promised that a family home would never need to be sold in a person’s lifetime, with costs instead recouped after death." (From the Guardian, 2017)
After what happened to May, no-one is ever going to propose anything like that again.
Are you saying it won’t help hundreds and thousands of the poorest people? Or that general elections aren’t the place to suggest improvements on currency policy that’s difficult sell on doorsteps?
Or maybe not. Maybe more focus because of what happened last time. And with that media will smell blood if policy that does something about such injustice doesn’t stand up.
What's the LibDem policy, what's Labour's policy? Whatever, Boris will match it.
Boris is desperate to win the election. He will promise whatever he has to. Same with the Remainers, they will promise willy-nilly.
All the promises (Tory, Labour or LibDem) won't be worth anything, because no-one will be interested in how much something costs, and how the money will actually be raised.
The Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Tories have all been in power while this injustice has been taking place. If they actually wanted to do something -- rather than grandstand -- they could have.
I think it may even be that the Labour Party created this injustice, as it stems from health-care reforms under Blair. Not 100 per cent sure, but I'd be intrigued to know.
You are right in your last paragraph, current policy came from reforms in Blair years. But What was it like before reform, worse? Is it a growing problem since and long due further reform.
You are wrong in rest of what you say though, because different reforms may benefit different social and voter groups. Something that helps Sunday mirror reading never owned own homes but have some savings may be a stealth tax on Mail on Sunday reading home owners. And vice versa for example. Note my conversation on this with HY. A proper conversation with HY. On Proper policy. 😏
I don't understand how your policy differs from Theresa May's. Can you explain it?
FWIW, I though May's policy was a good one, and I argued that the policy was right on pb.com.
But, it is not politically possible, as in fact May's fate showed. Your policy (which seems almost identical to May's) will meet the same fate in an election.
Okay, let’s all come together and sort it out. No politics or tricks,
if you have more than £23,250 in assets you have to pay for your own care. That’s current policy under Boris? This means pensioners' life savings can be drained while they languish in a home.
How about this for a solution replace this with a much higher 'floor' of £100,000 Demos centrist think tank says “hundreds of thousands of the poorest older people” will benefit – mostly pensioners who've got savings, but could never afford a house. For those who do own a house, make it clear no one has to sell it during their lifetime to pay fees, Instead, payments will be 'deferred' until both the care home resident and their partner die.
Could that be an improvement on current injustice and far better than sweeping under carpet?
It is not very different from Theresa May's policy. In fact, isn't it almost identical?
This is May's proposal. "People needing social care at home would have to pay for it until the value of their assets – including their home – reached a floor of £100,000. May also promised that a family home would never need to be sold in a person’s lifetime, with costs instead recouped after death." (From the Guardian, 2017)
After what happened to May, no-one is ever going to propose anything like that again.
Are you saying it won’t help hundreds and thousands of the poorest people? Or that general elections aren’t the place to suggest improvements on currency policy that’s difficult sell on doorsteps?
I am saying that it is not possible to make any reform of social care except on a cross-party basis.
When Labour proposed a sensible policy, it was called a Death Tax by the Tories and the LibDems. When May proposed a sensible policy, it was called a Dementia Tax by Labour and the LibDems.
Don't blame me. Blame our rotten political parties and their rotten leaders.
When the commentators and 3 opposition leaders were saying definitely no election I was piling on there will be.
For my next moment of genius I s.
On the current BBC poll average of 36% Tories, 24% Labour and 18% LD, the Tories would pick up 47 Labour seats and lose 11 to the LDs. That is a net Tory gain of 36 seats and with most Scottish polls showing around 8 Tory losses to the SNP at most, still a net Tory gain of 28 seats even including Scotland, enough for a clear Tory majority.
But I’m betting against it as I expect Polls to change between now and exit poll Because parliament v people narrative will change to partypolitics once Parliament is shut Brexit party to hurt tories And remain voters to be canny with their vote
LD voters despise Corbyn now and will not tactically vote Labour unlike 2017
If I was so convinced by you there wouldn’t be any point betting against you then would it
🤣 🤣 🤣
But I suspect people you are counting as despising corbyn because polls in recent months say they are voting libdem might not be as hardcore libdem as you claim.
They are hardcore Remainers and as far as they are now concerned Corbyn is not
Corbyny:
Exactly.
It was Labour MPs votes which helped the WA pass (even if they did want to add a CU that is still Brexit for diehard Remainers and they will not forget nor forgive it)
😁. A small number, defying a whip, for a meaningless second reading.
Carry on trying till you land a proper punch
It made the difference for it to pass, as the Labour conference made clear Labour is not a Remain party and is not committed to campaign for Remain and hence less than half of Remainers are now voting Labour
Well my bet is a portion of the libdem poll is soft and up for grabs for remain labour MPs.
but it’s okay I’m sure Cummings has war gamed this.
My other assertions you didn’t attack?
parliament v people narrative will change to partypolitics once Parliament is shut so polls closeup Strong Brexit party showing based on attacking the deal to hurt tories in attempt to take labour leave seats
Johnson's strategy is essentially the same as May's in 2017: rely on a party led by Nigel Farage to win votes that would otherwise be Labour.
A Gillian Duffy moment for the PM, or a scandal to hit either of them, or if Nige doesn't put his back into it, and it's over.
Boris is weak on the private schools. What has he got? 1. They save the country billions of pounds. 2. Labour's opposition to them is old-fashioned. I wonder how those will play.
Corbyn is not a strong leader but he is more at home than Michael Foot was speaking with ordinary people. This is going to be a two-party race.
Polling from 2016-17:
Private schools are an utter irrelevance. Red meat to Labour faithful but striking few chords in the wider country. Indeed some polls show a decent majority opposed to Labour's plans.
As for 2017 comparisons...again these are largely irrelevant. Corbyn then was a blank canvas, hoovering up the youth and the remain vote. That seems very unlikely to happen this time.
Agreed, private schools are irrelevant, probably a vote loser for Labour given their conference policy shambles.
How many voters remember what happened at a party conference? If Labour make private schools an issue, the Tories are going to have say something about it. That's the problem. Saying "Labour are stupid about private schools - what do they know about them anyway?" looks terrible. Remember that Labour are going to fight this election on social reform.
Not many.
Teachers. Their vote was probably Labour and will remain so. Labour members. Their vote was Labour and will remain so. Parents of private school kids. Their votes were mixed and will switch away from Labour.
You are right, no-one else will remember the conference policy or care enough about the issue for it to change their vote.
There are also many many support staff who work for private schools. Far more of them than teachers. Since it involves their jobs I would guess a switch away there too. Especially since the management of the schools will be very vocal in telling the employees of Labours plans. (If they make the manifesto)
something has to change in the next couple of years. aren't the current boundaries are based on the 2001 census?
Boundaries are based on electoral rolls rather than the census, aren't they? But as the last review was in 2007, I agree something needs to change. And I've never understood why we need 15% more MPs than France, despite very similar populations.
Do we really need 800+ Unelected Has-Beens in the House of Lords?
Thank you everyone for the Iceland recommendations (whether geographical or high st). What a nice bunch you are! I feel like I am going to be the last one to visit.
I don't know if its been mentioned - but the Nordic Noir thriller "Trapped" is set there - and two friends are currently visiting the north eastern port where its set on the ferry from Denmark - very atmospheric!
We're dealing with a cluster of heavily overlapping if distinct shibboliths of huge political and psychological power.
1. That older voters have " paid into the pot " and are entitled to be paid back.
2. That inheritances aren't normal financial transfers and don't deserve to be taxed like other assets/income.
3. That state funded care isn't a state funded benefit and it's recipients aren't benefit claimants.
4. That locking up huge quantities of the nation's capital in inert residential property is a healthy thing. So healthy tax breaks should encourage its intergenerational progression.
Evidence based policy is for the birds in this area.
Okay, let’s all come together and sort it out. No politics or tricks,
if you have more than £23,250 in assets you have to pay for your own care. That’s current policy under Boris? This means pensioners' life savings can be drained while they languish in a home.
How about this for a solution replace this with a much higher 'floor' of £100,000 Demos centrist think tank says “hundreds of thousands of the poorest older people” will benefit – mostly pensioners who've got savings, but could never afford a house. For those who do own a house, make it clear no one has to sell it during their lifetime to pay fees, Instead, payments will be 'deferred' until both the care home resident and their partner die.
Could that be an improvement on current injustice and far better than sweeping under carpet?
It is not very different from Theresa May's policy. In fact, isn't it almost identical?
This is May's proposal. "People needing social care at home would have to pay for it until the value of their assets – including their home – reached a floor of £100,000. May also promised that a family home would never need to be sold in a person’s lifetime, with costs instead recouped after death." (From the Guardian, 2017)
After what happened to May, no-one is ever going to propose anything like that again.
Are you saying it won’t help hundreds and thousands of the poorest people? Or that general elections aren’t the place to suggest improvements on currency policy that’s difficult sell on doorsteps?
I am saying that it is not possible to make any reform of social care except on a cross-party basis.
When Labour proposed a sensible policy, it was called a Death Tax by the Tories and the LibDems. When May proposed a sensible policy, it was called a Dementia Tax by Labour and the LibDems.
Don't blame me. Blame our rotten political parties and their rotten leaders.
Indeed. " Dementia Tax " was popularised by Andy Burnham when he was a cabinet member in the Brown government. Labour's policy response was then called a " Death Tax " by the Conservatives. The Conservatives policy response to that was then called a " Dementia Tax " and so on.
It's why I hate Bedroom Tax and Pasty Tax as left populism. It seems clever but it accepts and reinforces fundamentally rightwing framing.
We're dealing with a cluster of heavily overlapping if distinct shibboliths of huge political and psychological power.
1. That older voters have " paid into the pot " and are entitled to be paid back.
2. That inheritances aren't normal financial transfers and don't deserve to be taxed like other assets/income.
3. That state funded care isn't a state funded benefit and it's recipients aren't benefit claimants.
4. That locking up huge quantities of the nation's capital in inert residential property is a healthy thing. So healthy tax breaks should encourage its intergenerational progression.
Evidence based policy is for the birds in this area.
If everyone got dementia in old age, there would be much more of a clamour to fix the injustice.
As it is, dementia sufferers are only ~ 8 per cent of the population over 60 and so they are a small minority.
The existing system is highly unfair to a small proportion of the population.
That is why the unfairness was not apparent to most people until May tried to fix it.
When the commentators and 3 opposition leaders were saying definitely no election I was piling on there will be.
For my next moment of genius I s.
On the current BBC poll average of 36% Tories, 24% Labour and 18% LD, the Tories would pick up 47 Labour seats and lose 11 to the LDs. That is a net Tory gain of 36 seats and with most Scottish polls showing around 8 Tory losses to the SNP at most, still a net Tory gain of 28 seats even including Scotland, enough for a clear Tory majority.
But I’m betting against it as I expect Polls to change between now and exit poll Because parliament v people narrative will change to partypolitics once Parliament is shut Brexit party to hurt tories And remain voters to be canny with their vote
LD voters despise Corbyn now and will not tactically vote Labour unlike 2017
If I was so convinced by you there wouldn’t be any point betting against you then would it
🤣 🤣 🤣
But I suspect people you are counting as despising corbyn because polls in recent months say they are voting libdem might not be as hardcore libdem as you claim.
They are hardcore Remainers and as far as they are now concerned Corbyn is not
Corbyny:
Exactly.
It was Labour MPs votes which helped the WA pass (even if they did want to add a CU that is still Brexit for diehard Remainers and they will not forget nor forgive it)
😁. A small number, defying a whip, for a meaningless second reading.
Carry on trying till you land a proper punch
It made the difference for it to passvoting Labour
Well my bet is a portion of the libdem poll is soft and up for grabs for remain labour MPs.
but it’s okay I’m sure Cummings has war gamed this.
My other assertions you didn’t attack?
parliament v people narrative will change to partypolitics once Parliament is shut so polls closeup Strong Brexit party showing based on attacking the deal to hurt tories in attempt to take labour leave seats
Most Leavers now prefer the Boris Deal to No Deal hence the Brexit Party is polling no higher than UKIP were in 2015 but most Remainers now back Revoke, hence the LDs are back close to 2010 levels, mainly at Labour's expense
Am probably a cynical old bat. But wouldn't be surprised to find that we never hear of Boris's deal again, it having served its purpose to set up a "Boris v Parliament" fight.
If he wins he'll just take Britain out & sign up to whatever rubbish deal Trump puts in front of him.
I don't think that is cynical, I just don't see how that benefits Boris and therefore why he would do it. He had a Boris v Parliament fight on his hands even without actually doing some work and getting a deal, and he torpedoed relations with the DUP to get it, I just don't see that as the actions of a man who wants to just take us out and do whatever Trump says. I've very little time for Boris, but I cannot see why you think he would think that is a good course for him.
The interesting thing about the DUP is their opponents in sinn fein recieved a bequest recently from an Englishman that totaled£1.5 million IIRC. That might be a problem for the DUP in some NI seats where SF are close on the heals of DUP. I accept the sectarian divide means switches from DUP to SF are very few but elections are all about turning out your core and given some voters a reason to lend their support. With over £1 million to spend SF might eat into DUP.
Yes, but the DUP have just spent the last 2.5 years pumping the treasury for cash in return for their support...
They didn’t get a cent. Deal was the money was added to Stormont’s budget
Apologies if I am missing something as work means I have not been spending as much time on PB as I would like but is evens on a Conservative majority not a spectacular price given current polling?
Of course polling can can change as it did in 2017 but right now that looks like a steal.
An overall Tory majority in the face of probable losses to SNP and LibDems requires lots of gains from Labour. That in turn requires Labour's rating not to recover *and* for anti-Tory voters to refuse to back sitting Labour MPs. It might happen, but it's not nailed on.
We're dealing with a cluster of heavily overlapping if distinct shibboliths of huge political and psychological power.
1. That older voters have " paid into the pot " and are entitled to be paid back.
2. That inheritances aren't normal financial transfers and don't deserve to be taxed like other assets/income.
3. That state funded care isn't a state funded benefit and it's recipients aren't benefit claimants.
4. That locking up huge quantities of the nation's capital in inert residential property is a healthy thing. So healthy tax breaks should encourage its intergenerational progression.
Evidence based policy is for the birds in this area.
The single most unpopular Tory policy of the last decade was the dementia tax, the most popular Tory policy of the last decade was raising the inheritance tax threshold.
Tories are supposed to support inheritance and preserve family wealth, I certainly do and taking people's homes to pay for at home care when they are not even in a care home was wrong and politically a disaster. At most higher national insurance should pay for extra care funds
We're dealing with a cluster of heavily overlapping if distinct shibboliths of huge political and psychological power.
1. That older voters have " paid into the pot " and are entitled to be paid back.
2. That inheritances aren't normal financial transfers and don't deserve to be taxed like other assets/income.
3. That state funded care isn't a state funded benefit and it's recipients aren't benefit claimants.
4. That locking up huge quantities of the nation's capital in inert residential property is a healthy thing. So healthy tax breaks should encourage its intergenerational progression.
Evidence based policy is for the birds in this area.
If everyone got dementia in old age, there would be much more of a clamour to fix the injustice.
As it is, dementia sufferers are only ~ 8 per cent of the population over 60 and so they are a small minority.
The existing system is highly unfair to a small proportion of the population.
That is why the unfairness was not apparent to most people until May tried to fix it.
May really did have the Midas Touch in Reverse.
The incredible thing was that May made no attempt to explain or defend her social care policy; she just dumped it, incidentally undermining "strong and stable".
We're dealing with a cluster of heavily overlapping if distinct shibboliths of huge political and psychological power.
1. That older voters have " paid into the pot " and are entitled to be paid back.
2. That inheritances aren't normal financial transfers and don't deserve to be taxed like other assets/income.
3. That state funded care isn't a state funded benefit and it's recipients aren't benefit claimants.
4. That locking up huge quantities of the nation's capital in inert residential property is a healthy thing. So healthy tax breaks should encourage its intergenerational progression.
Evidence based policy is for the birds in this area.
If everyone got dementia in old age, there would be much more of a clamour to fix the injustice.
As it is, dementia sufferers are only ~ 8 per cent of the population over 60 and so they are a small minority.
The existing system is highly unfair to a small proportion of the population.
That is why the unfairness was not apparent to most people until May tried to fix it.
May really did have the Midas Touch in Reverse.
The incredible thing was that May made no attempt to explain or defend her social care policy; she just dumped it, incidentally undermining "strong and stable".
Well, yes, May did not emerge with much credit.
But nor did the Labour Party.
Anyhow, I think the practical consequence is any change in this area (which is badly needed) will have to be cross-party and consensual.
something has to change in the next couple of years. aren't the current boundaries are based on the 2001 census?
Boundaries are based on electoral rolls rather than the census, aren't they? But as the last review was in 2007, I agree something needs to change. And I've never understood why we need 15% more MPs than France, despite very similar populations.
Should be based on census. If you live in a constituency your MP is your MP regardless of whether you are on the electoral roll.
They use the census in the US. Does lead to some anomalies especially at a local level. Some local districts in upstate New York with large high security prisons end up with very few eligible voters/representative so arguably those voters votes end up counting more than someone in a different district.
We're dealing with a cluster of heavily overlapping if distinct shibboliths of huge political and psychological power.
1. That older voters have " paid into the pot " and are entitled to be paid back.
2. That inheritances aren't normal financial transfers and don't deserve to be taxed like other assets/income.
3. That state funded care isn't a state funded benefit and it's recipients aren't benefit claimants.
4. That locking up huge quantities of the nation's capital in inert residential property is a healthy thing. So healthy tax breaks should encourage its intergenerational progression.
Evidence based policy is for the birds in this area.
Comparison of polling this time with last time, starting six months before the election was called:
So the Tories are starting from a much lower base, about half as far in front of Labour as they were when the election was called in 2017. For them, everything depends on Labour not winning real votes in polling stations from people who before the election was announced were telling pollsters they'd vote for Nigel "Protest Vote" Farage's party or the Liberal Democrats.
We're dealing with a cluster of heavily overlapping if distinct shibboliths of huge political and psychological power.
1. That older voters have " paid into the pot " and are entitled to be paid back.
2. That inheritances aren't normal financial transfers and don't deserve to be taxed like other assets/income.
3. That state funded care isn't a state funded benefit and it's recipients aren't benefit claimants.
4. That locking up huge quantities of the nation's capital in inert residential property is a healthy thing. So healthy tax breaks should encourage its intergenerational progression.
Evidence based policy is for the birds in this area.
The single most unpopular Tory policy of the last decade was the dementia tax, the most popular Tory policy of the last decade was raising the inheritance tax threshold.
Tories are supposed to support inheritance and preserve family wealth, I certainly do and taking people's homes to pay for at home care when they are not even in a care home was wrong and politically a disaster. At most higher national insurance should pay for extra care funds
The most popular policy is cutting tax and increasing benefits.
Everyone knows this.
But the consequences of forever cutting taxes and increasing spending can be seen in Venezuela or Greece.
It is the smart move. An alliance means they might get 4-6 seats and have some sort of power post-election. Opposing Boris will just see them squeezed into irrelevance.
They have painted themselves into a corner with their opposition to the Boris deal, though. It is pretty obvious Farage doesn't really believe in his own criticisms.
We're dealing with a cluster of heavily overlapping if distinct shibboliths of huge political and psychological power.
1. That older voters have " paid into the pot " and are entitled to be paid back.
2. That inheritances aren't normal financial transfers and don't deserve to be taxed like other assets/income.
3. That state funded care isn't a state funded benefit and it's recipients aren't benefit claimants.
4. That locking up huge quantities of the nation's capital in inert residential property is a healthy thing. So healthy tax breaks should encourage its intergenerational progression.
Evidence based policy is for the birds in this area.
The single most unpopular Tory policy of the last decade was the dementia tax, the most popular Tory policy of the last decade was raising the inheritance tax threshold.
Tories are supposed to support inheritance and preserve family wealth, I certainly do and taking people's homes to pay for at home care when they are not even in a care home was wrong and politically a disaster. At most higher national insurance should pay for extra care funds
The most popular policy is cutting tax and increasing benefits.
Everyone knows this.
But the consequences of forever cutting taxes and increasing spending can be seen in Venezuela or Greece.
Greece now has a Conservative Government and while the socialists in Venezuela and Greece were keen on increasing spending they were less keen on really cutting taxes and growing the economy
It is the smart move. An alliance means they might get 4-6 seats and have some sort of power post-election. Opposing Boris will just see them squeezed into irrelevance.
They have painted themselves into a corner with their opposition to the Boris deal, though. It is pretty obvious Farage doesn't really believe in his own criticisms.
Opposing Boris or winding up the whole operation will be their two possible options when Boris tells them to eff off.
We're dealing with a cluster of heavily overlapping if distinct shibboliths of huge political and psychological power.
1. That older voters have " paid into the pot " and are entitled to be paid back.
2. That inheritances aren't normal financial transfers and don't deserve to be taxed like other assets/income.
3. That state funded care isn't a state funded benefit and it's recipients aren't benefit claimants.
4. That locking up huge quantities of the nation's capital in inert residential property is a healthy thing. So healthy tax breaks should encourage its intergenerational progression.
Evidence based policy is for the birds in this area.
The single most unpopular Tory policy of the last decade was the dementia tax, the most popular Tory policy of the last decade was raising the inheritance tax threshold.
Tories are supposed to support inheritance and preserve family wealth, I certainly do and taking people's homes to pay for at home care when they are not even in a care home was wrong and politically a disaster. At most higher national insurance should pay for extra care funds
The most popular policy is cutting tax and increasing benefits.
Everyone knows this.
But the consequences of forever cutting taxes and increasing spending can be seen in Venezuela or Greece.
The USA seems to be doing fine. Also, Iceland had a financial crisis and just declared a default yet seem to be fine now. I wonder whether the smartest policy is just take the markets money for decades on end and declare a default every 50 years. The worst thing that happens is they won't lend you as much money next time, but I am not even sure that is true.
More like they’re setting an impossible test so they have an excuse to attack Boris.
Here in deepest Leaverstan I got *two* seperate colour, high quality, multipage leaflets via paid delivery from the Brexit Party last week. Why anyone thinks they've gone away is beyond me.
Postal votes 2 weeks before Xmas. What could go wrong....?
A Royal Mail strike?
The royal mail union on strike buggering up Labour's postal vote operation would be delicious
Postal votes are mostly used by the elderly who, of course, are overwhelmingly Tory.
That’s a bit of a myth. Students and ethnic minorities are also heavy users, and in seats with active campaigns the parties try to sign up as many of their voters as possible, as getting a PV pushes turnout up from 60% to 80%, and it leaves fewer people to chase on polling day.
Provided it is postmarked before polling day a postal vote still counts even if it arrives after polls closed. We could be in a Florida 2000 situation in some marginals as a result if the strike goes ahead (though the Government will try for an injunction to stop it).
I don’t think that’s true. Once the RO reads the declaration, that result can only be overturned in court, even if people spot a mistake when packing away (as has happened)
Legally a postal vote cast before polls close is a valid vote and must be counted and the losing parties in a close result can and would successfully challenge in court to overturn the result if they were not counted
n the post?
In Australia postal votes sent on polling day will be counted and so a handfull of constituencies need one to two weeks before tey can declare.
Yes, there may well have to be some delayed results on that basis
No RO would delay an election count to wait for the next post.
In which case they could be taken to court for failing to count legally validly cast votes if they were postmarked before polling day
On that basis no counts could take place for several days following the close of poll - simply to guard against the possibility of some ballot papers having been delayed in the post! Not so.
It is the smart move. An alliance means they might get 4-6 seats and have some sort of power post-election. Opposing Boris will just see them squeezed into irrelevance.
They have painted themselves into a corner with their opposition to the Boris deal, though. It is pretty obvious Farage doesn't really believe in his own criticisms.
Opposing Boris or winding up the whole operation will be their two possible options when Boris tells them to eff off.
Apologies if I am missing something as work means I have not been spending as much time on PB as I would like but is evens on a Conservative majority not a spectacular price given current polling?
Of course polling can can change as it did in 2017 but right now that looks like a steal.
An overall Tory majority in the face of probable losses to SNP and LibDems requires lots of gains from Labour. That in turn requires Labour's rating not to recover *and* for anti-Tory voters to refuse to back sitting Labour MPs. It might happen, but it's not nailed on.
I'd say the Tory losses were quite a bit more likely than many of the Tory gains...
Postal votes 2 weeks before Xmas. What could go wrong....?
A Royal Mail strike?
The royal mail union on strike buggering up Labour's postal vote operation would be delicious
Postal votes are mostly used by the elderly who, of course, are overwhelmingly Tory.
That’s a bit of a myth. Students and ethnic minorities are also heavy users, and in seats with active campaigns the parties try to sign up as many of their voters as possible, as getting a PV pushes turnout up from 60% to 80%, and it leaves fewer people to chase on polling day.
Provided it is postmarked before polling day a postal vote still counts even if it arrives after polls closed. We could be in a Florida 2000 situation in some marginals as a result if the strike goes ahead (though the Government will try for an injunction to stop it).
I don’t think that’s true. Once the RO reads the declaration, that result can only be overturned in court, even if people spot a mistake when packing away (as has happened)
Legally a postal vote cast before polls close is a valid vote and must be counted and the losing parties in a close result can and would successfully challenge in court to overturn the result if they were not counted
n the post?
In Australia postal votes sent on polling day will be counted and so a handfull of constituencies need one to two weeks before tey can declare.
Yes, there may well have to be some delayed results on that basis
No RO would delay an election count to wait for the next post.
In which case they could be taken to court for failing to count legally validly cast votes if they were postmarked before polling day
On that basis no counts could take place for several days following the close of poll - simply to guard against the possibility of some ballot papers having been delayed in the post! Not so.
They could take place but if postal votes were postmarked before close of poll then they would have to be legally added to the count too even at the cost of a delayed result
Apologies if I am missing something as work means I have not been spending as much time on PB as I would like but is evens on a Conservative majority not a spectacular price given current polling?
Of course polling can can change as it did in 2017 but right now that looks like a steal.
An overall Tory majority in the face of probable losses to SNP and LibDems requires lots of gains from Labour. That in turn requires Labour's rating not to recover *and* for anti-Tory voters to refuse to back sitting Labour MPs. It might happen, but it's not nailed on.
I'd say the Tory losses were quite a bit more likely than many of the Tory gains...
On the current BBC poll average the Tories will gain 47 Labour seats and lose 11 seats to the LDs with maybe 5 to 8 losses to the SNP
Postal votes 2 weeks before Xmas. What could go wrong....?
A Royal Mail strike?
The royal mail union on strike buggering up Labour's postal vote operation would be delicious
Postal votes are mostly used by the elderly who, of course, are overwhelmingly Tory.
That’s a bit of a myth. Students and ethnic minorities are also heavy users, and in seats with active campaigns the parties try to sign up as many of their voters as possible, as getting a PV pushes turnout up from 60% to 80%, and it leaves fewer people to chase on polling day.
Provided it is postmarked before polling day a postal vote still counts even if it arrives after polls closed. We could be in a Florida 2000 situation in some marginals as a result if the strike goes ahead (though the Government will try for an injunction to stop it).
I don’t think that’s true. Once the RO reads the declaration, that result can only be overturned in court, even if people spot a mistake when packing away (as has happened)
Legally a postal vote cast before polls close is a valid vote and must be counted and the losing parties in a close result can and would successfully challenge in court to overturn the result if they were not counted
n the post?
In Australia postal votes sent on polling day will be counted and so a handfull of constituencies need one to two weeks before tey can declare.
Yes, there may well have to be some delayed results on that basis
No RO would delay an election count to wait for the next post.
In which case they could be taken to court for failing to count legally validly cast votes if they were postmarked before polling day
On that basis no counts could take place for several days following the close of poll - simply to guard against the possibility of some ballot papers having been delayed in the post! Not so.
They could take place but if postal votes were postmarked before close of poll then they would have to be legally added to the count too even at the cost of a delayed result
I have never heard of that - and am not persuaded.
From the Electoral Commission website - 'Returning your ballot paper
Once you've got it, mark your vote on the ballot paper and make sure you send it back so that it arrives by 10pm on election day. If it arrives later than this, your vote won't be counted.
You can hand your postal ballot in at your local council on the day if you’re not able to send it back by post in advance
From the Electoral Commission website - 'Returning your ballot paper
Once you've got it, mark your vote on the ballot paper and make sure you send it back so that it arrives by 10pm on election day. If it arrives later than this, your vote won't be counted.
You can hand your postal ballot in at your local council on the day if you’re not able to send it back by post in advance
Under English law and the posting rule a contract is made as soon as a letter is posted, so provided a postal vote has been sent and postmarked before polling day it must be counted under the law as a contract has been made with the Electoral Commission to count that vote.
If not the Electoral Commission can be sued for beach of contract under English common law for failing to uphold its offer of a vote in an election accepted from the time of postage.
Am probably a cynical old bat. But wouldn't be surprised to find that we never hear of Boris's deal again, it having served its purpose to set up a "Boris v Parliament" fight.
If he wins he'll just take Britain out & sign up to whatever rubbish deal Trump puts in front of him.
I don't think that is cynical, I just don't see how that benefits Boris and therefore why he would do it. He had a Boris v Parliament fight on his hands even without actually doing some work and getting a deal, and he torpedoed relations with the DUP to get it, I just don't see that as the actions of a man who wants to just take us out and do whatever Trump says. I've very little time for Boris, but I cannot see why you think he would think that is a good course for him.
The interesting thing about the DUP is their opponents in sinn fein recieved a bequest recently from an Englishman that totaled£1.5 million IIRC. That might be a problem for the DUP in some NI seats where SF are close on the heals of DUP. I accept the sectarian divide means switches from DUP to SF are very few but elections are all about turning out your core and given some voters a reason to lend their support. With over £1 million to spend SF might eat into DUP.
Yes, but the DUP have just spent the last 2.5 years pumping the treasury for cash in return for their support...
They didn’t get a cent. Deal was the money was added to Stormont’s budget
Heart of stone...
the fact that they can manipulate the crooked system with bribes is a scandal.
They could take place but if postal votes were postmarked before close of poll then they would have to be legally added to the count too even at the cost of a delayed result
Nope they need to arrive by 10pm on the night of election (if necessary delivered by hand).
From memory it’s even made clear that you need to leave time for the post to deliver the vote.
It’s why all canvassers need to focus on postal votes first as I’m likely to vote before the end of November
They could take place but if postal votes were postmarked before close of poll then they would have to be legally added to the count too even at the cost of a delayed result
Nope they need to arrive by 10pm on the night of election (if necessary delivered by hand).
From memory it’s even made clear that you need to leave time for the post to deliver the vote.
It’s why all canvassers need to focus on postal votes first as I’m likely to vote before the end of November
If a letter was posted a week before polling day and was postmarked as such but did not arrive because of postal service error etc by close of poll then the sender would have a valid case under the posting rule to sue the Electoral Commission if their vote was not counted and the court would likely rule in their favour
I suspect the problem with the above is that voting is not a contract. For starters don't contracts require consideration? You don't pay to vote so there is no consideration.
I think we have to take it that what the Electoral Commission says is the correct position.
Apologies if I am missing something as work means I have not been spending as much time on PB as I would like but is evens on a Conservative majority not a spectacular price given current polling?
Of course polling can can change as it did in 2017 but right now that looks like a steal.
It does seem so. What price were Theresa Mays Tories to get a majority on the day she called her GE?
Just scanned the PB archives for 19 April 2017 when the election was called and while I can't see a price for the majority, there are numerous posts and a leading article advocating buying Tory seats at 378 !
If your vote isn't returned by 10 pm the law is crystal clear. It can't and won't be counted. Once election results are declared there is no way of overturning them save for an Election Court ruling.
From the Electoral Commission website - 'Returning your ballot paper
Once you've got it, mark your vote on the ballot paper and make sure you send it back so that it arrives by 10pm on election day. If it arrives later than this, your vote won't be counted.
You can hand your postal ballot in at your local council on the day if you’re not able to send it back by post in advance
Under English law and the posting rule a contract is made as soon as a letter is posted, so provided a postal vote has been sent and postmarked before polling day it must be counted under the law as a contract has been made with the Electoral Commission to count that vote.
If not the Electoral Commission can be sued for beach of contract under English common law for failing to uphold its offer of a vote in an election accepted from the time of postage.
This is utterly and completely wrong. UK electoral law is utterly clear. Your postal vote needs to arrive by 10 pm on polling day. If it doesn't it isn't and legally can't be counted. Even if that wasn't true, which it is, counting late votes isn't a remedy available to the general courts because overturning election results can only be done by Election Courts.
Apologies if I am missing something as work means I have not been spending as much time on PB as I would like but is evens on a Conservative majority not a spectacular price given current polling?
Of course polling can can change as it did in 2017 but right now that looks like a steal.
It does seem so. What price were Theresa Mays Tories to get a majority on the day she called her GE?
Just scanned the PB archives for 19 April 2017 when the election was called and while I can't see a price for the majority, there are numerous posts and a leading article advocating buying Tory seats at 378 !
@isam , @PaulM May announced on April 18 2017. Here are the archived odds for April 19 2017:
They could take place but if postal votes were postmarked before close of poll then they would have to be legally added to the count too even at the cost of a delayed result
Nope they need to arrive by 10pm on the night of election (if necessary delivered by hand).
From memory it’s even made clear that you need to leave time for the post to deliver the vote.
It’s why all canvassers need to focus on postal votes first as I’m likely to vote before the end of November
If a letter was posted a week before polling day and was postmarked as such but did not arrive because of postal service error etc by close of poll then the sender would have a valid case under the posting rule to sue the Electoral Commission if their vote was not counted and the court would likely rule in their favour
Given your role in the next election you are clearly correct - may I suggest you use it to your advantage and just canvass people when it’s convenient doing both postal and normal voters at the same time
They could take place but if postal votes were postmarked before close of poll then they would have to be legally added to the count too even at the cost of a delayed result
Nope they need to arrive by 10pm on the night of election (if necessary delivered by hand).
From memory it’s even made clear that you need to leave time for the post to deliver the vote.
It’s why all canvassers need to focus on postal votes first as I’m likely to vote before the end of November
If a letter was posted a week before polling day and was postmarked as such but did not arrive because of postal service error etc by close of poll then the sender would have a valid case under the posting rule to sue the Electoral Commission if their vote was not counted and the court would likely rule in their favour
Given your role in the next election you are clearly correct - may I suggest you use it to your advantage and just canvass people when it’s convenient doing both postal and normal voters at the same time
They could take place but if postal votes were postmarked before close of poll then they would have to be legally added to the count too even at the cost of a delayed result
Nope they need to arrive by 10pm on the night of election (if necessary delivered by hand).
From memory it’s even made clear that you need to leave time for the post to deliver the vote.
It’s why all canvassers need to focus on postal votes first as I’m likely to vote before the end of November
If a letter was posted a week before polling day and was postmarked as such but did not arrive because of postal service error etc by close of poll then the sender would have a valid case under the posting rule to sue the Electoral Commission if their vote was not counted and the court would likely rule in their favour
Given your role in the next election you are clearly correct - may I suggest you use it to your advantage and just canvass people when it’s convenient doing both postal and normal voters at the same time
Indeed. If @HYUFD in his wise counsel told his respondents whilst canvassing that they could delay posting their postal votes until polling day, then I'm sure that they would thank him fulsomely...
something has to change in the next couple of years. aren't the current boundaries are based on the 2001 census?
Boundaries are based on electoral rolls rather than the census, aren't they? But as the last review was in 2007, I agree something needs to change. And I've never understood why we need 15% more MPs than France, despite very similar populations.
The current boundaries are based on the number of voters on the electoral register in February 2000, the same month the Millennium Wheel opened for example.
If your vote isn't returned by 10 pm the law is crystal clear. It can't and won't be counted. Once election results are declared there is no way of overturning them save for an Election Court ruling.
From the Electoral Commission website - 'Returning your ballot paper
Once you've got it, mark your vote on the ballot paper and make sure you send it back so that it arrives by 10pm on election day. If it arrives later than this, your vote won't be counted.
You can hand your postal ballot in at your local council on the day if you’re not able to send it back by post in advance
Under English law and the posting rule a contract is made as soon as a letter is posted, so provided a postal vote has been sent and postmarked before polling day it must be counted under the law as a contract has been made with the Electoral Commission to count that vote.
If not the Electoral Commission can be sued for beach of contract under English common law for failing to uphold its offer of a vote in an election accepted from the time of postage.
This is utterly and completely wrong. UK electoral law is utterly clear. Your postal vote needs to arrive by 10 pm on polling day. If it doesn't it isn't and legally can't be counted. Even if that wasn't true, which it is, counting late votes isn't a remedy available to the general courts because overturning election results can only be done by Election Courts.
HYUFD is perhaps confused by the system prevailing in the US ?
We're dealing with a cluster of heavily overlapping if distinct shibboliths of huge political and psychological power.
1. That older voters have " paid into the pot " and are entitled to be paid back.
2. That inheritances aren't normal financial transfers and don't deserve to be taxed like other assets/income.
3. That state funded care isn't a state funded benefit and it's recipients aren't benefit claimants.
4. That locking up huge quantities of the nation's capital in inert residential property is a healthy thing. So healthy tax breaks should encourage its intergenerational progression.
Evidence based policy is for the birds in this area.
The single most unpopular Tory policy of the last decade was the dementia tax, the most popular Tory policy of the last decade was raising the inheritance tax threshold.
Tories are supposed to support inheritance and preserve family wealth, I certainly do and taking people's homes to pay for at home care when they are not even in a care home was wrong and politically a disaster. At most higher national insurance should pay for extra care funds
The most popular policy is cutting tax and increasing benefits.
Everyone knows this.
But the consequences of forever cutting taxes and increasing spending can be seen in Venezuela or Greece.
The USA seems to be doing fine. Also, Iceland had a financial crisis and just declared a default yet seem to be fine now. I wonder whether the smartest policy is just take the markets money for decades on end and declare a default every 50 years. The worst thing that happens is they won't lend you as much money next time, but I am not even sure that is true.
“every 50 years” is a pretty heroic assumption, given the policy advocated. More likely to end up like Argentina than the US.
I suspect the problem with the above is that voting is not a contract. For starters don't contracts require consideration? You don't pay to vote so there is no consideration.
I think we have to take it that what the Electoral Commission says is the correct position.
Your consideration is the taxes you pay to the Government as a citizen to a Government you expect to be able to vote for
Comments
I don't believe his seats gone but if its even in play then we are through the looking glass.
if you have more than £23,250 in assets you have to pay for your own care. That’s current policy under Boris? This means pensioners' life savings can be drained while they languish in a home.
How about this for a solution replace this with a much higher 'floor' of £100,000 Demos centrist think tank says “hundreds of thousands of the poorest older people” will benefit – mostly pensioners who've got savings, but could never afford a house. For those who do own a house, make it clear no one has to sell it during their lifetime to pay fees, Instead, payments will be 'deferred' until both the care home resident and their partner die.
Could that be an improvement on current injustice and far better than sweeping under carpet?
But clearly if " the usual channels " were still working all of this could have been sorted out last week.
Take Johnson's failure to get us out by 31st October. Ever since the Benn Act was passed, Remainers were asserting that they had him over a barrel with his support bound to collapse as it became clear that we would pass that date while still in the EU. Yet it's clearly wishful thinking. I've never once seen a Leaver castigating Johnson on here for his resolute efforts to achieve just that, and the polls if anything have strengthened in Johnson's favour as the blocking efforts in parliament became ever more overt.
But, he does cite "personal reasons" & I expect that is the truth of it.
This is May's proposal. "People needing social care at home would have to pay for it until the value of their assets – including their home – reached a floor of £100,000. May also promised that a family home would never need to be sold in a person’s lifetime, with costs instead recouped after death." (From the Guardian, 2017)
After what happened to May, no-one is ever going to propose anything like that again.
But
What was it like before reform, worse?
Is it a growing problem since and long due further reform.
You are wrong in rest of what you say though, because different reforms may benefit different social and voter groups. Something that helps Sunday mirror reading never owned own homes but have some savings may be a stealth tax on Mail on Sunday reading home owners. And vice versa for example. Note my conversation on this with HY. A proper conversation with HY. On Proper policy. 😏
Brexiteers abandoned May because after she voluntarily opted for an extension we felt her heart was never really in it and she wasn't on our side.
That isn't the case with Boris - and thanks to the actions of Parliamentarians, with a special headnod to Joanna Cherry, the entire country knows that they blocked Boris not that Boris betrayed his voters. Oops.
FWIW, I though May's policy was a good one, and I argued that the policy was right on pb.com.
But, it is not politically possible, as in fact May's fate showed. Your policy (which seems almost identical to May's) will meet the same fate in an election.
When Labour proposed a sensible policy, it was called a Death Tax by the Tories and the LibDems. When May proposed a sensible policy, it was called a Dementia Tax by Labour and the LibDems.
Don't blame me. Blame our rotten political parties and their rotten leaders.
Tory 29
Lab 25
LD 16
BXP 14
PC 12
If that's anywhere like the final result then that is insane. Lab down 23.9%, Tory down 4.6% that's a major swing.
MPs.
but it’s okay I’m sure Cummings has war gamed this.
My other assertions you didn’t attack?
parliament v people narrative will change to partypolitics once Parliament is shut so polls closeup
Strong Brexit party showing based on attacking the deal to hurt tories in attempt to take labour leave seats
C majority 0.504
C most seats, no maj 0.347
L most seats, no maj 0.071
L majority 0.043
everything else 0.035
We're dealing with a cluster of heavily overlapping if distinct shibboliths of huge political and psychological power.
1. That older voters have " paid into the pot " and are entitled to be paid back.
2. That inheritances aren't normal financial transfers and don't deserve to be taxed like other assets/income.
3. That state funded care isn't a state funded benefit and it's recipients aren't benefit claimants.
4. That locking up huge quantities of the nation's capital in inert residential property is a healthy thing. So healthy tax breaks should encourage its intergenerational progression.
Evidence based policy is for the birds in this area.
https://twitter.com/brexitparty_uk/status/1188794637785452546?s=21
It's why I hate Bedroom Tax and Pasty Tax as left populism. It seems clever but it accepts and reinforces fundamentally rightwing framing.
As it is, dementia sufferers are only ~ 8 per cent of the population over 60 and so they are a small minority.
The existing system is highly unfair to a small proportion of the population.
That is why the unfairness was not apparent to most people until May tried to fix it.
May really did have the Midas Touch in Reverse.
Heart of stone...
Tories are supposed to support inheritance and preserve family wealth, I certainly do and taking people's homes to pay for at home care when they are not even in a care home was wrong and politically a disaster. At most higher national insurance should pay for extra care funds
But nor did the Labour Party.
Anyhow, I think the practical consequence is any change in this area (which is badly needed) will have to be cross-party and consensual.
So the Tories are starting from a much lower base, about half as far in front of Labour as they were when the election was called in 2017. For them, everything depends on Labour not winning real votes in polling stations from people who before the election was announced were telling pollsters they'd vote for Nigel "Protest Vote" Farage's party or the Liberal Democrats.
Everyone knows this.
But the consequences of forever cutting taxes and increasing spending can be seen in Venezuela or Greece.
They have painted themselves into a corner with their opposition to the Boris deal, though. It is pretty obvious Farage doesn't really believe in his own criticisms.
'Returning your ballot paper
Once you've got it, mark your vote on the ballot paper and make sure you send it back so that it arrives by 10pm on election day. If it arrives later than this, your vote won't be counted.
You can hand your postal ballot in at your local council on the day if you’re not able to send it back by post in advance
If not the Electoral Commission can be sued for beach of contract under English common law for failing to uphold its offer of a vote in an election accepted from the time of postage.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_rule
From memory it’s even made clear that you need to leave time for the post to deliver the vote.
It’s why all canvassers need to focus on postal votes first as I’m likely to vote before the end of November
To add https://www.gov.uk/voting-in-the-uk#postal-voting confirms the above - if it won’t arrive in time for the count - take it directly to the polling station
I think we have to take it that what the Electoral Commission says is the correct position.
May announced on April 18 2017. Here are the archived odds for April 19 2017:
OVERALL MAJORITY
http://archive.is/CIbz1
MOST SEATS
https://web.archive.org/web/20170419025338/https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/most-seats
More likely to end up like Argentina than the US.