politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New constituency poll for LAB-held Great Grimsby looks dire fo

SystemSystem Posts: 12,170
edited November 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New constituency poll for LAB-held Great Grimsby looks dire for the incumbent

NEW: We conducted a telephone method constituency poll on behalf of @TheEconomist in Great Grimsby. Results have now been published and so under @BritPollingCncl rules we are releasing the results and tables.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    At a time when 2017 Labour were winning votes off the Tories, they've shown precious little time sign of it this time around.

    The manifesto is key.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176
    edited November 2019
    Second like Labour.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    This should send a shiver down Labour spines. They have to hope that constituency polling is as poor as it was in 2015.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Tee hee.
    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1197503891941863425
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    At a time when 2017 Labour were winning votes off the Tories, they've shown precious little time sign of it this time around.

    The manifesto is key.

    The labour one or the conservative one?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    On previous topic, much has been made of Pete Buttigieg's poor polling among black voters. But it's not that they don't like him - they just don't know him (see this YouGov poll on his favorability ratings on slide 55):

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/u9tu99dui5/econTabReport.pdf

    He actually has better net favorability among black voters than white voters and far better "very unfavorable" figures with black voters. But he has far more don't knows. This may well prove not to be the insuperable barrier to his success that some are portraying it as.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,721
    Melanie Onn has been quite Brexity. Hasn't done her any good.

    https://twitter.com/GloriaDePiero/status/1185322346141376512?s=19

    Short of declaring war on Belgium no one is Brexity enough for the brothers.
  • ArthurArthur Posts: 63
    edited November 2019
    contrarian said:

    I know nothing of Scottish politics but is Nicola Sturgeon wise to be prepared to prop up a leader like Corbyn, even for a short time?

    With an Oil company windfall tax?

    That contradiction won't bother the SNP. I have sometimes wound up Scottish nationalists who cry "Of course an independent Scotland will be viable - think of all that oil!" at the same time as declaring that an independent Scotland will be greener than green by telling them that around 70% of extracted crude oil goes for transport fuel. "Fake news," they respond, or, fingering their dirks [sic], "Where's your evidence?"
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,710
    edited November 2019
    Has Labour's Dividend Tax policy been discussed yet?

    All dividends to be taxed at normal income tax rates.

    This looks like a return to the 1960s / early 1970s Classical Tax system - Corporation Tax paid on profits and then when the profits (after CT) are distributed you tax the dividends at the full normal income tax rate.

    It's a big, big change!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    Good afternoon comrade punters.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    At a time when 2017 Labour were winning votes off the Tories, they've shown precious little time sign of it this time around.

    The manifesto is key.

    I think they'll get a good bump. There are enough people happy to believe they'll get loads of free stuff with no consequences to give Labour that.

    I can't see that parlaying into a sea-change in their fortunes compared to the Tories*.

    * I've lost count with the number of things I've called wrongly in the last 3 years, so please don't spend any money based on the above musings.
  • Ave_itAve_it Posts: 2,411
    edited November 2019
    CON supporters be cautious!

    CON haven't won Great Grimsby since 1931!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Ave_it said:

    CON supports be cautious!

    CON haven't win Great Grimsby since 1931!

    Post-Brexit it will be known as Little Grimsby.
  • timmotimmo Posts: 1,469
    Anorak said:

    Tee hee.
    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1197503891941863425

    Is there anything on the five year tractor production figures?
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,814
    Puzzled why Labour didn’t promise to write off existing student debt. This is what would really fire up young voters. They’ve thrown everything else in, they might as well have chucked this into the mix too!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,123
    edited November 2019
    In the Q&A session after his speech, he was asked by one student what he would do for graduates who had already accrued huge amounts of debt from paying £9,000 a year in university fees.

    This morning, shadow education secretary Angela Rayner had said Labour would "look at" this issue if it wins power - and Mr Corbyn was similarly vague in his answer.

    I genuinely don't know why they just didn't promise to write it all off. I mean they are spaffing £100bns anyway, its all just crazy massive bankrupting amounts now.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,683
    I'm quite surprised about Grimsby, given that it's common knowledge that the fishermen will be the first to be stuffed in any ensuing trade deal with the EU, but hey ho.
  • timmotimmo Posts: 1,469
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    In the Q&A session after his speech, he was asked by one student what he would do for graduates who had already accrued huge amounts of debt from paying £9,000 a year in university fees.

    This morning, shadow education secretary Angela Rayner had said Labour would "look at" this issue if it wins power - and Mr Corbyn was similarly vague in his answer.

    I genuinely don't know why they just didn't promise to write it all off. I mean they are spaffing £100bns anyway, its all just crazy massive bankrupting amounts now.

    And to think it was only 2 months ago that there was a huge row about something as small as free TV licences
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    Labour wants to scrap the FTPA? Hmmm, I might have to consider voting for them after all.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    I wonder if the its the lib dems who should be concerned about the labour manifesto.

    IF there's anything to put a gigantic rocket up the backside of tory waverers in the shires, its surely this.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,123
    edited November 2019
    IFS - Labour proposing the most punitive corporate tax system in the world

    There's your headline. Just f##k business, what is it good for anyway.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    MikeL said:

    Has Labour's Dividend Tax policy been discussed yet?

    All dividends to be taxed at normal income tax rates.

    This looks like a return to the 1960s / early 1970s Classical Tax system - Corporation Tax paid on profits and then when the profits (after CT) are distributed you tax the dividends at the full normal income tax rate.

    It's a big, big change!

    Are they changing dividend taxation within corporate groups?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    IFS - Labour proposing the most punitive corporate tax system in the world

    There's your headline. Just f##k business, what is it good for anyway.

    Is it true that the most expensive parts of their manifesto weren't actually included in their costing?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,123
    edited November 2019
    RobD said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    IFS - Labour proposing the most punitive corporate tax system in the world

    There's your headline. Just f##k business, what is it good for anyway.

    Is it true that the most expensive parts of their manifesto weren't actually included in their costing?
    They just missed out ohhhh £600+bn worth. Just a rounding error, easily done.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    RobD said:

    Labour wants to scrap the FTPA? Hmmm, I might have to consider voting for them after all.

    But there's more:

    End FTPA, and extend franchise to 16 and all residents.....but the revolution does not extend to FPTP.....funny that.....

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1197503163718340608?s=20
  • eekeek Posts: 28,405
    edited November 2019
    Foxy said:

    Melanie Onn has been quite Brexity. Hasn't done her any good.

    https://twitter.com/GloriaDePiero/status/1185322346141376512?s=19

    Short of declaring war on Belgium no one is Brexity enough for the brothers.

    Why Belgium? As a minimum we should be looking at the borders of 1420 and reclaiming what is ours.

    Granted Calais is not great but we could do with somewhere warmer in the winter.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    RobD said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    IFS - Labour proposing the most punitive corporate tax system in the world

    There's your headline. Just f##k business, what is it good for anyway.

    Is it true that the most expensive parts of their manifesto weren't actually included in their costing?
    They just missed out ohhhh £600+bn worth. Just a rounding error, easily done.
    Meh, i've done worse on my self-assessment.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,609
    RobD said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    IFS - Labour proposing the most punitive corporate tax system in the world

    There's your headline. Just f##k business, what is it good for anyway.

    Is it true that the most expensive parts of their manifesto weren't actually included in their costing?
    Yep. Over £0.6 trillion missing - and that's just on two items....
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,123
    CarlottaVance said:

    RobD said:

    Labour wants to scrap the FTPA? Hmmm, I might have to consider voting for them after all.

    But there's more:

    End FTPA, and extend franchise to 16 and all residents.....but the revolution does not extend to FPTP.....funny that.....

    twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1197503163718340608?s=20
    They don't need a new law for that, they are signing up anyway at the moment without their knowledge.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    MarqueeMark said:

    RobD said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    IFS - Labour proposing the most punitive corporate tax system in the world

    There's your headline. Just f##k business, what is it good for anyway.

    Is it true that the most expensive parts of their manifesto weren't actually included in their costing?
    Yep. Over £0.6 trillion missing - and that's just on two items....
    Their costings are revenue based, not capital
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    In the Q&A session after his speech, he was asked by one student what he would do for graduates who had already accrued huge amounts of debt from paying £9,000 a year in university fees.

    This morning, shadow education secretary Angela Rayner had said Labour would "look at" this issue if it wins power - and Mr Corbyn was similarly vague in his answer.

    I genuinely don't know why they just didn't promise to write it all off. I mean they are spaffing £100bns anyway, its all just crazy massive bankrupting amounts now.

    I've been wondering this too. It's relatively easy to justify as well: you just have to point out how much of it won't ever be repaid anyway.

    The only thing I can come up with is that they actually believe that the stuff about nationalisation is genuinely cost neutral.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,149
    edited November 2019
    On the constituency polls the Tories will gain Kensington with Deltapoll thanks to Labour voters voting LD and the Tories will gain Great Grimsby thanks to Labour voters moving Brexit Party. Brexit still squeezing the Labour vote from both ends and the Tories benefit just by largely standing still and stopping their spring leakage to the Brexit Party
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,149
    https://twitter.com/MattHancock/status/1197409875334225925?s=20
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/1197507032468918272?s=20
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    RobD said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    IFS - Labour proposing the most punitive corporate tax system in the world

    There's your headline. Just f##k business, what is it good for anyway.

    Is it true that the most expensive parts of their manifesto weren't actually included in their costing?
    Yep. Over £0.6 trillion missing - and that's just on two items....
    Their costings are revenue based, not capital
    Someone still has to pay for it...!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,123
    edited November 2019
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    RobD said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    IFS - Labour proposing the most punitive corporate tax system in the world

    There's your headline. Just f##k business, what is it good for anyway.

    Is it true that the most expensive parts of their manifesto weren't actually included in their costing?
    Yep. Over £0.6 trillion missing - and that's just on two items....
    Their costings are revenue based, not capital
    You can't just stick £600bn in the appendix of the appendix of the appendix and say nope, nothing to see here. Besides the IFS have already said even the revenue stuff being fully costed is horseshit.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,123
    RobD said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    RobD said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    IFS - Labour proposing the most punitive corporate tax system in the world

    There's your headline. Just f##k business, what is it good for anyway.

    Is it true that the most expensive parts of their manifesto weren't actually included in their costing?
    Yep. Over £0.6 trillion missing - and that's just on two items....
    Their costings are revenue based, not capital
    Someone still has to pay for it...!
    The handful of billionaires, obvs.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,236
    AlastairMeeks said:

    On previous topic, much has been made of Pete Buttigieg's poor polling among black voters. But it's not that they don't like him - they just don't know him (see this YouGov poll on his favorability ratings on slide 55):

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/u9tu99dui5/econTabReport.pdf

    He actually has better net favorability among black voters than white voters and far better "very unfavorable" figures with black voters. But he has far more don't knows. This may well prove not to be the insuperable barrier to his success that some are portraying it as.

    I’ve remarked before on the rear view mirror nature of presidential primary polling.
    This is a good example.

    His winning Iowa is still a large ‘if’, but assuming he does, things could change very rapidly.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    https://twitter.com/hthjones/status/1197507542550745088?s=20
  • ArthurArthur Posts: 63
    Oop North...Labour are for One Yorkshire with a Mayor of Yorkshire; the Liberal Democrats go further and back a Yorkshire Parliament. What's the Tory position?
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    CarlottaVance said:

    https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/1197507032468918272?s=20

    On those Green figures it might just be possible that Greens win a second target seat, but which one I couldn't guess...
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    I wonder how all those City analysts, FT journalists and business representatives who cosied up to Corbynite labour economic policy are feeling right now.

    The 'useful idiot' tee-shirt is in the post
  • camelcamel Posts: 815
    on topic/betting:

    2/1 on Labour looks like where the value is here. Cons are surely maxed out in this constituency at 42%. Those BXPers are soft, ex-Labour, and flaky.


    I hope.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,231
    AlastairMeeks said:

    This should send a shiver down Labour spines. They have to hope that constituency polling is as poor as it was in 2015.

    True. But the polling was before today's manifesto which indicates that the London 82 bus route may well be reinstated. That's big. It whips you in from Finchley Road to Victoria in no time. Or used to.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    RobD said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    IFS - Labour proposing the most punitive corporate tax system in the world

    There's your headline. Just f##k business, what is it good for anyway.

    Is it true that the most expensive parts of their manifesto weren't actually included in their costing?
    Yep. Over £0.6 trillion missing - and that's just on two items....
    Their costings are revenue based, not capital
    No revenue needed to pay the interest of £600,000,000,000 in borrowing?
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    CarlottaVance said:

    https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/1197507032468918272?s=20

    Tactical voting is going to be very difficult in 90% of seats. The Lib Dems are just so far behind yet realistically with Tory to LD movers they are the only ones that can realistically take seats in 'safe Tory' areas. But how do you convince people of that when Labour came 2nd in 2017?

    Similar the Tories could lose 10 seats in Scotland, but if you vote tactically to stop Brexit then you'll weaken the Union. If this was 2010 or 2015 it would be far, far easier for tactical voting to be successful.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited November 2019
    RobD said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    IFS - Labour proposing the most punitive corporate tax system in the world

    There's your headline. Just f##k business, what is it good for anyway.

    Is it true that the most expensive parts of their manifesto weren't actually included in their costing?
    Any update to your chart with today's new poll(s)?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,609
    CarlottaVance said:

    https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/1197507032468918272?s=20

    I wonder if on the Conservative voters who may change their mind, whether the 18% are all in seats with a Brexit candidate? Because if not, and that goes to say 8% if you limit the option, then the Conservative vote is even firmer than you might first assume.
  • BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 1,884
    Why BXP might go back to Lab

    *because UKIP did in 2017.

    Why BXP might not go back to Lab

    *we've literally spent the last two years watching Brexit fail to happen and Lab's finger prints are all over it.

    One of these things is new, the other is not.
  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,758
    The phrase "Social Justice Commission" may be about to join "Committee for Public Safety" and "People's Control Commission" in a select group in the political lexicon.

    If you want to laugh and cry simultaneously search for the word commission in the LP manifesto.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    Philip_Thompson said:

    RobD said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    IFS - Labour proposing the most punitive corporate tax system in the world

    There's your headline. Just f##k business, what is it good for anyway.

    Is it true that the most expensive parts of their manifesto weren't actually included in their costing?
    Any update to your chart with today's new poll(s)?
    I saw MORI, was there another?
  • camelcamel Posts: 815
    Arthur said:

    Oop North...Labour are for One Yorkshire with a Mayor of Yorkshire; the Liberal Democrats go further and back a Yorkshire Parliament. What's the Tory position?

    I believe the tory position of the north is wholly unchanged from 1069.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    BannedinnParis said:

    Why BXP might go back to Lab

    *because UKIP did in 2017.

    Why BXP might not go back to Lab

    *we've literally spent the last two years watching Brexit fail to happen and Lab's finger prints are all over it.

    One of these things is new, the other is not.

    Labour want free movement - hardly encouraging BXP voters to switch to them
  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,758
    Philip_Thompson said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    RobD said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    IFS - Labour proposing the most punitive corporate tax system in the world

    There's your headline. Just f##k business, what is it good for anyway.

    Is it true that the most expensive parts of their manifesto weren't actually included in their costing?
    Yep. Over £0.6 trillion missing - and that's just on two items....
    Their costings are revenue based, not capital
    No revenue needed to pay the interest of £600,000,000,000 in borrowing?
    And that is before we get to the shrinkage of GDP caused by the numerous wealth destroying measure that litter the manifesto.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,844
    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/MattHancock/status/1197409875334225925?s=20

    Rich people having to use their own money to pay for things. Whatever next?
  • JasonJason Posts: 1,614
    numbertwelve said:

    Puzzled why Labour didn’t promise to write off existing student debt. This is what would really fire up young voters. They’ve thrown everything else in, they might as well have chucked this into the mix too!

    Those are my sentiments too. If you're going to bankrupt the country, why not go the whole hog?
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    BannedinnParis said:

    Why BXP might go back to Lab

    *because UKIP did in 2017.

    Why BXP might not go back to Lab

    *we've literally spent the last two years watching Brexit fail to happen and Lab's finger prints are all over it.

    One of these things is new, the other is not.

    Yeah, increasingly looks unlikely... Also, Farage is heading BXP this time, whereas he didn't front UKIP in 17
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,038
    Arthur said:

    Oop North...Labour are for One Yorkshire with a Mayor of Yorkshire; the Liberal Democrats go further and back a Yorkshire Parliament. What's the Tory position?

    The Tory position is to impose a load of bollocks that the people of Yorkshire don't want, and then claim that is somehow a devolution of power.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    RobD said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    RobD said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    IFS - Labour proposing the most punitive corporate tax system in the world

    There's your headline. Just f##k business, what is it good for anyway.

    Is it true that the most expensive parts of their manifesto weren't actually included in their costing?
    Any update to your chart with today's new poll(s)?
    I saw MORI, was there another?
    I just knew about MORI but wasn't sure if there were any more.
  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,758
    camel said:

    Arthur said:

    Oop North...Labour are for One Yorkshire with a Mayor of Yorkshire; the Liberal Democrats go further and back a Yorkshire Parliament. What's the Tory position?

    I believe the tory position of the north is wholly unchanged from 1069.
    Free movement and votes for all residents could be the knock out punch.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    noneoftheabove said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/MattHancock/status/1197409875334225925?s=20

    Rich people having to use their own money to pay for things. Whatever next?
    I mean if the proposal is to pay it out of general taxation, then the rich will be paying for it.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,123
    The least Labour could have done is the legalized cannabis, which would definitely have actually brought in some extra tax revenue without depressing economic activity.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,609
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    RobD said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    IFS - Labour proposing the most punitive corporate tax system in the world

    There's your headline. Just f##k business, what is it good for anyway.

    Is it true that the most expensive parts of their manifesto weren't actually included in their costing?
    Yep. Over £0.6 trillion missing - and that's just on two items....
    Their costings are revenue based, not capital
    The first hours after an exit poll showing a Labour Govt. would see buttons pressed on the biggest flight of capital in human history.

    That would ensure revenues would crash.

  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,222
    Ave_it said: "CON supporters be cautious!

    CON haven't won Great Grimsby since 1931!"

    And most that voted then are dead now.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    The least Labour could have done is the legalized cannabis, which would definitely have actually brought in some extra tax revenue without depressing economic activity.

    Actually surprised that wasn't included.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,814
    CarlottaVance said:

    RobD said:

    Labour wants to scrap the FTPA? Hmmm, I might have to consider voting for them after all.

    But there's more:

    End FTPA, and extend franchise to 16 and all residents.....but the revolution does not extend to FPTP.....funny that.....

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1197503163718340608?s=20
    “Propped up weak governments”

    They are beyond parody.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,627
    Floater said:

    BannedinnParis said:

    Why BXP might go back to Lab

    *because UKIP did in 2017.

    Why BXP might not go back to Lab

    *we've literally spent the last two years watching Brexit fail to happen and Lab's finger prints are all over it.

    One of these things is new, the other is not.

    Labour want free movement - hardly encouraging BXP voters to switch to them
    There will certainly be free movement of rich people, if they get in with that manifesto!
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,038
    Brom said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/1197507032468918272?s=20

    Tactical voting is going to be very difficult in 90% of seats. The Lib Dems are just so far behind yet realistically with Tory to LD movers they are the only ones that can realistically take seats in 'safe Tory' areas. But how do you convince people of that when Labour came 2nd in 2017?

    Similar the Tories could lose 10 seats in Scotland, but if you vote tactically to stop Brexit then you'll weaken the Union. If this was 2010 or 2015 it would be far, far easier for tactical voting to be successful.
    The result of the election all rests on how efficiently the Labour and LibDem votes are distributed. More important than absolute vote share.

    We need the 'clever' pollsters' models to reveal this.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,123
    RobD said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    The least Labour could have done is the legalized cannabis, which would definitely have actually brought in some extra tax revenue without depressing economic activity.

    Actually surprised that wasn't included.
    It honestly seemed like a no-brainer to me. At the very least, medical exemption via nationalized dispensaries. They have cover from the fact it has been done in Canada and US and would have appealed to the yuff vote.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    The least Labour could have done is the legalized cannabis, which would definitely have actually brought in some extra tax revenue without depressing economic activity.

    I can promise you the stuff depresses my economic activity.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    Philip_Thompson said:

    RobD said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    RobD said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    IFS - Labour proposing the most punitive corporate tax system in the world

    There's your headline. Just f##k business, what is it good for anyway.

    Is it true that the most expensive parts of their manifesto weren't actually included in their costing?
    Any update to your chart with today's new poll(s)?
    I saw MORI, was there another?
    I just knew about MORI but wasn't sure if there were any more.
    Here you go -- https://imgur.com/EG550Ln

    I should start charging a penny for each view. I'd have literally pounds.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,609
    edited November 2019
    Jason said:

    numbertwelve said:

    Puzzled why Labour didn’t promise to write off existing student debt. This is what would really fire up young voters. They’ve thrown everything else in, they might as well have chucked this into the mix too!

    Those are my sentiments too. If you're going to bankrupt the country, why not go the whole hog?
    Those who thought Labour were shameless - well, we've found their shame point. They don't want to lie to students and be seen as bad as the LibDems.....
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,123
    RobD said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    RobD said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    RobD said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    IFS - Labour proposing the most punitive corporate tax system in the world

    There's your headline. Just f##k business, what is it good for anyway.

    Is it true that the most expensive parts of their manifesto weren't actually included in their costing?
    Any update to your chart with today's new poll(s)?
    I saw MORI, was there another?
    I just knew about MORI but wasn't sure if there were any more.
    Here you go -- https://imgur.com/EG550Ln

    I should start charging a penny for each view. I'd have literally pounds.
    Clear trend there from past 2 weeks, Labour stuck just below that 30% line, while the Tories have clearly picked up BXP voters.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,627
    MarqueeMark said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    RobD said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    IFS - Labour proposing the most punitive corporate tax system in the world

    There's your headline. Just f##k business, what is it good for anyway.

    Is it true that the most expensive parts of their manifesto weren't actually included in their costing?
    Yep. Over £0.6 trillion missing - and that's just on two items....
    Their costings are revenue based, not capital
    The first hours after an exit poll showing a Labour Govt. would see buttons pressed on the biggest flight of capital in human history.

    That would ensure revenues would crash.

    I certainly know of people preparing a metaphorical button to have their finger on, if required. They're watching polls very carefully. Singapore and Dubai will be very happy indeed if Labour wins, as I'm sure will be New York and Tokyo.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    contrarian said:

    I wonder if the its the lib dems who should be concerned about the labour manifesto.

    IF there's anything to put a gigantic rocket up the backside of tory waverers in the shires, its surely this.

    Obviously, as I said last-thread. This manifesto returns a swathe of wealthy southern seats to the Tories. Corbyn is Chavez, without the careful costings.

    He’s far far worse than any Brexit. Affluent English people will shudder and suffer Boris.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    RobD said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    The least Labour could have done is the legalized cannabis, which would definitely have actually brought in some extra tax revenue without depressing economic activity.

    Actually surprised that wasn't included.
    It honestly seemed like a no-brainer to me. At the very least, medical exemption via nationalized dispensaries. They have cover from the fact it has been done in Canada and US and would have appealed to the yuff vote.
    Wonder if it'll be in the blue manifesto. If there's a medical benefit to it, the stuff should be extracted and not administered by smoking a joint IMO (the stuff bloody reeks).
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,285
    Speaking as someone who has more direct experience of the maturity and judgement of sixteen year olds than most, can I say that lowering the voting age is a terrible idea.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    Slow clap for Labour

    https://order-order.com/2019/11/21/ifs-labour-proposing-punitive-corporate-tax-system-world/
  • ArthurArthur Posts: 63
    NorthofStoke said:

    camel said:

    Arthur said:

    Oop North...Labour are for One Yorkshire with a Mayor of Yorkshire; the Liberal Democrats go further and back a Yorkshire Parliament. What's the Tory position?

    I believe the tory position of the north is wholly unchanged from 1069.
    Free movement and votes for all residents could be the knock out punch.
    Labour say "full voting rights", which surely must mean in local and general elections...and in referendums. Around 2 million EU24 citizens (of EU states other than than Britain, Ireland, Malta, Cyprus) live in Britain. Majority in the 2016 referendum: 1.3 million. What a nutcase policy.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    Fysics_Teacher said:

    Speaking as someone who has more direct experience of the maturity and judgement of sixteen year olds than most, can I say that lowering the voting age is a terrible idea.

    Absolutely
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    RobD said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    RobD said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    RobD said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    IFS - Labour proposing the most punitive corporate tax system in the world

    There's your headline. Just f##k business, what is it good for anyway.

    Is it true that the most expensive parts of their manifesto weren't actually included in their costing?
    Any update to your chart with today's new poll(s)?
    I saw MORI, was there another?
    I just knew about MORI but wasn't sure if there were any more.
    Here you go -- https://imgur.com/EG550Ln

    I should start charging a penny for each view. I'd have literally pounds.
    Clear divergence of red line now. Possible black line crossover tomorrow?

    I wonder too if we might ultimately see blue line crossover too?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,844
    RobD said:

    noneoftheabove said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/MattHancock/status/1197409875334225925?s=20

    Rich people having to use their own money to pay for things. Whatever next?
    I mean if the proposal is to pay it out of general taxation, then the rich will be paying for it.
    So basically the generation that had free health care, free education, gold plated pensions, booming asset prices, triple lock state pensions, the benefits of EU membership, far richer than their predecessors and successors now need to become the first generation to get universal state paid for elderly care without any contributions or obligations.

    What chance that any free universal elderly care would still be available for the 20,30 and 40 somethings that are expected to pay for it? It is just not practical given the UK demographics without mass immigration to change the population curve.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    Fysics_Teacher said:

    Speaking as someone who has more direct experience of the maturity and judgement of sixteen year olds than most, can I say that lowering the voting age is a terrible idea.

    The Tories should propose to "review the voting age" in their manifesto, and then raise it once they get into office. :p
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited November 2019
    Byronic said:

    contrarian said:

    I wonder if the its the lib dems who should be concerned about the labour manifesto.

    IF there's anything to put a gigantic rocket up the backside of tory waverers in the shires, its surely this.

    Obviously, as I said last-thread. This manifesto returns a swathe of wealthy southern seats to the Tories. Corbyn is Chavez, without the careful costings.

    He’s far far worse than any Brexit. Affluent English people will shudder and suffer Boris.
    I'm not there yet, but it wouldn't take much of a lift in the Labour numbers to make me hold my nose.

    [West London; Labour seat; was Tory seat in 2010]
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    Arthur said:

    NorthofStoke said:

    camel said:

    Arthur said:

    Oop North...Labour are for One Yorkshire with a Mayor of Yorkshire; the Liberal Democrats go further and back a Yorkshire Parliament. What's the Tory position?

    I believe the tory position of the north is wholly unchanged from 1069.
    Free movement and votes for all residents could be the knock out punch.
    Labour say "full voting rights", which surely must mean in local and general elections...and in referendums. Around 2 million EU24 citizens (of EU states other than than Britain, Ireland, Malta, Cyprus) live in Britain. Majority in the 2016 referendum: 1.3 million. What a nutcase policy.
    It's a huge gerrymander. Hardly any countries allow non-citizens to vote in national elections. If you are that invested in a country, become a citizen.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,676
    MarqueeMark said:

    RobD said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    IFS - Labour proposing the most punitive corporate tax system in the world

    There's your headline. Just f##k business, what is it good for anyway.

    Is it true that the most expensive parts of their manifesto weren't actually included in their costing?
    Yep. Over £0.6 trillion missing - and that's just on two items....
    Are you a cretin?

    Or just in need of training about the difference between Capital (like the 40 or should we say 6 hospitals) and Revenue (like the £12500 NI change or should we say £9500)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,123
    RobD said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    RobD said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    The least Labour could have done is the legalized cannabis, which would definitely have actually brought in some extra tax revenue without depressing economic activity.

    Actually surprised that wasn't included.
    It honestly seemed like a no-brainer to me. At the very least, medical exemption via nationalized dispensaries. They have cover from the fact it has been done in Canada and US and would have appealed to the yuff vote.
    Wonder if it'll be in the blue manifesto. If there's a medical benefit to it, the stuff should be extracted and not administered by smoking a joint IMO (the stuff bloody reeks).
    I think a sensible government approach would be to say we are going to do proper research into it. I see all this push for CBD oil related stuff, my understanding is at best the evidence is anecdotal, at worst it is horseshit.

    Could even the blue rinse brigade get angry if they do proper clinical trials?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,844
    Fysics_Teacher said:

    Speaking as someone who has more direct experience of the maturity and judgement of sixteen year olds than most, can I say that lowering the voting age is a terrible idea.

    What is the judgement of dementia sufferers like? They vote.
    What is the judgement of alcoholics like? They vote.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,560
    Endillion said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    In the Q&A session after his speech, he was asked by one student what he would do for graduates who had already accrued huge amounts of debt from paying £9,000 a year in university fees.

    This morning, shadow education secretary Angela Rayner had said Labour would "look at" this issue if it wins power - and Mr Corbyn was similarly vague in his answer.

    I genuinely don't know why they just didn't promise to write it all off. I mean they are spaffing £100bns anyway, its all just crazy massive bankrupting amounts now.

    I've been wondering this too. It's relatively easy to justify as well: you just have to point out how much of it won't ever be repaid anyway.

    The only thing I can come up with is that they actually believe that the stuff about nationalisation is genuinely cost neutral.
    Their obvious difficulty is that they are writing off debts for those who haven't paid, while keeping the payments of those who have, and of those who paid up front. A bit of a fairness issue there, hence their hesitation.



  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    edited November 2019
    SandyRentool said:

    Brom said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/1197507032468918272?s=20

    Tactical voting is going to be very difficult in 90% of seats. The Lib Dems are just so far behind yet realistically with Tory to LD movers they are the only ones that can realistically take seats in 'safe Tory' areas. But how do you convince people of that when Labour came 2nd in 2017?

    Similar the Tories could lose 10 seats in Scotland, but if you vote tactically to stop Brexit then you'll weaken the Union. If this was 2010 or 2015 it would be far, far easier for tactical voting to be successful.
    The result of the election all rests on how efficiently the Labour and LibDem votes are distributed. More important than absolute vote share.

    We need the 'clever' pollsters' models to reveal this.
    We've had constituency polls from remainy Tory seats, from remainy Labour seats and from Brexity Northern seats, it appears Labour isn't doing well in any of them, and these are different pollsters and different fieldwork dates. Which makes you wonder what is going on. Either way they need some real movement by the end of the week.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    Sandpit said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    RobD said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    IFS - Labour proposing the most punitive corporate tax system in the world

    There's your headline. Just f##k business, what is it good for anyway.

    Is it true that the most expensive parts of their manifesto weren't actually included in their costing?
    Yep. Over £0.6 trillion missing - and that's just on two items....
    Their costings are revenue based, not capital
    The first hours after an exit poll showing a Labour Govt. would see buttons pressed on the biggest flight of capital in human history.

    That would ensure revenues would crash.

    I certainly know of people preparing a metaphorical button to have their finger on, if required. They're watching polls very carefully. Singapore and Dubai will be very happy indeed if Labour wins, as I'm sure will be New York and Tokyo.
    How does a Brit protect wealth from a potential Corbyn government? Seriously. How???
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    edited November 2019
    noneoftheabove said:

    Fysics_Teacher said:

    Speaking as someone who has more direct experience of the maturity and judgement of sixteen year olds than most, can I say that lowering the voting age is a terrible idea.

    What is the judgement of dementia sufferers like? They vote.
    What is the judgement of alcoholics like? They vote.
    But they are proposing extending the suffrage to include extra people with terrible judgement, so I'm not sure how this is relevant unless you want to make voting illegal for dementia sufferers?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    CarlottaVance said:

    https://twitter.com/hthjones/status/1197507542550745088?s=20

    I don't see the contradiction, Corbyn always rebels against a Labour government on issues like that.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,231
    This Labour manifesto is not a programme for government - winning a majority is not feasible - but about framing future political debate. The ideas is that things thought not even worthy of discussion following the Thatcher revolution become at least a part of the conversation, merits and demerits considered just as happens with policies from other parties. It is, if I may demonstrate a little panache here, an attempt to move the "Overton Window". Which IMO is both welcome and necessary.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    noneoftheabove said:

    Fysics_Teacher said:

    Speaking as someone who has more direct experience of the maturity and judgement of sixteen year olds than most, can I say that lowering the voting age is a terrible idea.

    What is the judgement of dementia sufferers like? They vote.
    If you are at the stage at which you require dementia care, you will not be voting.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    Any idiot Remainer who votes tactically against the Tories and risks this repulsive communist lunacy is a fucking moron who DESERVES to have their nice Home Counties house seized by the Corbynite Wealth Gestapo. Wise up you twats.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,609
    SandyRentool said:

    Brom said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/1197507032468918272?s=20

    Tactical voting is going to be very difficult in 90% of seats. The Lib Dems are just so far behind yet realistically with Tory to LD movers they are the only ones that can realistically take seats in 'safe Tory' areas. But how do you convince people of that when Labour came 2nd in 2017?

    Similar the Tories could lose 10 seats in Scotland, but if you vote tactically to stop Brexit then you'll weaken the Union. If this was 2010 or 2015 it would be far, far easier for tactical voting to be successful.
    The result of the election all rests on how efficiently the Labour and LibDem votes are distributed. More important than absolute vote share.

    We need the 'clever' pollsters' models to reveal this.
    Asking LibDems to vote for anti-semites to introduce the Venezeulan economy is the slight difficulty Labour have in promoting tactical voting.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    kinabalu said:

    This Labour manifesto is not a programme for government - winning a majority is not feasible - but about framing future political debate. The ideas is that things thought not even worthy of discussion following the Thatcher revolution become at least a part of the conversation, merits and demerits considered just as happens with policies from other parties. It is, if I may demonstrate a little panache here, an attempt to move the "Overton Window". Which IMO is both welcome and necessary.

    How much will the window get moved if they get crushed at the election?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,844
    RobD said:

    noneoftheabove said:

    Fysics_Teacher said:

    Speaking as someone who has more direct experience of the maturity and judgement of sixteen year olds than most, can I say that lowering the voting age is a terrible idea.

    What is the judgement of dementia sufferers like? They vote.
    What is the judgement of alcoholics like? They vote.
    But they are proposing extending the suffrage to include extra people with terrible judgement, so I'm not sure how this is relevant unless you want to make voting illegal for dementia sufferers?
    I am agnostic on votes at 16 or 18 but if it is to be judgement based then 16-18 year olds are on average, far better suited than dementia sufferers. (And if it were truly judgement based we would be rid of both Johnson and Corbyn).
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    noneoftheabove said:

    Fysics_Teacher said:

    Speaking as someone who has more direct experience of the maturity and judgement of sixteen year olds than most, can I say that lowering the voting age is a terrible idea.

    What is the judgement of dementia sufferers like? They vote.
    What is the judgement of alcoholics like? They vote.
    Amazing argument. Because some people with poor judgement vote, we should have more people with poor judgement vote.

    Forensic. Incisive. Victorious!
This discussion has been closed.