Merely another organisation using YouGov data and applying their own methodology.
Yes, I thought I detected some weaslery in Shippers words:
"Datapraxis ran 270,000 YouGov interviews through their own predictive MRP model (like the ones that predicted the last election)" (my bold)
Interesting. They appear to have constituency-based data since they're opining about precise figures in individualk seats, so it's presumably done in cojunction with YouGov. But it seems extremely unlikely to be demographically balanced by constituency, doesn't it?
It's a MRP poll. They are cross referencing precise constituency demographics to a detailed breakdown of the demographics and geography of the source sample to produce constituency estimates.
Isn't Bayesian updating somehow involved (recalling a paper of Nate Silver's)?
I think this MRP will be too much dara over too long a time period. Lib Dems will be at pre squeeze strength.
*IF* that's the case and you're implying that the model overstates the Lib Dems' strength then they could be in very serious trouble: back down below 10 seats?
I'd be very surprised - I've got them marked down for around 20 - but I think we've all been surprised by rather a lot of electoral outcomes in recent years...
The anecdotal data, including various constituency polls, seems to suggest the LD vote is heavily focused in seats they stand a chance in. If so, an overall 12-15% vote for them could deliver many more seats than UNS would predict.
But MRP doesn't use UNS.
No, I get that.
I am not sure MRP caters for tactical voting either, happy to be corrected.
Have I got this right? Johnson seems to be heading to a majority and yet he is now promising to lock his chancellor into no income, NI or VAT changes for 5 years.
What if there is a massive recession or some kind of other threat to the public finances?
I find it difficult to believe the LDs are only going to win 14 seats.
They will be relying on a ground campaign to pull over Labour voters tactically, in those key seats. Hence all the leaflets a few lucky PB’ers have been getting. Three more weeks of leaflets to go.
Just been reading the BBC preview of the Tory manifesto. Now, obviously the document hasn't actually been launched yet so there could be some big ticket items that have been left out. However, assuming they've got their facts straight, the headline items are:
* Pension Triple Lock and OAP bus passes to continue * A Tax Triple Lock to be announced (no increases in income tax, NI or VAT during the next Parliament) * An increase in the NI threshold to £9,500 next year (with an 'ambition,' so presumably not a pledge, to make further increases during the next Parliament) * Free hospital parking - but only for some protected groups * A fund to provide out of hours childcare for school age children * A fund to help fix potholes * A national skills fund * Some green initiatives (home energy efficiency fund and a ban on exporting plastic waste to developing economies)
I guess that Getting Brexit Done will feature very prominently as well but clearly the author of this write-up took that as a given. No mention, however, of anything to do with social care...
The cost of some, but not all, of the policies is listed, but on the face of it it looks like small beer relative to Labour's list of spending pledges. The Government is clearly betting the farm on (relative) fiscal continence, and hoping that the traditional Labour voters they are trying to convert don't succumb to the promise from Mr McDonnell of all those tempting goodies.
Adding the latest Delta and ComRes poll into the EMA hardly moves the dial. A move of one seat from the Con column to Lab. Lab now just hold Weaver Vale.
I think this MRP will be too much dara over too long a time period. Lib Dems will be at pre squeeze strength.
*IF* that's the case and you're implying that the model overstates the Lib Dems' strength then they could be in very serious trouble: back down below 10 seats?
I'd be very surprised - I've got them marked down for around 20 - but I think we've all been surprised by rather a lot of electoral outcomes in recent years...
The anecdotal data, including various constituency polls, seems to suggest the LD vote is heavily focused in seats they stand a chance in. If so, an overall 12-15% vote for them could deliver many more seats than UNS would predict.
But MRP doesn't use UNS.
No, I get that.
I am not sure MRP caters for tactical voting either, happy to be corrected.
It does, because every voter is asked about their specific constituency.
The proper YouGov MRP gives you the ballot paper for your specific constituency.
I think this MRP will be too much dara over too long a time period. Lib Dems will be at pre squeeze strength.
*IF* that's the case and you're implying that the model overstates the Lib Dems' strength then they could be in very serious trouble: back down below 10 seats?
I'd be very surprised - I've got them marked down for around 20 - but I think we've all been surprised by rather a lot of electoral outcomes in recent years...
The anecdotal data, including various constituency polls, seems to suggest the LD vote is heavily focused in seats they stand a chance in. If so, an overall 12-15% vote for them could deliver many more seats than UNS would predict.
But MRP doesn't use UNS.
No, I get that.
I am not sure MRP caters for tactical voting either, happy to be corrected.
I don’t think we have enough detail to know. Certainly YouGov will pick up people intending to vote tactically from their survey (it contains a specific question asking about it). But you couldn’t correlate that with demographics and then read across to every other constituency, since it depends on local politics. The clever way to do it would be to categorise seats into categories - for example Tory/LibDem marginals - and then isolate the trends from the panel members in those seats. I have a vague recollection from 2017 that YouGov did something like this, but I am not sure.
Have I got this right? Johnson seems to be heading to a majority and yet he is now promising to lock his chancellor into no income, NI or VAT changes for 5 years.
What if there is a massive recession or some kind of other threat to the public finances?
Bonkers.
Or just lying.
When has Boris ever in his life felt bound by any promise he has made? Banning tube strikes. Lie in front of the bulldozers. Customs Border down the Irish Sea. Dying in a ditch. Etc.
I think this MRP will be too much dara over too long a time period. Lib Dems will be at pre squeeze strength.
*IF* that's the case and you're implying that the model overstates the Lib Dems' strength then they could be in very serious trouble: back down below 10 seats?
I'd be very surprised - I've got them marked down for around 20 - but I think we've all been surprised by rather a lot of electoral outcomes in recent years...
The anecdotal data, including various constituency polls, seems to suggest the LD vote is heavily focused in seats they stand a chance in. If so, an overall 12-15% vote for them could deliver many more seats than UNS would predict.
But MRP doesn't use UNS.
No, I get that.
I am not sure MRP caters for tactical voting either, happy to be corrected.
It does, because every voter is asked about their specific constituency.
The proper YouGov MRP gives you the ballot paper for your specific constituency.
The YouGov that I did earlier this week did exactly that, and confirmed demographic data. There was a specific question on tactical voting if the only two realistic candidates were Con and LD.
Have I got this right? Johnson seems to be heading to a majority and yet he is now promising to lock his chancellor into no income, NI or VAT changes for 5 years.
What if there is a massive recession or some kind of other threat to the public finances?
Bonkers.
Or just lying.
In the event of a serious emergency they can plead changing circumstances. In the event of a less serious emergency they'll presumably use cuts, borrowing and sources of revenue not covered by the promise (e.g. corporation tax and CGT) to cover the gaps.
Also, interestingly, no mention of the IHT threshold in reports so far, either.
Have I got this right? Johnson seems to be heading to a majority and yet he is now promising to lock his chancellor into no income, NI or VAT changes for 5 years.
What if there is a massive recession or some kind of other threat to the public finances?
Bonkers.
Or just lying.
In the event of a serious emergency they can plead changing circumstances. In the event of a less serious emergency they'll presumably use cuts, borrowing and sources of revenue not covered by the promise (e.g. corporation tax and CGT) to cover the gaps.
Also, interestingly, no mention of the IHT threshold in reports so far, either.
He can always freeze all the allowances. To pick one from dozens of potential tricks.
Have I got this right? Johnson seems to be heading to a majority and yet he is now promising to lock his chancellor into no income, NI or VAT changes for 5 years.
What if there is a massive recession or some kind of other threat to the public finances?
Bonkers.
Or just lying.
In the event of a serious emergency they can plead changing circumstances. In the event of a less serious emergency they'll presumably use cuts, borrowing and sources of revenue not covered by the promise (e.g. corporation tax and CGT) to cover the gaps.
Also, interestingly, no mention of the IHT threshold in reports so far, either.
I am old skool enough to think that blocking all changes to the main personal tax rates is economically stupid.
I think this MRP will be too much dara over too long a time period. Lib Dems will be at pre squeeze strength.
*IF* that's the case and you're implying that the model overstates the Lib Dems' strength then they could be in very serious trouble: back down below 10 seats?
I'd be very surprised - I've got them marked down for around 20 - but I think we've all been surprised by rather a lot of electoral outcomes in recent years...
The anecdotal data, including various constituency polls, seems to suggest the LD vote is heavily focused in seats they stand a chance in. If so, an overall 12-15% vote for them could deliver many more seats than UNS would predict.
But MRP doesn't use UNS.
No, I get that.
I am not sure MRP caters for tactical voting either, happy to be corrected.
It does, because every voter is asked about their specific constituency.
The proper YouGov MRP gives you the ballot paper for your specific constituency.
The YouGov that I did earlier this week did exactly that, and confirmed demographic data. There was a specific question on tactical voting if the only two realistic candidates were Con and LD.
The question, though, is what they do with the data. I am sure they are clever enough to be modelling this by type of seat. Whether their assumptions are right, who can say, but they did pretty well last time.
Interesting to see the detail on the hospital car parking charges policy. The RVI in Newcastle is right in the middle of the city and its car parks are constantly full, so much so that staff are not allowed to park there.
No charges and it will be used by shoppers or commuters and the problem will get worse.
I find it difficult to believe the LDs are only going to win 14 seats.
A straight Revoke is neither liberal nor democratic. They have pissed off an awful lot of reasonable folk in the middle.
Then add in Swinsomnia.
You must be confident of holding NE Fife.
Theoretically NE Fife should be a shoo-in for the SLDs, as there is a vast pool of SCon voters (10,088 in 2017) to milk.
However, the Lib Dems have done everything in their power to piss-off conservative-minded folk; the SNP have a decent SLab vote to milk (4,026); and the incumbent MP Stephen Gethins is outstanding.
I think this MRP will be too much dara over too long a time period. Lib Dems will be at pre squeeze strength.
*IF* that's the case and you're implying that the model overstates the Lib Dems' strength then they could be in very serious trouble: back down below 10 seats?
I'd be very surprised - I've got them marked down for around 20 - but I think we've all been surprised by rather a lot of electoral outcomes in recent years...
The anecdotal data, including various constituency polls, seems to suggest the LD vote is heavily focused in seats they stand a chance in. If so, an overall 12-15% vote for them could deliver many more seats than UNS would predict.
This is what leaves me thinking that it's most likely that Johnson *just* squeaks a majority. If the Labour and Lib Dem vote is efficient as this suggests then the quirks of FPTP may leave Johnson raking in votes in leave areas for a large vote lead but with a minuscule majority. I'm beginning to rule out a hung parliament but I think a Tory landslide is wishful thinking and then some at present.
There's an awful lot of guessing going on here. Which is inevitable. Nobody has access to a Tardis so we can't just nip forward a few weeks and see what actually happens.
It is just as plausible to imagine that the LDs chuck all their resources at a handful of seats, fail to take most of them, lose a handful of the ones they already possess and end up getting absolutely nowhere.
I'm sticking with my prediction of about 20-22 for them, for the time being, but a result in single figures is not inconceivable. After all, most of us were caught on the hop when they were driven all the way down to 8 in 2015.
Just been reading the BBC preview of the Tory manifesto. Now, obviously the document hasn't actually been launched yet so there could be some big ticket items that have been left out. However, assuming they've got their facts straight, the headline items are:
* Pension Triple Lock and OAP bus passes to continue * A Tax Triple Lock to be announced (no increases in income tax, NI or VAT during the next Parliament) * An increase in the NI threshold to £9,500 next year (with an 'ambition,' so presumably not a pledge, to make further increases during the next Parliament) * Free hospital parking - but only for some protected groups * A fund to provide out of hours childcare for school age children * A fund to help fix potholes * A national skills fund * Some green initiatives (home energy efficiency fund and a ban on exporting plastic waste to developing economies)
I guess that Getting Brexit Done will feature very prominently as well but clearly the author of this write-up took that as a given. No mention, however, of anything to do with social care...
The cost of some, but not all, of the policies is listed, but on the face of it it looks like small beer relative to Labour's list of spending pledges. The Government is clearly betting the farm on (relative) fiscal continence, and hoping that the traditional Labour voters they are trying to convert don't succumb to the promise from Mr McDonnell of all those tempting goodies.
That is pretty similar to my model, which awards the Tories 353 seats, Labour 205, Lib Dem 18, SNP 51, Green 1 and PC 4, for a majority of 62. Waiting for the next Survation though to update the results.
The MRP gives:(compared with the last election, and ignoring defections in between):
Con+31 Lab -49 LD +6 SNP +14 Plaid +1 - not sure where the 3 extra seats come from there, but overall a clear picture. What would be helpful (and I imagine we'll get) is an indication of what happens if anyone goes up or down a few points - that will show how sensitive the model is to small changes overall.
Note that this is based on a LOT of YouGov data, so unlikely to be just the last couple of days. But the Tory lead has been pretty steady so it's likely to be broadly right.
Weren’t Carswell and TPD still MPs going into 2017?
That is pretty similar to my model, which awards the Tories 353 seats, Labour 205, Lib Dem 18, SNP 51, Green 1 and PC 4, for a majority of 62. Waiting for the next Survation though to update the results.
The MRP gives:(compared with the last election, and ignoring defections in between):
Con+31 Lab -49 LD +6 SNP +14 Plaid +1 - not sure where the 3 extra seats come from there, but overall a clear picture. What would be helpful (and I imagine we'll get) is an indication of what happens if anyone goes up or down a few points - that will show how sensitive the model is to small changes overall.
Note that this is based on a LOT of YouGov data, so unlikely to be just the last couple of days. But the Tory lead has been pretty steady so it's likely to be broadly right.
Weren’t Carswell and TPD still MPs going into 2017?
I think only Carswell was. TPD lost his seat in 2015.
I find it difficult to believe the LDs are only going to win 14 seats.
They will be relying on a ground campaign to pull over Labour voters tactically, in those key seats. Hence all the leaflets a few lucky PB’ers have been getting. Three more weeks of leaflets to go.
On the leaflet front another 2 from LD today and 1 from CON in F&GG still zero from Lab
They're desperate for something to attack, having left themselves utterly exposed, but the Tories seem to have their defences on full.
Not the worst tactical position to be in.
The Conservative core vote does relatively well out of the current settlement: historically low levels of unemployment and interest rates, economy not roaring ahead but not in recession either. Overall it's a good time to be middle-class and it's an especially good time to be a middle-class pensioner.
It does raise the concern that they're not doing enough to address pressing structural problems (although we've not seen the actual manifesto yet, so we don't know what else of significance, if anything, has yet to be revealed.) However, the Tories are never going to win by engaging in a public spending bidding war with Labour. The strategy for winning the marginals is to exploit swing voters' exhaustion with Brexit and distaste for Corbyn. That requires (a) leaving the EU and (b) not being Corbyn. It doesn't require additional promises to spend £373 trillion on everything.
The great gamble the Tories are taking with this election is two-fold: that Labour's spending pledges look unrealistic and so fail to tempt the swing voters, and that the Labour defectors don't wobble anyway and go back home out of tribal loyalty. If it comes off and the Tories maintain a healthy lead then they win.
On topic, this all seems a bit unlikely. A successful Trump impeachment is just about possible - though with the party almost entirely in thrall to him, getting the Senate votes is a huge stretch. But time, electoral expediency (several Democratic Senators have rather pressing commitments) and the availability of other remedies like criminal charges, makes going after the subordinates unlikely.
They would leave the party of Trump with the problem of what do do about Pence.
I call on Sadiq Khan to resign! (Geography was never a strong point). I did once stay in The Hotel Campanile on Chester Street. Not easy to sleep with random gunfire throughout the night.
That is pretty similar to my model, which awards the Tories 353 seats, Labour 205, Lib Dem 18, SNP 51, Green 1 and PC 4, for a majority of 62. Waiting for the next Survation though to update the results.
The MRP gives:(compared with the last election, and ignoring defections in between):
Con+31 Lab -49 LD +6 SNP +14 Plaid +1 - not sure where the 3 extra seats come from there, but overall a clear picture. What would be helpful (and I imagine we'll get) is an indication of what happens if anyone goes up or down a few points - that will show how sensitive the model is to small changes overall.
Note that this is based on a LOT of YouGov data, so unlikely to be just the last couple of days. But the Tory lead has been pretty steady so it's likely to be broadly right.
Wiki now correct. 6 polls done since Lab manifesto:
- 5 polls have Con between 41 and 43. Opinium the clear outlier at 47 - All 6 polls have Lab between 28 and 32 - Much more variation for LDs - range from 12 to 18
Isn't a pothole fund a bit cones hotline? It's certainly something people moan about a lot, but Tories have been promising money to fix potholes since the days of Osborne as Chancellor, but not normally as a key pledge in a manifesto.
If the Labour manifesto promised too much, the Conservative manifesto looks like it promises too little. The country has serious problems that a pothole fund is not going to fix. It feels unserious.
Can we have a map of the distribution of those involved against marginals?
The 'historic wrong' is apparently them getting the state pension at the same age as mend get it.
The claim is that equalisation was introduced too rapidly, and the affected women were left with insufficient time to prepare. My mother was one of them and she certainly wasn't best pleased. I don't know enough about the situation to advance a definite opinion one way or another as to whether it was brought in too fast.
However, the difference in pension ages was sexist and could not be justified. Equalisation had to come, and some age cohort would have to work longer as a result. All those of us who had hoped to claim the state pension at 65 and are now having to wait one, two or three extra years (and, personally, I doubt if I'll get mine before 70 by the time future Governments have finished) are in the same boat. It's just tough luck.
Now in hands of BBC - but surely Govt should simply force BBC to fund it.
They can threaten Licence Fee freeze from 2022 if BBC doesn't agree.
Freeze isn't good enough. Go the whole hog and abolish it!
Please don't. Defunded public broadcasting results in no standard bearer and a race to the bottom. That brings American style cable news and, ultimately, Trumpism.
That is pretty similar to my model, which awards the Tories 353 seats, Labour 205, Lib Dem 18, SNP 51, Green 1 and PC 4, for a majority of 62. Waiting for the next Survation though to update the results.
The MRP gives:(compared with the last election, and ignoring defections in between):
Con+31 Lab -49 LD +6 SNP +14 Plaid +1 - not sure where the 3 extra seats come from there, but overall a clear picture. What would be helpful (and I imagine we'll get) is an indication of what happens if anyone goes up or down a few points - that will show how sensitive the model is to small changes overall.
Note that this is based on a LOT of YouGov data, so unlikely to be just the last couple of days. But the Tory lead has been pretty steady so it's likely to be broadly right.
Weren’t Carswell and TPD still MPs going into 2017?
The comparison is supposedly with the 2017 result, not that at dissolution beforehand, but it's inaccurate.
Now in hands of BBC - but surely Govt should simply force BBC to fund it.
They can threaten Licence Fee freeze from 2022 if BBC doesn't agree.
Freeze isn't good enough. Go the whole hog and abolish it!
Please don't. Defunded public broadcasting results in no standard bearer and a race to the bottom. That brings American style cable news and, ultimately, Trumpism.
...or Johnsonism?
Would that be the public service broadcasting that substituted Boris laying a wreath upside down at The Cenotaph, with 3 year old footage of him getting it right?
Can we have a map of the distribution of those involved against marginals?
The 'historic wrong' is apparently them getting the state pension at the same age as mend get it.
The claim is that equalisation was introduced too rapidly, and the affected women were left with insufficient time to prepare. My mother was one of them and she certainly wasn't best pleased. I don't know enough about the situation to advance a definite opinion one way or another as to whether it was brought in too fast.
However, the difference in pension ages was sexist and could not be justified. Equalisation had to come, and some age cohort would have to work longer as a result. All those of us who had hoped to claim the state pension at 65 and are now having to wait one, two or three extra years (and, personally, I doubt if I'll get mine before 70 by the time future Governments have finished) are in the same boat. It's just tough luck.
I think Alistair has a pretty definitive word on the notification of the changes.
Those I know who are affected (not many admittedly) are spitting mad about it, so its a good grey vote bribe, but I cannot say I detecy much sympathy from the younger people I know - those expecting to retire at 70 or older, if ever, struggle with it being an outrage.
It's also another example of a situation where the main point of contention, in this case rapidity of equalisation and notification, is used when the actions and words of those protesting seems to indicating the change itself is what they don't like, but know that is a weaker argument.
It's a classic NIMBY style argument you see in planning where people say they want more consultation or evidence, to delay things, when in fact they want to stop something and no evidence or consultation will be deemed sufficient. What could/should have been done which would have worked or satisfied those angry now?
Can we have a map of the distribution of those involved against marginals?
The 'historic wrong' is apparently them getting the state pension at the same age as mend get it.
The claim is that equalisation was introduced too rapidly, and the affected women were left with insufficient time to prepare. My mother was one of them and she certainly wasn't best pleased. I don't know enough about the situation to advance a definite opinion one way or another as to whether it was brought in too fast.
However, the difference in pension ages was sexist and could not be justified. Equalisation had to come, and some age cohort would have to work longer as a result. All those of us who had hoped to claim the state pension at 65 and are now having to wait one, two or three extra years (and, personally, I doubt if I'll get mine before 70 by the time future Governments have finished) are in the same boat. It's just tough luck.
That is pretty similar to my model, which awards the Tories 353 seats, Labour 205, Lib Dem 18, SNP 51, Green 1 and PC 4, for a majority of 62. Waiting for the next Survation though to update the results.
The MRP gives:(compared with the last election, and ignoring defections in between):
Con+31 Lab -49 LD +6 SNP +14 Plaid +1 - not sure where the 3 extra seats come from there, but overall a clear picture. What would be helpful (and I imagine we'll get) is an indication of what happens if anyone goes up or down a few points - that will show how sensitive the model is to small changes overall.
Note that this is based on a LOT of YouGov data, so unlikely to be just the last couple of days. But the Tory lead has been pretty steady so it's likely to be broadly right.
Weren’t Carswell and TPD still MPs going into 2017?
I think only Carswell was. TPD lost his seat in 2015.
Carswell was an MP in 2017. Having resigned from UKIP in March 2017, for a couple of months he was an Independent. He did not stand for re-election in June 2017.
Reckless lost in 2015, to Kelly Tolhurst, the Tory whom he defeated in 2014.
Free parking for the night shift, disabled and terminally ill only according to Sky Papers.
Shock horror that the Telegraph churns out another headline that's a load of bollocks to help their mate. I had a great respect for the Telegraph until they became the official mouthpiece of the Prime Minister.
Have I got this right? Johnson seems to be heading to a majority and yet he is now promising to lock his chancellor into no income, NI or VAT changes for 5 years.
What if there is a massive recession or some kind of other threat to the public finances?
Bonkers.
Or just lying.
If you head into a recession the last thing you would do is tighten fiscal policy (I think he said no *increase* not no *change*)
Can we have a map of the distribution of those involved against marginals?
The 'historic wrong' is apparently them getting the state pension at the same age as mend get it.
The claim is that equalisation was introduced too rapidly, and the affected women were left with insufficient time to prepare. My mother was one of them and she certainly wasn't best pleased. I don't know enough about the situation to advance a definite opinion one way or another as to whether it was brought in too fast.
However, the difference in pension ages was sexist and could not be justified. Equalisation had to come, and some age cohort would have to work longer as a result. All those of us who had hoped to claim the state pension at 65 and are now having to wait one, two or three extra years (and, personally, I doubt if I'll get mine before 70 by the time future Governments have finished) are in the same boat. It's just tough luck.
Good luck in the sense that one of the primary drivers for this is that we're living longer. If/when that changes things will be different.
Now in hands of BBC - but surely Govt should simply force BBC to fund it.
They can threaten Licence Fee freeze from 2022 if BBC doesn't agree.
Freeze isn't good enough. Go the whole hog and abolish it!
Please don't. Defunded public broadcasting results in no standard bearer and a race to the bottom. That brings American style cable news and, ultimately, Trumpism.
I couldn't care less if there's a standard bearer or not and our regulations on TV news standards are not related to the Licence Fee. ITN and Sky News have the same regulations and so could a privatised or voluntary-subscription rather than compulsory-subscription BBC.
Isn't a pothole fund a bit cones hotline? It's certainly something people moan about a lot, but Tories have been promising money to fix potholes since the days of Osborne as Chancellor, but not normally as a key pledge in a manifesto.
If the Labour manifesto promised too much, the Conservative manifesto looks like it promises too little. The country has serious problems that a pothole fund is not going to fix. It feels unserious.
There are spending pledges but clearly they're attempting to play the fiscal responsibility card by keeping them relatively modest.
Beyond that, there must be more to come. Sitting down and thinking about some of the things we've heard in just the last few days, the summary I've read so far doesn't say anything about the reintroduction of nursing bursaries, the new and refurbished hospitals or HS2.
Isn't a pothole fund a bit cones hotline? It's certainly something people moan about a lot, but Tories have been promising money to fix potholes since the days of Osborne as Chancellor, but not normally as a key pledge in a manifesto.
If the Labour manifesto promised too much, the Conservative manifesto looks like it promises too little. The country has serious problems that a pothole fund is not going to fix. It feels unserious.
There are spending pledges but clearly they're attempting to play the fiscal responsibility card by keeping them relatively modest.
Beyond that, there must be more to come. Sitting down and thinking about some of the things we've heard in just the last few days, the summary I've read so far doesn't say anything about the reintroduction of nursing bursaries, the new and refurbished hospitals or HS2.
There definitely has to be more to come otherwise their pledge of austerity being over is an outright lie. I'm willing to bet most voters want the spending taps to open now even if people differ as to where and to what extent.
Free parking for the night shift, disabled and terminally ill only according to Sky Papers.
Shock horror that the Telegraph churns out another headline that's a load of bollocks to help their mate. I had a great respect for the Telegraph until they became the official mouthpiece of the Prime Minister.
You had respect for them as the Daily Borisgraph, as they were before he became PM?
The Tories will have to put some more stuff in there - otherwise they'll just enhance the stereotype of "more of the same" which seems an open goal for Labour
That’s some drop in the Deltapoll favourability for Bozo .
Perhaps the get Brexit done is now beginning to grate on some people . As for the Labour policy to compensate women hit by the pension change . It looks a bit desperate but it’s one pledge you couldn’t get away with not keeping .
Isn't a pothole fund a bit cones hotline? It's certainly something people moan about a lot, but Tories have been promising money to fix potholes since the days of Osborne as Chancellor, but not normally as a key pledge in a manifesto.
If the Labour manifesto promised too much, the Conservative manifesto looks like it promises too little. The country has serious problems that a pothole fund is not going to fix. It feels unserious.
There are spending pledges but clearly they're attempting to play the fiscal responsibility card by keeping them relatively modest.
Beyond that, there must be more to come. Sitting down and thinking about some of the things we've heard in just the last few days, the summary I've read so far doesn't say anything about the reintroduction of nursing bursaries, the new and refurbished hospitals or HS2.
There definitely has to be more to come otherwise their pledge of austerity being over is an outright lie. I'm willing to bet most voters want the spending taps to open now even if people differ as to where and to what extent.
LOL people have been complaining that the Tories are pledging too much spending, now apparently its not enough?
Seems like they've trailed their big commitments and the manifesto confirms those and shows some realism rather than throwing bucketloads at everything.
Free parking for the night shift, disabled and terminally ill only according to Sky Papers.
Shock horror that the Telegraph churns out another headline that's a load of bollocks to help their mate. I had a great respect for the Telegraph until they became the official mouthpiece of the Prime Minister.
You had respect for them as the Daily Borisgraph, as they were before he became PM?
I usually ignored Boris' column but I thought the political journalism was at least in some way objective compared to at present. It's becoming the Express lite.
Isn't a pothole fund a bit cones hotline? It's certainly something people moan about a lot, but Tories have been promising money to fix potholes since the days of Osborne as Chancellor, but not normally as a key pledge in a manifesto.
If the Labour manifesto promised too much, the Conservative manifesto looks like it promises too little. The country has serious problems that a pothole fund is not going to fix. It feels unserious.
There are spending pledges but clearly they're attempting to play the fiscal responsibility card by keeping them relatively modest.
Beyond that, there must be more to come. Sitting down and thinking about some of the things we've heard in just the last few days, the summary I've read so far doesn't say anything about the reintroduction of nursing bursaries, the new and refurbished hospitals or HS2.
There definitely has to be more to come otherwise their pledge of austerity being over is an outright lie. I'm willing to bet most voters want the spending taps to open now even if people differ as to where and to what extent.
And that'll be a central theme of the Tory pitch: we're promising goodies that can be afforded, together with some nice tax freezes (and one cut, the NI threshold change.) Our spending is proportionate, Labour's is crazy - they'll fail to deliver and risk ruining the country trying.
In all seriousness though, if Boris is freezing income tax, VAT and NI for 5 years, then even with reckless borrowing and not quite as much spending as Labour, how is he paying for things?
Personally a pledge not to raise any of those three things for five years is one of those 'too good to be true, or if true actually a bad idea' kind of arguments, it just sounds implausible to me.
Isn't a pothole fund a bit cones hotline? It's certainly something people moan about a lot, but Tories have been promising money to fix potholes since the days of Osborne as Chancellor, but not normally as a key pledge in a manifesto.
If the Labour manifesto promised too much, the Conservative manifesto looks like it promises too little. The country has serious problems that a pothole fund is not going to fix. It feels unserious.
There are spending pledges but clearly they're attempting to play the fiscal responsibility card by keeping them relatively modest.
Beyond that, there must be more to come. Sitting down and thinking about some of the things we've heard in just the last few days, the summary I've read so far doesn't say anything about the reintroduction of nursing bursaries, the new and refurbished hospitals or HS2.
There definitely has to be more to come otherwise their pledge of austerity being over is an outright lie. I'm willing to bet most voters want the spending taps to open now even if people differ as to where and to what extent.
LOL people have been complaining that the Tories are pledging too much spending, now apparently its not enough?
Seems like they've trailed their big commitments and the manifesto confirms those and shows some realism rather than throwing bucketloads at everything.
I never thought the Tories were pledging too much spending prior to the election, I just thought it looked quite opportunistic from the party that had preached fiscal responsibility for the last 9 years to reverse ferret in the fashion it did. If they're going to do it, they should follow through properly and put at least a couple of big ticket items on the agenda.
Hmm, I wonder why this pledge made it into the manifesto:
The Conservatives have vowed to ban councils from boycotting products from Israel.
A pledge in their election manifesto, to be launched on Sunday, says: “We will ban public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries. These undermine community cohesion
The Tories will have to put some more stuff in there - otherwise they'll just enhance the stereotype of "more of the same" which seems an open goal for Labour
Labour's £83 billion+ worth of direct tax rises plus endless unfunded nationalisations is the biggest open goal in modern times. The actual Conservative manifesto release should contain a few bigger commitments around which to anchor the latter stages of the campaign.
In all seriousness though, if Boris is freezing income tax, VAT and NI for 5 years, then even with reckless borrowing and not quite as much spending as Labour, how is he paying for things?
Personally a pledge not to raise any of those three things for five years is one of those 'too good to be true, or if true actually a bad idea' kind of arguments, it just sounds implausible to me.
Javid is going to allow himself some extra borrowing for investment. Beyond that, tax rises in some areas not yet mentioned (we already know that one has been floated, the extra stamp duty on foreign property buyers,) and spending cuts in lower priority areas?
Or it could all just be bollocks and none of it adds up.
But the manifesto still hasn't launched, we're only going off advance reports. So we don't know yet.
Hmm, I wonder why this pledge made it into the manifesto:
The Conservatives have vowed to ban councils from boycotting products from Israel.
A pledge in their election manifesto, to be launched on Sunday, says: “We will ban public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries. These undermine community cohesion
The Tories will have to put some more stuff in there - otherwise they'll just enhance the stereotype of "more of the same" which seems an open goal for Labour
Labour's £83 billion+ worth of direct tax rises plus endless unfunded nationalisations is the biggest open goal in modern times. The actual Conservative manifesto release should contain a few bigger commitments around which to anchor the latter stages of the campaign.
I'll be very interested to read the Tory manifesto
Can we have a map of the distribution of those involved against marginals?
The 'historic wrong' is apparently them getting the state pension at the same age as mend get it.
The claim is that equalisation was introduced too rapidly, and the affected women were left with insufficient time to prepare. My mother was one of them and she certainly wasn't best pleased. I don't know enough about the situation to advance a definite opinion one way or another as to whether it was brought in too fast.
However, the difference in pension ages was sexist and could not be justified. Equalisation had to come, and some age cohort would have to work longer as a result. All those of us who had hoped to claim the state pension at 65 and are now having to wait one, two or three extra years (and, personally, I doubt if I'll get mine before 70 by the time future Governments have finished) are in the same boat. It's just tough luck.
Equalisation was announced a long, long time in advance. But then the Coalition government sped up the timetable. It's possible that Brown had also cranked up the timetable earlier too (as doing so is worth a lot of money to the Treasury).
I don't think the WASPI's have a leg to stand on when it comes to the equalisation principle, but I think that the way in which the timetable for equalisation was changed was suboptimal, at best. I think that gave people a lot less time to prepare for a change to the change.
In amongst everything else this was interesting from YouGov. Those who have said the monarchy dies with Her Majesty may need to revise their opinions.
I've never thought he was that bad, albeit with some kooky opinions, and figured having prepared for the role his whole life he'd probably be better at adjusting to the new role (for instance keeping quieter on some subjects) better than many people thought, but I am curious why there would have been such a shift over the last few years.
That said, I do think it will be a challenge to retain the monarchy in several places once he becomes king, through no fault of his - it just feels like it holds on in several places through apathy or there being more important things to worry about, but a once in a 70 or so year change might as well be seized.
In all seriousness though, if Boris is freezing income tax, VAT and NI for 5 years, then even with reckless borrowing and not quite as much spending as Labour, how is he paying for things?
Personally a pledge not to raise any of those three things for five years is one of those 'too good to be true, or if true actually a bad idea' kind of arguments, it just sounds implausible to me.
They’re putting it in so Bozo can challenge Corbyn to meet the same pledge .
Hmm, I wonder why this pledge made it into the manifesto:
The Conservatives have vowed to ban councils from boycotting products from Israel.
A pledge in their election manifesto, to be launched on Sunday, says: “We will ban public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries. These undermine community cohesion
In amongst everything else this was interesting from YouGov. Those who have said the monarchy dies with Her Majesty may need to revise their opinions.
I've never thought he was that bad, albeit with some kooky opinions, and figured having prepared for the role his whole life he'd probably be better at adjusting to the new role (for instance keeping quieter on some subjects) better than many people thought, but I am curious why there would have been such a shift over the last few years.
That said, I do think it will be a challenge to retain the monarchy in several places once he becomes king, through no fault of his - it just feels like it holds on in several places through apathy or there being more important things to worry about, but a once in a 70 or so year change might as well be seized.
I can't see it lasting in Australia or Canada if he reigns for 15 years or more.
Comments
And most missed their LD seat bets by over estimating in 2015.
Then add in Swinsomnia.
I am not sure MRP caters for tactical voting either, happy to be corrected.
What if there is a massive recession or some kind of other threat to the public finances?
Bonkers.
Or just lying.
Deltapoll recorded as 42-32 when it's actually 43-30.
Presumably got mixed up with ComRes.
* Pension Triple Lock and OAP bus passes to continue
* A Tax Triple Lock to be announced (no increases in income tax, NI or VAT during the next Parliament)
* An increase in the NI threshold to £9,500 next year (with an 'ambition,' so presumably not a pledge, to make further increases during the next Parliament)
* Free hospital parking - but only for some protected groups
* A fund to provide out of hours childcare for school age children
* A fund to help fix potholes
* A national skills fund
* Some green initiatives (home energy efficiency fund and a ban on exporting plastic waste to developing economies)
I guess that Getting Brexit Done will feature very prominently as well but clearly the author of this write-up took that as a given. No mention, however, of anything to do with social care...
The cost of some, but not all, of the policies is listed, but on the face of it it looks like small beer relative to Labour's list of spending pledges. The Government is clearly betting the farm on (relative) fiscal continence, and hoping that the traditional Labour voters they are trying to convert don't succumb to the promise from Mr McDonnell of all those tempting goodies.
Wow.
The proper YouGov MRP gives you the ballot paper for your specific constituency.
Oh Jeremy Corbyn.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.136297311
I almost tempted at these kind of biblical levels.
Also, interestingly, no mention of the IHT threshold in reports so far, either.
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1198362074159689728
Now in hands of BBC - but surely Govt should simply force BBC to fund it.
They can threaten Licence Fee freeze from 2022 if BBC doesn't agree.
However, the Lib Dems have done everything in their power to piss-off conservative-minded folk; the SNP have a decent SLab vote to milk (4,026); and the incumbent MP Stephen Gethins is outstanding.
I haven’t a clue who will win!
LD 4/7
SNP 13/8
It is just as plausible to imagine that the LDs chuck all their resources at a handful of seats, fail to take most of them, lose a handful of the ones they already possess and end up getting absolutely nowhere.
I'm sticking with my prediction of about 20-22 for them, for the time being, but a result in single figures is not inconceivable. After all, most of us were caught on the hop when they were driven all the way down to 8 in 2015.
Can we have a map of the distribution of those involved against marginals?
Not the worst tactical position to be in.
Makes electoral sense though, I wouldn't be surprised if despite past actions even the Tories follow suit as everyone else is pandering.
The ONS has given them £50bn to reduce it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-50533609
It does raise the concern that they're not doing enough to address pressing structural problems (although we've not seen the actual manifesto yet, so we don't know what else of significance, if anything, has yet to be revealed.) However, the Tories are never going to win by engaging in a public spending bidding war with Labour. The strategy for winning the marginals is to exploit swing voters' exhaustion with Brexit and distaste for Corbyn. That requires (a) leaving the EU and (b) not being Corbyn. It doesn't require additional promises to spend £373 trillion on everything.
The great gamble the Tories are taking with this election is two-fold: that Labour's spending pledges look unrealistic and so fail to tempt the swing voters, and that the Labour defectors don't wobble anyway and go back home out of tribal loyalty. If it comes off and the Tories maintain a healthy lead then they win.
A successful Trump impeachment is just about possible - though with the party almost entirely in thrall to him, getting the Senate votes is a huge stretch. But time, electoral expediency (several Democratic Senators have rather pressing commitments) and the availability of other remedies like criminal charges, makes going after the subordinates unlikely.
They would leave the party of Trump with the problem of what do do about Pence.
Of course women sitting in segregated audiences and using a different backdoor to men is entirely reasonable.
- 5 polls have Con between 41 and 43. Opinium the clear outlier at 47
- All 6 polls have Lab between 28 and 32
- Much more variation for LDs - range from 12 to 18
If the Labour manifesto promised too much, the Conservative manifesto looks like it promises too little. The country has serious problems that a pothole fund is not going to fix. It feels unserious.
However, the difference in pension ages was sexist and could not be justified. Equalisation had to come, and some age cohort would have to work longer as a result. All those of us who had hoped to claim the state pension at 65 and are now having to wait one, two or three extra years (and, personally, I doubt if I'll get mine before 70 by the time future Governments have finished) are in the same boat. It's just tough luck.
Would that be the public service broadcasting that substituted Boris laying a wreath upside down at The Cenotaph, with 3 year old footage of him getting it right?
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/10/28/the-persistence-of-lack-of-memory-how-the-state-retirement-age-was-changed-and-communicated/
Those I know who are affected (not many admittedly) are spitting mad about it, so its a good grey vote bribe, but I cannot say I detecy much sympathy from the younger people I know - those expecting to retire at 70 or older, if ever, struggle with it being an outrage.
It's also another example of a situation where the main point of contention, in this case rapidity of equalisation and notification, is used when the actions and words of those protesting seems to indicating the change itself is what they don't like, but know that is a weaker argument.
It's a classic NIMBY style argument you see in planning where people say they want more consultation or evidence, to delay things, when in fact they want to stop something and no evidence or consultation will be deemed sufficient. What could/should have been done which would have worked or satisfied those angry now?
Reckless lost in 2015, to Kelly Tolhurst, the Tory whom he defeated in 2014.
Beyond that, there must be more to come. Sitting down and thinking about some of the things we've heard in just the last few days, the summary I've read so far doesn't say anything about the reintroduction of nursing bursaries, the new and refurbished hospitals or HS2.
Perhaps the get Brexit done is now beginning to grate on some people . As for the Labour policy to compensate women hit by the pension change . It looks a bit desperate but it’s one pledge you couldn’t get away with not keeping .
Seems like they've trailed their big commitments and the manifesto confirms those and shows some realism rather than throwing bucketloads at everything.
Will it work? We'll have to wait and see.
Personally a pledge not to raise any of those three things for five years is one of those 'too good to be true, or if true actually a bad idea' kind of arguments, it just sounds implausible to me.
The Conservatives have vowed to ban councils from boycotting products from Israel.
A pledge in their election manifesto, to be launched on Sunday, says: “We will ban public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries. These undermine community cohesion
https://www.thejc.com/conservative-manifesto-pledges-ban-on-council-israel-boycotts-1.493504
Or it could all just be bollocks and none of it adds up.
But the manifesto still hasn't launched, we're only going off advance reports. So we don't know yet.
I don't think the WASPI's have a leg to stand on when it comes to the equalisation principle, but I think that the way in which the timetable for equalisation was changed was suboptimal, at best. I think that gave people a lot less time to prepare for a change to the change.
That said, I do think it will be a challenge to retain the monarchy in several places once he becomes king, through no fault of his - it just feels like it holds on in several places through apathy or there being more important things to worry about, but a once in a 70 or so year change might as well be seized.