If the SNP aren't gaining many seats from the Tories and the libdems aren't gaining many seats from the Tories....and the tories gain 30 seats from Labour....then?
Except as those figures show net approval rating is not a key indicator of election success given May ended the 2017 general election campaign with a deficit of 3% relative to Corbyn on a net approval basis and still won most seats.
Boris still has a clear 24% lead over Corbyn on net approval anyway but those figures suggest it is preferred PM not net approval rating that is key given May still led Corbyn on that basis at the end if the 2017 campaign as foes Boris now
Fair play to Stuart for acknowledging the SCons are as I have been saying for weeks, likely to be in the 11-16 range. The SLIbs are shitting bricks because their leader is going down like a bag of sick in Scotland, especially with women old enough to be her mother! SLAB vote is evaporating. Potential for SLAB lost deposits in seats they were in contention for in 2010!
We had a friend over for dinner last night, a lovely warm-hearted generous lady, taught French in a state school. Ne'er a bad word to say about anybody.
But unprompted and unprovoked, she just went off on one about Jo Swinson. "Who does she think she is? "Prime Minister"...? Revoking Brexit? Pah!"
I had picked up on it on the doorsteps very early on - and posted that on here. I still can't quite process quite why she riles people quite so much. It's a bit odd. There's no obvious basis for the strength of feeling against her. But it is there.
Sadly she evokes Violet Elizabeth Bott - surely the most monstrous creation in comfortable middle class English children's literature. At his best Boris evokes William himself the defective but good hearted and well meaning hero. I suppose to take the analogy further Corbyn is the generalised enemy, varying from chapter to chapter never seriously emerging from the background. Meanwhile Violet Elizabeth is there, all the time, shouting and screaming pointlessly so everyone, William, the Outlaws and the Reader just wants to make her shut up.
CCHQ's crack shitposting cadre have obviously been told to push the Swinson = VEB line hard. We've had it multiple times on here since the start of the campaign from the usual suspects. It's the perfect cultural reference for the tories target demo as very few under the age of 60 will have any fucking clue about it.
I thought Swinson was overdoing the accusations of misogyny, but when we see this sort of crap from Tory posters then she is clearly right.
All Lib Dem leaders get attacked from both sides during a campaign, perhaps with the exception of Nick Clegg. I remember Tories clutching their Pearl's over Farron in a similar way.
Looking at the polls, I don't see much squeeze. 15% is a respectable score, and at a similar level to most of my political life.
Clegg got absolutely blasted in the media after the first debate, after the Cleggasm. It just goes to show the panic there is when the duopoly is challenged.
If the SNP aren't gaining many seats from the Tories and the libdems aren't gaining many seats from the Tories....and the tories gain 30 seats from Labour....then?
The biggest Tory majority since 1987 as confirmed by the new Yougov MRP poll giving a Tory majority of 48
In a randomly selected audience of a hundred, you’d expect one Labour member.
As I have said before, the real problem is that ordinary non-political people don’t want the hassle of going.
The answer is to get rid of the audience.
Quite. I made the same point myself about QT the other day. A panel discussion program, without the audience and involving in-depth discussion of just two or three questions submitted by viewers at home, might be far more revealing that a shouting match in front of a partisan crowd.
There's already a radio phone-in show after QT anyway. If it's really essential that we also be subjected to random members of the public emoting then that strikes me as entirely sufficient.
They also need to stop politicians interrupting each other. If they did that, the programme would become watchable again.
Compare with the level of intelligent debate in this clip from the 1975 referendum. No audience, no interuptions, intelligent discussion of real issues and no soundbites.
18 million people watched it. Back then people had fewer channels, no social media, but as a result much better attention spans.
Indeed. Forty years ago we'd all be waiting for Weekend World, with a twenty minute summary of a key issue of the day (usually excellently done) followed by a forty minute interview with Brian Walden probing a leading politician one-on-one. Only Andrew Neil comes anywhere close, nowadays, and Neil is too often looking for the cheap point rather than viewer enlightenment.
Plus the cracking theme tune of Mountain's Nantucket Sleighride. (Even if it is about whaling....)
Anecdotally (my mum) I think the older women having an irrational dislike of Swinson is real. Instinctively at the time I thought they had made a big mistake choosing her over Davey, but I wasn’t quite sure why, wasn’t necessarily expecting this demographic in particular to be a problem. The Cons may now be capitalising on it in their campaigning, but they aren’t making it up.
Except as those figures show net approval rating is not a key indicator of election success given May ended the 2017 general election campaign with a deficit of 3% relative to Corbyn on a net approval basis and still won most seats.
Boris still has a clear 24% lead over Corbyn on net approval anyway but those figures suggest it is preferred PM not net approval rating that is key given May still led Corbyn on that basis at the end if the 2017 campaign as foes Boris now
Why do you post lies?
In 2017 in the final approval ratings before Election Day Mrs May led Mr Corbyn.
Boris will also have a more populist manifesto than May did and Trump already endorsed Boris weeks ago in headline news, it made zero difference as Trump is far more popular with Leavers voting Tory anyway.
Plus of course Boris can still say Trump said a Boris Deal could make a US trade deal harder when urging Farage to make a pact with Boris as Trump's real preferred PM candidate is Farage who will go for No Deal even if he prefers Boris to Corbyn
If the SNP aren't gaining many seats from the Tories and the libdems aren't gaining many seats from the Tories....and the tories gain 30 seats from Labour....then?
The biggest Tory majority since 1987 as confirmed by the new Yougov MRP poll giving a Tory majority of 48
Fair play to Stuart for acknowledging the SCons are as I have been saying for weeks, likely to be in the 11-16 range. The SLIbs are shitting bricks because their leader is going down like a bag of sick in Scotland, especially with women old enough to be her mother! SLAB vote is evaporating. Potential for SLAB lost deposits in seats they were in contention for in 2010!
We had a friend over for dinner last night, a lovely warm-hearted generous lady, taught French in a state school. Ne'er a bad word to say about anybody.
But unprompted and unprovoked, she just went off on one about Jo Swinson. "Who does she think she is? "Prime Minister"...? Revoking Brexit? Pah!"
I had picked up on it on the doorsteps very early on - and posted that on here. I still can't quite process quite why she riles people quite so much. It's a bit odd. There's no obvious basis for the strength of feeling against her. But it is there.
Sadly she evokes Violet Elizabeth Bott - surely the most monstrous creation in comfortable middle class English children's literature. At his best Boris evokes William himself the defective but good hearted and well meaning hero. I suppose to take the analogy further Corbyn is the generalised enemy, varying from chapter to chapter never seriously emerging from the background. Meanwhile Violet Elizabeth is there, all the time, shouting and screaming pointlessly so everyone, William, the Outlaws and the Reader just wants to make her shut up.
CCHQ's crack shitposting cadre have obviously been told to push the Swinson = VEB line hard. We've had it multiple times on here since the start of the campaign from the usual suspects. It's the perfect cultural reference for the tories target demo as very few under the age of 60 will have any fucking clue about it.
I thought Swinson was overdoing the accusations of misogyny, but when we see this sort of crap from Tory posters then she is clearly right.
All Lib Dem leaders get attacked from both sides during a campaign, perhaps with the exception of Nick Clegg. I remember Tories clutching their Pearl's over Farron in a similar way.
Looking at the polls, I don't see much squeeze. 15% is a respectable score, and at a similar level to most of my political life.
The difference is that they have the chance this time to get the votes of the supposedly enraged 48%+ appalled youngsters who didn’t get a vote in 2016 to stop their lives being ruined, the devoted marchers and petition signers, so you’d expect better than similar to every other election
If the SNP aren't gaining many seats from the Tories and the libdems aren't gaining many seats from the Tories....and the tories gain 30 seats from Labour....then?
The biggest Tory majority since 1987 as confirmed by the new Yougov MRP poll giving a Tory majority of 48
If the SNP aren't gaining many seats from the Tories and the libdems aren't gaining many seats from the Tories....and the tories gain 30 seats from Labour....then?
*IF* the Tories obtain a net swing of 30 from Labour then they should at least make it over the finishing line.
Or we could just introduce a fair voting system, like most other democracies.
You'll get no argument from me on that one, but it'll first require the cards to fall in just the right way, and that may not happen for a very long time.
Realistically, I think the only likely path to PR is a whole series of Tory victories, at the end of which a compact of left-of-centre parties finally scrapes a majority and says amongst itself "We can't risk going back to that again." The replacement of Labour looks like a distant dream, and Labour won't back reform until it is either convinced that it can't win a majority under FPTP ever again, or is forced into it by the Lib Dems from a position of strength in some future Coalition negotiation.
Fair play to Stuart for acknowledging the SCons are as I have been saying for weeks, likely to be in the 11-16 range. The SLIbs are shitting bricks because their leader is going down like a bag of sick in Scotland, especially with women old enough to be her mother! SLAB vote is evaporating. Potential for SLAB lost deposits in seats they were in contention for in 2010!
We had a friend over for dinner last night, a lovely warm-hearted generous lady, taught French in a state school. Ne'er a bad word to say about anybody.
But unprompted and unprovoked, she just went off on one about Jo Swinson. "Who does she think she is? "Prime Minister"...? Revoking Brexit? Pah!"
I had picked up on it on the doorsteps very early on - and posted that on here. I still can't quite process quite why she riles people quite so much. It's a bit odd. There's no obvious basis for the strength of feeling against her. But it is there.
Sadly she evokes Violet Elizabeth Bott - surely the most monstrous creation in comfortable middle class English children's literature. At his best Boris evokes William himself the defective but good hearted and well meaning hero. I suppose to take the analogy further Corbyn is the generalised enemy, varying from chapter to chapter never seriously emerging from the background. Meanwhile Violet Elizabeth is there, all the time, shouting and screaming pointlessly so everyone, William, the Outlaws and the Reader just wants to make her shut up.
CCHQ's crack shitposting cadre have obviously been told to push the Swinson = VEB line hard. We've had it multiple times on here since the start of the campaign from the usual suspects. It's the perfect cultural reference for the tories target demo as very few under the age of 60 will have any fucking clue about it.
I have no idea who they are talking about so I am clearly not the target demographic. Thank fuck.
The tory Dank Meme Sonderkommando is working on a Swinson = Jessie from Team Rocket bit for the younger generation but it's not coming together.
Collapse of the Brexit Party vote in Scotland to the Tories as Farage pulls back candidates from Tory seats key in getting the Tories back to 28%, just 1% below their 2017 rating.
On the basis of this fantastic poll for Scottish Tories they would only lose a single seat, Stirling, to the SNP on a small 2% Scottish swing from SNP to the Tories. The LDs would gain Fife North East from the SNP. Scottish Labour though would lose 6 of their 7 Scottish seats, holding only Edinburgh South.
I wonder if the fall is partly a reaction to stunts by CCHQ like factcheckUK and the fake Labour website. @FrancisUrquhart has previously suggested these are ill-conceived, especially given our demographics. They might be seen as not playing the game; an impression which can resonate with Boris's own reputation for unreliability.
The problem is that everyone is playing games with silly stunts. Labour allegedly got a staffer into the QT audience asking a loaded question for Corbyn to retweet.
How sad do you have to be to take video grabs of everybody on QT who asks questions? Then put them into files, to cross-reference those people who ask multiple times?
I was concerned by the usual left-slanted Press Review on Sky News last night, featuring the delightful (NOT! ) Rachel Shabi and the rather ineffectual would-be right's representative Benedict Spence. Rachel set about explaining the story on the front page of today's Observer newspaper, explaining how, as if by magic, John McDonnell intends to compensate approximately 3.7 million women affected as a result of the then coalition Government extending their State Retirement retirement age from 60 to 65 of 66 years of age. Ms Shabi pointed out that the colossal expense involved in compensating such women, amounting to £58 billion (that's £58,000,000,000) would be paid over 5 years at the rate of £11.5 billion p.a. She went on to explain that that provision for funding this huge amount had NOT been included in Labour's Grey Book, since "it didn't rank as normal expenditure" and was a "one-off compensation cost paid in effect out of Court" What sort of mumbo-jumbo speak is all that? To make a totally unfunded commitment such as this after publication of their manifesto is clearly Labour's last throw of the dice. My concern however is that might not this at least temporarily increase Labour's level of support in the polls, bearing in mind the huge number of women affected by such proposals, where the average payment involved is said to amount to approximately £15,000?
In a randomly selected audience of a hundred, you’d expect one Labour member.
As I have said before, the real problem is that ordinary non-political people don’t want the hassle of going.
The answer is to get rid of the audience.
Quite. I made the same point myself about QT the other day. A panel discussion program, without the audience and involving in-depth discussion of just two or three questions submitted by viewers at home, might be far more revealing that a shouting match in front of a partisan crowd.
There's already a radio phone-in show after QT anyway. If it's really essential that we also be subjected to random members of the public emoting then that strikes me as entirely sufficient.
They also need to stop politicians interrupting each other. If they did that, the programme would become watchable again.
Compare with the level of intelligent debate in this clip from the 1975 referendum. No audience, no interuptions, intelligent discussion of real issues and no soundbites.
18 million people watched it. Back then people had fewer channels, no social media, but as a result much better attention spans.
Indeed. Forty years ago we'd all be waiting for Weekend World, with a twenty minute summary of a key issue of the day (usually excellently done) followed by a forty minute interview with Brian Walden probing a leading politician one-on-one. Only Andrew Neil comes anywhere close, nowadays, and Neil is too often looking for the cheap point rather than viewer enlightenment.
I find Andrew Neil unwatchable in his new format, constantly on a hyper aggressive attack. It puts the interviewee on the defensive.
More subtle interviewers that get their interviewee to let down their guard tend to be rather more effective and watchable.
Ofcourse Boris net rating vs Corbyn is way down in that poll. It also shows the libdems up 5%. There are simply many more libdems in that poll then their last one.
Except as those figures show net approval rating is not a key indicator of election success given May ended the 2017 general election campaign with a deficit of 3% relative to Corbyn on a net approval basis and still won most seats.
Boris still has a clear 24% lead over Corbyn on net approval anyway but those figures suggest it is preferred PM not net approval rating that is key given May still led Corbyn on that basis at the end if the 2017 campaign as foes Boris now
Why do you post lies?
In 2017 in the final approval ratings before Election Day Mrs May led Mr Corbyn.
Your thread header has Corbyn leading May on net approval in the final weekend of 2017 election polling, if you want to post threads that do not give all the facts to support your argument you are hardly one to criticise
Fair play to Stuart for acknowledging the SCons are as I have been saying for weeks, likely to be in the 11-16 range. The SLIbs are shitting bricks because their leader is going down like a bag of sick in Scotland, especially with women old enough to be her mother! SLAB vote is evaporating. Potential for SLAB lost deposits in seats they were in contention for in 2010!
We had a friend over for dinner last night, a lovely warm-hearted generous lady, taught French in a state school. Ne'er a bad word to say about anybody.
But unprompted and unprovoked, she just went off on one about Jo Swinson. "Who does she think she is? "Prime Minister"...? Revoking Brexit? Pah!"
I had picked up on it on the doorsteps very early on - and posted that on here. I still can't quite process quite why she riles people quite so much. It's a bit odd. There's no obvious basis for the strength of feeling against her. But it is there.
Sadly she evokes Violet Elizabeth Bott - surely the most monstrous creation in comfortable middle class English children's literature. At his best Boris evokes William himself the defective but good hearted and well meaning hero. I suppose to take the analogy further Corbyn is the generalised enemy, varying from chapter to chapter never seriously emerging from the background. Meanwhile Violet Elizabeth is there, all the time, shouting and screaming pointlessly so everyone, William, the Outlaws and the Reader just wants to make her shut up.
CCHQ's crack shitposting cadre have obviously been told to push the Swinson = VEB line hard. We've had it multiple times on here since the start of the campaign from the usual suspects. It's the perfect cultural reference for the tories target demo as very few under the age of 60 will have any fucking clue about it.
One should never rule out the standard Tory lack of imagination. A good chance it's because they can't pluck a zinger from the air themselves.
I wonder if the fall is partly a reaction to stunts by CCHQ like factcheckUK and the fake Labour website. @FrancisUrquhart has previously suggested these are ill-conceived, especially given our demographics. They might be seen as not playing the game; an impression which can resonate with Boris's own reputation for unreliability.
The problem is that everyone is playing games with silly stunts. Labour allegedly got a staffer into the QT audience asking a loaded question for Corbyn to retweet.
How sad do you have to be to take video grabs of everybody on QT who asks questions? Then put them into files, to cross-reference those people who ask multiple times?
Ofcourse Boris net rating vs Corbyn is way down in that poll. It also shows the libdems up 5%. There are simply many more libdems in that poll then their last one.
Duh!
But the same number of Lib Dems as a fortnight ago when Boris Johnson had a 43 point lead.
Did statistically improbably poorly with football yesterday. I blame the results.
Anyway, backed Newcastle to beat Aston Villa, and Sheffield to beat Manchester United. (That's one today and one tomorrow).
Lots of away wins yesterday.
Leicester fans are hoping that Everton still have Silva for next Sunday. Looking good in second place, with Brighton at home not getting a shot on target, but need more clinical finishing as we missed a few sitters. 4 clean sheets in a row for the Foxes, and a good run of Christmas games.
Everton H Villa A Norwich H Watford H
Very likely to have 40 points and still be second before the Christmas 6 pointers of Man City A and Liverpool H on Boxing Day.
Sadly she evokes Violet Elizabeth Bott - surely the most monstrous creation in comfortable middle class English children's literature. At his best Boris evokes William himself the defective but good hearted and well meaning hero. I suppose to take the analogy further Corbyn is the generalised enemy, varying from chapter to chapter never seriously emerging from the background. Meanwhile Violet Elizabeth is there, all the time, shouting and screaming pointlessly so everyone, William, the Outlaws and the Reader just wants to make her shut up.
But then, you are an extreme Tory, so you would see her like that, in terms of your favourite stories.
Fair play to Stuart for acknowledging the SCons are as I have been saying for weeks, likely to be in the 11-16 range. The SLIbs are shitting bricks because their leader is going down like a bag of sick in Scotland, especially with women old enough to be her mother! SLAB vote is evaporating. Potential for SLAB lost deposits in seats they were in contention for in 2010!
We had a friend over for dinner last night, a lovely warm-hearted generous lady, taught French in a state school. Ne'er a bad word to say about anybody.
But unprompted and unprovoked, she just went off on one about Jo Swinson. "Who does she think she is? "Prime Minister"...? Revoking Brexit? Pah!"
I had picked up on it on the doorsteps very early on - and posted that on here. I still can't quite process quite why she riles people quite so much. It's a bit odd. There's no obvious basis for the strength of feeling against her. But it is there.
I listened to her (TV clips) from the manifesto launch. She’s really not a good speaker - grating, a bit shouty, slightly patronising. I’ve not met her personally (although I know and like her husband) and it may be that she comes across better in person but I found very unpopular even though some of the content was pretty sensible
I wonder if the fall is partly a reaction to stunts by CCHQ like factcheckUK and the fake Labour website. @FrancisUrquhart has previously suggested these are ill-conceived, especially given our demographics. They might be seen as not playing the game; an impression which can resonate with Boris's own reputation for unreliability.
The problem is that everyone is playing games with silly stunts. Labour allegedly got a staffer into the QT audience asking a loaded question for Corbyn to retweet.
How sad do you have to be to take video grabs of everybody on QT who asks questions? Then put them into files, to cross-reference those people who ask multiple times?
Well done them. Jeez.
When I worked in a restaurant I got quite good at predicting which customers would act like c*nts just looking at their face. This is one of those guys.
"We keep hearing that this election is the most important in living memory. Yet on Brexit, the most important issue of this most important election, both Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn are asking voters to go to the polls wearing blindfolds."
If the SNP aren't gaining many seats from the Tories and the libdems aren't gaining many seats from the Tories....and the tories gain 30 seats from Labour....then?
The biggest Tory majority since 1987 as confirmed by the new Yougov MRP poll giving a Tory majority of 48
I thought our Welsh correspondent had promised us that Plaid were falling apart? Forecast to get five seats - the Betfair "above 3.5 seats" is available at 1.25
If the SNP aren't gaining many seats from the Tories and the libdems aren't gaining many seats from the Tories....and the tories gain 30 seats from Labour....then?
The biggest Tory majority since 1987 as confirmed by the new Yougov MRP poll giving a Tory majority of 48
I thought our Welsh correspondent had promised us that Plaid were falling apart? Forecast to get five seats - the Betfair "above 3.5 seats" is available at 1.25
Fair play to Stuart for acknowledging the SCons are as I have been saying for weeks, likely to be in the 11-16 range. The SLIbs are shitting bricks because their leader is going down like a bag of sick in Scotland, especially with women old enough to be her mother! SLAB vote is evaporating. Potential for SLAB lost deposits in seats they were in contention for in 2010!
We had a friend over for dinner last night, a lovely warm-hearted generous lady, taught French in a state school. Ne'er a bad word to say about anybody.
But unprompted and unprovoked, she just went off on one about Jo Swinson. "Who does she think she is? "Prime Minister"...? Revoking Brexit? Pah!"
I had picked up on it on the doorsteps very early on - and posted that on here. I still can't quite process quite why she riles people quite so much. It's a bit odd. There's no obvious basis for the strength of feeling against her. But it is there.
Sadly she evokes Violet Elizabeth Bott - surely the most monstrous creation in comfortable middle class English children's literature. At his best Boris evokes William himself the defective but good hearted and well meaning hero. I suppose to take the analogy further Corbyn is the generalised enemy, varying from chapter to chapter never seriously emerging from the background. Meanwhile Violet Elizabeth is there, all the time, shouting and screaming pointlessly so everyone, William, the Outlaws and the Reader just wants to make her shut up.
CCHQ's crack shitposting cadre have obviously been told to push the Swinson = VEB line hard. We've had it multiple times on here since the start of the campaign from the usual suspects. It's the perfect cultural reference for the tories target demo as very few under the age of 60 will have any fucking clue about it.
One should never rule out the standard Tory lack of imagination. A good chance it's because they can't pluck a zinger from the air themselves.
I thought that Veruca Salt was much more apposite than VEB.
Check out this video of Jo Swinson introducing her pitch to voters to see if there is any similarity:
I wonder if the fall is partly a reaction to stunts by CCHQ like factcheckUK and the fake Labour website. @FrancisUrquhart has previously suggested these are ill-conceived, especially given our demographics. They might be seen as not playing the game; an impression which can resonate with Boris's own reputation for unreliability.
The problem is that everyone is playing games with silly stunts. Labour allegedly got a staffer into the QT audience asking a loaded question for Corbyn to retweet.
He was so far up Corbyn's rectum, he was obviously a Labour insider! The BBC might want to think on how he so easily exploited the system to get himself on the show, asking a question. And how many more did he plant?
What did the BBC know - and when did they know it? The Governors should look into their processes behind that programme. Boris got out alive, but you can look at that format and wonder - to what extent was it crafted with an intent to hurt one or more of the leaders? I look forward to the House Select Committee inviting the programme's producers in for a discussion on their methods for selecting the audience.
The debates have become an integral part of the election campaign. Try to avoid them - and ask Theresa May what happens. All aspects need to be as transparent as voting for my MP.
I think that it's always been standard practise for the television companies to encourage members of the political parties to come on these programmes. Even limiting the numbers to match the level of support of each party, particularly number of MPs - hence Jo Swinson's hostile questioning.
And that situation is leading to a lack of trust among the general public of these programmes.
If there’s going to be an audience, then being a member of a political party should be a bar to attendance.
Indeed. How did someone from Lewisham even get past the 1st stage of audience selection when the event was in Sheffield?
You seem to be making the mistake that everyone on here is making. The audiences questions don't pose a threat to partiality. If your issue is that the BBC are allowing people into the audience who will ask difficult questions then the public will give you short shrift. It's of no consequence how clever or politically affiliated the audience is as long as there are an equal number for each persuasion.
I was concerned by the usual left-slanted Press Review on Sky News last night, featuring the delightful (NOT! ) Rachel Shabi and the rather ineffectual would-be right's representative Benedict Spence. Rachel set about explaining the story on the front page of today's Observer newspaper, explaining how, as if by magic, John McDonnell intends to compensate approximately 3.7 million women affected as a result of the then coalition Government extending their State Retirement retirement age from 60 to 65 of 66 years of age. Ms Shabi pointed out that the colossal expense involved in compensating such women, amounting to £58 billion (that's £58,000,000,000) would be paid over 5 years at the rate of £11.5 billion p.a. She went on to explain that that provision for funding this huge amount had NOT been included in Labour's Grey Book, since "it didn't rank as normal expenditure" and was a "one-off compensation cost paid in effect out of Court" What sort of mumbo-jumbo speak is all that? To make a totally unfunded commitment such as this after publication of their manifesto is clearly Labour's last throw of the dice. My concern however is that might not this at least temporarily increase Labour's level of support in the polls, bearing in mind the huge number of women affected by such proposals, where the average payment involved is said to amount to approximately £15,000?
Hey let’s compensate all the millions more men that had to work five years longer in a blatant injustice inflicted on them by a greedy establishment over decades of ruthless exploitation hidden from us by the billionaire MSM.
What the hell, 83bn here, 58bn there, who’s counting? Another gazillion bn won’t make any difference.
In a randomly selected audience of a hundred, you’d expect one Labour member.
As I have said before, the real problem is that ordinary non-political people don’t want the hassle of going.
The answer is to get rid of the audience.
Quite. I made the same point myself about QT the other day. A panel discussion program, without the audience and involving in-depth discussion of just two or three questions submitted by viewers at home, might be far more revealing that a shouting match in front of a partisan crowd.
There's already a radio phone-in show after QT anyway. If it's really essential that we also be subjected to random members of the public emoting then that strikes me as entirely sufficient.
I wonder if the fall is partly a reaction to stunts by CCHQ like factcheckUK and the fake Labour website. @FrancisUrquhart has previously suggested these are ill-conceived, especially given our demographics. They might be seen as not playing the game; an impression which can resonate with Boris's own reputation for unreliability.
The problem is that everyone is playing games with silly stunts. Labour allegedly got a staffer into the QT audience asking a loaded question for Corbyn to retweet.
How sad do you have to be to take video grabs of everybody on QT who asks questions? Then put them into files, to cross-reference those people who ask multiple times?
Well done them. Jeez.
When I worked in a restaurant I got quite good at predicting which customers would act like c*nts just looking at their face. This is one of those guys.
He is not just a BBCQT regular, but is a Conservative activist.
If the SNP aren't gaining many seats from the Tories and the libdems aren't gaining many seats from the Tories....and the tories gain 30 seats from Labour....then?
The biggest Tory majority since 1987 as confirmed by the new Yougov MRP poll giving a Tory majority of 48
I thought our Welsh correspondent had promised us that Plaid were falling apart? Forecast to get five seats - the Betfair "above 3.5 seats" is available at 1.25
I expect that's the language belt. If that's borne out then they can (rightly) celebrate making an advance, but it still doesn't get them very far in the rest of the country.
Dr. Foxy, I was surprised to see that Leicester have scored more goals and conceded fewer than Liverpool.
Mr. Max, aye, but injustice against men isn't fashionable.
If a problem affects mostly women it's more likely to get referred to in gender terms. If it mostly affects men (perhaps excepting suicide) then it's less likely (rough sleeping).
My mother surprised me by how much contempt she had for the women complaining about the pension situation.
Fair play to Stuart for acknowledging the SCons are as I have been saying for weeks, likely to be in the 11-16 range. The SLIbs are shitting bricks because their leader is going down like a bag of sick in Scotland, especially with women old enough to be her mother! SLAB vote is evaporating. Potential for SLAB lost deposits in seats they were in contention for in 2010!
We had a friend over for dinner last night, a lovely warm-hearted generous lady, taught French in a state school. Ne'er a bad word to say about anybody.
But unprompted and unprovoked, she just went off on one about Jo Swinson. "Who does she think she is? "Prime Minister"...? Revoking Brexit? Pah!"
I had picked up on it on the doorsteps very early on - and posted that on here. I still can't quite process quite why she riles people quite so much. It's a bit odd. There's no obvious basis for the strength of feeling against her. But it is there.
Sadly she evokes Violet Elizabeth Bott - surely the most monstrous creation in comfortable middle class English children's literature. At his best Boris evokes William himself the defective but good hearted and well meaning hero. I suppose to take the analogy further Corbyn is the generalised enemy, varying from chapter to chapter never seriously emerging from the background. Meanwhile Violet Elizabeth is there, all the time, shouting and screaming pointlessly so everyone, William, the Outlaws and the Reader just wants to make her shut up.
CCHQ's crack shitposting cadre have obviously been told to push the Swinson = VEB line hard. We've had it multiple times on here since the start of the campaign from the usual suspects. It's the perfect cultural reference for the tories target demo as very few under the age of 60 will have any fucking clue about it.
I thought Swinson was overdoing the accusations of misogyny, but when we see this sort of crap from Tory posters then she is clearly right.
All Lib Dem leaders get attacked from both sides during a campaign, perhaps with the exception of Nick Clegg. I remember Tories clutching their Pearl's over Farron in a similar way.
Looking at the polls, I don't see much squeeze. 15% is a respectable score, and at a similar level to most of my political life.
I chatted to a bunch of liberal friends recently, all of whom plan to vote lib dem/anti Tory. Was very surprised to hear how much they disliked Swinson, but when pressed they couldn't identify why. Wasn't stopping them voting lib dem though.
I wonder if the fall is partly a reaction to stunts by CCHQ like factcheckUK and the fake Labour website. @FrancisUrquhart has previously suggested these are ill-conceived, especially given our demographics. They might be seen as not playing the game; an impression which can resonate with Boris's own reputation for unreliability.
The problem is that everyone is playing games with silly stunts. Labour allegedly got a staffer into the QT audience asking a loaded question for Corbyn to retweet.
Sadly she evokes Violet Elizabeth Bott - surely the most monstrous creation in comfortable middle class English children's literature. At his best Boris evokes William himself the defective but good hearted and well meaning hero. I suppose to take the analogy further Corbyn is the generalised enemy, varying from chapter to chapter never seriously emerging from the background. Meanwhile Violet Elizabeth is there, all the time, shouting and screaming pointlessly so everyone, William, the Outlaws and the Reader just wants to make her shut up.
CCHQ's crack shitposting cadre have obviously been told to push the Swinson = VEB line hard. We've had it multiple times on here since the start of the campaign from the usual suspects. It's the perfect cultural reference for the tories target demo as very few under the age of 60 will have any fucking clue about it.
Yes, I had to google Bott to find out what they were talking about and I'm still only vaguely the wiser. The belief that everyone has the same cultural references is a classic mistake in marketing.
On QT, all sides have played the "oi, he's a (rival party) activist" game - it was only yesterday that Guido Fawkes was grumbling that someone was a Labour activist. But I do think that QT should be able to avoid having the same bloke 4 times, and also that the preponderance of SNP supporters in the leaders' QT was just odd.
He was so far up Corbyn's rectum, he was obviously a Labour insider! The BBC might want to think on how he so easily exploited the system to get himself on the show, asking a question. And how many more did he plant?
What did the BBC know - and when did they know it? The Governors should look into their processes behind that programme. Boris got out alive, but you can look at that format and wonder - to what extent was it crafted with an intent to hurt one or more of the leaders? I look forward to the House Select Committee inviting the programme's producers in for a discussion on their methods for selecting the audience.
The debates have become an integral part of the election campaign. Try to avoid them - and ask Theresa May what happens. All aspects need to be as transparent as voting for my MP.
I think that it's always been standard practise for the television companies to encourage members of the political parties to come on these programmes. Even limiting the numbers to match the level of support of each party, particularly number of MPs - hence Jo Swinson's hostile questioning.
And that situation is leading to a lack of trust among the general public of these programmes.
If there’s going to be an audience, then being a member of a political party should be a bar to attendance.
Indeed. How did someone from Lewisham even get past the 1st stage of audience selection when the event was in Sheffield?
You seem to be making the mistake that everyone on here is making. The audiences questions don't pose a threat to partiality. If your issue is that the BBC are allowing people into the audience who will ask difficult questions then the public will give you short shrift. It's of no consequence how clever or politically affiliated the audience is as long as there are an equal number for each persuasion.
No-one has a problem with an audience member asking difficult questions, what they have a problem with is a party plant using exactly the same form of words as their man on the stage would have done - while posing as a member of the public.
In a randomly selected audience of a hundred, you’d expect one Labour member.
As I have said before, the real problem is that ordinary non-political people don’t want the hassle of going.
The answer is to get rid of the audience.
Quite. I made the same point myself about QT the other day. A panel discussion program, without the audience and involving in-depth discussion of just two or three questions submitted by viewers at home, might be far more revealing that a shouting match in front of a partisan crowd.
There's already a radio phone-in show after QT anyway. If it's really essential that we also be subjected to random members of the public emoting then that strikes me as entirely sufficient.
Bbc2 at 3am viewing figures though
So? A programme for the truly committed. Or those who should be committed, anyway.
I wonder if the fall is partly a reaction to stunts by CCHQ like factcheckUK and the fake Labour website. @FrancisUrquhart has previously suggested these are ill-conceived, especially given our demographics. They might be seen as not playing the game; an impression which can resonate with Boris's own reputation for unreliability.
The problem is that everyone is playing games with silly stunts. Labour allegedly got a staffer into the QT audience asking a loaded question for Corbyn to retweet.
How sad do you have to be to take video grabs of everybody on QT who asks questions? Then put them into files, to cross-reference those people who ask multiple times?
Well done them. Jeez.
When I worked in a restaurant I got quite good at predicting which customers would act like c*nts just looking at their face. This is one of those guys.
He is not just a BBCQT regular, but is a Conservative activist.
Fair play to Stuart for acknowledging the SCons are as I have been saying for weeks, likely to be in the 11-16 range. The SLIbs are shitting bricks because their leader is going down like a bag of sick in Scotland, especially with women old enough to be her mother! SLAB vote is evaporating. Potential for SLAB lost deposits in seats they were in contention for in 2010!
We had a friend over for dinner last night, a lovely warm-hearted generous lady, taught French in a state school. Ne'er a bad word to say about anybody.
But unprompted and unprovoked, she just went off on one about Jo Swinson. "Who does she think she is? "Prime Minister"...? Revoking Brexit? Pah!"
I had picked up on it on the doorsteps very early on - and posted that on here. I still can't quite process quite why she riles people quite so much. It's a bit odd. There's no obvious basis for the strength of feeling against her. But it is there.
Sadly she evokes Violet Elizabeth Bott - surely the most monstrous creation in comfortable middle class English children's literature. At his best Boris evokes William himself the defective but good hearted and well meaning hero. I suppose to take the analogy further Corbyn is the generalised enemy, varying from chapter to chapter never seriously emerging from the background. Meanwhile Violet Elizabeth is there, all the time, shouting and screaming pointlessly so everyone, William, the Outlaws and the Reader just wants to make her shut up.
CCHQ's crack shitposting cadre have obviously been told to push the Swinson = VEB line hard. We've had it multiple times on here since the start of the campaign from the usual suspects. It's the perfect cultural reference for the tories target demo as very few under the age of 60 will have any fucking clue about it.
I thought Swinson was overdoing the accusations of misogyny, but when we see this sort of crap from Tory posters then she is clearly right.
All Lib Dem leaders get attacked from both sides during a campaign, perhaps with the exception of Nick Clegg. I remember Tories clutching their Pearl's over Farron in a similar way.
Looking at the polls, I don't see much squeeze. 15% is a respectable score, and at a similar level to most of my political life.
I chatted to a bunch of liberal friends recently, all of whom plan to vote lib dem/anti Tory. Was very surprised to hear how much they disliked Swinson, but when pressed they couldn't identify why. Wasn't stopping them voting lib dem though.
I think theses changes where announced in the John Magear years, giving everybody affected at least 20 years to prepare.
This is an article from the time. It says that there was a plan to equalise the pension age at 65 by April 2020, but then the Coalition government brought that forward to November 2018.
I am not disputing the policy of equalisation, but I think the changing of the dates at which it was to be achieved was bad governance.
Its still loads of notice. The implication is government shouldnt have been allowed to bring it forward since nothing they could do would be enough. Its nonsense. Governments cannot accelerate things as thats bad governance, even when it's something long mooted? Bollocks.
I get really irritated at policy positions which are really transparently bribes for certain demographics, young or old, from whomever offers them or even if just being oandered to by media, and this issue is definitely that, pretending its some horrible tragedy.
Agreed. 7 years to prepare for an extra 18 months’ working is sufficient notice, especially as they were already on notice of the rise in pension age. If you want equality you don’t whinge when you get it. Also £58 billion is a humongous figure. And on top of the £83 billion as well.
This group of women annoy me intensely. I have heard some of them interviewed and did not feel in the slightest bit sorry for them. They seemed to be complaining that they should be rescued from their own failures to make provision, despite having jobs, or because they had previously made provision for early retirement and were annoyed that they couldn’t continue with these plans. Well, tough shit, frankly.
Lots of other groups have been much more adversely affected by government decisions and are frankly more deserving of help.
I was concerned by the usual left-slanted Press Review on Sky News last night, featuring the delightful (NOT! ) Rachel Shabi and the rather ineffectual would-be right's representative Benedict Spence. Rachel set about explaining the story on the front page of today's Observer newspaper, explaining how, as if by magic, John McDonnell intends to compensate approximately 3.7 million women affected as a result of the then coalition Government extending their State Retirement retirement age from 60 to 65 of 66 years of age. Ms Shabi pointed out that the colossal expense involved in compensating such women, amounting to £58 billion (that's £58,000,000,000) would be paid over 5 years at the rate of £11.5 billion p.a. She went on to explain that that provision for funding this huge amount had NOT been included in Labour's Grey Book, since "it didn't rank as normal expenditure" and was a "one-off compensation cost paid in effect out of Court" What sort of mumbo-jumbo speak is all that? To make a totally unfunded commitment such as this after publication of their manifesto is clearly Labour's last throw of the dice. My concern however is that might not this at least temporarily increase Labour's level of support in the polls, bearing in mind the huge number of women affected by such proposals, where the average payment involved is said to amount to approximately £15,000?
It puts me off TBH.
WASPI are in effect wanting to continue inequality for men and should be WASPE. Women Against State Pension Equality
To throw £58Bn at them is a disgrace imo.
I have already voted Lab. but dont agree with the policy.
Sadly she evokes Violet Elizabeth Bott - surely the most monstrous creation in comfortable middle class English children's literature. At his best Boris evokes William himself the defective but good hearted and well meaning hero. I suppose to take the analogy further Corbyn is the generalised enemy, varying from chapter to chapter never seriously emerging from the background. Meanwhile Violet Elizabeth is there, all the time, shouting and screaming pointlessly so everyone, William, the Outlaws and the Reader just wants to make her shut up.
CCHQ's crack shitposting cadre have obviously been told to push the Swinson = VEB line hard. We've had it multiple times on here since the start of the campaign from the usual suspects. It's the perfect cultural reference for the tories target demo as very few under the age of 60 will have any fucking clue about it.
Yes, I had to google Bott to find out what they were talking about and I'm still only vaguely the wiser. The belief that everyone has the same cultural references is a classic mistake in marketing.
On QT, all sides have played the "oi, he's a (rival party) activist" game - it was only yesterday that Guido Fawkes was grumbling that someone was a Labour activist. But I do think that QT should be able to avoid having the same bloke 4 times, and also that the preponderance of SNP supporters in the leaders' QT was just odd.
Like I said, people have to be persuaded to go. I've been twice - both many years ago - but have been offered the chance countless times. The political parties (mine, anyway) seem to be left scrabbling around trying to fill untaken seats at the last minute, having been given an allocation by the BBC. I assume the BBC starts with open allocation - as advertised at the end of each programme - gets a few takers, and then doles out the rest to the political parties.
I expect the party activists weren't entirely honest about their position when they applied online to be in the election programme audience - there isn't really any way the BBC can check them out (I'd hope they do some basic checking by name on twitter), so short of some kind of sanction when they are discovered afterwards, what can be done?
I wonder if the fall is partly a reaction to stunts by CCHQ like factcheckUK and the fake Labour website. @FrancisUrquhart has previously suggested these are ill-conceived, especially given our demographics. They might be seen as not playing the game; an impression which can resonate with Boris's own reputation for unreliability.
The problem is that everyone is playing games with silly stunts. Labour allegedly got a staffer into the QT audience asking a loaded question for Corbyn to retweet.
How sad do you have to be to take video grabs of everybody on QT who asks questions? Then put them into files, to cross-reference those people who ask multiple times?
If the SNP aren't gaining many seats from the Tories and the libdems aren't gaining many seats from the Tories....and the tories gain 30 seats from Labour....then?
The biggest Tory majority since 1987 as confirmed by the new Yougov MRP poll giving a Tory majority of 48
The radio series on which it is based, available on BBC Sounds, is gripping listening.
I did some digging after I listened on which banks those who “invested” in this product paid their money too. And they were the usual crop of dodgy banks - Singaporean, Chinese, African, Dubai etc - ones few people will have heard of and to whom no-one with any sense would send money to. It amazes me that people don’t check where they are sending money to when they pay electronically. It’s the most obvious - and easiest - of checks and far too often overlooked.
Also the point was that it was not a cryptocurrency at all but a simple pyramid selling scam with fancy new modern words attached. Pretty much all the victims had - and have - no idea what a cryptocurrency is nor how blockchain works. And if you don’t understand it don’t invest in it.
One of the lawyers accused of laundering £300 million of the proceeds goes on trial shortly in the US with some of those proceeds having ended up with Bank of Ireland and the NY branch of Deutschland Bank.
I’d love to know which of the many Eastern European and Russian mafiosos is behind this scam. It won’t just be this woman for sure.
Mr. B2, this reminds me of the great step forward sexual equality led to in insurance.
Women couldn't get cheaper car insurance than men despite being less likely to make claims (because discriminating by sex is sexist). Men lost higher annuity rates (because they live for fewer years, on average) for the same reason.
'Equality' meant both got dealt additional costs.
Worth noting that drivers can have black box type policies whereby their behaviour is monitored and good/safe driving can lead to lower premiums. Of course, such a handy thing doesn't work for life expectancy and annuity, so men still got screwed on that.
Sadly she evokes Violet Elizabeth Bott - surely the most monstrous creation in comfortable middle class English children's literature. At his best Boris evokes William himself the defective but good hearted and well meaning hero. I suppose to take the analogy further Corbyn is the generalised enemy, varying from chapter to chapter never seriously emerging from the background. Meanwhile Violet Elizabeth is there, all the time, shouting and screaming pointlessly so everyone, William, the Outlaws and the Reader just wants to make her shut up.
CCHQ's crack shitposting cadre have obviously been told to push the Swinson = VEB line hard. We've had it multiple times on here since the start of the campaign from the usual suspects. It's the perfect cultural reference for the tories target demo as very few under the age of 60 will have any fucking clue about it.
Yes, I had to google Bott to find out what they were talking about and I'm still only vaguely the wiser. The belief that everyone has the same cultural references is a classic mistake in marketing.
On QT, all sides have played the "oi, he's a (rival party) activist" game - it was only yesterday that Guido Fawkes was grumbling that someone was a Labour activist. But I do think that QT should be able to avoid having the same bloke 4 times, and also that the preponderance of SNP supporters in the leaders' QT was just odd.
Yes. If the audience really were selected on a proportionate basis then - even if everyone was a partisan and no undecideds were included - the SNP supporters should've been between about 3% and 5% of the total, depending on exact basis of calculation.
I didn't watch the thing, but I'm assuming from your remarks that either the SNP were greatly over-represented or very, very noisy?
I was concerned by the usual left-slanted Press Review on Sky News last night, featuring the delightful (NOT! ) Rachel Shabi and the rather ineffectual would-be right's representative Benedict Spence. Rachel set about explaining the story on the front page of today's Observer newspaper, explaining how, as if by magic, John McDonnell intends to compensate approximately 3.7 million women affected as a result of the then coalition Government extending their State Retirement retirement age from 60 to 65 of 66 years of age. Ms Shabi pointed out that the colossal expense involved in compensating such women, amounting to £58 billion (that's £58,000,000,000) would be paid over 5 years at the rate of £11.5 billion p.a. She went on to explain that that provision for funding this huge amount had NOT been included in Labour's Grey Book, since "it didn't rank as normal expenditure" and was a "one-off compensation cost paid in effect out of Court" What sort of mumbo-jumbo speak is all that? To make a totally unfunded commitment such as this after publication of their manifesto is clearly Labour's last throw of the dice. My concern however is that might not this at least temporarily increase Labour's level of support in the polls, bearing in mind the huge number of women affected by such proposals, where the average payment involved is said to amount to approximately £15,000?
It puts me off TBH.
WASPI are in effect wanting to continue inequality for men and should be WASPE. Women Against State Pension Equality
To throw £58Bn at them is a disgrace imo.
I have already voted Lab. but dont agree with the policy.
Well said you. Fair play.
I’m not au fait with all the details on timing etc, but I understand it was at least phased. However, how anyone could not seriously see this coming amazes me. We’ve spent decades creating more equality between the sexes ( great!) and I’ve no doubt it’s not complete yet, but this was a glaring area where clearly the balance was the other way. It was cakeism. It had to stop. So chucking 58bn ( fifty eight !!!) whilst telling all those blokes in theirs 60’s upwards “nothing for you chaps, suck it up”, is well just wrong.
I still believe that if Labour didn't have the crazy plan to give everyone free broadband they would be doing a lot better in the polls and Bozza would be sweating on the majority a lot more.
Mr. B2, this reminds me of the great step forward sexual equality led to in insurance.
Women couldn't get cheaper car insurance than men despite being less likely to make claims (because discriminating by sex is sexist). Men lost higher annuity rates (because they live for fewer years, on average) for the same reason.
'Equality' meant both got dealt additional costs.
Worth noting that drivers can have black box type policies whereby their behaviour is monitored and good/safe driving can lead to lower premiums. Of course, such a handy thing doesn't work for life expectancy and annuity, so men still got screwed on that.
According to Aviva's online calculator, I am going to die aged 88. They didn't ask much about medical history and nothing about drinking habits, however.
If the SNP aren't gaining many seats from the Tories and the libdems aren't gaining many seats from the Tories....and the tories gain 30 seats from Labour....then?
The biggest Tory majority since 1987 as confirmed by the new Yougov MRP poll giving a Tory majority of 48
I was concerned by the usual left-slanted Press Review on Sky News last night, featuring the delightful (NOT! ) Rachel Shabi and the rather ineffectual would-be right's representative Benedict Spence. Rachel set about explaining the story on the front page of today's Observer newspaper, explaining how, as if by magic, John McDonnell intends to compensate approximately 3.7 million women affected as a result of the then coalition Government extending their State Retirement retirement age from 60 to 65 of 66 years of age. Ms Shabi pointed out that the colossal expense involved in compensating such women, amounting to £58 billion (that's £58,000,000,000) would be paid over 5 years at the rate of £11.5 billion p.a. She went on to explain that that provision for funding this huge amount had NOT been included in Labour's Grey Book, since "it didn't rank as normal expenditure" and was a "one-off compensation cost paid in effect out of Court" What sort of mumbo-jumbo speak is all that? To make a totally unfunded commitment such as this after publication of their manifesto is clearly Labour's last throw of the dice. My concern however is that might not this at least temporarily increase Labour's level of support in the polls, bearing in mind the huge number of women affected by such proposals, where the average payment involved is said to amount to approximately £15,000?
It puts me off TBH.
WASPI are in effect wanting to continue inequality for men and should be WASPE. Women Against State Pension Equality
To throw £58Bn at them is a disgrace imo.
I have already voted Lab. but dont agree with the policy.
Well said you. Fair play.
I’m not au fait with all the details on timing etc, but I understand it was at least phased. However, how anyone could not seriously see this coming amazes me. We’ve spent decades creating more equality between the sexes ( great!) and I’ve no doubt it’s not complete yet, but this was a glaring area where clearly the balance was the other way. It was cakeism. It had to stop. So chucking 58bn ( fifty eight !!!) whilst telling all those blokes in theirs 60’s upwards “nothing for you chaps, suck it up”, is well just wrong.
I seem to recall an excellent PB thread on the subject by Senor Meeks.
If the SNP aren't gaining many seats from the Tories and the libdems aren't gaining many seats from the Tories....and the tories gain 30 seats from Labour....then?
The biggest Tory majority since 1987 as confirmed by the new Yougov MRP poll giving a Tory majority of 48
I was concerned by the usual left-slanted Press Review on Sky News last night, featuring the delightful (NOT! ) Rachel Shabi and the rather ineffectual would-be right's representative Benedict Spence. Rachel set about explaining the story on the front page of today's Observer newspaper, explaining how, as if by magic, John McDonnell intends to compensate approximately 3.7 million women affected as a result of the then coalition Government extending their State Retirement retirement age from 60 to 65 of 66 years of age. Ms Shabi pointed out that the colossal expense involved in compensating such women, amounting to £58 billion (that's £58,000,000,000) would be paid over 5 years at the rate of £11.5 billion p.a. She went on to explain that that provision for funding this huge amount had NOT been included in Labour's Grey Book, since "it didn't rank as normal expenditure" and was a "one-off compensation cost paid in effect out of Court" What sort of mumbo-jumbo speak is all that? To make a totally unfunded commitment such as this after publication of their manifesto is clearly Labour's last throw of the dice. My concern however is that might not this at least temporarily increase Labour's level of support in the polls, bearing in mind the huge number of women affected by such proposals, where the average payment involved is said to amount to approximately £15,000?
It puts me off TBH.
WASPI are in effect wanting to continue inequality for men and should be WASPE. Women Against State Pension Equality
To throw £58Bn at them is a disgrace imo.
I have already voted Lab. but dont agree with the policy.
Well said you. Fair play.
I’m not au fait with all the details on timing etc, but I understand it was at least phased. However, how anyone could not seriously see this coming amazes me. We’ve spent decades creating more equality between the sexes ( great!) and I’ve no doubt it’s not complete yet, but this was a glaring area where clearly the balance was the other way. It was cakeism. It had to stop. So chucking 58bn ( fifty eight !!!) whilst telling all those blokes in theirs 60’s upwards “nothing for you chaps, suck it up”, is well just wrong.
I was lucky, I was one of the last people to get my male state pension at 65.
I was concerned by the usual left-slanted Press Review on Sky News last night, featuring the delightful (NOT! ) Rachel Shabi and the rather ineffectual would-be right's representative Benedict Spence. Rachel set about explaining the story on the front page of today's Observer newspaper, explaining how, as if by magic, John McDonnell intends to compensate approximately 3.7 million women affected as a result of the then coalition Government extending their State Retirement retirement age from 60 to 65 of 66 years of age. Ms Shabi pointed out that the colossal expense involved in compensating such women, amounting to £58 billion (that's £58,000,000,000) would be paid over 5 years at the rate of £11.5 billion p.a. She went on to explain that that provision for funding this huge amount had NOT been included in Labour's Grey Book, since "it didn't rank as normal expenditure" and was a "one-off compensation cost paid in effect out of Court" What sort of mumbo-jumbo speak is all that? To make a totally unfunded commitment such as this after publication of their manifesto is clearly Labour's last throw of the dice. My concern however is that might not this at least temporarily increase Labour's level of support in the polls, bearing in mind the huge number of women affected by such proposals, where the average payment involved is said to amount to approximately £15,000?
It puts me off TBH.
WASPI are in effect wanting to continue inequality for men and should be WASPE. Women Against State Pension Equality
To throw £58Bn at them is a disgrace imo.
I have already voted Lab. but dont agree with the policy.
Well said you. Fair play.
I’m not au fait with all the details on timing etc, but I understand it was at least phased. However, how anyone could not seriously see this coming amazes me. We’ve spent decades creating more equality between the sexes ( great!) and I’ve no doubt it’s not complete yet, but this was a glaring area where clearly the balance was the other way. It was cakeism. It had to stop. So chucking 58bn ( fifty eight !!!) whilst telling all those blokes in theirs 60’s upwards “nothing for you chaps, suck it up”, is well just wrong.
It was phased, and well publicised. The only grievance with any weight, in my view, was the subsequent acceleration when the male retirement age was deferred. As the women were already on a phased transition they should have extended the phasing by adding another stage on the end, accepting that this would delay the eventual harmonisation date, rather than compressing the changes for women into fewer years.
With regards to Labour's new WASPI commitment I wonder if anyone on here knows:
1. Why was this not in the manifesto? Is this just a knee jerk reaction to a QT question? 2. Have they said how it will be paid for? £58 billion is a big number. 3. As state pension is taxable will the payments be taxable? If so, how will they know what rate each person should have been paying? 4. What happens to payments that should have been made to those now deceased?
I'm sure there are loads of other questions on this but these sprung to mind instantly.
The radio series on which it is based, available on BBC Sounds, is gripping listening.
I did some digging after I listened on which banks those who “invested” in this product paid their money too. And they were the usual crop of dodgy banks - Singaporean, Chinese, African, Dubai etc - ones few people will have heard of and to whom no-one with any sense would send money to. It amazes me that people don’t check where they are sending money to when they pay electronically. It’s the most obvious - and easiest - of checks and far too often overlooked.
Also the point was that it was not a cryptocurrency at all but a simple pyramid selling scam with fancy new modern words attached. Pretty much all the victims had - and have - no idea what a cryptocurrency is nor how blockchain works. And if you don’t understand it don’t invest in it.
One of the lawyers accused of laundering £300 million of the proceeds goes on trial shortly in the US with some of those proceeds having ended up with Bank of Ireland and the NY branch of Deutschland Bank.
I’d love to know which of the many Eastern European and Russian mafiosos is behind this scam. It won’t just be this woman for sure.
It is interesting that this morning sees the Tory trolls out in force, attacking Swinson as though she is their main concern and selecting the polls for their purpose whilst ignoring those which are uncomfortable. I do not know which polls are most accurate and which are outliers (and neither does anyone else), but it is interesting that the BMG poll putting the LDs back up to 18% and the Tory lead down to 13%...........has been completely ignored.
It is interesting that this morning sees the Tory trolls out in force, attacking Swinson as though she is their main concern and selecting the polls for their purpose whilst ignoring those which are uncomfortable. I do not know which polls are most accurate and which are outliers (and neither does anyone else), but it is interesting that the BMG poll putting the LDs back up to 18% and the Tory lead down to 13%...........has been completely ignored.
With regards to Labour's new WASPI commitment I wonder if anyone on here knows:
1. Why was this not in the manifesto? Is this just a knee jerk reaction to a QT question? 2. Have they said how it will be paid for? £58 billion is a big number. 3. As state pension is taxable will the payments be taxable? If so, how will they know what rate each person should have been paying? 4. What happens to payments that should have been made to those now deceased?
I'm sure there are loads of other questions on this but these sprung to mind instantly.
Doing something to compensate waspi was in the manifesto, I just dont think it committed a number.
They arent the only ones pandering to them, but it is the worst, most nakedly cynical policy of the campaign so far.
It is interesting that this morning sees the Tory trolls out in force, attacking Swinson as though she is their main concern and selecting the polls for their purpose whilst ignoring those which are uncomfortable. I do not know which polls are most accurate and which are outliers (and neither does anyone else), but it is interesting that the BMG poll putting the LDs back up to 18% and the Tory lead down to 13%...........has been completely ignored.
Because the Tory lead is up from 8% with BMG.
In which case why ignore it? Perhaps because it does not fit the narrative about the LDs? Perhaps the Tory trolls are even more focused on Swinson than I realised.
In a randomly selected audience of a hundred, you’d expect one Labour member.
As I have said before, the real problem is that ordinary non-political people don’t want the hassle of going.
The answer is to get rid of the audience.
Quite. I made the same point myself about QT the other day. A panel discussion program, without the audience and involving in-depth discussion of just two or three questions submitted by viewers at home, might be far more revealing that a shouting match in front of a partisan crowd.
There's already a radio phone-in show after QT anyway. If it's really essential that we also be subjected to random members of the public emoting then that strikes me as entirely sufficient.
They also need to stop politicians interrupting each other. If they did that, the programme would become watchable again.
Compare with the level of intelligent debate in this clip from the 1975 referendum. No audience, no interuptions, intelligent discussion of real issues and no soundbites.
18 million people watched it. Back then people had fewer channels, no social media, but as a result much better attention spans.
Indeed. Forty years ago we'd all be waiting for Weekend World, with a twenty minute summary of a key issue of the day (usually excellently done) followed by a forty minute interview with Brian Walden probing a leading politician one-on-one. Only Andrew Neil comes anywhere close, nowadays, and Neil is too often looking for the cheap point rather than viewer enlightenment.
Plus the cracking theme tune of Mountain's Nantucket Sleighride. (Even if it is about whaling....)
Loved that track, haven't listened to it for years, first and probably last time we agree on anything!
As a committed Tory I want to ask a genuine question. Once Johnson has his majority do you think his government is going to be
A. Liberal Cameron along the lines of the London mayor era B. Right wing along the lines of Patel, Raab and the ERG C. No clear idealogical direction, making it up as they go along
It would be genuinely nice to have some idea from the committed like yourself and HYUFD as to what sort of government we are in for because I seriously don't have any idea and from an non-Tory pov it could be any of the three.
The radio series on which it is based, available on BBC Sounds, is gripping listening.
I did some digging after I listened on which banks those who “invested” in this product paid their money too. And they were the usual crop of dodgy banks - Singaporean, Chinese, African, Dubai etc - ones few people will have heard of and to whom no-one with any sense would send money to. It amazes me that people don’t check where they are sending money to when they pay electronically. It’s the most obvious - and easiest - of checks and far too often overlooked.
Also the point was that it was not a cryptocurrency at all but a simple pyramid selling scam with fancy new modern words attached. Pretty much all the victims had - and have - no idea what a cryptocurrency is nor how blockchain works. And if you don’t understand it don’t invest in it.
One of the lawyers accused of laundering £300 million of the proceeds goes on trial shortly in the US with some of those proceeds having ended up with Bank of Ireland and the NY branch of Deutschland Bank.
I’d love to know which of the many Eastern European and Russian mafiosos is behind this scam. It won’t just be this woman for sure.
If the SNP aren't gaining many seats from the Tories and the libdems aren't gaining many seats from the Tories....and the tories gain 30 seats from Labour....then?
The biggest Tory majority since 1987 as confirmed by the new Yougov MRP poll giving a Tory majority of 48
I'm getting a bit worried now, despite the good polls for the Tories last night.
I mean is this it? Is this the Tory manifesto?
They're going to have to do better than that.
Especially after 9 years in government. Where is the big eye catching announcement? Hmmm. I really hope CCHQ haven't become complacent.
In 1983 Thatcher made very few big announcements in the Tory manifesto, Labour produced the 'longest suicide note in history', Thatcher won the biggest Tory landslide since WW2.
The Tories are now polling at Thatcher 1983 levels, Labour are polling barely above Foot 1983 levels.
If anyone should be panicking now it is Labour given they have already published their manifesto
With regards to Labour's new WASPI commitment I wonder if anyone on here knows:
1. Why was this not in the manifesto? Is this just a knee jerk reaction to a QT question? 2. Have they said how it will be paid for? £58 billion is a big number. 3. As state pension is taxable will the payments be taxable? If so, how will they know what rate each person should have been paying? 4. What happens to payments that should have been made to those now deceased?
I'm sure there are loads of other questions on this but these sprung to mind instantly.
Doing something to compensate waspi was in the manifesto, I just dont think it committed a number.
They arent the only ones pandering to them, but it is the worst, most nakedly cynical policy of the campaign so far.
There was no injustice. And they lost the court case. It’s unjustified whinging.
I'm getting a bit worried now, despite the good polls for the Tories last night.
I mean is this it? Is this the Tory manifesto?
They're going to have to do better than that.
Especially after 9 years in government. Where is the big eye catching announcement? Hmmm. I really hope CCHQ haven't become complacent.
I dont think they are after last time, the lack of eye catching stuff is a sign of lack of confidence not complacency, of worry that the more there is, the grander the inclusions, the more could upset someone.
The no vat/ni/income tax rise looks like their broadband policy to me - superficially sounds good but probably a bad idea.
Comments
Boris still has a clear 24% lead over Corbyn on net approval anyway but those figures suggest it is preferred PM not net approval rating that is key given May still led Corbyn on that basis at the end if the 2017 campaign as foes Boris now
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1198360629930790916?s=20
It is blatantly not true that every party has an equal chance in every seat.
That may be the historical outcome, but at the point of closure of candidate registration, they all have an even chance.
In 2017 in the final approval ratings before Election Day Mrs May led Mr Corbyn.
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/political-monitor-satisfaction-ratings-1997-present
Plus of course Boris can still say Trump said a Boris Deal could make a US trade deal harder when urging Farage to make a pact with Boris as Trump's real preferred PM candidate is Farage who will go for No Deal even if he prefers Boris to Corbyn
IF... You'll get no argument from me on that one, but it'll first require the cards to fall in just the right way, and that may not happen for a very long time.
Realistically, I think the only likely path to PR is a whole series of Tory victories, at the end of which a compact of left-of-centre parties finally scrapes a majority and says amongst itself "We can't risk going back to that again." The replacement of Labour looks like a distant dream, and Labour won't back reform until it is either convinced that it can't win a majority under FPTP ever again, or is forced into it by the Lib Dems from a position of strength in some future Coalition negotiation.
I can, just imagine it as Swinson's Revoke policy is truly mad.
None.
On the basis of this fantastic poll for Scottish Tories they would only lose a single seat, Stirling, to the SNP on a small 2% Scottish swing from SNP to the Tories. The LDs would gain Fife North East from the SNP. Scottish Labour though would lose 6 of their 7 Scottish seats, holding only Edinburgh South.
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1198399096853278721?s=20
Well done them. Jeez.
Rachel set about explaining the story on the front page of today's Observer newspaper, explaining how, as if by magic, John McDonnell intends to compensate approximately 3.7 million women affected as a result of the then coalition Government extending their State Retirement retirement age from 60 to 65 of 66 years of age.
Ms Shabi pointed out that the colossal expense involved in compensating such women, amounting to £58 billion (that's £58,000,000,000) would be paid over 5 years at the rate of £11.5 billion p.a.
She went on to explain that that provision for funding this huge amount had NOT been included in Labour's Grey Book, since "it didn't rank as normal expenditure" and was a "one-off compensation cost paid in effect out of Court" What sort of mumbo-jumbo speak is all that?
To make a totally unfunded commitment such as this after publication of their manifesto is clearly Labour's last throw of the dice. My concern however is that might not this at least temporarily increase Labour's level of support in the polls, bearing in mind the huge number of women affected by such proposals, where the average payment involved is said to amount to approximately £15,000?
More subtle interviewers that get their interviewee to let down their guard tend to be rather more effective and watchable.
As long as they get 6 or more I'm evens, and if they get 11 or more, I'm ahead.
Edited extra bit: that's all Ladbrokes, by the way.
Duh!
Leicester fans are hoping that Everton still have Silva for next Sunday. Looking good in second place, with Brighton at home not getting a shot on target, but need more clinical finishing as we missed a few sitters. 4 clean sheets in a row for the Foxes, and a good run of Christmas games.
Everton H
Villa A
Norwich H
Watford H
Very likely to have 40 points and still be second before the Christmas 6 pointers of Man City A and Liverpool H on Boxing Day.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/24/there-is-no-more-deceptive-slogan-of-this-campaign-than-get-brexit-done
https://mobile.twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1198530877988454400
Check out this video of Jo Swinson introducing her pitch to voters to see if there is any similarity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqsy7V0wphI
What the hell, 83bn here, 58bn there, who’s counting? Another gazillion bn won’t make any difference.
https://twitter.com/wilde/status/1198203779176435712?s=19
Mr. Max, aye, but injustice against men isn't fashionable.
If a problem affects mostly women it's more likely to get referred to in gender terms. If it mostly affects men (perhaps excepting suicide) then it's less likely (rough sleeping).
My mother surprised me by how much contempt she had for the women complaining about the pension situation.
On QT, all sides have played the "oi, he's a (rival party) activist" game - it was only yesterday that Guido Fawkes was grumbling that someone was a Labour activist. But I do think that QT should be able to avoid having the same bloke 4 times, and also that the preponderance of SNP supporters in the leaders' QT was just odd.
This group of women annoy me intensely. I have heard some of them interviewed and did not feel in the slightest bit sorry for them. They seemed to be complaining that they should be rescued from their own failures to make provision, despite having jobs, or because they had previously made provision for early retirement and were annoyed that they couldn’t continue with these plans. Well, tough shit, frankly.
Lots of other groups have been much more adversely affected by government decisions and are frankly more deserving of help.
WASPI are in effect wanting to continue inequality for men and should be WASPE. Women Against State Pension Equality
To throw £58Bn at them is a disgrace imo.
I have already voted Lab. but dont agree with the policy.
I expect the party activists weren't entirely honest about their position when they applied online to be in the election programme audience - there isn't really any way the BBC can check them out (I'd hope they do some basic checking by name on twitter), so short of some kind of sanction when they are discovered afterwards, what can be done?
That blonde haired bumbling bloke as well
I did some digging after I listened on which banks those who “invested” in this product paid their money too. And they were the usual crop of dodgy banks - Singaporean, Chinese, African, Dubai etc - ones few people will have heard of and to whom no-one with any sense would send money to. It amazes me that people don’t check where they are sending money to when they pay electronically. It’s the most obvious - and easiest - of checks and far too often overlooked.
Also the point was that it was not a cryptocurrency at all but a simple pyramid selling scam with fancy new modern words attached. Pretty much all the victims had - and have - no idea what a cryptocurrency is nor how blockchain works. And if you don’t understand it don’t invest in it.
One of the lawyers accused of laundering £300 million of the proceeds goes on trial shortly in the US with some of those proceeds having ended up with Bank of Ireland and the NY branch of Deutschland Bank.
I’d love to know which of the many Eastern European and Russian mafiosos is behind this scam. It won’t just be this woman for sure.
Women couldn't get cheaper car insurance than men despite being less likely to make claims (because discriminating by sex is sexist). Men lost higher annuity rates (because they live for fewer years, on average) for the same reason.
'Equality' meant both got dealt additional costs.
Worth noting that drivers can have black box type policies whereby their behaviour is monitored and good/safe driving can lead to lower premiums. Of course, such a handy thing doesn't work for life expectancy and annuity, so men still got screwed on that.
Thank gawd for that.... I don't suppose Ridge did with McDonnell?
More like Deltapoll says that.. its a new polling organisation that has no track record whatsoever.
I didn't watch the thing, but I'm assuming from your remarks that either the SNP were greatly over-represented or very, very noisy?
I’m not au fait with all the details on timing etc, but I understand it was at least phased. However, how anyone could not seriously see this coming amazes me. We’ve spent decades creating more equality between the sexes ( great!) and I’ve no doubt it’s not complete yet, but this was a glaring area where clearly the balance was the other way. It was cakeism. It had to stop. So chucking 58bn ( fifty eight !!!) whilst telling all those blokes in theirs 60’s upwards “nothing for you chaps, suck it up”, is well just wrong.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/1198538576239181824
With regards to Labour's new WASPI commitment I wonder if anyone on here knows:
1. Why was this not in the manifesto? Is this just a knee jerk reaction to a QT question?
2. Have they said how it will be paid for? £58 billion is a big number.
3. As state pension is taxable will the payments be taxable? If so, how will they know what rate each person should have been paying?
4. What happens to payments that should have been made to those now deceased?
I'm sure there are loads of other questions on this but these sprung to mind instantly.
They arent the only ones pandering to them, but it is the worst, most nakedly cynical policy of the campaign so far.
As a committed Tory I want to ask a genuine question. Once Johnson has his majority do you think his government is going to be
A. Liberal Cameron along the lines of the London mayor era
B. Right wing along the lines of Patel, Raab and the ERG
C. No clear idealogical direction, making it up as they go along
It would be genuinely nice to have some idea from the committed like yourself and HYUFD as to what sort of government we are in for because I seriously don't have any idea and from an non-Tory pov it could be any of the three.
He audible sighed off camera at one point 😆
Said something like “You are just not telling the truth, are you?”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000bqht/the-andrew-marr-show-24112019
I mean is this it? Is this the Tory manifesto?
They're going to have to do better than that.
Especially after 9 years in government. Where is the big eye catching announcement? Hmmm. I really hope CCHQ haven't become complacent.
MRP is a modelling approach but this firm (datapraxis) uses its own assumptions
YouGov sells its polling data but not the correlations between various classifications and voting behaviours
If all MRP models were the same why would we get multiple versions?
This is a model, like @barnesian or others on here. It may be good, or not. I don’t know. But don’t misrepresent what it.
I know your original post was an error. It doesn’t matter. But why do you always argue points where you made a simple mistake?
The Tories are now polling at Thatcher 1983 levels, Labour are polling barely above Foot 1983 levels.
If anyone should be panicking now it is Labour given they have already published their manifesto
The no vat/ni/income tax rise looks like their broadband policy to me - superficially sounds good but probably a bad idea.