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.
It isn’t 95% it’s people who can claim up to 1200 of unused Allowance from their married partner so partner needs to earn less than 12,000 and the one claiming it has to earn at least 13200 to benefit. I asked yesterday and some one came up with the figure of about 3.5 million benefit, yes a lot but not 95%
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 hope it is not an effective voter bribe, but I fear it is. everyone bar the tories have promised something for them, and bought into the idea there has been an injustice.
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.
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.
Because they secretly know she is an utterly vacuous politician?
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
The Tories never put all their evil plans in the manifesto. They just get into power and do whatever they want. If they put down in writing what they have in mind nobody would vote for them.
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
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?
Please point out then the major differences in MRP method on this poll based on Yougov data to the 2017 MRP poll based on Yougov data?
What a stupid question! You know none of us knows. Fact is you were - again - caught out making inaccurate statements in here and, rather than simply correcting yourself, you insist on trying to double down.
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.
1. "Under the Tories, 400,000 pensioners have been pushed into poverty and a generation of women born in the 1950s have had their pension age changed without fair notification. This betrayal left millions of women with no time to make alternative plans – with sometimes devastating personal consequences.
"Labour recognises this injustice, and will work with these women to design a system of recompense for the losses and insecurity they have suffered."
- Labour manifesto, p75
2. Unless I'm being very blind, there's nothing in the grey book under the Work and Pensions chapter relating to this policy. I don't know where they've plucked the £58 billion figure from, and the manifesto referenced above only says that "a system of recompense" will be designed.
There is no indication of how and when the payments will be made or where the colossal sum of money is to come from. The summary table near the front of the grey book gives £82.9bn in spending commitments and £82.9bn in revenue-raising commitments, but this clearly does not include the unmentioned cost of the WASPI bribe. Although we shouldn't be surprised, as what immediately strikes one is that not one penny of the costs of the huge renationalisation programme are included in the costed spending commitments either.
"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."
We are wearing blindfolds on all the policies of the big 2. For the Tories as the PM is a confirmed liar who will switch policy at the drop of the hat if it helps his position. For Labour as they cannot win a majority, and SNP/LD wont allow most of their policies, so we are in the dark as to what a Labour minority manifesto would actually look like.
I can understand why the Tories might want a safe manifesto given their big lead in the polls. But is there a point at which it’s seen as too safe and lacking ambition .
The social care policy so far suggested looks paltry , one billion a year extra!
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
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?
Please point out then the major differences in MRP method on this poll based on Yougov data to the 2017 MRP poll based on Yougov data?
What a stupid question! You know none of us knows. Fact is you were - again - caught out making inaccurate statements in here and, rather than simply correcting yourself, you insist on trying to double down.
You do not know because you cannot show any, Thank you.
So despite your desperate attempts to stir up a huge error on my earlier posts you cannot prove there was one. Thank you
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.
Labour's WASPI policy seems to represent a simple transfer of £85bn from hard-working millennial families to comfortable nest-flown boomers. As one of the latter I do sometimes wonder about the day when middle-aged tax-payers start pondering a cull.
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.
I very much expect it to be A. The bulk of the new intake of candidates I've seen are very much along those lines. I expect them to provide slim pickings for new ERG recruits.
There is a grim determination to get Brexit done and out the way. After that, I expect Boris to be very much a One Nation Conservative, barely distinguishable from a social democrat. Won't be at all surprised if, for example, he tackles illegal migration here with an amnesty, which will be helpful to those here - but with strictly enforced rules about any who come here illegally subsequently and those granted amnesty but then commit crime. I doubt their families will be allowed here though. Still be plenty of room for people to get outraged at the "harshness of this terrible government". But it will be ill-deserved - and get no traction with the public.
I don't see him rowing back much on Cameron's commitments to international aid. Perhaps where it goes, but not on how much.
I don't see him as much of a military adventurist.
Boris has been described to me by a leading member of the Govt. as "a hippy". I can see him wanting to throw himself into environmental issues. It's the big issue for his partner. I remain hopeful that the decision on the tidal lagoons will be revisited. I keep banging on about them at every opportunity!
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.
It will be in between A and B
It will be B with enough superficial elements from A to fool the uninformed.
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.
Joined the Cons in 1975 and activist ever since and can say with reasonable confidence that it will A with the occasional C (cos that's what all governments do).
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 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.
Because they secretly know she is an utterly vacuous politician?
I can understand why the Tories might want a safe manifesto given their big lead in the polls. But is there a point at which it’s seen as too safe and lacking ambition .
The social care policy so far suggested looks paltry , one billion a year extra!
The social care policy so far suggested looks paltry , one billion a year extra!
The thing with social care is there is a need for both short term cash and long term restructuring. up until now noone has been able to deal with the long term issues. at this point the only way it can be resolved is a cross party consensus but that would require Labour and Tory to agree on something (I can't see that happening at the moment)
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
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?
Please point out then the major differences in MRP method on this poll based on Yougov data to the 2017 MRP poll based on Yougov data?
What a stupid question! You know none of us knows. Fact is you were - again - caught out making inaccurate statements in here and, rather than simply correcting yourself, you insist on trying to double down.
You do not know because you cannot show any, Thank you.
So despite your desperate attempts to stir up a huge error on my earlier posts you cannot prove there was one. Thank you
Anthony Wells has said the Praxis MRP uses different methodology to the YouGov MRP, he apologises for being cryptic, but it will be clear when YouGov publish their own MRP. But clearly you know better than Anthony Wells.
My understanding is that the main differences are that
1) Praxis uses older data, The YouGov MRP uses data conducted in the last seven days or so
2) The YouGov MRP model uses the specific ballot paper for the specific constituency the respondent lives in when asking how they will vote. This produces an accurate result, something YouGov learned when they developed the MRP in 2017.
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 thought it was proportionate to seats in the HOC, and the SNP are the third party.
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.
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.
There a tons of policies they could come up with without hurting hardly anyone.
I'm surprised this campaign has been so good natured. If ever there was a call for some brutal and personal negative campaigning this was it. I can't remember an election which should have been more polarising. Perhaps they're holding their fire (and their cash) for the last two weeks.
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
I'm surprised this campaign has been so good natured. If ever there was a call for some brutal and personal negative campaigning this was it. I can't remember an election which should have been more polarising. Perhaps they're holding their fire (and their cash) for the last two weeks.
I am quite surprised no one has produced a poster of Boris with the slogan;
"If his wife can't trust him, why should the voters?"
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.
Labour's WASPI policy seems to represent a simple transfer of £85bn from hard-working millennial families to comfortable nest-flown boomers. As one of the latter I do sometimes wonder about the day when middle-aged tax-payers start pondering a cull.
Contrast it with the lack of action for students with debts who can only dream of retiring early and who have to pay a usurious 6% interest rate.
I can understand why the Tories might want a safe manifesto given their big lead in the polls. But is there a point at which it’s seen as too safe and lacking ambition .
The social care policy so far suggested looks paltry , one billion a year extra!
One party commits to spending half-a-trillion pounds: laughable The other doesn't: paltry
They can't win, can they?
Seriously, we should not be surprised by the social care policy. Theresa May tried to fix social care, of course, and look what happened to her. It's can-kicking and designed to be uncontroversial: any serious attempt to make elderly care affordable is ultimately going to involve extracting as much as possible of the cost from those who can afford it, and therefore lead immediately to 2017 part 2.
Priority number one for the Tories in this election is to keep the grey vote on side. Their lead amongst everyone over 50 is very large, and amongst the over 65s it is colossal. Why risk that?
It would be a killer blow for Labour if Boris said he will not revisit the WASPI women. They have no grievance.
Students on the other hand do have a grievance about the levels of interest they have to pay on student loans. So he will take the amount of money Labour has pledged to the WASPIs and use it to take the interest on student loans down from 6% to 0%. And write off all the interest for those students who have had it calculated to date.
It isn’t 95% it’s people who can claim up to 1200 of unused Allowance from their married partner so partner needs to earn less than 12,000 and the one claiming it has to earn at least 13200 to benefit. I asked yesterday and some one came up with the figure of about 3.5 million benefit, yes a lot but not 95%
obviously it's not 95% (there are single people out there too....)
BUT it's to emphasise the bull that only the top 5% are paying more tax....
How about 100% of the people set to lose the Marriage Tax allowance are basic rate taxpayers?
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.
Labour's WASPI policy seems to represent a simple transfer of £85bn from hard-working millennial families to comfortable nest-flown boomers. As one of the latter I do sometimes wonder about the day when middle-aged tax-payers start pondering a cull.
Contrast it with the lack of action for students with debts who can only dream of retiring early and who have to pay a usurious 6% interest rate.
Students will vote by a landslide for Labour regardless so there is no purpose, from the electoral standpoint, in the Tories even bothering to try to appeal to them.
Labour doesn't really need to either, but it will anyway simply because its strategy is to chuck money at *everybody* (except the very wealthy - boo, hiss!) and hope that enough of them don't ask awkward questions about where it's all meant to come from.
I'm surprised this campaign has been so good natured. If ever there was a call for some brutal and personal negative campaigning this was it. I can't remember an election which should have been more polarising. Perhaps they're holding their fire (and their cash) for the last two weeks.
I am quite surprised no one has produced a poster of Boris with the slogan;
"If his wife can't trust him, why should the voters?"
That would rather invite one of Corbyn.
"If his wives couldn't trust him, why should the voters?"
It isn’t 95% it’s people who can claim up to 1200 of unused Allowance from their married partner so partner needs to earn less than 12,000 and the one claiming it has to earn at least 13200 to benefit. I asked yesterday and some one came up with the figure of about 3.5 million benefit, yes a lot but not 95%
obviously it's not 95% (there are single people out there too....)
BUT it's to emphasise the bull that only the top 5% are paying more tax....
How about 100% of the people set to lose the Marriage Tax allowance are basic rate taxpayers?
Cannot log in to the fantasy football, how am I doing?
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.
1. "Under the Tories, 400,000 pensioners have been pushed into poverty and a generation of women born in the 1950s have had their pension age changed without fair notification. This betrayal left millions of women with no time to make alternative plans – with sometimes devastating personal consequences.
"Labour recognises this injustice, and will work with these women to design a system of recompense for the losses and insecurity they have suffered."
- Labour manifesto, p75
2. Unless I'm being very blind, there's nothing in the grey book under the Work and Pensions chapter relating to this policy. I don't know where they've plucked the £58 billion figure from, and the manifesto referenced above only says that "a system of recompense" will be designed.
There is no indication of how and when the payments will be made or where the colossal sum of money is to come from. The summary table near the front of the grey book gives £82.9bn in spending commitments and £82.9bn in revenue-raising commitments, but this clearly does not include the unmentioned cost of the WASPI bribe. Although we shouldn't be surprised, as what immediately strikes one is that not one penny of the costs of the huge renationalisation programme are included in the costed spending commitments either.
3. Not a clue.
4. Not a clue.
2. They simply claim that they don't have to say how they will pay for it because it is akin to the court ruling going against the Govt. Which obviously is ridiculous. Why bother costing anything in that case? And if a massive court decision of a £58 billion magnitude went against the Govt then there would obviously be consequences for other areas of public spending. You can't just ignore it and shout "contingency".
More generally the whole "injustice" argument is silly. They even claim that some people "had to go back to work". That would imply that those people "retired" well before the age of 60 anyway. (anyone in work would have just carried on). And most people's earnings drop once they retire. If you "retired" ten years early only to find you didn't have any money left at 61 then it's your planning that's at fault, not a decision of the Govt taken 10 years before you retired.
I'm surprised this campaign has been so good natured. If ever there was a call for some brutal and personal negative campaigning this was it. I can't remember an election which should have been more polarising. Perhaps they're holding their fire (and their cash) for the last two weeks.
I am quite surprised no one has produced a poster of Boris with the slogan;
"If his wife can't trust him, why should the voters?"
We cant trust him, but someone's spouse being able to trust them doesnt mean they would make a good leader either so making the comparison just looks petty.
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 thought it was proportionate to seats in the HOC, and the SNP are the third party.
Right. And who thinks half that audience were Tories?
I'm surprised this campaign has been so good natured. If ever there was a call for some brutal and personal negative campaigning this was it. I can't remember an election which should have been more polarising. Perhaps they're holding their fire (and their cash) for the last two weeks.
I am quite surprised no one has produced a poster of Boris with the slogan;
"If his wife can't trust him, why should the voters?"
It isn’t 95% it’s people who can claim up to 1200 of unused Allowance from their married partner so partner needs to earn less than 12,000 and the one claiming it has to earn at least 13200 to benefit. I asked yesterday and some one came up with the figure of about 3.5 million benefit, yes a lot but not 95%
obviously it's not 95% (there are single people out there too....)
BUT it's to emphasise the bull that only the top 5% are paying more tax....
How about 100% of the people set to lose the Marriage Tax allowance are basic rate taxpayers?
Cannot log in to the fantasy football, how am I doing?
Round hasn't finished yet, you've got Cantwell on the pitch whilst he's sub on mine... just need Martial to crock himself before kick off and all will be well....
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.
Labour's WASPI policy seems to represent a simple transfer of £85bn from hard-working millennial families to comfortable nest-flown boomers. As one of the latter I do sometimes wonder about the day when middle-aged tax-payers start pondering a cull.
Contrast it with the lack of action for students with debts who can only dream of retiring early and who have to pay a usurious 6% interest rate.
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
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?
Please point out then the major differences in MRP method on this poll based on Yougov data to the 2017 MRP poll based on Yougov data?
What a stupid question! You know none of us knows. Fact is you were - again - caught out making inaccurate statements in here and, rather than simply correcting yourself, you insist on trying to double down.
You do not know because you cannot show any, Thank you.
So despite your desperate attempts to stir up a huge error on my earlier posts you cannot prove there was one. Thank you
Anthony Wells has said the Praxis MRP uses different methodology to the YouGov MRP, he apologises for being cryptic, but it will be clear when YouGov publish their own MRP. But clearly you know better than Anthony Wells.
My understanding is that the main differences are that
1) Praxis uses older data, The YouGov MRP uses data conducted in the last seven days or so
2) The YouGov MRP model uses the specific ballot paper for the specific constituency the respondent lives in when asking how they will vote. This produces an accurate result, something YouGov learned when they developed the MRP in 2017.
I'm surprised this campaign has been so good natured. If ever there was a call for some brutal and personal negative campaigning this was it. I can't remember an election which should have been more polarising. Perhaps they're holding their fire (and their cash) for the last two weeks.
Not really. It's not Corbyn's style, Johnson is majoring in optimism and the Tories already know that dredging up the Labour leadership's Islamist, Irish Republican and Latin American Marxist connections doesn't help them very much.
I therefore expect that things will go on pretty much as they are for the remainder of the campaign period.
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.
Labour's WASPI policy seems to represent a simple transfer of £85bn from hard-working millennial families to comfortable nest-flown boomers. As one of the latter I do sometimes wonder about the day when middle-aged tax-payers start pondering a cull.
Contrast it with the lack of action for students with debts who can only dream of retiring early and who have to pay a usurious 6% interest rate.
Students will vote by a landslide for Labour regardless so there is no purpose, from the electoral standpoint, in the Tories even bothering to try to appeal to them.
Labour doesn't really need to either, but it will anyway simply because its strategy is to chuck money at *everybody* (except the very wealthy - boo, hiss!) and hope that enough of them don't ask awkward questions about where it's all meant to come from.
The Tories could give some sort of financial reward on early repayment. That would actually generate a lot of money for the Exchequer as opposed to drain it. Obviously they've already secured my vote, but it would appeal to many I feel.
It isn’t 95% it’s people who can claim up to 1200 of unused Allowance from their married partner so partner needs to earn less than 12,000 and the one claiming it has to earn at least 13200 to benefit. I asked yesterday and some one came up with the figure of about 3.5 million benefit, yes a lot but not 95%
obviously it's not 95% (there are single people out there too....)
BUT it's to emphasise the bull that only the top 5% are paying more tax....
How about 100% of the people set to lose the Marriage Tax allowance are basic rate taxpayers?
It isn’t 95% it’s people who can claim up to 1200 of unused Allowance from their married partner so partner needs to earn less than 12,000 and the one claiming it has to earn at least 13200 to benefit. I asked yesterday and some one came up with the figure of about 3.5 million benefit, yes a lot but not 95%
obviously it's not 95% (there are single people out there too....)
BUT it's to emphasise the bull that only the top 5% are paying more tax....
How about 100% of the people set to lose the Marriage Tax allowance are basic rate taxpayers?
It isn’t 95% it’s people who can claim up to 1200 of unused Allowance from their married partner so partner needs to earn less than 12,000 and the one claiming it has to earn at least 13200 to benefit. I asked yesterday and some one came up with the figure of about 3.5 million benefit, yes a lot but not 95%
obviously it's not 95% (there are single people out there too....)
BUT it's to emphasise the bull that only the top 5% are paying more tax....
How about 100% of the people set to lose the Marriage Tax allowance are basic rate taxpayers?
Can you not claim it if paying higher rate tax?
No. You lose access as soon as either one of you goes over the threshold.
I'm surprised this campaign has been so good natured. If ever there was a call for some brutal and personal negative campaigning this was it. I can't remember an election which should have been more polarising. Perhaps they're holding their fire (and their cash) for the last two weeks.
I am quite surprised no one has produced a poster of Boris with the slogan;
"If his wife can't trust him, why should the voters?"
That would rather invite one of Corbyn.
"If his wives couldn't trust him, why should the voters?"
It would be a terrible idea on both counts. It makes the team doing the poster look spiteful, cheap, and out of ideas.
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.
No injustice seems a bit strong. As I understand it, the changes were accelerated in 2011, which meant some in their 50s had to wait an extra 5 years. Your earnings potential at that stage are pretty limited.
Means testing compensation to those most adversely affected would seem to be a reasonable compromise.
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.
1. "Under the Tories, 400,000 pensioners have been pushed into poverty and a generation of women born in the 1950s have had their pension age changed without fair notification. This betrayal left millions of women with no time to make alternative plans – with sometimes devastating personal consequences.
"Labour recognises this injustice, and will work with these women to design a system of recompense for the losses and insecurity they have suffered."
- Labour manifesto, p75
2. Unless I'm being very blind, there's nothing in the grey book under the Work and Pensions chapter relating to this policy. I don't know where they've plucked the £58 billion figure from, and the manifesto referenced above only says that "a system of recompense" will be designed.
There is no indication of how and when the payments will be made or where the colossal sum of money is to come from. The summary table near the front of the grey book gives £82.9bn in spending commitments and £82.9bn in revenue-raising commitments, but this clearly does not include the unmentioned cost of the WASPI bribe. Although we shouldn't be surprised, as what immediately strikes one is that not one penny of the costs of the huge renationalisation programme are included in the costed spending commitments either.
3. Not a clue.
4. Not a clue.
They can't say that they weren't adequately informed.
I've been well aware of the changes to retirement age for a long time even though I'm not affected in the slightest. The changes were first announced in the 1990s and only accelerated in 2011.
No-one should be retiring without taking independent advice. Anyone who'd taken this advice should have been told that they would have to work longer before getting the state pension. They would also have been told the implications of retiring without the state pension.
I have no sympathy with them (and I know number of people directly affected who planned better or changed their plans) as I won't get the state pension until I'm 67 (which I expect to be moved up to nearer 70) whereas they are still getting their pension at 65 (at the latest).
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
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?
Please point out then the major differences in MRP method on this poll based on Yougov data to the 2017 MRP poll based on Yougov data?
What a stupid question! You know none of us knows. Fact is you were - again - caught out making inaccurate statements in here and, rather than simply correcting yourself, you insist on trying to double down.
You do not know because you cannot show any, Thank you.
So despite your desperate attempts to stir up a huge error on my earlier posts you cannot prove there was one. Thank you
So your contention is we can't know if YouGov shared their propriety MRP model with another company?
I'm surprised this campaign has been so good natured. If ever there was a call for some brutal and personal negative campaigning this was it. I can't remember an election which should have been more polarising. Perhaps they're holding their fire (and their cash) for the last two weeks.
I am quite surprised no one has produced a poster of Boris with the slogan;
"If his wife can't trust him, why should the voters?"
That would rather invite one of Corbyn.
"If his wives couldn't trust him, why should the voters?"
I agree but am still surprised there has not been one produced by an indie or one of the smaller parties (the majors tend to play safe). And, of course, your correction would also apply to Boris.
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 thought it was proportionate to seats in the HOC, and the SNP are the third party.
Right. And who thinks half that audience were Tories?
I'm surprised this campaign has been so good natured. If ever there was a call for some brutal and personal negative campaigning this was it. I can't remember an election which should have been more polarising. Perhaps they're holding their fire (and their cash) for the last two weeks.
I am quite surprised no one has produced a poster of Boris with the slogan;
"If his wife can't trust him, why should the voters?"
That would rather invite one of Corbyn.
"If his wives couldn't trust him, why should the voters?"
It would be a terrible idea on both counts. It makes the team doing the poster look spiteful, cheap, and out of ideas.
You all seem to assume it would be a major party producing it. It would work for a minor player (indie or otherwise) by attracting attention. And a major doing it by proxy (as long as it is careful) would be interesting.
Thanks to everyone for their responses on WASPI. What this policy appears to confirm is that no amount of tax raising or borrowing is too colossal to inhibit Corbyn and McDonnell from trying to win an election by buying votes. Looking downthread it appears that even Corbyn loyalists like BJO is starting to realise this.
It's also about time Labour were held to account on their bogus claims that only 5% would pay more tax. Kudos to Andrew Marr for doing so this morning. CCHQ should have been all over the marriage tax allowance abolition for days.
If CCHQ are incapable of demolishing Labour's dishonest, extreme and high risk tax/borrow and spend plans the Tories won't deserve to win this election.
It isn’t 95% it’s people who can claim up to 1200 of unused Allowance from their married partner so partner needs to earn less than 12,000 and the one claiming it has to earn at least 13200 to benefit. I asked yesterday and some one came up with the figure of about 3.5 million benefit, yes a lot but not 95%
I’m sure your maths is correct
But Rayner kept saying “only the top 5% will pay more tax”
When pushed she tried “if you look at our manifesto as a whole with the increase in spending on education, health” [i paraphrase] then “people will be better off”.
That may be true but it is not the same thing
She then “to suggest I haven’t been totally honest is disingenuous” !!
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 thought it was proportionate to seats in the HOC, and the SNP are the third party.
Right. And who thinks half that audience were Tories?
I'm surprised this campaign has been so good natured. If ever there was a call for some brutal and personal negative campaigning this was it. I can't remember an election which should have been more polarising. Perhaps they're holding their fire (and their cash) for the last two weeks.
Not really. It's not Corbyn's style, Johnson is majoring in optimism and the Tories already know that dredging up the Labour leadership's Islamist, Irish Republican and Latin American Marxist connections doesn't help them very much.
I therefore expect that things will go on pretty much as they are for the remainder of the campaign period.
Very few people see Johnson as honest trustworthy or reliable. I doubt many if any think he has anything to do with government decisions or even what's in todays manifesto. It's very difficult to change people's minds but when you have a stack of pre conceived negatives it shoulddn't be difficult to make them damaging. With Corbyn that'll be more difficult. They've been working on those for several years and most of the damage has been done.
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?
The biggest Tory majority since 1987 as confirmed by the new Yougov MRP poll giving a Tory majority of 48
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?
Please point out then the major differences in MRP method on this poll based on Yougov data to the 2017 MRP poll based on Yougov data?
What a stupid question! You know none of us knows. Fact is you were - again - caught out making inaccurate statements in here and, rather than simply correcting yourself, you insist on trying to double down.
The silly thing is this was an easy mistake to make. And it really doesn’t matter. The model could be interesting and valid in itself.
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.
1. "Under the Tories, 400,000 pensioners have been pushed into poverty and a generation of women born in the 1950s have had their pension age changed without fair notification. This betrayal left millions of women with no time to make alternative plans – with sometimes devastating personal consequences.
"Labour recognises this injustice, and will work with these women to design a system of recompense for the losses and insecurity they have suffered."
- Labour manifesto, p75
2. Unless I'm being very blind, there's nothing in the grey book under the Work and Pensions chapter relating to this policy. I don't know where they've plucked the £58 billion figure from, and the manifesto referenced above only says that "a system of recompense" will be designed.
There is no indication of how and when the payments will be made or where the colossal sum of money is to come from. The summary table near the front of the grey book gives £82.9bn in spending commitments and £82.9bn in revenue-raising commitments, but this clearly does not include the unmentioned cost of the WASPI bribe. Although we shouldn't be surprised, as what immediately strikes one is that not one penny of the costs of the huge renationalisation programme are included in the costed spending commitments either.
3. Not a clue.
4. Not a clue.
Press has said average payment of £15k x 3.8m women = £58bn
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.
I'd say a mix between A and C. Though much depends on whether we get a majority and if it's a big majority. If it's a narrow one I expect it will be a lot more B as the right will have an effective veto on policy, having realised how weak the leadership really is when it comes down to it. That's why I'm really hoping for a 70+ majority, otherwise I fear the JRMs and Raabs will rule the roost.
Watching Politics Scotland, it really is piss poor in comparison to Andrew Marr, even when Marr is having a really bad day. Dame Anne Maguire churned out to defend Labour. A perfect example of what is happening in Scotland now. In 2010 she held Stirling for Labour with a decent majority. In 2019 Labour is scrapping with the SLibs to pick up the scraps left by the SCons and SNP.
RE: Question Time "political balance" based on MPs. Is this a new methodology? Sets an interesting precedent in the event that one side wins a landslide in future? Can't believe they would be allowed to get away with deliberately packing an audience with Govt supporters in that event? And can't believe they have done in the past?
Morning all, I take it we did the Panelbase Scotland only poll? Very interesting and given the number of marginals in Scotland could see seats going either way if transpiring at the GE. As such, the 7/2 on the Tories in Edinburgh SW looks value as does 7/4 on them in Perthshire
Angela Rayner just lied basically watching that link back from Charles.
She said people under the £80k bracket will not pay any more tax.
Simply a big fat lie for those millions who lose the MTA and £250pa and where 100% of them are basic rate taxpayers.
That's my new daily reminder I think instead.
It was astonishing that. She kept trying to say that other changes will make up for it but wouldn't say that people getting the MTA will be paying more income tax.
astonishingly she's currently 3rd favourite with the bookies to replace JC
Angela Rayner just lied basically watching that link back from Charles.
She said people under the £80k bracket will not pay any more tax.
Simply a big fat lie for those millions who lose the MTA and £250pa and where 100% of them are basic rate taxpayers.
That's my new daily reminder I think instead.
And the Tories don’t lie and are a wonderful example of morality ! Really I’m not defending Rayner but seriously it’s like the Tories can do no wrong in some people’s eyes.
I'm surprised this campaign has been so good natured. If ever there was a call for some brutal and personal negative campaigning this was it. I can't remember an election which should have been more polarising. Perhaps they're holding their fire (and their cash) for the last two weeks.
I am quite surprised no one has produced a poster of Boris with the slogan;
"If his wife can't trust him, why should the voters?"
That would rather invite one of Corbyn.
"If his wives couldn't trust him, why should the voters?"
It would be a terrible idea on both counts. It makes the team doing the poster look spiteful, cheap, and out of ideas.
You all seem to assume it would be a major party producing it. It would work for a minor player (indie or otherwise) by attracting attention. And a major doing it by proxy (as long as it is careful) would be interesting.
Well you're a minor player, so why don't you go for it and see how it goes?
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 thought it was proportionate to seats in the HOC, and the SNP are the third party.
Right. And who thinks half that audience were Tories?
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
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?
Please point out then the major differences in MRP method on this poll based on Yougov data to the 2017 MRP poll based on Yougov data?
What a stupid question! You know none of us knows. Fact is you were - again - caught out making inaccurate statements in here and, rather than simply correcting yourself, you insist on trying to double down.
The silly thing is this was an easy mistake to make. And it really doesn’t matter. The model could be interesting and valid in itself.
More important to never be wrong even on a triviality.
Angela Rayner just lied basically watching that link back from Charles.
She said people under the £80k bracket will not pay any more tax.
Simply a big fat lie for those millions who lose the MTA and £250pa and where 100% of them are basic rate taxpayers.
That's my new daily reminder I think instead.
And the Tories don’t lie and are a wonderful example of morality ! Really I’m not defending Rayner but seriously it’s like the Tories can do no wrong in some people’s eyes.
But it's important because it wasn't just Rayner telling that lie.
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.
1. "Under the Tories, 400,000 pensioners have been pushed into poverty and a generation of women born in the 1950s have had their pension age changed without fair notification. This betrayal left millions of women with no time to make alternative plans – with sometimes devastating personal consequences.
"Labour recognises this injustice, and will work with these women to design a system of recompense for the losses and insecurity they have suffered."
- Labour manifesto, p75
2. Unless I'm being very blind, there's nothing in the grey book under the Work and Pensions chapter relating to this policy. I don't know where they've plucked the £58 billion figure from, and the manifesto referenced above only says that "a system of recompense" will be designed.
There is no indication of how and when the payments will be made or where the colossal sum of money is to come from. The summary table near the front of the grey book gives £82.9bn in spending commitments and £82.9bn in revenue-raising commitments, but this clearly does not include the unmentioned cost of the WASPI bribe. Although we shouldn't be surprised, as what immediately strikes one is that not one penny of the costs of the huge renationalisation programme are included in the costed spending commitments either.
3. Not a clue.
4. Not a clue.
They can't say that they weren't adequately informed.
I've been well aware of the changes to retirement age for a long time even though I'm not affected in the slightest. The changes were first announced in the 1990s and only accelerated in 2011.
No-one should be retiring without taking independent advice. Anyone who'd taken this advice should have been told that they would have to work longer before getting the state pension. They would also have been told the implications of retiring without the state pension.
I have no sympathy with them (and I know number of people directly affected who planned better or changed their plans) as I won't get the state pension until I'm 67 (which I expect to be moved up to nearer 70) whereas they are still getting their pension at 65 (at the latest).
Optimist! I’ve halfway assuming I won’t get a state pension at all 😞
"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?"
1. Yes. I bet Corbyn didn`t even know about the issue, doesn`t understand it and thanked his lucky stars that it wasn`t he who was asked the question. 2. No doubt they`ll borrow it 3. One would hope it would be taxable - pension income is classed earned income. For some people, the receipt of a large sum at once will put them in higher rate tax bracket so 40% will be due on a proportion in these cases. No doubt they`ll compain about this. (However, I wouldn`t put it past the Labour Party to pay it as a tax-free compensation for an "injustice") 4. The beneficiaries will have a claim against the Revenue and this may be tax free as the recipient is no longer alive to pay the tax
Alastair Meeks wrote an excellent piece on this. The Waspi Women are using pressure-group tactics to attempt to win this money politically where they have failed legally. There was loads of information about the pension state age changes for years before they were implemented, as Alastair says.
On Topic: Are we heading for a "Wobbly Wednesday" ? Or a "Day The Polls Turned" narrative?
I don’t think “Mr Neutral” has been taken into account in any polls yet?
There's got to be at least one big poll wobble for Con during this election. I mean even 1997 had the famous ICM poll where Labour's lead was "cut" to 5%...
Comments
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/872797587413360640
"Labour recognises this injustice, and will work with these women to design a system of recompense for the losses and insecurity they have suffered."
- Labour manifesto, p75
2. Unless I'm being very blind, there's nothing in the grey book under the Work and Pensions chapter relating to this policy. I don't know where they've plucked the £58 billion figure from, and the manifesto referenced above only says that "a system of recompense" will be designed.
There is no indication of how and when the payments will be made or where the colossal sum of money is to come from. The summary table near the front of the grey book gives £82.9bn in spending commitments and £82.9bn in revenue-raising commitments, but this clearly does not include the unmentioned cost of the WASPI bribe. Although we shouldn't be surprised, as what immediately strikes one is that not one penny of the costs of the huge renationalisation programme are included in the costed spending commitments either.
3. Not a clue.
4. Not a clue.
The social care policy so far suggested looks paltry , one billion a year extra!
So despite your desperate attempts to stir up a huge error on my earlier posts you cannot prove there was one. Thank you
There is a grim determination to get Brexit done and out the way. After that, I expect Boris to be very much a One Nation Conservative, barely distinguishable from a social democrat. Won't be at all surprised if, for example, he tackles illegal migration here with an amnesty, which will be helpful to those here - but with strictly enforced rules about any who come here illegally subsequently and those granted amnesty but then commit crime. I doubt their families will be allowed here though. Still be plenty of room for people to get outraged at the "harshness of this terrible government". But it will be ill-deserved - and get no traction with the public.
I don't see him rowing back much on Cameron's commitments to international aid. Perhaps where it goes, but not on how much.
I don't see him as much of a military adventurist.
Boris has been described to me by a leading member of the Govt. as "a hippy". I can see him wanting to throw himself into environmental issues. It's the big issue for his partner. I remain hopeful that the decision on the tidal lagoons will be revisited. I keep banging on about them at every opportunity!
Few Govts understand behaving with thriftiness.
My understanding is that the main differences are that
1) Praxis uses older data, The YouGov MRP uses data conducted in the last seven days or so
2) The YouGov MRP model uses the specific ballot paper for the specific constituency the respondent lives in when asking how they will vote. This produces an accurate result, something YouGov learned when they developed the MRP in 2017.
https://twitter.com/jambodave81/status/1099589661352226816?s=20
For example cutting student loan interest rates.
Come on, people need *something* to vote for.
(Apart from *get Brexit done*)
"If his wife can't trust him, why should the voters?"
The other doesn't: paltry
They can't win, can they?
Seriously, we should not be surprised by the social care policy. Theresa May tried to fix social care, of course, and look what happened to her. It's can-kicking and designed to be uncontroversial: any serious attempt to make elderly care affordable is ultimately going to involve extracting as much as possible of the cost from those who can afford it, and therefore lead immediately to 2017 part 2.
Priority number one for the Tories in this election is to keep the grey vote on side. Their lead amongst everyone over 50 is very large, and amongst the over 65s it is colossal. Why risk that?
Students on the other hand do have a grievance about the levels of interest they have to pay on student loans. So he will take the amount of money Labour has pledged to the WASPIs and use it to take the interest on student loans down from 6% to 0%. And write off all the interest for those students who have had it calculated to date.
Boom.
https://mobile.twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1198540634635800578
Aghhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Mind you, I'm sure we'll have some interesting postal voting stories here too.
BUT it's to emphasise the bull that only the top 5% are paying more tax....
How about 100% of the people set to lose the Marriage Tax allowance are basic rate taxpayers?
Labour doesn't really need to either, but it will anyway simply because its strategy is to chuck money at *everybody* (except the very wealthy - boo, hiss!) and hope that enough of them don't ask awkward questions about where it's all meant to come from.
"If his wives couldn't trust him, why should the voters?"
More generally the whole "injustice" argument is silly. They even claim that some people "had to go back to work". That would imply that those people "retired" well before the age of 60 anyway. (anyone in work would have just carried on). And most people's earnings drop once they retire. If you "retired" ten years early only to find you didn't have any money left at 61 then it's your planning that's at fault, not a decision of the Govt taken 10 years before you retired.
*.....................tumbleweed..............................*
I therefore expect that things will go on pretty much as they are for the remainder of the campaign period.
Johnson now -6 was -4 last week.
Corbyn now -59 was -42 last week.
Edit: How embarrassing! I misread the table! It's changes over the last three months - and they're the other way round!
So Corbyn's net deficit is now -38 and was -53 at the end of August.
Means testing compensation to those most adversely affected would seem to be a reasonable compromise.
I've been well aware of the changes to retirement age for a long time even though I'm not affected in the slightest. The changes were first announced in the 1990s and only accelerated in 2011.
No-one should be retiring without taking independent advice. Anyone who'd taken this advice should have been told that they would have to work longer before getting the state pension. They would also have been told the implications of retiring without the state pension.
I have no sympathy with them (and I know number of people directly affected who planned better or changed their plans) as I won't get the state pension until I'm 67 (which I expect to be moved up to nearer 70) whereas they are still getting their pension at 65 (at the latest).
Are you trolling? Or are you just that thick?
It's also about time Labour were held to account on their bogus claims that only 5% would pay more tax. Kudos to Andrew Marr for doing so this morning. CCHQ should have been all over the marriage tax allowance abolition for days.
If CCHQ are incapable of demolishing Labour's dishonest, extreme and high risk tax/borrow and spend plans the Tories won't deserve to win this election.
But Rayner kept saying “only the top 5% will pay more tax”
When pushed she tried “if you look at our manifesto as a whole with the increase in spending on education, health” [i paraphrase] then “people will be better off”.
That may be true but it is not the same thing
She then “to suggest I haven’t been totally honest is disingenuous” !!
An apology would be nice.
You say this the “new YouGov MRP”
The tweet itself said it is the Datapraxis MRP based on YouGov data
They are just different things.
It really is that simple.
She said people under the £80k bracket will not pay any more tax.
Simply a big fat lie for those millions who lose the MTA and £250pa and where 100% of them are basic rate taxpayers.
That's my new daily reminder I think instead.
astonishingly she's currently 3rd favourite with the bookies to replace JC
And who thinks anything even close to half that audience were Tories?
*.....................tumbleweed..............................*
https://vote.conservatives.com/news/johnson-britain-will-lead-the-fight-against-incurable-diseases
Corbyn told that same lie on QT on Friday too.
"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?"
1. Yes. I bet Corbyn didn`t even know about the issue, doesn`t understand it and thanked his lucky stars that it wasn`t he who was asked the question.
2. No doubt they`ll borrow it
3. One would hope it would be taxable - pension income is classed earned income. For some people, the receipt of a large sum at once will put them in higher rate tax bracket so 40% will be due on a proportion in these cases. No doubt they`ll compain about this. (However, I wouldn`t put it past the Labour Party to pay it as a tax-free compensation for an "injustice")
4. The beneficiaries will have a claim against the Revenue and this may be tax free as the recipient is no longer alive to pay the tax
Alastair Meeks wrote an excellent piece on this. The Waspi Women are using pressure-group tactics to attempt to win this money politically where they have failed legally. There was loads of information about the pension state age changes for years before they were implemented, as Alastair says.
On topic