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.
I think that's right. I both admire and am infuriated by Corbyn's refusal to get personal with such an easy target. He's more ethical about this than I would be in his shoes, frankly, and virtually anyone else on either front bench would be a lot nastier. Indeed, Jeremy Hunt has been more personally critical of Johnson than Corbyn.
Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell says he would not stay neutral in a referendum on a Labour Brexit deal, but does not say which side he would campaign for #Ridge.
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.
The changes in 2011 made a maximum of two years difference for people born between 6 March and 5 April 1954. I have some sympathy with those worst affected by the changes then. But don’t kid yourself that they were forced to wait five years more then, or that this group form the main part of what is being complained about.
The main thrust of the WASPI women’s campaign is “back to 60”. For my extended view, see here:
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?"
Probably because it wouldn't swing a single vote. It comes under the heading 'selling sand to the Arabs'.
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.
This is not a comment about your friends, or a blanket allegation against people who dislike Jo Swinson, but I do sense, no I more than sense I know, that there is a gender factor in play here. If one looks at some of the words used to describe her, "shrill", "girl guide", "mumsnet" etc, one can see this clearly. Indeed it is closer to a fact than merely my opinion. For example, it cannot be rebutted by individuals who dislike Swinson saying that for them it has nothing to do with her being female. Nor by comments along the lines of "just because she's a woman, it doesn't mean that criticizing her is sexist." The first of those could be true or false but is not helpful since self-reported misogyny is close to zero. And the second is just obviously true but is not relevant.
What do I think of Jo Swinson? I suppose I should disclose this for the sake of completeness and transparency.
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.
I think that's right. I both admire and am infuriated by Corbyn's refusal to get personal with such an easy target. He's more ethical about this than I would be in his shoes, frankly, and virtually anyone else on either front bench would be a lot nastier. Indeed, Jeremy Hunt has been more personally critical of Johnson than Corbyn.
Perhaps because going personal after 4 years of bleating about kinder, gentler politics and asking for language moderation would make him a massive hypocrite on this as well as on everything else he has jumped the hypocritical shark on
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.
Wait till the manifesto is released, and then see what you can find in it that's immediately factually incorrect
"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.
AIUI this is about a future change so 4 doesn’t apply?
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.
So the richest generation, richer than their predecessors and successors, needs yet more compensation from their poorer working children? And they consider working a lower number of years than their children whilst getting more state money an injustice? And it is the children who are the snowflakes?
There seems to be an extraordinary amount of triumphalism from certain people (not here) that again we're headed for a 1983 landslide, blah, blah, blah.
To be honest I don't know where things are headed and I haven't seen the Tory manifesto yet but if the height of their ambitions after 9 years is to spend £2Bn fixing potholes, I'm pretty depressed at a Tory victory if I am honest.
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.
This is not a comment about your friends, or a blanket allegation against people who dislike Jo Swinson, but I do sense, no I more than sense I know, that there is a gender factor in play here. If one looks at some of the words used to describe her, "shrill", "girl guide", "mumsnet" etc, one can see this clearly. Indeed it is closer to a fact than merely my opinion. For example, it cannot be rebutted by individuals who dislike Swinson saying that for them it has nothing to do with her being female. Nor by comments along the lines of "just because she's a woman, it doesn't mean that criticizing her is sexist." The first of those could be true or false but is not helpful since self-reported misogyny is close to zero. And the second is just obviously true but is not relevant.
What do I think of Jo Swinson? I suppose I should disclose this for the sake of completeness and transparency.
Not keen.
Is it sexist if the dislike is coming from women? Or is there another word for it?
"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."
To get the marriage tax allowance, one must be a non-taxpayer and the other a basic-rate taxpayer. It was designed to allow, say, a houseperson who earns no income to transfer his/her unsused income tax personal allowance to his/her spouse.
The Labour Party`s decision to scrap this is nothing to do with taxing high earners (they weren`t eligible anyway).
It has everything to do with expressing disapproval towards one-income households.
There seems to be an extraordinary amount of triumphalism from certain people (not here) that again we're headed for a 1983 landslide, blah, blah, blah.
To be honest I don't know where things are headed and I haven't seen the Tory manifesto yet but if the height of their ambitions after 9 years is to spend £2Bn fixing potholes, I'm pretty depressed at a Tory victory if I am honest.
I think the height of their ambitions is to get through Brexit with the country in one piece. I think that's extremely ambitious!
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.
This is not a comment about your friends, or a blanket allegation against people who dislike Jo Swinson, but I do sense, no I more than sense I know, that there is a gender factor in play here. If one looks at some of the words used to describe her, "shrill", "girl guide", "mumsnet" etc, one can see this clearly. Indeed it is closer to a fact than merely my opinion. For example, it cannot be rebutted by individuals who dislike Swinson saying that for them it has nothing to do with her being female. Nor by comments along the lines of "just because she's a woman, it doesn't mean that criticizing her is sexist." The first of those could be true or false but is any case not helpful since self-reported misogyny is close to zero. And the second is just obviously true but is not relevant.
What do I think of Jo Swinson? I suppose I should disclose this for the sake of completeness and transparency.
Not keen.
I wonder if with some women its a visceral, primeval sort of dislike of another woman who doesn't have those perceived feminine qualities of dressing well, make up, hairstyles etc. Like chickens pecking another bird with less plumage than them. Swinson dresses smartly but she seems quite gauche, and like her outfits and make up are wearing her. She looks like she needs a makeover, either that or to go the other way and revel in her own dorkiness.
There seems to be an extraordinary amount of triumphalism from certain people (not here) that again we're headed for a 1983 landslide, blah, blah, blah.
To be honest I don't know where things are headed and I haven't seen the Tory manifesto yet but if the height of their ambitions after 9 years is to spend £2Bn fixing potholes, I'm pretty depressed at a Tory victory if I am honest.
Anyone who isn't a Conservative will probably be depressed by the thought of a Tory landslide. And also some Conservative supporters might prefer a small majority to a big one because the Commons becomes a rubber stamp when one party has a 100 seat majority.
I think among all this chatter about Labour tax rises people are missing a much bigger point that their manifesto is going to necessarily lead to huge job cuts and unemployment. They are proposing to raise taxes on business by something like £40bn across various different rates and at the same time they are proposing to raise the minimum wage to £10/h, this is going to lead to mass job cuts, especially among the working poor who are the most expendable and will become the largest source of cost increases for all types of business.
Labour are going to smash the economy and put millions on the dole as business protect their margins by cutting jobs and investment.
In my mind, here are the (frankly incredibly unlikely) circumstances in which a Hung Parliament is still possible:
Tory manifesto is released and it's boring but not inspiring - so it doesn't really encourage switchers Johnson's approval ratings go down - more people stay at home The most incredible youth turnout in history happens The Lib Dems crater in the polls - and the majority of their gained support (I believe from Labour) goes back to Labour
Now how ridiculous does that sound? I need a drink
The WASPI thing is in the manifesto though, from my understanding?
It's not in the costings so no.
I understood there was was a vague reference in the manifesto to look at the issue, but without the detail as to who would get paid what. Similar to the fudge on "looking at" tuition fee debt. And they seem to be saying they don't have to cost it because it's a moral issue, not a political one. Or somesuch.
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.
This is not a comment about your friends, or a blanket allegation against people who dislike Jo Swinson, but I do sense, no I more than sense I know, that there is a gender factor in play here. If one looks at some of the words used to describe her, "shrill", "girl guide", "mumsnet" etc, one can see this clearly. Indeed it is closer to a fact than merely my opinion. For example, it cannot be rebutted by individuals who dislike Swinson saying that for them it has nothing to do with her being female. Nor by comments along the lines of "just because she's a woman, it doesn't mean that criticizing her is sexist." The first of those could be true or false but is not helpful since self-reported misogyny is close to zero. And the second is just obviously true but is not relevant.
What do I think of Jo Swinson? I suppose I should disclose this for the sake of completeness and transparency.
Not keen.
TBF I think that she's better than the other candidate for LibDem leader in the summer Ed Davey. but there were no decent other choices for leader. Hopefully there will be other, better, choices next time around.
Charles said: "AIUI this is about a future change so 4 doesn’t apply?"
Perhaps - though I`d be amazed if beneficiaries don`t launch a group action around this. In paying up, the government would be admitting that an error was made (it wasn`t) which deprived their deceased parent of money that they were entitled to.
The WASPI thing is in the manifesto though, from my understanding?
They say they will work with three pressure group to reach a solution
Not the same as “here’s a big cheque that doesn’t could towards spending because it’s a one time expense”
My cynical interpretation of work with pressure group to reach a solution would be wont we say yes to anything but continue the dialogue with you in the hope you will eventually go away. So a full settlement in the pressure groups favour is clearly different, there is no need to work with them to achieve that, the govt could just do it.
There seems to be an extraordinary amount of triumphalism from certain people (not here) that again we're headed for a 1983 landslide, blah, blah, blah.
To be honest I don't know where things are headed and I haven't seen the Tory manifesto yet but if the height of their ambitions after 9 years is to spend £2Bn fixing potholes, I'm pretty depressed at a Tory victory if I am honest.
I think the height of their ambitions is to get through Brexit with the country in one piece. I think that's extremely ambitious!
I don't think there is a chance of that quite frankly.
The one thing Boris Johnson has done (incredibly well) is to harmonise effectively half of the country and offer the other half basically nothing.
This is not a recipe for bringing such a divided country together. I also fear in terms of democracy, how much this will put off the young from getting involved in politics.
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.
This is not a comment about your friends, or a blanket allegation against people who dislike Jo Swinson, but I do sense, no I more than sense I know, that there is a gender factor in play here. If one looks at some of the words used to describe her, "shrill", "girl guide", "mumsnet" etc, one can see this clearly. Indeed it is closer to a fact than merely my opinion. For example, it cannot be rebutted by individuals who dislike Swinson saying that for them it has nothing to do with her being female. Nor by comments along the lines of "just because she's a woman, it doesn't mean that criticizing her is sexist." The first of those could be true or false but is any case not helpful since self-reported misogyny is close to zero. And the second is just obviously true but is not relevant.
What do I think of Jo Swinson? I suppose I should disclose this for the sake of completeness and transparency.
Not keen.
Yes, I'm where you are - not keen on her, but anxious to avoid the mysoginist stuff. In general, I think mysogyny hits worst with women who are distinctively feminine, especially younger women - it has never affected the hard-boiled people like Margaret Thatcher and Barbara Castle in the same way. Nor are we seeing many attacks on Soubry or Rayner that allude to their gender - either of them are as tough as any three average male candidates, and it'd look daft to portray them as "shrill-voiced women".
Should there be a fair hearing for people with higher-pitched voices who aren't ruthless attack dogs? Of course there should. I don't like Swinson's pretension that she's poised to be Pm, nor her Revoke policy and the LibDem "continue austerity" line (cf. https://evolvepolitics.com/liberal-democrats-pledge-to-implement-permanent-austerity-if-they-get-into-government/0. But there's nothing wrong with her as a party leader - she's simply fighting the wrong campaign.
In the famous old text book that those of us who did A level politics had to read was 'Voters Parties and Leaders' by Blondel. One of the few statistics that I still remember was that 20% of voters never changed their vote. I wonder whether that figure is now out of date?
In my mind, here are the (frankly incredibly unlikely) circumstances in which a Hung Parliament is still possible:
Tory manifesto is released and it's boring but not inspiring - so it doesn't really encourage switchers Johnson's approval ratings go down - more people stay at home The most incredible youth turnout in history happens The Lib Dems crater in the polls - and the majority of their gained support (I believe from Labour) goes back to Labour
Now how ridiculous does that sound? I need a drink
The libdem vote share is kind of a double edged sword for REMAIN If it goes down too much the Tories hold all their seats against the libdems and even gain a couple.
I think among all this chatter about Labour tax rises people are missing a much bigger point that their manifesto is going to necessarily lead to huge job cuts and unemployment. They are proposing to raise taxes on business by something like £40bn across various different rates and at the same time they are proposing to raise the minimum wage to £10/h, this is going to lead to mass job cuts, especially among the working poor who are the most expendable and will become the largest source of cost increases for all types of business.
Labour are going to smash the economy and put millions on the dole as business protect their margins by cutting jobs and investment.
This is definitely bad for employment but OTOH you get no hard brexit, and possibly no brexit at all. Long-term it's pretty obvious that the least-worst option as far as jobs go is a few years of experimental 1970s trottery, especially if it's restrained by LD/SNP/moderate-Lab.
I think among all this chatter about Labour tax rises people are missing a much bigger point that their manifesto is going to necessarily lead to huge job cuts and unemployment. They are proposing to raise taxes on business by something like £40bn across various different rates and at the same time they are proposing to raise the minimum wage to £10/h, this is going to lead to mass job cuts, especially among the working poor who are the most expendable and will become the largest source of cost increases for all types of business.
Labour are going to smash the economy and put millions on the dole as business protect their margins by cutting jobs and investment.
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.
This is not a comment about your friends, or a blanket allegation against people who dislike Jo Swinson, but I do sense, no I more than sense I know, that there is a gender factor in play here. If one looks at some of the words used to describe her, "shrill", "girl guide", "mumsnet" etc, one can see this clearly. Indeed it is closer to a fact than merely my opinion. For example, it cannot be rebutted by individuals who dislike Swinson saying that for them it has nothing to do with her being female. Nor by comments along the lines of "just because she's a woman, it doesn't mean that criticizing her is sexist." The first of those could be true or false but is any case not helpful since self-reported misogyny is close to zero. And the second is just obviously true but is not relevant.
What do I think of Jo Swinson? I suppose I should disclose this for the sake of completeness and transparency.
Not keen.
I wonder if with some women its a visceral, primeval sort of dislike of another woman who doesn't have those perceived feminine qualities of dressing well, make up, hairstyles etc. Like chickens pecking another bird with less plumage than them. Swinson dresses smartly but she seems quite gauche, and like her outfits and make up are wearing her. She looks like she needs a makeover, either that or to go the other way and revel in her own dorkiness.
I think sexism and stereotypes is a big influence on dislike of Swinson, and you may be right, it may actually be more women disliking her for sexist reasons than men.
The fact is if you’re one of the 3.5 million women effected by the pension changes would you be more or less likely to vote for Labour today .
And Labour will couch this as , if you can find billions to bail out the banks then why on earth can’t you help these women.
I fail to see how this doesn’t help Labour, all the bleating by some Tories is just irritation at this policy.
On the day Labour announce this the Tories will be delivering a manifesto which looks all a bit dull and puts bells and whistles on potholes . Yes they’re annoying but they’ve been allowed to get this bad because of the huge cuts to local government .
I think among all this chatter about Labour tax rises people are missing a much bigger point that their manifesto is going to necessarily lead to huge job cuts and unemployment. They are proposing to raise taxes on business by something like £40bn across various different rates and at the same time they are proposing to raise the minimum wage to £10/h, this is going to lead to mass job cuts, especially among the working poor who are the most expendable and will become the largest source of cost increases for all types of business.
Labour are going to smash the economy and put millions on the dole as business protect their margins by cutting jobs and investment.
This is definitely bad for employment but OTOH you get no hard brexit, and possibly no brexit at all. Long-term it's pretty obvious that the least-worst option as far as jobs go is a few years of experimental 1970s trottery, especially if it's restrained by LD/SNP/moderate-Lab.
I think among all this chatter about Labour tax rises people are missing a much bigger point that their manifesto is going to necessarily lead to huge job cuts and unemployment. They are proposing to raise taxes on business by something like £40bn across various different rates and at the same time they are proposing to raise the minimum wage to £10/h, this is going to lead to mass job cuts, especially among the working poor who are the most expendable and will become the largest source of cost increases for all types of business.
Labour are going to smash the economy and put millions on the dole as business protect their margins by cutting jobs and investment.
This is definitely bad for employment but OTOH you get no hard brexit, and possibly no brexit at all. Long-term it's pretty obvious that the least-worst option as far as jobs go is a few years of experimental 1970s trottery, especially if it's restrained by LD/SNP/moderate-Lab.
No, brexit doesn't even rate as an issue in this argument, especially given there is a deal that the government will ram through in the new year. It may possibly take 0.1-0.2% off growth, but even that is uncertain, it may do the opposite and see businesses invest given there is some kind of certainty in direction which has been lacking for three years or more.
This is a direct assault on the working poor by Labour that will see millions of people on lower incomes priced out of jobs and businesses cut back on investment. There's no getting around that, no amount of false equivalence to brexit or the £2bn in potholes changes the fact that Labour's plans will destroy jobs for people on lower incomes and become an effective bar on employing young people.
In the famous old text book that those of us who did A level politics had to read was 'Voters Parties and Leaders' by Blondel. One of the few statistics that I still remember was that 20% of voters never changed their vote. I wonder whether that figure is now out of date?
I had my copy signed by Maggie - when she was LotO.
Caused a bit of a stir. Our teacher was quite the Lefty.
I think among all this chatter about Labour tax rises people are missing a much bigger point that their manifesto is going to necessarily lead to huge job cuts and unemployment. They are proposing to raise taxes on business by something like £40bn across various different rates and at the same time they are proposing to raise the minimum wage to £10/h, this is going to lead to mass job cuts, especially among the working poor who are the most expendable and will become the largest source of cost increases for all types of business.
Labour are going to smash the economy and put millions on the dole as business protect their margins by cutting jobs and investment.
This is definitely bad for employment but OTOH you get no hard brexit, and possibly no brexit at all. Long-term it's pretty obvious that the least-worst option as far as jobs go is a few years of experimental 1970s trottery, especially if it's restrained by LD/SNP/moderate-Lab.
In my mind, here are the (frankly incredibly unlikely) circumstances in which a Hung Parliament is still possible:
Tory manifesto is released and it's boring but not inspiring - so it doesn't really encourage switchers Johnson's approval ratings go down - more people stay at home The most incredible youth turnout in history happens The Lib Dems crater in the polls - and the majority of their gained support (I believe from Labour) goes back to Labour
Now how ridiculous does that sound? I need a drink
The libdem vote share is kind of a double edged sword for REMAIN If it goes down too much the Tories hold all their seats against the libdems and even gain a couple.
It surely depends on their relative performance per seat.
The swings we're seeing in the London polls are miles ahead of what their headline polling would suggest, so I wonder if we're in the odd situation whereby they continue to fall (I think they're down again this week on average) but paradoxically they continue to rise in a select group of seats.
It seems to me that they would be essential. If Scotland is somehow maintained (polls seem to show the Tories staying where they are, not gaining any more) but they don't make any real progress anywhere else, even a few losses in London to the LDs would still stop Johnson having a majority.
And I wonder if actually despite all the headlines about Swinson's strategy failing and the Remainers returning to Labour (where they came from anyway) is actually very successful, because in London seats they don't want Corbyn and Swinson has said she will never put him into Downing Street. I wonder if her implied support of the Tories (at least in some respect - that's how I took it anyway) will actually do her better in certain seats.
If the polls somehow (I am very unoptimistic about it now - but there's still a lot of undecids to squeeze and the youth surge is possible) do narrow to be about a 6 point gap, I think the relative performance of the Lib Dems might be very crucial.
If this sort of thing is typical of the Datapraxis analysis (and I note no mention of Sarah Olney's overspending problems), I'd be heavily inclined to start discounting their results as meaningful. It doesn't feel like a particularly balanced view of the candidates.
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?"
Me too. Johnson's flaws are enormous and are more personal than political. I was expecting Labour to go hard on this. I was expecting a blitz of negative attack ads about his character. The only reason I can think of why this has not happened is they judged that it would not pay off in votes. Of course there is still time, especially if the election looks lost, last throw of the dice as it were. I sense not, though. Perhaps just as well. It would be yet another distasteful habit from US politics that we would have imported.
The fact is if you’re one of the 3.5 million women effected by the pension changes would you be more or less likely to vote for Labour today .
And Labour will couch this as , if you can find billions to bail out the banks then why on earth can’t you help these women.
I fail to see how this doesn’t help Labour, all the bleating by some Tories is just irritation at this policy.
On the day Labour announce this the Tories will be delivering a manifesto which looks all a bit dull and puts bells and whistles on potholes . Yes they’re annoying but they’ve been allowed to get this bad because of the huge cuts to local government .
I think (hope) it is a mistake to think that just because 3.5m women are affected by the changes, that 3.5 women are supportive of the WASPI campaign. Surely most of them will have planned properly for their retirement and may well be resentful that those who (claim they) didn't seeking recompense of this nature.
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!
It would be my preference so I hope you are right. Just been listening to Nantucket Sleighride and rolling back the years, bought it when we were living in Canada for a few years, happy days.
The fact is if you’re one of the 3.5 million women effected by the pension changes would you be more or less likely to vote for Labour today .
And Labour will couch this as , if you can find billions to bail out the banks then why on earth can’t you help these women.
I fail to see how this doesn’t help Labour, all the bleating by some Tories is just irritation at this policy.
On the day Labour announce this the Tories will be delivering a manifesto which looks all a bit dull and puts bells and whistles on potholes . Yes they’re annoying but they’ve been allowed to get this bad because of the huge cuts to local government .
I think (hope) it is a mistake to think that just because 3.5m women are affected by the changes, that 3.5 women are supportive of the WASPI campaign. Surely most of them will have planned properly for their retirement and may well be resentful that those who (claim they) didn't seeking recompense of this nature.
A lot of them will have husbands who won't benefit from this and will see the massive unfairness in the policy as well.
If this sort of thing is typical of the Datapraxis analysis (and I note no mention of Sarah Olney's overspending problems), I'd be heavily inclined to start discounting their results as meaningful. It doesn't feel like a particularly balanced view of the candidates.
"10% increase in turnout for under 40's'" Err.....what if the over 40"s also increase their turnout?
If this sort of thing is typical of the Datapraxis analysis (and I note no mention of Sarah Olney's overspending problems), I'd be heavily inclined to start discounting their results as meaningful. It doesn't feel like a particularly balanced view of the candidates.
Yes, it is. it makes clear that the data are 350-400 votes per seat, and they're basing their prognoses on regression from national trends - putting it crudely, if 60% of older southerners vote Tory, and the seat is in the south and has 5000 elderly voters, it will assume that 60% of them will tend to be Tory, and will adjust the raw figures to reflect that.
So gap is now 12.8 points. The squeeze really has to come pretty quickly, it's still only a few points they probably need to make up to get a bit of momentum going - but they're really running out of time.
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 disagree. The Tories need to start thinking about voters other than pensioners. It would make sense to do something for students, even if it only changes a few votes now. It helps for the medium and long-term; it shows that they are listening and it is of a piece with criticism of the state internet policy (removing choice from those used to it).
If capitalism is to survive it needs to appeal to the young. Making it easier to study and to save by removing a ludicrously high interest rate is a start.
The fact is if you’re one of the 3.5 million women effected by the pension changes would you be more or less likely to vote for Labour today .
And Labour will couch this as , if you can find billions to bail out the banks then why on earth can’t you help these women.
I fail to see how this doesn’t help Labour, all the bleating by some Tories is just irritation at this policy.
On the day Labour announce this the Tories will be delivering a manifesto which looks all a bit dull and puts bells and whistles on potholes . Yes they’re annoying but they’ve been allowed to get this bad because of the huge cuts to local government .
I think (hope) it is a mistake to think that just because 3.5m women are affected by the changes, that 3.5 women are supportive of the WASPI campaign. Surely most of them will have planned properly for their retirement and may well be resentful that those who (claim they) didn't seeking recompense of this nature.
It’s not just those effected , but will impact their husbands aswell and it’s the message it sends out to other women . We’re on your side .
I’m not saying it’s a game changer because the Tories have a big lead but I simply can’t see any way this doesn’t help Labour.
Yes, it is. it makes clear that the data are 350-400 votes per seat, and they're basing their prognoses on regression from national trends - putting it crudely, if 60% of older southerners vote Tory, and the seat is in the south and has 5000 elderly voters, it will assume that 60% of them will tend to be Tory, and will adjust the raw figures to reflect that.
If this sort of thing is typical of the Datapraxis analysis (and I note no mention of Sarah Olney's overspending problems), I'd be heavily inclined to start discounting their results as meaningful. It doesn't feel like a particularly balanced view of the candidates.
"10% increase in turnout for under 40's'" Err.....what if the over 40"s also increase their turnout?
Isn't elderly turnout like 85%? They've got a lot less people who can turnout I guess, relatively compared to the young.
I think among all this chatter about Labour tax rises people are missing a much bigger point that their manifesto is going to necessarily lead to huge job cuts and unemployment. They are proposing to raise taxes on business by something like £40bn across various different rates and at the same time they are proposing to raise the minimum wage to £10/h, this is going to lead to mass job cuts, especially among the working poor who are the most expendable and will become the largest source of cost increases for all types of business.
Labour are going to smash the economy and put millions on the dole as business protect their margins by cutting jobs and investment.
Then add in numerous other anti-business measures such as 10% equity grab, getting rid of entrepreneurs allowance, all sorts of regulatory interference. Then add Green measures that are even more unrealistic than those of the other parties. Then add disregard for IPR (drugs), whipped up union activity. Throw in massive increase in costs of borrowing as UK credit rating tanks.
The funny thing is a majority Labour government might even wipe out the finances of retired public sector workers when the IMF finally move in!
Labour better hope they don't get hold of power - there will be a lot of very upset people when they see the reality of all this crap they are proposing.
Nothing is free, it has to be paid for somehow and as experience shows throwing money at problems does not necessarily solve them.
I think among all this chatter about Labour tax rises people are missing a much bigger point that their manifesto is going to necessarily lead to huge job cuts and unemployment. They are proposing to raise taxes on business by something like £40bn across various different rates and at the same time they are proposing to raise the minimum wage to £10/h, this is going to lead to mass job cuts, especially among the working poor who are the most expendable and will become the largest source of cost increases for all types of business.
Labour are going to smash the economy and put millions on the dole as business protect their margins by cutting jobs and investment.
This is definitely bad for employment but OTOH you get no hard brexit, and possibly no brexit at all. Long-term it's pretty obvious that the least-worst option as far as jobs go is a few years of experimental 1970s trottery, especially if it's restrained by LD/SNP/moderate-Lab.
Scary that someone believes this.
Scary as in Project Fear
Scary as in concerned for their sanity.
But reading it back, I don't think Edmund believes the absurdity he wrote, rather I think he believes that trashing the economy under Corbyn is a price worth paying for keeping the UK tethered to the EU project.
Not much. In any case I imagine it's not addressed to the Labour party or English voters but Scottish progressives, and provides a handy contrast to button presser Jo. Of course coincidentally it's also a continuing expression of what has been a consistent position from the SNP.
The fact is if you’re one of the 3.5 million women effected by the pension changes would you be more or less likely to vote for Labour today .
And Labour will couch this as , if you can find billions to bail out the banks then why on earth can’t you help these women.
I fail to see how this doesn’t help Labour, all the bleating by some Tories is just irritation at this policy.
On the day Labour announce this the Tories will be delivering a manifesto which looks all a bit dull and puts bells and whistles on potholes . Yes they’re annoying but they’ve been allowed to get this bad because of the huge cuts to local government .
I think (hope) it is a mistake to think that just because 3.5m women are affected by the changes, that 3.5 women are supportive of the WASPI campaign. Surely most of them will have planned properly for their retirement and may well be resentful that those who (claim they) didn't seeking recompense of this nature.
In fact it's often those who planned for their retirement most carefully who are most agrieved that a key one of those planning assumptions was changed when it was too late for her to do anything about it.
Those who didn't plan often have no idea what they can expect from either the state or any personal pensions and are thus less agrieved.
In the famous old text book that those of us who did A level politics had to read was 'Voters Parties and Leaders' by Blondel. One of the few statistics that I still remember was that 20% of voters never changed their vote. I wonder whether that figure is now out of date?
I had my copy signed by Maggie - when she was LotO.
Caused a bit of a stir. Our teacher was quite the Lefty.
Lifelong heartless Tory?
He who is not a socialist at 19, has no heart. He who is still a socialist at 30, has no brain.
If this sort of thing is typical of the Datapraxis analysis (and I note no mention of Sarah Olney's overspending problems), I'd be heavily inclined to start discounting their results as meaningful. It doesn't feel like a particularly balanced view of the candidates.
"10% increase in turnout for under 40's'" Err.....what if the over 40"s also increase their turnout?
Isn't elderly turnout like 85%? They've got a lot less people who can turnout I guess, relatively compared to the young.
Over 40 (who the tories lead with) is not elderly!
Charles said: "AIUI this is about a future change so 4 doesn’t apply?"
Perhaps - though I`d be amazed if beneficiaries don`t launch a group action around this. In paying up, the government would be admitting that an error was made (it wasn`t) which deprived their deceased parent of money that they were entitled to.
*would* have been entitled to IF they had been alive.
It would be like claiming unemployment benefit after you had died because you are no longer working
Yes, it is. it makes clear that the data are 350-400 votes per seat, and they're basing their prognoses on regression from national trends - putting it crudely, if 60% of older southerners vote Tory, and the seat is in the south and has 5000 elderly voters, it will assume that 60% of them will tend to be Tory, and will adjust the raw figures to reflect that.
I think.
Some of the seats reference "private polling... indicates potential for anti-Tory tactical voting". Why do Data Praxis have access to "private polling"? Or are they just repeating speculation made by party campaigns?
The WASPI thing is in the manifesto though, from my understanding?
They say they will work with three pressure group to reach a solution
Not the same as “here’s a big cheque that doesn’t could towards spending because it’s a one time expense”
My cynical interpretation of work with pressure group to reach a solution would be wont we say yes to anything but continue the dialogue with you in the hope you will eventually go away. So a full settlement in the pressure groups favour is clearly different, there is no need to work with them to achieve that, the govt could just do it.
Which why this feels like one of those eye catching last minute substitutions when you are 2 nil down in the cup final
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?"
Me too. Johnson's flaws are enormous and are more personal than political. I was expecting Labour to go hard on this. I was expecting a blitz of negative attack ads about his character. The only reason I can think of why this has not happened is they judged that it would not pay off in votes. Of course there is still time, especially if the election looks lost, last throw of the dice as it were. I sense not, though. Perhaps just as well. It would be yet another distasteful habit from US politics that we would have imported.
Amber Rudd's personal comments about Boris during the referendum campaign backfired big-style. People know he's a shagger, it's priced in, so any attacks such as those just look like tackling the man not the ball, and most voters ignore it - or even further, push back against it.
The fact is if you’re one of the 3.5 million women effected by the pension changes would you be more or less likely to vote for Labour today .
And Labour will couch this as , if you can find billions to bail out the banks then why on earth can’t you help these women.
I fail to see how this doesn’t help Labour, all the bleating by some Tories is just irritation at this policy.
On the day Labour announce this the Tories will be delivering a manifesto which looks all a bit dull and puts bells and whistles on potholes . Yes they’re annoying but they’ve been allowed to get this bad because of the huge cuts to local government .
I think (hope) it is a mistake to think that just because 3.5m women are affected by the changes, that 3.5 women are supportive of the WASPI campaign. Surely most of them will have planned properly for their retirement and may well be resentful that those who (claim they) didn't seeking recompense of this nature.
It’s not just those effected , but will impact their husbands aswell and it’s the message it sends out to other women . We’re on your side .
I’m not saying it’s a game changer because the Tories have a big lead but I simply can’t see any way this doesn’t help Labour.
You dont think claims of a 'fully costed' manifesto being overturned by randomly announcing 58 billion more uncosted within 48 hours (that for some reason didn't make it into the manifesto itself) might not impact on views of economic competence and trust?
Only getting rid of Johnson would beat getting rid of Raab 'Lib Dems of the World Unite. You've nothing to lose but a shitty lickspittle' Get down to Walton
If this sort of thing is typical of the Datapraxis analysis (and I note no mention of Sarah Olney's overspending problems), I'd be heavily inclined to start discounting their results as meaningful. It doesn't feel like a particularly balanced view of the candidates.
Is all tactical voting always against the Tories?
I'm more interested in the fact that Dominic Raab is the actual current Foreign Secretary, and whoever wrote this didn't seem to think that was interesting or relevant. Much more fun to include an (admittedly damning but still clearly) out of context quote showing him in a poor light.
If this sort of thing is typical of the Datapraxis analysis (and I note no mention of Sarah Olney's overspending problems), I'd be heavily inclined to start discounting their results as meaningful. It doesn't feel like a particularly balanced view of the candidates.
"10% increase in turnout for under 40's'" Err.....what if the over 40"s also increase their turnout?
Isn't elderly turnout like 85%? They've got a lot less people who can turnout I guess, relatively compared to the young.
Over 40 (who the tories lead with) is not elderly!
The fact is if you’re one of the 3.5 million women effected by the pension changes would you be more or less likely to vote for Labour today .
And Labour will couch this as , if you can find billions to bail out the banks then why on earth can’t you help these women.
I fail to see how this doesn’t help Labour, all the bleating by some Tories is just irritation at this policy.
On the day Labour announce this the Tories will be delivering a manifesto which looks all a bit dull and puts bells and whistles on potholes . Yes they’re annoying but they’ve been allowed to get this bad because of the huge cuts to local government .
I think (hope) it is a mistake to think that just because 3.5m women are affected by the changes, that 3.5 women are supportive of the WASPI campaign. Surely most of them will have planned properly for their retirement and may well be resentful that those who (claim they) didn't seeking recompense of this nature.
In fact it's often those who planned for their retirement most carefully who are most agrieved that a key one of those planning assumptions was changed when it was too late for her to do anything about it.
Those who didn't plan often have no idea what they can expect from either the state or any personal pensions and are thus less agrieved.
They claim they weren't informed about the changes. That doesn't sound like their planning was particularly well researched. Unless they were rich enough to retire decades early.
I hope Jo Swinson stays on as leader after the election. I think she’s fantastic.
I'm not sure 'fantastic' fits but more likeable than Corbyn or Johnson for sure. Much more in fact but she's very raw.
The immediate question should be why is she so raw after 12 years as an mp, 5 in government? Charlie Kennedy acceded to the leadership at the same age.
Comments
Follow live updates on the show here: https://t.co/L2rnpZjTfv https://t.co/VtkgJCTlw4
Just trolling the electorate over Brexit now
The main thrust of the WASPI women’s campaign is “back to 60”. For my extended view, see here:
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/10/28/the-persistence-of-lack-of-memory-how-the-state-retirement-age-was-changed-and-communicated/
What do I think of Jo Swinson? I suppose I should disclose this for the sake of completeness and transparency.
Not keen.
The MTA is quite specifically and necessarily solely a tax rise on basic rate taxpayers.
Dividend tax for them is set to increase from 7.5% to 20% too....
Not the same as “here’s a big cheque that doesn’t could towards spending because it’s a one time expense”
To be honest I don't know where things are headed and I haven't seen the Tory manifesto yet but if the height of their ambitions after 9 years is to spend £2Bn fixing potholes, I'm pretty depressed at a Tory victory if I am honest.
"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."
To get the marriage tax allowance, one must be a non-taxpayer and the other a basic-rate taxpayer. It was designed to allow, say, a houseperson who earns no income to transfer his/her unsused income tax personal allowance to his/her spouse.
The Labour Party`s decision to scrap this is nothing to do with taxing high earners (they weren`t eligible anyway).
It has everything to do with expressing disapproval towards one-income households.
https://www.dataprax.is/seven-seats-that-could-change-brita
Labour are going to smash the economy and put millions on the dole as business protect their margins by cutting jobs and investment.
Crikey
Tory manifesto is released and it's boring but not inspiring - so it doesn't really encourage switchers
Johnson's approval ratings go down - more people stay at home
The most incredible youth turnout in history happens
The Lib Dems crater in the polls - and the majority of their gained support (I believe from Labour) goes back to Labour
Now how ridiculous does that sound? I need a drink
She may improve as time passes.
Perhaps - though I`d be amazed if beneficiaries don`t launch a group action around this. In paying up, the government would be admitting that an error was made (it wasn`t) which deprived their deceased parent of money that they were entitled to.
The one thing Boris Johnson has done (incredibly well) is to harmonise effectively half of the country and offer the other half basically nothing.
This is not a recipe for bringing such a divided country together. I also fear in terms of democracy, how much this will put off the young from getting involved in politics.
Should there be a fair hearing for people with higher-pitched voices who aren't ruthless attack dogs? Of course there should. I don't like Swinson's pretension that she's poised to be Pm, nor her Revoke policy and the LibDem "continue austerity" line (cf. https://evolvepolitics.com/liberal-democrats-pledge-to-implement-permanent-austerity-if-they-get-into-government/0. But there's nothing wrong with her as a party leader - she's simply fighting the wrong campaign.
Corbyn -100
I wonder if this will have much impact
If it goes down too much the Tories hold all their seats against the libdems and even gain a couple.
I`m getting a bit fed up of "austerity" simply being the new word for "prudent management of the public purse".
And Labour will couch this as , if you can find billions to bail out the banks then why on earth can’t you help these women.
I fail to see how this doesn’t help Labour, all the bleating by some Tories is just irritation at this policy.
On the day Labour announce this the Tories will be delivering a manifesto which looks all a bit dull and puts bells and whistles on potholes . Yes they’re annoying but they’ve been allowed to get this bad because of the huge cuts to local government .
This is a direct assault on the working poor by Labour that will see millions of people on lower incomes priced out of jobs and businesses cut back on investment. There's no getting around that, no amount of false equivalence to brexit or the £2bn in potholes changes the fact that Labour's plans will destroy jobs for people on lower incomes and become an effective bar on employing young people.
Caused a bit of a stir. Our teacher was quite the Lefty.
Nigel Farage fucked my betting position in Scotland.
The swings we're seeing in the London polls are miles ahead of what their headline polling would suggest, so I wonder if we're in the odd situation whereby they continue to fall (I think they're down again this week on average) but paradoxically they continue to rise in a select group of seats.
It seems to me that they would be essential. If Scotland is somehow maintained (polls seem to show the Tories staying where they are, not gaining any more) but they don't make any real progress anywhere else, even a few losses in London to the LDs would still stop Johnson having a majority.
And I wonder if actually despite all the headlines about Swinson's strategy failing and the Remainers returning to Labour (where they came from anyway) is actually very successful, because in London seats they don't want Corbyn and Swinson has said she will never put him into Downing Street. I wonder if her implied support of the Tories (at least in some respect - that's how I took it anyway) will actually do her better in certain seats.
If the polls somehow (I am very unoptimistic about it now - but there's still a lot of undecids to squeeze and the youth surge is possible) do narrow to be about a 6 point gap, I think the relative performance of the Lib Dems might be very crucial.
Err.....what if the over 40"s also increase their turnout?
I think.
So gap is now 12.8 points. The squeeze really has to come pretty quickly, it's still only a few points they probably need to make up to get a bit of momentum going - but they're really running out of time.
https://twitter.com/BlakeAnselmo/status/1198546007161810945/photo/1
This keeps being posted too, I don't know how accurate it is.
If capitalism is to survive it needs to appeal to the young. Making it easier to study and to save by removing a ludicrously high interest rate is a start.
I’m not saying it’s a game changer because the Tories have a big lead but I simply can’t see any way this doesn’t help Labour.
The funny thing is a majority Labour government might even wipe out the finances of retired public sector workers when the IMF finally move in!
Nothing is free, it has to be paid for somehow and as experience shows throwing money at problems does not necessarily solve them.
But reading it back, I don't think Edmund believes the absurdity he wrote, rather I think he believes that trashing the economy under Corbyn is a price worth paying for keeping the UK tethered to the EU project.
In any case I imagine it's not addressed to the Labour party or English voters but Scottish progressives, and provides a handy contrast to button presser Jo. Of course coincidentally it's also a continuing expression of what has been a consistent position from the SNP.
Those who didn't plan often have no idea what they can expect from either the state or any personal pensions and are thus less agrieved.
He who is not a socialist at 19, has no heart. He who is still a socialist at 30, has no brain.
Exactly the opposite of what the Lib Dems are claiming here - that will work fine I am sure.
It would be like claiming unemployment benefit after you had died because you are no longer working
Britain Elects
@britainelects
43m43 minutes ago
Preference for Prime Minister:
Boris Johnson: 29% (-1)
Jeremy Corbyn: 16% (-2)
Jo Swinson: 11% (-)
Nigel Farage: 7% (+1)
via @OpiniumResearch, 22 Nov
Chgs. w/ 15 Nov