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.
Not to mention the men; the whole point of the change was to make things 'fairer'. And didn't the EU get involved at some point...?
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.
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.
What it says to women under 50 is pay extra taxes and work until you are 70 so that some other women can get a state pension at 60.
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
Bit of a feeble straw to clutch - Con maj but no Raab - but whatever keeps you warm..
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.
Johnson is not just a shagger, he is a liar with very dubious connections who cheated on one of his wives as she underwent treatment for cancer and has abandoned children he has fathered. Because of who he is up against none of it matters right now. It will come to matter once the Tories have won the election and the promises he has made begin to unravel.
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?
The pledge to help was in the manifesto. The costing wasn’t . Of course it’s a risk but how does this play out .
Bozo in the next debate says he’s against this . Corbyn then says the banks were bailed out but these poor women are being thrown under the bus .
Who do you think the public will side with? And you have to look at the wider message , Labour is willing to fight for women .
I see no way this doesn’t help Labour even allowing for your perfectly reasonable comments .
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.
The guy behind the company Paul Hilder appears to be an anti Brexit activist if his twitter is anything to go by. Raab looks safe-ish though. The Lab candidate won’t lose their deposit. Lib Dems are always easier to squeeze than Labour as every constituency has a few thousand diehard socialists.
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.
They bloody well were informed. I’m in the group affected and I knew about it. They just didn’t pay attention. Lots of people don’t pay attention to pensions. Too bad. They are adults. They want equal pay. They get equality in pensions as well, which is simply deferred pay.
I’m furious about this campaign. Women who play the “It’s so unfair to me as a woman” card when they are getting equality are the pits. Either we want equality or we don’t. We can’t just have it when it suits us and revert to the “I’m too silly to take responsibility for my actions/failure to read” position when it doesn’t.
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!
Elderly in spirit, Nu!
Now I’ve reached my late thirties, it’s amazing how quickly I’m revising my view of what “old” is. No longer convinced it kicks in until at least 75.
I misread the comments on the 40+ vote, I hope you won't take any offence to my comments, I wasn't trying to suggest anyone above the age of 40 was elderly.
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.
Yep. I was 16 when she signed it, at the Ashfield by-election 1977.
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.
There will be no business certainty until the final Brexit trade deal is done. Both parties are advocating policies that run the risk of people losing their jobs. Only one party will actually be putting its policies into action and it will not be Labour (thank God).
Labour are going to renegotiate this brilliant deal which they will not actively support with the leader staying neutral and McDonnell and others urging remain
That will really enthuse the EU to offer a good deal.......
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?
The pledge to help was in the manifesto. The costing wasn’t . Of course it’s a risk but how does this play out .
Bozo in the next debate says he’s against this . Corbyn then says the banks were bailed out but these poor women are being thrown under the bus .
Who do you think the public will side with? And you have to look at the wider message , Labour is willing to fight for women .
I see no way this doesn’t help Labour even allowing for your perfectly reasonable comments .
Labour are going to renegotiate this brilliant deal which they will not actively support with the leader staying neutral and McDonnell and others urging remain
That will really enthuse the EU to offer a good deal.......
It's pretty clear to me that Labour has entirely given up and is just trying to get through the next two weeks and a bit before the next civil war can begin.
The WASPI thing is in the manifesto though, from my understanding?
As was noted when this was first suggested, it mentions doing something but does not mention what or how much. Even as someone in favour of that manifesto you would admit that is different to a clear committment for many tens of billions more?
This relates to the manifesto proper, which had plenty of mention of figures through it.
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.
Johnson is not just a shagger, he is a liar with very dubious connections who cheated on one of his wives as she underwent treatment for cancer and has abandoned children he has fathered. Because of who he is up against none of it matters right now. It will come to matter once the Tories have won the election and the promises he has made begin to unravel.
I'm still not sure the story form the American lady has been properly put to bed (sic).
If she confirms the relationship, Johnson is potentially in a lot of trouble if he directly approved public money for her business, yet failed to declare the conflict of interest.
Even if the Conservatives win the election, we could be quickly looking at another PM.
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?
The pledge to help was in the manifesto. The costing wasn’t . Of course it’s a risk but how does this play out .
Bozo in the next debate says he’s against this . Corbyn then says the banks were bailed out but these poor women are being thrown under the bus .
Who do you think the public will side with? And you have to look at the wider message , Labour is willing to fight for women .
I see no way this doesn’t help Labour even allowing for your perfectly reasonable comments .
Bailed out by that famous Tory, err, Gordon Brown.
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.
What it says to women under 50 is pay extra taxes and work until you are 70 so that some other women can get a state pension at 60.
It says to women in general Labour are willing to right a wrong that effected them . The issue was how quickly the changes were made and Labour have stressed that’s why they’re offering compensation.
I fail to see this as a vote loser. Hilariously Christopher Hope of the DT thinks this is going to damage Labour which clearly shows hes rattled !
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.
This keeps being posted too, I don't know how accurate it is.
With 2.5 weeks left of the campaign, the Tory lead continues to widen, while the Labour average fails to break 30%? It wasn't supposed to be like this...
I can't believe the WASPI thing will be any more than at best neutral for Labour.
Does smack of a going all-in on 8 high.
Labour has a floor of about 30% it seems, if that hasn't gone down despite an £80+ Billion spending offer, I don't think this will make a difference either. At some point voters just don't care about numbers anymore.
For Labour this will be about values and them being "on your side". The Tories won't have much to counter it with, so like you say at worst it will be neutral, at best it might be positive.
The best thing Labour can do - and depending on which polls you look at it either is or isn't working - is just hammer home that Johnson cannot be trusted. Especially to Northern voters, this will be crucial.
I suspect the Tories have kept a few things under wraps for when the manifesto actually comes out. It would be in keeping with the way Boris' team has played it so far.
Labour are going to renegotiate this brilliant deal which they will not actively support with the leader staying neutral and McDonnell and others urging remain
That will really enthuse the EU to offer a good deal.......
It's pretty clear to me that Labour has entirely given up and is just trying to get through the next two weeks and a bit before the next civil war can begin.
I remember the same conversations last time though. Corbyn was only going to these big rallies in leeds and manchester etc to reposition himself for any leadership election following heavy defeat....
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!
Elderly in spirit, Nu!
Now I’ve reached my late thirties, it’s amazing how quickly I’m revising my view of what “old” is. No longer convinced it kicks in until at least 75.
Isn't 'old' defined in the same way as 'rich' - just a little bit more than the person making the assertion?
(Mr Sandpit 'celebrates' his 42nd birthday next weekend.)
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.
Johnson is not just a shagger, he is a liar with very dubious connections who cheated on one of his wives as she underwent treatment for cancer and has abandoned children he has fathered. Because of who he is up against none of it matters right now. It will come to matter once the Tories have won the election and the promises he has made begin to unravel.
I'm still not sure the story form the American lady has been properly put to bed (sic).
If she confirms the relationship, Johnson is potentially in a lot of trouble if he directly approved public money for her business, yet failed to declare the conflict of interest.
Even if the Conservatives win the election, we could be quickly looking at another PM.
I doubt it. Johnson is one of those people who - because of their privilege and their connections - can get away with absolutely anything for a very long period of time. What will do for him is the electorate tiring of his constant deceptions, laziness and inability to deliver.
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.
There will be no business certainty until the final Brexit trade deal is done. Both parties are advocating policies that run the risk of people losing their jobs. Only one party will actually be putting its policies into action and it will not be Labour (thank God).
Not really, moving to phase two of the brexit talks will be enough to give businesses certainty where there is currently none. Additionally the government will show what the landing zone for the trade deal is and business will be able to invest on that basis.
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.
What it says to women under 50 is pay extra taxes and work until you are 70 so that some other women can get a state pension at 60.
It says to women in general Labour are willing to right a wrong that effected them . The issue was how quickly the changes were made and Labour have stressed that’s why they’re offering compensation.
I fail to see this as a vote loser. Hilariously Christopher Hope of the DT thinks this is going to damage Labour which clearly shows hes rattled !
I think it might win votes, but I object to the pandering that tells them there was a wrong which affected them. There wasn't, and so far the courts agree on that as well. They just don't like the policy, that does not mean they have suffered injustice, and its pathetic our political parties are pretending they have.
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?
The pledge to help was in the manifesto. The costing wasn’t . Of course it’s a risk but how does this play out .
Bozo in the next debate says he’s against this . Corbyn then says the banks were bailed out but these poor women are being thrown under the bus .
Who do you think the public will side with? And you have to look at the wider message , Labour is willing to fight for women .
I see no way this doesn’t help Labour even allowing for your perfectly reasonable comments .
Which is why the Tories need to say that they are helping the next generation with something rather than giving money to people who don’t like the consequences of equality.
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.
The NIESR report has a 3.9% difference over 10 years for Boris's deal with an FTA, which is already much more than your numbers - but that's optimistically assuming the FTA gets done, which is unlikely on the schedule he's set, so you may well be looking at an exit without an FTA instead, which is much worse. There's also a serious effect on employment, and that's only restrained by people working for shittier wages. That difference in GDP also means a lot of missing tax revenue.
A higher minimum wage also kills jobs (since it literally bans people who can't provide that much value from working) and is particularly bad if the rest of the economy is weak due to some of Labour's other bad ideas, since people will get laid off rather than getting higher wages. But if that happens even a *majority* Labour government can at least do a course correction partway through, and if it doesn't the voters can get rid of it after 5 years. This is the key difference with Brexit: Once it's happened it could easily take years of negotiations to reverse, and even fixing a broken or missing trade deal could get queued up behind other priorities in the Walloon parliament or whatever. And if there's no majority, they just ditch all the most damaging policies, put in a modest minimum wage increase that most employers can suck up without firing people, Lab give LD the blame, LD take the credit, and everybody wins.
The WASPI thing is in the manifesto though, from my understanding?
As was noted when this was first suggested, it mentions doing something but does not mention what or how much. Even as someone in favour of that manifesto you would admit that is different to a clear committment for many tens of billions more?
I wonder if there's anything else like that in the manifesto which could morph into fantastical spending pledges in the final days of the campaign?
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.
This keeps being posted too, I don't know how accurate it is.
With 2.5 weeks left of the campaign, the Tory lead continues to widen, while the Labour average fails to break 30%? It wasn't supposed to be like this...
I think the implied point is that Labour is where it was in 2017 and the Tories are still below - but like you say if the Tory lead continues to widen it's a pretty irrelevant point.
If this is the Tory ceiling (i.e. their 2017 vote) and they start to fall, then Labour has a way back in - but if the gap widens further it is game over.
I suspect we'll see this time next week more about that gap, because the don't knows will presumably be waiting on the Tory manifesto. Then they might make a decisive break one way or the other.
Labour are going to renegotiate this brilliant deal which they will not actively support with the leader staying neutral and McDonnell and others urging remain
That will really enthuse the EU to offer a good deal.......
It's pretty clear to me that Labour has entirely given up and is just trying to get through the next two weeks and a bit before the next civil war can begin.
I remember the same conversations last time though. Corbyn was only going to these big rallies in leeds and manchester etc to reposition himself for any leadership election following heavy defeat....
This is not last time! We've had tow and a half years more of Corbyn and he has successfully alienated millions of people who voted labour in 2017 largely to prevent the Tories winning. This time a lot more people want Labour to lose.
The WASPI thing is in the manifesto though, from my understanding?
As was noted when this was first suggested, it mentions doing something but does not mention what or how much. Even as someone in favour of that manifesto you would admit that is different to a clear committment for many tens of billions more?
Labour’s current spending commitments are now £111 billion - and that’s without the commitments they haven’t costed yet. All to be paid for by about 53 millionaires, seemingly.
Labour are going to renegotiate this brilliant deal which they will not actively support with the leader staying neutral and McDonnell and others urging remain
That will really enthuse the EU to offer a good deal.......
It's pretty clear to me that Labour has entirely given up and is just trying to get through the next two weeks and a bit before the next civil war can begin.
I remember the same conversations last time though. Corbyn was only going to these big rallies in leeds and manchester etc to reposition himself for any leadership election following heavy defeat....
Has he been doing lots of rallies/playing to packed conference centres this time?
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.
Certainly holding a sexist bias against women is not confined to men, far from it, and I imagine there must be some differences between genders as to where in the 'psyche' it is coming from. Bad news for women, this, that the bias does come from both sides. Would be a little easier to manage, I would think, if it were just men who were guilty of it.
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.
This keeps being posted too, I don't know how accurate it is.
With 2.5 weeks left of the campaign, the Tory lead continues to widen, while the Labour average fails to break 30%? It wasn't supposed to be like this...
42.4% is exactly what the Tories got in 2017.
Still a bit more for the Tories to squeeze in that Brexit 4.6%, I'd say. And some more back from the Corbyn-fearing LibDem switchers.
Speaking as a young-ish person, the Tories haven't given me any reason to vote for them and that's kind of echoed by conversations I've had with others. But there are lots of reasons to vote against them.
Probably in direct contrast to the views of people older than me.
We are at the point where Labour can't really announce anything else that will impact their polling. Their floor seems to have got stuck at 30%.
I think we're long past the stage now of any economic reason from Labour now, and it that sense, they could offer a pledge every day of the week for the next three weeks. What does it matter to them? They're not forwarding themselves as being prudent financial custodians, it's the polar opposite. So why not pledge to wipe out student debt? If you're not bothered about signing a blank cheque for over 3 million people, why should a few more hundreds of billions of pounds matter?
Why not make a pledge to make everyone who isn't one already a millionaire? It makes about as much sense as the other mind boggling sums in Labour's manifesto.
Labour are going to renegotiate this brilliant deal which they will not actively support with the leader staying neutral and McDonnell and others urging remain
That will really enthuse the EU to offer a good deal.......
It's pretty clear to me that Labour has entirely given up and is just trying to get through the next two weeks and a bit before the next civil war can begin.
Didn't we think that last time? Yes yes, it's not 2017, and it's true that the polls at least are starting to show a difference for Labour (not yet continuing to rise like they did last time), but the talk of Labour infighting, recriminations, and the manifesto not being costed, well, we've heard it before.
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.
What it says to women under 50 is pay extra taxes and work until you are 70 so that some other women can get a state pension at 60.
It says to women in general Labour are willing to right a wrong that effected them . The issue was how quickly the changes were made and Labour have stressed that’s why they’re offering compensation.
I fail to see this as a vote loser. Hilariously Christopher Hope of the DT thinks this is going to damage Labour which clearly shows hes rattled !
What wrong ?
The wrong of receiving state pension five years earlier than men do ?
And what is Labour's solution to this 'wrong' ?
To take £58bn from the young.
Why should any young or middle aged women support that ?
Mr. Sandpit, you're about the same age as Sir Edric (protagonist of my comedy series, the Hero of Hornska).
The age was carefully chosen (assuming Sir Edric isn't lying, which is eminently possible) because it's still young enough to do just about everything a 20 year old can, but old enough that it's more of a pain in the arse.
We are at the point where Labour can't really announce anything else that will impact their polling. Their floor seems to have got stuck at 30%.
I think we're long past the stage now of any economic reason from Labour now, and it that sense, they could offer a pledge every day of the week for the next three weeks. What does it matter to them? They're not forwarding themselves as being prudent financial custodians, it's the polar opposite. So why not pledge to wipe out student debt? If you're not bothered about signing a blank cheque for over 3 million people, why should a few more hundreds of billions of pounds matter?
Why not make a pledge to make everyone who isn't one already a millionaire? It makes about as much sense as the other mind boggling sums in Labour's manifesto.
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!
Elderly in spirit, Nu!
Now I’ve reached my late thirties, it’s amazing how quickly I’m revising my view of what “old” is. No longer convinced it kicks in until at least 75.
Isn't 'old' defined in the same way as 'rich' - just a little bit more than the person making the assertion?
(Mr Sandpit 'celebrates' his 42nd birthday next weekend.)
They key moment is when you are moved to a different range in demographic surveys. It's usually 19-34 I think, so I'm still young.
Labour are going to renegotiate this brilliant deal which they will not actively support with the leader staying neutral and McDonnell and others urging remain
That will really enthuse the EU to offer a good deal.......
It's pretty clear to me that Labour has entirely given up and is just trying to get through the next two weeks and a bit before the next civil war can begin.
I remember the same conversations last time though. Corbyn was only going to these big rallies in leeds and manchester etc to reposition himself for any leadership election following heavy defeat....
Speaking of which are there going to be any large Labour rallies this time round? I imagine the winter weather doesn't help.
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.
The NIESR report has a 3.9% difference over 10 years for Boris's deal with an FTA, which is already much more than your numbers - but that's optimistically assuming the FTA gets done, which is unlikely on the schedule he's set, so you may well be looking at an exit without an FTA instead, which is much worse. There's also a serious effect on employment, and that's only restrained by people working for shittier wages. That difference in GDP also means a lot of missing tax revenue.
A higher minimum wage also kills jobs (since it literally bans people who can't provide that much value from working) and is particularly bad if the rest of the economy is weak due to some of Labour's other bad ideas, since people will get laid off rather than getting higher wages. But if that happens even a *majority* Labour government can at least do a course correction partway through, and if it doesn't the voters can get rid of it after 5 years. This is the key difference with Brexit: Once it's happened it could easily take years of negotiations to reverse, and even fixing a broken or missing trade deal could get queued up behind other priorities in the Walloon parliament or whatever. And if there's no majority, they just ditch all the most damaging policies, Lab give LD the blame, LD take the credit, and everybody wins.
Honestly, that NEISR report is worth about as much as the loo roll I just used. No one knows what the effects of an unknown trade deal is. Anyone pretending to know is kidding themselves. It could very well be a positive effect, highly negative or just a bit of nothing. My money is on the latter, but even that's really just a guess based on nothing.
It's not the LDs that will call the shots, it is the SNP and they give zero fucks about what Labour does in England and Wales.
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.
There will be no business certainty until the final Brexit trade deal is done. Both parties are advocating policies that run the risk of people losing their jobs. Only one party will actually be putting its policies into action and it will not be Labour (thank God).
Not really, moving to phase two of the brexit talks will be enough to give businesses certainty where there is currently none. Additionally the government will show what the landing zone for the trade deal is and business will be able to invest on that basis.
Given the MFN terms in the EU trade deals with Canada and Japan, can the landing point for trade in goods be much different to those agreements in practice?
Obviously we hope for more access to services, but only if it's on the basis of equivalence rather than alignment.
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.
What it says to women under 50 is pay extra taxes and work until you are 70 so that some other women can get a state pension at 60.
It says to women in general Labour are willing to right a wrong that effected them . The issue was how quickly the changes were made and Labour have stressed that’s why they’re offering compensation.
I fail to see this as a vote loser. Hilariously Christopher Hope of the DT thinks this is going to damage Labour which clearly shows hes rattled !
What wrong ?
The wrong of receiving state pension five years earlier than men do ?
And what is Labour's solution to this 'wrong' ?
To take £58bn from the young.
Why should any young or middle aged women support that ?
Perhaps its the wrong of not being notified with plenty of time. Oh wait, they were.
This is a policy which will have appeal to that group, and since all our parties bar the Tories are for supporting them they must think that group could be large and influential, but there's been no wrong.
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.
What it says to women under 50 is pay extra taxes and work until you are 70 so that some other women can get a state pension at 60.
It says to women in general Labour are willing to right a wrong that effected them . The issue was how quickly the changes were made and Labour have stressed that’s why they’re offering compensation.
I fail to see this as a vote loser. Hilariously Christopher Hope of the DT thinks this is going to damage Labour which clearly shows hes rattled !
What wrong ?
The wrong of receiving state pension five years earlier than men do ?
And what is Labour's solution to this 'wrong' ?
To take £58bn from the young.
Why should any young or middle aged women support that ?
Perhaps its the wrong of not being notified with plenty of time. Oh wait, they were.
This is a policy which will have appeal to that group, and since all our parties bar the Tories are for supporting them they must think that group could be large and influential, but there's been no wrong.
Seems like worst case is that this does nothing. Best case is that Corbyn makes Johnson argue about it and fall into a trap of attacking women, who he is already less trusted with 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 (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.
What it says to women under 50 is pay extra taxes and work until you are 70 so that some other women can get a state pension at 60.
It says to women in general Labour are willing to right a wrong that effected them . The issue was how quickly the changes were made and Labour have stressed that’s why they’re offering compensation.
I fail to see this as a vote loser. Hilariously Christopher Hope of the DT thinks this is going to damage Labour which clearly shows hes rattled !
Oh FFS! They didn't suffer a wrong. They got equality, that’s all. And were informed about it and had time to make plans, rather more time, in fact, than people affected by a budget or pledges made during an election campaign.
Since when is that a “wrong” or an “injustice”?
It’s the utter dishonesty and disingenuous special pleading of the campaign which really grates.
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.
This keeps being posted too, I don't know how accurate it is.
With 2.5 weeks left of the campaign, the Tory lead continues to widen, while the Labour average fails to break 30%? It wasn't supposed to be like this...
Thanks for the "Britain Elects" poll tracker ... I used to refer to that site regularly but now find my accesss blocked unless I sign up to receive "New Statesman" promotion bumph which is hardly my scene, so I no longer bother.
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, more.
This iemploying young people.
There will be no business certainty until the final Brexit trade deal is done. Both parties are advocating policies that run the risk of people losing their jobs. Only one party will actually be putting its policies into action and it will not be Labour (thank God).
Not really, moving to phase two of the brexit talks will be enough to give businesses certainty where there is currently none. Additionally the government will show what the landing zone for the trade deal is and business will be able to invest on that basis.
Hmmm. Good luck with that. The government cannot show a landing zone without committing to a certain kind of final deal. And that's where its troubles begin. If the government seeks to diverge, then it will mean tearing up rules that ensure current manufacturing supply chains while restricting current levels of access to the single market for services which, of course, extend way beyond the financial sector. And if it doesn't seek to diverge, then Tory civil war reignites. This one is going to run and run.
Seems like worst case is that this does nothing. Best case is that Corbyn makes Johnson argue about it and fall into a trap of attacking women, who he is already less trusted with than men.
Can't see it myself
Not really, the defence is simple. "Will you be raising taxes on working age women to pay for this?" Either answer lands Jez in a pile of shit.
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.
What it says to women under 50 is pay extra taxes and work until you are 70 so that some other women can get a state pension at 60.
It says to women in general Labour are willing to right a wrong that effected them . The issue was how quickly the changes were made and Labour have stressed that’s why they’re offering compensation.
I fail to see this as a vote loser. Hilariously Christopher Hope of the DT thinks this is going to damage Labour which clearly shows hes rattled !
What wrong ?
The wrong of receiving state pension five years earlier than men do ?
And what is Labour's solution to this 'wrong' ?
To take £58bn from the young.
Why should any young or middle aged women support that ?
Changing the pension age isn’t the issue but the timeframe . Younger people have a great youth manifesto and other women will understand why the women feel aggrieved .
Labour were willing to fight for these women the Tories weren’t , that’s the message . Labour cares, the Tories don’t .
Good luck if you think this policy will harm Labour .
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.
This keeps being posted too, I don't know how accurate it is.
With 2.5 weeks left of the campaign, the Tory lead continues to widen, while the Labour average fails to break 30%? It wasn't supposed to be like this...
Surely the other story here is the Lib Dems trending down.
Baxtered even last night's BMG puts the Lib Dems on 25 seats while the average puts them below 20. And plenty more time to be squeezed.
Yes there may be some tactical voting in individual constituencies that benefits the Lib Dems but they have failed to reach out to Labour voters who still blame them for the coalition years, their policy on revoke is widely seen as a mis-step and few wealthy remainers will risk lending their vote in case it lets Corbyn in?
Surely the 1.97 on BF exchange for Lib Dems under 25.5 seats looks like value?
As long as we can defend our own shores. We should not be fighting wars abroad.
There might be benefits to at least appearing to have the potential to take action if we wanted though.
Frankly with the Tories also splurging the cash I'm surprised that the military would not get a significant boost, and whatever the top brass want they'll face direction to boost numbers.
Isn't it like the US Congress supposedly approving massive tank building programmes despite the army saying they don't need more tanks? In that example because it makes jobs.
Michael Gove has started using the "oven-ready" phrase. It sounds awful to me but maybe they've discovered that it works with focus groups or something.
Seems like worst case is that this does nothing. Best case is that Corbyn makes Johnson argue about it and fall into a trap of attacking women, who he is already less trusted with than men.
Can't see it myself
Not really, the defence is simple. "Will you be raising taxes on working age women to pay for this?" Either answer lands Jez in a pile of shit.
"No I won't" "So what will you do Boris Johnson?"
Your line of attack hasn't worked so far, people voting Labour seem to frankly not care about taxes being raised.
We are at the point where Labour can't really announce anything else that will impact their polling. Their floor seems to have got stuck at 30%.
I think we're long past the stage now of any economic reason from Labour now, and it that sense, they could offer a pledge every day of the week for the next three weeks. What does it matter to them? They're not forwarding themselves as being prudent financial custodians, it's the polar opposite. So why not pledge to wipe out student debt? If you're not bothered about signing a blank cheque for over 3 million people, why should a few more hundreds of billions of pounds matter?
Why not make a pledge to make everyone who isn't one already a millionaire? It makes about as much sense as the other mind boggling sums in Labour's manifesto.
Perhaps that is the policy they're holding back.
Given a lot of students thought they'd promised that last time I was surprised it was not explicirly in there. I think you might be right that it will emerge soon.
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, more.
This iemploying young people.
There will be no business certainty until the final Brexit trade deal is done. Both parties are advocating policies that run the risk of people losing their jobs. Only one party will actually be putting its policies into action and it will not be Labour (thank God).
Not really, moving to phase two of the brexit talks will be enough to give businesses certainty where there is currently none. Additionally the government will show what the landing zone for the trade deal is and business will be able to invest on that basis.
Hmmm. Good luck with that. The government cannot show a landing zone without committing to a certain kind of final deal. And that's where its troubles begin. If the government seeks to diverge, then it will mean tearing up rules that ensure current manufacturing supply chains while restricting current levels of access to the single market for services which, of course, extend way beyond the financial sector. And if it doesn't seek to diverge, then Tory civil war reignites. This one is going to run and run.
The government has already committed to a kind of deal, it is pursuing the Canadian one, possibly with a bit extra on customs pre-clearance. It's not that controversial.
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.
This keeps being posted too, I don't know how accurate it is.
With 2.5 weeks left of the campaign, the Tory lead continues to widen, while the Labour average fails to break 30%? It wasn't supposed to be like this...
42.4% is exactly what the Tories got in 2017.
43.5% in GB, as per the scope of (almost) all polls.
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.
What it says to women under 50 is pay extra taxes and work until you are 70 so that some other women can get a state pension at 60.
It says to women in general Labour are willing to right a wrong that effected them . The issue was how quickly the changes were made and Labour have stressed that’s why they’re offering compensation.
I fail to see this as a vote loser. Hilariously Christopher Hope of the DT thinks this is going to damage Labour which clearly shows hes rattled !
Oh FFS! They didn't suffer a wrong. They got equality, that’s all. And were informed about it and had time to make plans, rather more time, in fact, than people affected by a budget or pledges made during an election campaign.
Since when is that a “wrong” or an “injustice”?
It’s the utter dishonesty and disingenuous special pleading of the campaign which really grates.
It’s irrelevant whether you or I feel they lost out . It’s what the 3.5 million think , if they feel they’ve been wronged that’s what matters .
Michael Gove has started using the "oven-ready" phrase. It sounds awful to me but maybe they've discovered that it works with focus groups or something.
Putting buns in the oven is Johnson's expertise, no?
We are at the point where Labour can't really announce anything else that will impact their polling. Their floor seems to have got stuck at 30%.
I think we're long past the stage now of any economic reason from Labour now, and it that sense, they could offer a pledge every day of the week for the next three weeks. What does it matter to them? They're not forwarding themselves as being prudent financial custodians, it's the polar opposite. So why not pledge to wipe out student debt? If you're not bothered about signing a blank cheque for over 3 million people, why should a few more hundreds of billions of pounds matter?
Why not make a pledge to make everyone who isn't one already a millionaire? It makes about as much sense as the other mind boggling sums in Labour's manifesto.
Perhaps that is the policy they're holding back.
Given a lot of students thought they'd promised that last time I was surprised it was not explicirly in there. I think you might be right that it will emerge soon.
I wonder if they're holding it back for the final day of registering to vote
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.
What it says to women under 50 is pay extra taxes and work until you are 70 so that some other women can get a state pension at 60.
It says to women in general Labour are willing to right a wrong that effected them . The issue was how quickly the changes were made and Labour have stressed that’s why they’re offering compensation.
I fail to see this as a vote loser. Hilariously Christopher Hope of the DT thinks this is going to damage Labour which clearly shows hes rattled !
Oh FFS! They didn't suffer a wrong. They got equality, that’s all. And were informed about it and had time to make plans, rather more time, in fact, than people affected by a budget or pledges made during an election campaign.
Since when is that a “wrong” or an “injustice”?
It’s the utter dishonesty and disingenuous special pleading of the campaign which really grates.
It’s irrelevant whether you or I feel they lost out . It’s what the 3.5 million think , if they feel they’ve been wronged that’s what matters .
I feel wronged that Poch has been sacked and Spurs won't get top 4 this year thus meaing my season ticket is going to be less rewarding than expected. How much will Labour pay me?
As long as we can defend our own shores. We should not be fighting wars abroad.
There might be benefits to at least appearing to have the potential to take action if we wanted though.
Frankly with the Tories also splurging the cash I'm surprised that the military would not get a significant boost, and whatever the top brass want they'll face direction to boost numbers.
Isn't it like the US Congress supposedly approving massive tank building programmes despite the army saying they don't need more tanks? In that example because it makes jobs.
I do not think the EU, Greenland, Canada or the USA are likely to invade us. Other assets far, far away (like the Falklands).... well, we are no longer a world power and we are busy readying ourselves to become a pawn between powerblocs. Let them be the policemen of the world, we have given that up.
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.
What it says to women under 50 is pay extra taxes and work until you are 70 so that some other women can get a state pension at 60.
It says to women in general Labour are willing to right a wrong that effected them . The issue was how quickly the changes were made and Labour have stressed that’s why they’re offering compensation.
I fail to see this as a vote loser. Hilariously Christopher Hope of the DT thinks this is going to damage Labour which clearly shows hes rattled !
What wrong ?
The wrong of receiving state pension five years earlier than men do ?
And what is Labour's solution to this 'wrong' ?
To take £58bn from the young.
Why should any young or middle aged women support that ?
Changing the pension age isn’t the issue but the timeframe . Younger people have a great youth manifesto and other women will understand why the women feel aggrieved .
Labour were willing to fight for these women the Tories weren’t , that’s the message . Labour cares, the Tories don’t .
Good luck if you think this policy will harm Labour .
It has effectively stopped them making any further spending commitments though.
Seems like worst case is that this does nothing. Best case is that Corbyn makes Johnson argue about it and fall into a trap of attacking women, who he is already less trusted with than men.
Can't see it myself
Not really, the defence is simple. "Will you be raising taxes on working age women to pay for this?" Either answer lands Jez in a pile of shit.
"No I won't" "So what will you do Boris Johnson?"
Your line of attack hasn't worked so far, people voting Labour seem to frankly not care about taxes being raised.
"Then who are you going to raise taxes on to pay for this additional £58bn in spending?"
Bozza: "I've already committed to sex equality in the pension age, it is not a policy we will be revisiting as it will require huge tax rises on working age women."
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, more.
This iemploying young people.
There will be no business certainty until the final Brexit trade deal is done. Both parties are advocating policies that run the risk of people losing their jobs. Only one party will actually be putting its policies into action and it will not be Labour (thank God).
Not really, moving to phase two of the brexit talks will be enough to give businesses certainty where there is currently none. Additionally the government will show what the landing zone for the trade deal is and business will be able to invest on that basis.
Hmmm. Good luck with that. The government cannot show a landing zone without committing to a certain kind of final deal. And that's where its troubles begin. If the government seeks to diverge, then it will mean tearing up rules that ensure current manufacturing supply chains while restricting current levels of access to the single market for services which, of course, extend way beyond the financial sector. And if it doesn't seek to diverge, then Tory civil war reignites. This one is going to run and run.
The government has already committed to a kind of deal, it is pursuing the Canadian one, possibly with a bit extra on customs pre-clearance. It's not that controversial.
The government has said what it wants. It has not said what it will sacrifice to achieve it. Until it does, the uncertainty remains. Once it confirms it is giving up on just-in-time, Europe-wide supply chains and rules of origin we will undoubtedly get certainty and its consequences. But we are not at that point yet.
Michael Gove has started using the "oven-ready" phrase. It sounds awful to me but maybe they've discovered that it works with focus groups or something.
It grates with me too, but I think it’s memorable. And no one seems to bother to ever ask Boris about the next stage. One could say that only the starter is oven ready, the main course is still half-baked.
**DISCLAIMER** Forgive me, I'm going to do some CHB/Justin type optimising of these figures. Assuming the figure of 3.7 million women is correct, I reckon at least half of those women are existing Labour voters anyway. So we're down to 1.85 million potential switchers. Spread evenly over 650 seats, that's 2,846 voters per seat. So let's assume that all 50% of the remaining women decide to switch their vote to Labour, the most they could gain is under 3,000 per seat. If the Tories are 10% ahead on polling day, would that be enough to start making any kind of difference?
Silly hypotheticals aside, the Tories are probably worried enough to start running similar numbers. They'd better pray the public sees through one of the most naked electoral bribes in democratic history for the sheer brass necked lunacy that it is.
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.
What it says to women under 50 is pay extra taxes and work until you are 70 so that some other women can get a state pension at 60.
It says to women in general Labour are willing to right a wrong that effected them . The issue was how quickly the changes were made and Labour have stressed that’s why they’re offering compensation.
I fail to see this as a vote loser. Hilariously Christopher Hope of the DT thinks this is going to damage Labour which clearly shows hes rattled !
Oh FFS! They didn't suffer a wrong. They got equality, that’s all. And were informed about it and had time to make plans, rather more time, in fact, than people affected by a budget or pledges made during an election campaign.
Since when is that a “wrong” or an “injustice”?
It’s the utter dishonesty and disingenuous special pleading of the campaign which really grates.
Seems like worst case is that this does nothing. Best case is that Corbyn makes Johnson argue about it and fall into a trap of attacking women, who he is already less trusted with than men.
Can't see it myself
Not really, the defence is simple. "Will you be raising taxes on working age women to pay for this?" Either answer lands Jez in a pile of shit.
"No I won't" "So what will you do Boris Johnson?"
Your line of attack hasn't worked so far, people voting Labour seem to frankly not care about taxes being raised.
"Then who are you going to raise taxes on to pay for this additional £58bn in spending?"
Bozza: "I've already committed to sex equality in the pension age, it is not a policy we will be revisiting as it will require huge tax rises on working age women."
"The millionaires and billionaires have had tax giveaway after tax giveaway, we found billions to bail out the banks."
Your attack will solidify existing Tory support - but it won't encourage people to switch from Labour or stay at home.
The government has said what it wants. It has not said what it will sacrifice to achieve it. Until it does, the uncertainty remains. Once it confirms it is giving up on just-in-time, Europe-wide supply chains and rules of origin we will undoubtedly get certainty and its consequences. But we are not at that point yet.
Why would it give up on point of origin? That's included in the Canadian and Japanese trade deals. Unless you think the EU will be an unreasonable negotiating partner?
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.
What it says to women under 50 is pay extra taxes and work until you are 70 so that some other women can get a state pension at 60.
It says to women in general Labour are willing to right a wrong that effected them . The issue was how quickly the changes were made and Labour have stressed that’s why they’re offering compensation.
I fail to see this as a vote loser. Hilariously Christopher Hope of the DT thinks this is going to damage Labour which clearly shows hes rattled !
What wrong ?
The wrong of receiving state pension five years earlier than men do ?
And what is Labour's solution to this 'wrong' ?
To take £58bn from the young.
Why should any young or middle aged women support that ?
Changing the pension age isn’t the issue but the timeframe . Younger people have a great youth manifesto and other women will understand why the women feel aggrieved .
Labour were willing to fight for these women the Tories weren’t , that’s the message . Labour cares, the Tories don’t .
Good luck if you think this policy will harm Labour .
The timeframe isn't an issue as the court case showed.
So the message is Labour will take from the young to give to the old.
Good luck if you think people who will be working until they are 70 will be happy to pay extra taxes so that other people can get a state pension at 60.
As long as we can defend our own shores. We should not be fighting wars abroad.
There might be benefits to at least appearing to have the potential to take action if we wanted though.
Frankly with the Tories also splurging the cash I'm surprised that the military would not get a significant boost, and whatever the top brass want they'll face direction to boost numbers.
Isn't it like the US Congress supposedly approving massive tank building programmes despite the army saying they don't need more tanks? In that example because it makes jobs.
I do not think the EU, Greenland, Canada or the USA are likely to invade us. Other assets far, far away (like the Falklands).... well, we are no longer a world power and we are busy readying ourselves to become a pawn between powerblocs. Let them be the policemen of the world, we have given that up.
Your point doesn't seem to relate to mine at all. It wouldn't be about being the policeman of the world, but whether we could, in fact, do anything proactive at all, just in case. That's not a foolproof argument of course, but how much of an armed forced we do need even for the sake of home defence only is a bit of a tricky question.
As long as we can defend our own shores. We should not be fighting wars abroad.
There might be benefits to at least appearing to have the potential to take action if we wanted though.
Frankly with the Tories also splurging the cash I'm surprised that the military would not get a significant boost, and whatever the top brass want they'll face direction to boost numbers.
Isn't it like the US Congress supposedly approving massive tank building programmes despite the army saying they don't need more tanks? In that example because it makes jobs.
I do not think the EU, Greenland, Canada or the USA are likely to invade us. Other assets far, far away (like the Falklands).... well, we are no longer a world power and we are busy readying ourselves to become a pawn between powerblocs. Let them be the policemen of the world, we have given that up.
The EU recently held a joint miltary exercise where they invaded the UK. Disgraceful that our then Government allowed it really.
The government has said what it wants. It has not said what it will sacrifice to achieve it. Until it does, the uncertainty remains. Once it confirms it is giving up on just-in-time, Europe-wide supply chains and rules of origin we will undoubtedly get certainty and its consequences. But we are not at that point yet.
Why would it give up on point of origin? That's included in the Canadian and Japanese trade deals. Unless you think the EU will be an unreasonable negotiating partner?
The EU will do what it judges is best for the EU. The Canadians and Japanese were negotiating enhanced access to the EU market. The UK will be negotiating the management of reduced access. What we do not yet know is how much the UK government is prepared to give up. Until we do there will be uncertainty.
I did not think that Labour could come up with a series of proposals that would be more ruinous to the UK economy than the Tory Brexit, but they have managed it. That's quite some feat!
I'm having a look at constituency bets at the moment and Hartlepool looks interesting. The Tories are at 3/1 (Betfair) which looks decent to me if we think the Brexit party are mainly taking Labour votes. Could be a three-way marginal?
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.
What it says to women under 50 is pay extra taxes and work until you are 70 so that some other women can get a state pension at 60.
It says to women in general Labour are willing to right a wrong that effected them . The issue was how quickly the changes were made and Labour have stressed that’s why they’re offering compensation.
I fail to see this as a vote loser. Hilariously Christopher Hope of the DT thinks this is going to damage Labour which clearly shows hes rattled !
Oh FFS! They didn't suffer a wrong. They got equality, that’s all. And were informed about it and had time to make plans, rather more time, in fact, than people affected by a budget or pledges made during an election campaign.
Since when is that a “wrong” or an “injustice”?
It’s the utter dishonesty and disingenuous special pleading of the campaign which really grates.
It’s irrelevant whether you or I feel they lost out . It’s what the 3.5 million think , if they feel they’ve been wronged that’s what matters .
So if I feel wronged about something and cry and cry and cry about it loud enough I get what I want. Is that politics now? What are we - a nation of four year olds?
The courts have ruled. They have not been wronged. There are many many more women - and men - many of them young, with debts these women do not have and without access to the benefits these women have, who will have to pay more tax and have fewer benefits to give this humungous sum to this group because of their feelings.
Seems like worst case is that this does nothing. Best case is that Corbyn makes Johnson argue about it and fall into a trap of attacking women, who he is already less trusted with than men.
Can't see it myself
Not really, the defence is simple. "Will you be raising taxes on working age women to pay for this?" Either answer lands Jez in a pile of shit.
"No I won't" "So what will you do Boris Johnson?"
Your line of attack hasn't worked so far, people voting Labour seem to frankly not care about taxes being raised.
"Then who are you going to raise taxes on to pay for this additional £58bn in spending?"
Bozza: "I've already committed to sex equality in the pension age, it is not a policy we will be revisiting as it will require huge tax rises on working age women."
"The millionaires and billionaires have had tax giveaway after tax giveaway, we found billions to bail out the banks."
Your attack will solidify existing Tory support - but it won't encourage people to switch from Labour or stay at home.
I do not think that there has ever been any doubt that Boris will win. The real question is the size of the win. If Corbyn reduces the majority over the next few weeks then politics stays in ferment. If Boris gets a clear majority then Brexit happens and we move to the next shambles
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.
This keeps being posted too, I don't know how accurate it is.
With 2.5 weeks left of the campaign, the Tory lead continues to widen, while the Labour average fails to break 30%? It wasn't supposed to be like this...
Surely the other story here is the Lib Dems trending down.
Baxtered even last night's BMG puts the Lib Dems on 25 seats while the average puts them below 20. And plenty more time to be squeezed.
Yes there may be some tactical voting in individual constituencies that benefits the Lib Dems but they have failed to reach out to Labour voters who still blame them for the coalition years, their policy on revoke is widely seen as a mis-step and few wealthy remainers will risk lending their vote in case it lets Corbyn in?
Surely the 1.97 on BF exchange for Lib Dems under 25.5 seats looks like value?
If a sizeable Tory majority looks nailed on by election day then the Lib Dems will do better than expected because it will feel safe for remain Tories to cast an LD vote and in most of the South Labour will be so obviously a lost cause. I agree with SO, I think Labour have all but given up.
The government has said what it wants. It has not said what it will sacrifice to achieve it. Until it does, the uncertainty remains. Once it confirms it is giving up on just-in-time, Europe-wide supply chains and rules of origin we will undoubtedly get certainty and its consequences. But we are not at that point yet.
Why would it give up on point of origin? That's included in the Canadian and Japanese trade deals. Unless you think the EU will be an unreasonable negotiating partner?
The EU will do what it judges is best for the EU. The Canadians and Japanese were negotiating enhanced access to the EU market. The UK will be negotiating the management of reduced access. What we do not yet know is how much the UK government is prepared to give up. Until we do there will be uncertainty.
But the EU have been happy to extend point of origin rules to other advanced economies, why would they not for the UK? Whether we are moving from 100% to 90% vs Canada and Japan moving from 80% to 90%. The end destination is broadly the same as what the EU has already agreed to previously.
It’s irrelevant whether you or I feel they lost out . It’s what the 3.5 million think , if they feel they’ve been wronged that’s what matters .
No. If they feel wronged it has political relevance as they may act accordingly. It does not make it any less true that they have been wronged, and that is not an irrelevance, particularly when those outside of that group may react to them whinging, falsely, about being wronged. The actual position is relevant when assessing their complaints.
Take me for example. Just one internet spod, who cares, but I'm spitting mad at the entitlement and phony arguments of the WASPI women being rewarded, and that will colour my views and actions moving forward. How many others will be similarly annoyed? Perhaps not as many as like receiving their grey vote bribe, but it does mean that their not being a wrong is perfectly relevant no matter they they feel they have been.
But I don't even believe they think they have been wronged. The arguments about not being notified are provably untrue, the arguments about it not being sufficient notice are very weak given it was still many many years, so ultimately it comes down to them not liking the move to equality, and they cannot believe that is a wrong as they don't lead on that and in fact name themselves the opposite.
When you present such factually weak arguments its usually a sign that other factors are the real reason you are angry, but know you cannot use that one. They play the 'wrong' because they don't like government policy affecting them, that's all.
I'd have more sympathy if they didn't use words like betrayal and so on, owing a 'debt of honour' it's so overblown. A debt of honour? The government brought in changes to pensions arrangements and told them about it for christ's sake, why do the rest of us owe them an honour because things changed for them?
Comments
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7718869/Dump-Jeremy-Corbyn-Crushing-verdict-dozens-Labour-candidates.html
It cant get much worse than this comment
"voter tells Labour candidate it would be 'better off with Prince Andrew as leader'"
Ouch, ouch, ouch
This doesn't make the report all nonsense of course but it certainly doesn't help.
Bozo in the next debate says he’s against this . Corbyn then says the banks were bailed out but these poor women are being thrown under the bus .
Who do you think the public will side with? And you have to look at the wider message , Labour is willing to fight for women .
I see no way this doesn’t help Labour even allowing for your perfectly reasonable comments .
I’m furious about this campaign. Women who play the “It’s so unfair to me as a woman” card when they are getting equality are the pits. Either we want equality or we don’t. We can’t just have it when it suits us and revert to the “I’m too silly to take responsibility for my actions/failure to read” position when it doesn’t.
https://mobile.twitter.com/britainelects/status/1198565676668948481
A 20.8% swing, Lab to Con.
Labour are going to renegotiate this brilliant deal which they will not actively support with the leader staying neutral and McDonnell and others urging remain
That will really enthuse the EU to offer a good deal.......
Marr pulling apart the Labour tax lies too.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7719771/BBCs-Andrew-Marr-ridicules-Jeremy-Corbyns-neutral-Brexit-stance.html
https://mobile.twitter.com/britainelects/status/1198565676668948481
5%-10% of Tory voters are voting Tory despite not preferring Johnson.
10%+ of Labour voters are voting Labour despite not preferring Corbyn.
These numbers improving for Labour, are the only sign I've yet seen that the Labour tribal vote still exists.
This relates to the manifesto proper, which had plenty of mention of figures through it.
Does smack of them going all-in on 8 high.
If she confirms the relationship, Johnson is potentially in a lot of trouble if he directly approved public money for her business, yet failed to declare the conflict of interest.
Even if the Conservatives win the election, we could be quickly looking at another PM.
I fail to see this as a vote loser. Hilariously Christopher Hope of the DT thinks this is going to damage Labour which clearly shows hes rattled !
For Labour this will be about values and them being "on your side". The Tories won't have much to counter it with, so like you say at worst it will be neutral, at best it might be positive.
The best thing Labour can do - and depending on which polls you look at it either is or isn't working - is just hammer home that Johnson cannot be trusted. Especially to Northern voters, this will be crucial.
(Mr Sandpit 'celebrates' his 42nd birthday next weekend.)
A higher minimum wage also kills jobs (since it literally bans people who can't provide that much value from working) and is particularly bad if the rest of the economy is weak due to some of Labour's other bad ideas, since people will get laid off rather than getting higher wages. But if that happens even a *majority* Labour government can at least do a course correction partway through, and if it doesn't the voters can get rid of it after 5 years. This is the key difference with Brexit: Once it's happened it could easily take years of negotiations to reverse, and even fixing a broken or missing trade deal could get queued up behind other priorities in the Walloon parliament or whatever. And if there's no majority, they just ditch all the most damaging policies, put in a modest minimum wage increase that most employers can suck up without firing people, Lab give LD the blame, LD take the credit, and everybody wins.
If this is the Tory ceiling (i.e. their 2017 vote) and they start to fall, then Labour has a way back in - but if the gap widens further it is game over.
I suspect we'll see this time next week more about that gap, because the don't knows will presumably be waiting on the Tory manifesto. Then they might make a decisive break one way or the other.
Labour’s current spending commitments are now £111 billion - and that’s without the commitments they haven’t costed yet. All to be paid for by about 53 millionaires, seemingly.
Still a bit more for the Tories to squeeze in that Brexit 4.6%, I'd say. And some more back from the Corbyn-fearing LibDem switchers.
Probably in direct contrast to the views of people older than me.
Why not make a pledge to make everyone who isn't one already a millionaire? It makes about as much sense as the other mind boggling sums in Labour's manifesto.
The wrong of receiving state pension five years earlier than men do ?
And what is Labour's solution to this 'wrong' ?
To take £58bn from the young.
Why should any young or middle aged women support that ?
The age was carefully chosen (assuming Sir Edric isn't lying, which is eminently possible) because it's still young enough to do just about everything a 20 year old can, but old enough that it's more of a pain in the arse.
It's not the LDs that will call the shots, it is the SNP and they give zero fucks about what Labour does in England and Wales.
Obviously we hope for more access to services, but only if it's on the basis of equivalence rather than alignment.
Hmm
This is a policy which will have appeal to that group, and since all our parties bar the Tories are for supporting them they must think that group could be large and influential, but there's been no wrong.
Can't see it myself
Since when is that a “wrong” or an “injustice”?
It’s the utter dishonesty and disingenuous special pleading of the campaign which really grates.
Labour were willing to fight for these women the Tories weren’t , that’s the message . Labour cares, the Tories don’t .
Good luck if you think this policy will harm Labour .
Baxtered even last night's BMG puts the Lib Dems on 25 seats while the average puts them below 20. And plenty more time to be squeezed.
Yes there may be some tactical voting in individual constituencies that benefits the Lib Dems but they have failed to reach out to Labour voters who still blame them for the coalition years, their policy on revoke is widely seen as a mis-step and few wealthy remainers will risk lending their vote in case it lets Corbyn in?
Surely the 1.97 on BF exchange for Lib Dems under 25.5 seats looks like value?
Frankly with the Tories also splurging the cash I'm surprised that the military would not get a significant boost, and whatever the top brass want they'll face direction to boost numbers.
Isn't it like the US Congress supposedly approving massive tank building programmes despite the army saying they don't need more tanks? In that example because it makes jobs.
"So what will you do Boris Johnson?"
Your line of attack hasn't worked so far, people voting Labour seem to frankly not care about taxes being raised.
Bozza:
"I've already committed to sex equality in the pension age, it is not a policy we will be revisiting as it will require huge tax rises on working age women."
Silly hypotheticals aside, the Tories are probably worried enough to start running similar numbers. They'd better pray the public sees through one of the most naked electoral bribes in democratic history for the sheer brass necked lunacy that it is.
https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1198560284027342849?s=21
Your attack will solidify existing Tory support - but it won't encourage people to switch from Labour or stay at home.
https://twitter.com/freddiesayers/status/1198573791888183297?s=20
So the message is Labour will take from the young to give to the old.
Good luck if you think people who will be working until they are 70 will be happy to pay extra taxes so that other people can get a state pension at 60.
43 to 37 is a huge change?
(Terrible for Labour)
The courts have ruled. They have not been wronged. There are many many more women - and men - many of them young, with debts these women do not have and without access to the benefits these women have, who will have to pay more tax and have fewer benefits to give this humungous sum to this group because of their feelings.
Someone should bloody well speak up for them.
Take me for example. Just one internet spod, who cares, but I'm spitting mad at the entitlement and phony arguments of the WASPI women being rewarded, and that will colour my views and actions moving forward. How many others will be similarly annoyed? Perhaps not as many as like receiving their grey vote bribe, but it does mean that their not being a wrong is perfectly relevant no matter they they feel they have been.
But I don't even believe they think they have been wronged. The arguments about not being notified are provably untrue, the arguments about it not being sufficient notice are very weak given it was still many many years, so ultimately it comes down to them not liking the move to equality, and they cannot believe that is a wrong as they don't lead on that and in fact name themselves the opposite.
When you present such factually weak arguments its usually a sign that other factors are the real reason you are angry, but know you cannot use that one. They play the 'wrong' because they don't like government policy affecting them, that's all.
I'd have more sympathy if they didn't use words like betrayal and so on, owing a 'debt of honour' it's so overblown. A debt of honour? The government brought in changes to pensions arrangements and told them about it for christ's sake, why do the rest of us owe them an honour because things changed for them?