There are a number of competitors to Uber heavily advertised on the London Underground. I wonder how they will get on, and whether they will be able to avoid the problems that Uber had.
5% (+3%) of Leave voters back Jo Swinson as Best PM? WTF?
Bregret?
No. It is how to interpret the question. I would back Jo Swinson as best PM out of the choices - and I would say the same of Ken Clarke, Hilary Benn and a few others. It a judgement about ability and competence, not policies.
I'm afraid I went right off Ms Swinson when she said that if PM (I know, I know) she'd be prepared to use nuclear weapons. Very competent and council experienced Green candidate locally, too; Looks ,like him or Labour for me now.
Any potential PM of the UK who SAYS they would not use the deterrent is a fecking idiot that puts this country's security at risk. Ah, Jeremy Corbyn.
Saying so and actually doing so are two very different things. This is a rare situation where IMO it is perfectly acceptable for a politician to lie.
Ironically this is one area where if Corbyn stuck to his principles he could have argued to cut spending and offered that as a source of revenue to spend on his priorities.
But the Unions were worried about job losses so he thinks even if these weapons are evil in his eyes and would never be used and are a total waste of money in his eyes he still wants to spend that money because it gives Unionised workers something to do.
Model updated with latest Survation poll: Con 342, Lab 214, LD 20, SNP 50, PC 4, GRN 1, BXP 0. Tory majority 40.
Con Majority between 30-40 is what I've always expected. Enough to Get Brexit Done and provide us with a functioning government for four or five years but no landslide.
Could give power to 20 Brexit extremists, though, especially if Sinn Fein grow up and represent the people they're supposed to represent.
Does anybody know if Sinn Fein MPs draw their salaries while not turning up?
What would the procedure be if Boris lost his seat but Tories won a majority?
He could take a peerage and still be PM with a seat in the Lords or he could appoint a temporary acting PM and persuade someone with a safe seat to vacate it for a by-election. This happened in 1963 when Lord Home was appointed Tory leader and PM.
Stocky said: "What would the procedure be if Boris lost his seat but Tories won a majority?"
GIN1138 said: "Presumably there would be a meeting of the Parliamentary Party sometime on 13th December and they'd have to agree on an MP who would go and visit HMQ to say they are forming a government?"
They probably wouldn`t trust Boris to go see the queen anyway - given that he lied to her the last time ha ha
There are a number of competitors to Uber heavily advertised on the London Underground. I wonder how they will get on, and whether they will be able to avoid the problems that Uber had.
And they have 21 days to appeal and can continue operating right until the conclusion of any such appeal
The decision might knock Labour a little in London, given the Mayor's involvement and the high profile campaign against uber backed by a few London Labour MPs
Prepare for the most ugly result of an election ever beating 1983 by a whisker. Fortunately I have the means to take myself to France and providing Johnson's quasi fascist government doesn't impliment stuff that brings a reciprocal response from the French I can become a happy ex pat.
For those who are forced to live under this clown they have at least one thing to look forward to. No more Corbyn. One of the five people most responsible for this very British farce
Enjoy life in France with your luvvies Roger. You wont be missed.
What would the procedure be if Boris lost his seat but Tories won a majority?
He could take a peerage and still be PM with a seat in the Lords or he could appoint a temporary acting PM and persuade someone with a safe seat to vacate it for a by-election. This happened in 1963 when Lord Home was appointed Tory leader and PM.
Home was already in the Lords. There was quite a row at having a PM there.
Model updated with latest Survation poll: Con 342, Lab 214, LD 20, SNP 50, PC 4, GRN 1, BXP 0. Tory majority 40.
Con Majority between 30-40 is what I've always expected. Enough to Get Brexit Done and provide us with a functioning government for four or five years but no landslide.
Could give power to 20 Brexit extremists, though, especially if Sinn Fein grow up and represent the people they're supposed to represent.
Does anybody know if Sinn Fein MPs draw their salaries while not turning up?
They certainly get enough to run constituency offices.
I had an election dream last night. For anyone wanting to bet based on my powers of premonition I remember 2 facts - it was 7pm on election day and 'early rumours' said the Tories would 'just hold on' in Chelmsford and the LDs were predicted to get 79% in Wells!! I have a very odd brain
Maybe you were tuned into Jo Swinson's brain waves
There was something about a Leeds seat too, Tories falling short in their Leeds target
The White Walkers are coming back to the Premier League as an added bonus.
Damn straight! For the scousers and mancs winter is coming
The scousers are worried about going to Qatar to become Champions of the World, along with future matches against Barcelona, Real Madrid etc in their fight to remain Champions of Europe, while also seeking to become Champions of England.
We're not worried about a poxy Championship club from the wrong side of the Pennines.
What would the procedure be if Boris lost his seat but Tories won a majority?
The Tory party is nothing without Boris. A by-election in the safest Tory seat would have to be hastily arranged.
Well yes but someone would still have to visit HMQ on Friday 13th.
Boris would still be the leader of the Tory Party of course so I guess he could go and visit HMQ and tell her Javid, Raab, Priti. etc were forming a government and would be caretaker PM while a by election is arranged for him (Boris) ?
Would be fun to see it play out and see what did happen actually.
What would the procedure be if Boris lost his seat but Tories won a majority?
I don't think the Cabinet Manual covers the question directly, but the PM is the PM until he resigns, so Boris is PM until someone else is. I don't think there is any other definitive guidance.
I think either: the Queen calls for whoever is the deputy PM instead, following a Boris resignation
or
consults the great and good and calls for the Tory minister most likely to command a majority,
both of these followed by a Tory party process of appointing a new leader, who would then become PM.
It is conceivable, people being what they are, that Boris would fail to resign in the hope that he can wangle a safe seat in a quick by election. Such move might revive interest in the long desuetude of the Queen's power to sack a PM, which seems still to exist.
5% (+3%) of Leave voters back Jo Swinson as Best PM? WTF?
Bregret?
No. It is how to interpret the question. I would back Jo Swinson as best PM out of the choices - and I would say the same of Ken Clarke, Hilary Benn and a few others. It a judgement about ability and competence, not policies.
I'm afraid I went right off Ms Swinson when she said that if PM (I know, I know) she'd be prepared to use nuclear weapons. Very competent and council experienced Green candidate locally, too; Looks ,like him or Labour for me now.
Any potential PM of the UK who SAYS they would not use the deterrent is a fecking idiot that puts this country's security at risk. Ah, Jeremy Corbyn.
Saying so and actually doing so are two very different things. This is a rare situation where IMO it is perfectly acceptable for a politician to lie.
Well if Brexit's going to ruin the country, there'll still a country afterwards. On the other hand, if we get involved in a nuclear war the Western and Northern Isles will be about all that's left.
Con majority in from 1.46 to 1.43 this morning. Wonder if that is related to the Wales poll or something else...
It reasonably should tick in by about that much every day closer to the election we get without any movement in the polls.
If on the morning of 12/12 all the polls are still showing double-digit leads for the Tories I'd expect Con majority should be 1.1 or even tighter than that. It might not be, but if the polls are double-digit leads it should be (remembering the polls were not double-digit leads by the end in 2017).
I had an election dream last night. For anyone wanting to bet based on my powers of premonition I remember 2 facts - it was 7pm on election day and 'early rumours' said the Tories would 'just hold on' in Chelmsford and the LDs were predicted to get 79% in Wells!! I have a very odd brain
Maybe you were tuned into Jo Swinson's brain waves
There was something about a Leeds seat too, Tories falling short in their Leeds target
The White Walkers are coming back to the Premier League as an added bonus.
Damn straight! For the scousers and mancs winter is coming
The scousers are worried about going to Qatar to become Champions of the World, along with future matches against Barcelona, Real Madrid etc in their fight to remain Champions of Europe, while also seeking to become Champions of England.
We're not worried about a poxy Championship club from the wrong side of the Pennines.
What would the procedure be if Boris lost his seat but Tories won a majority?
He could take a peerage and still be PM with a seat in the Lords or he could appoint a temporary acting PM and persuade someone with a safe seat to vacate it for a by-election. This happened in 1963 when Lord Home was appointed Tory leader and PM.
Home was already in the Lords. There was quite a row at having a PM there.
Well it was only for a few weeks 'til he sorted out a by-election and I think that the seat was already vacant which saved time. Before the 20th century PMs in the Lords were common and there's no law against it but these days I agree that you couldn't really have that for longer than a few months after a GE.
I had an election dream last night. For anyone wanting to bet based on my powers of premonition I remember 2 facts - it was 7pm on election day and 'early rumours' said the Tories would 'just hold on' in Chelmsford and the LDs were predicted to get 79% in Wells!! I have a very odd brain
Maybe you were tuned into Jo Swinson's brain waves
There was something about a Leeds seat too, Tories falling short in their Leeds target
The White Walkers are coming back to the Premier League as an added bonus.
Damn straight! For the scousers and mancs winter is coming
The scousers are worried about going to Qatar to become Champions of the World, along with future matches against Barcelona, Real Madrid etc in their fight to remain Champions of Europe, while also seeking to become Champions of England.
We're not worried about a poxy Championship club from the wrong side of the Pennines.
It is my beloved Foxes that the Scousers need to worry about...
Prepare for the most ugly result of an election ever beating 1983 by a whisker. Fortunately I have the means to take myself to France and providing Johnson's quasi fascist government doesn't impliment stuff that brings a reciprocal response from the French I can become a happy ex pat.
For those who are forced to live under this clown they have at least one thing to look forward to. No more Corbyn. One of the five people most responsible for this very British farce
Enjoy life in France with your luvvies Roger. You wont be missed.
There are a number of competitors to Uber heavily advertised on the London Underground. I wonder how they will get on, and whether they will be able to avoid the problems that Uber had.
And they have 21 days to appeal and can continue operating right until the conclusion of any such appeal
The decision might knock Labour a little in London, given the Mayor's involvement and the high profile campaign against uber backed by a few London Labour MPs
Why - uber will still be running and available on December 12th.
Uber is really a mayoral issue not a General Election one given the time frames of appeals.
5% (+3%) of Leave voters back Jo Swinson as Best PM? WTF?
But down three with current LibDem voters! lol. Even her own supporters are put off by her "Prime Minister" schtick.
In a poll where your Bozo is down 4% and Swinson is up 1%. Desperate stuff, Mr Mark.
I'd punt that 16% for the leader of the third UK party in response to "who would make the best PM" is historically extremely high.
That's it, run along to her defence, like some little lap dog.
Because she can't cut it without you yapping to protect her?
I think you need a lie down.
That Survation does seem to show Lab recovering a bit, but I do like the 2% of Tories backing Jezza as best PM!
On pensions, I would suggest that pension age should be life expectancy minus 12 years.
For one in 47 Boris-backing Tories to sit down and watch him debate with Corbyn and come away thinking that Corbyn would make the better PM is indeed remarkable.
What would the procedure be if Boris lost his seat but Tories won a majority?
The Tory party is nothing without Boris. A by-election in the safest Tory seat would have to be hastily arranged.
Well yes but someone would still have to visit HMQ on Friday 13th.
Boris would still be the leader of the Tory Party of course so I guess he could go and visit HMQ and tell her Javid, Raab, Priti. etc were forming a government and would be caretaker PM while a by election is arranged for him (Boris) ?
Would be fun to see it play out and see what did happen actually.
1963 (wiki):
On 23 October 1963, four days after becoming Prime Minister, Home disclaimed his earldom and associated lesser peerages, under the Peerage Act 1963.[n 11] Having been made a knight of the Order of the Thistle in 1962, he was known after stepping down from the Lords as Sir Alec Douglas-Home.[33] The safe Unionist seat of Kinross and West Perthshire was vacant, and Douglas-Home was adopted as his party's candidate. Parliament was due to meet on 24 October after the summer recess, but its return was postponed until 12 November pending the by-election.[122] For twenty days[n 12] Douglas-Home was Prime Minister while a member of neither house of Parliament, a situation without modern precedent.[n 13] He won the 7 November by-election with a majority of 9,328; the Liberal candidate was in second place and Labour in third.[125]
I had an election dream last night. For anyone wanting to bet based on my powers of premonition I remember 2 facts - it was 7pm on election day and 'early rumours' said the Tories would 'just hold on' in Chelmsford and the LDs were predicted to get 79% in Wells!! I have a very odd brain
Maybe you were tuned into Jo Swinson's brain waves
There was something about a Leeds seat too, Tories falling short in their Leeds target
The White Walkers are coming back to the Premier League as an added bonus.
Damn straight! For the scousers and mancs winter is coming
The scousers are worried about going to Qatar to become Champions of the World, along with future matches against Barcelona, Real Madrid etc in their fight to remain Champions of Europe, while also seeking to become Champions of England.
We're not worried about a poxy Championship club from the wrong side of the Pennines.
It is my beloved Foxes that the Scousers need to worry about...
What would the procedure be if Boris lost his seat but Tories won a majority?
I don't think the Cabinet Manual covers the question directly, but the PM is the PM until he resigns, so Boris is PM until someone else is. I don't think there is any other definitive guidance.
I think either: the Queen calls for whoever is the deputy PM instead, following a Boris resignation
or
consults the great and good and calls for the Tory minister most likely to command a majority,
both of these followed by a Tory party process of appointing a new leader, who would then become PM.
It is conceivable, people being what they are, that Boris would fail to resign in the hope that he can wangle a safe seat in a quick by election. Such move might revive interest in the long desuetude of the Queen's power to sack a PM, which seems still to exist.
Hope Lady Hale's diary is clear.
After the election when the dust has settled i might say the seat that Boris was going to be parachuted into. Obviously saner minds ruled it out, but it was close.
Am on 5/1 at 70-75. Seems unlikely to be honest. Still, 5/1 sucked me in.
5/1 is good for that IMO.
I picked it up last week, based on the chart Mike has just put in the header. There's definitely a correlation of sorts. Had to get my son to put it on for me.
Mr. glw, are you saying it's a papier-mache HIP replacement?
Very good.
A quick bit of Googling and the ONS says there are 4.5 million private rented properties, at say £200 a pop (for a minimum) it needs a billion a year business to carry out all these inspections. It might even be a good idea — I'm not against it out of any anti-regulation bias — but Labour really ought to be able to explain how they intend to do things, otherwise it could be another HIPs.
Money spent by landlords will inevitably be charged via rent to tenants.
Also, why force tenants to have to live by certain standards, when some will prefer to choose standards that are different to what the government imposes? If they want to pay less for less (i.e. unfurnished, own kitchen equipment, smaller rooms, living in a shed) they should have the liberty to choose. Inhibitory standards will also reduce housing stock and inhibit letting (for example a mountain croft, a converted shed, both of which would otherwise provide a perfectly reasonable and very cheap dwelling for the right person, Gov shouldn't force tenants to live a certain standard - and thus pay more - any more than owner-occupiers aren't).
Gov-imposed standards are important but should be minimal (fire alarms, CO alarms, structurally sound, GasSafe etc...) and applied to all properties (owned or rented) as all occupants should be protected to that level, even from the actions of a owner-occupier (including guests, neighbours, flats above in a building, children, and the public that have to pay in the event of a fire, demolition etc...)
Tenants should be able to have a service to go to *if* their contract is breached, or these minimum standards are breached. Then there can be a '£200' inspection, rather than an automatic annual inspection costing tenants an extra billion a year effectively.
What would the procedure be if Boris lost his seat but Tories won a majority?
The Tory party is nothing without Boris. A by-election in the safest Tory seat would have to be hastily arranged.
Well yes but someone would still have to visit HMQ on Friday 13th.
Boris would still be the leader of the Tory Party of course so I guess he could go and visit HMQ and tell her Javid, Raab, Priti. etc were forming a government and would be caretaker PM while a by election is arranged for him (Boris) ?
Would be fun to see it play out and see what did happen actually.
1963 (wiki):
On 23 October 1963, four days after becoming Prime Minister, Home disclaimed his earldom and associated lesser peerages, under the Peerage Act 1963.[n 11] Having been made a knight of the Order of the Thistle in 1962, he was known after stepping down from the Lords as Sir Alec Douglas-Home.[33] The safe Unionist seat of Kinross and West Perthshire was vacant, and Douglas-Home was adopted as his party's candidate. Parliament was due to meet on 24 October after the summer recess, but its return was postponed until 12 November pending the by-election.[122] For twenty days[n 12] Douglas-Home was Prime Minister while a member of neither house of Parliament, a situation without modern precedent.[n 13] He won the 7 November by-election with a majority of 9,328; the Liberal candidate was in second place and Labour in third.[125]
That could be a priceless precedent for Boris. It may have been unprecedented then, but it isn't now.
The 'dad bet' stuff reminds me of when mine wanted me to put money on him for a Grand National horse. I slung a little on for myself too, as I'd be annoyed if it won and I made nothing on it.
Con majority in from 1.46 to 1.43 this morning. Wonder if that is related to the Wales poll or something else...
It reasonably should tick in by about that much every day closer to the election we get without any movement in the polls.
If on the morning of 12/12 all the polls are still showing double-digit leads for the Tories I'd expect Con majority should be 1.1 or even tighter than that. It might not be, but if the polls are double-digit leads it should be (remembering the polls were not double-digit leads by the end in 2017).
100% agree this is the simplest explanation of that market. The market is pricing* in the uncertainty intrinsic in betting on an event with 3 weeks of campaigning left, and as the period of time declines then if nothing changes the uncertainty will decline.
Mr. glw, are you saying it's a papier-mache HIP replacement?
Very good.
A quick bit of Googling and the ONS says there are 4.5 million private rented properties, at say £200 a pop (for a minimum) it needs a billion a year business to carry out all these inspections. It might even be a good idea — I'm not against it out of any anti-regulation bias — but Labour really ought to be able to explain how they intend to do things, otherwise it could be another HIPs.
Money spent by landlords will inevitably be charged via rent to tenants.
Also, why force tenants to have to live by certain standards, when some will prefer to choose standards that are different to what the government imposes? If they want to pay less for less (i.e. unfurnished, own kitchen equipment, smaller rooms, living in a shed) they should have the liberty to choose. Inhibitory standards will also reduce housing stock and inhibit letting (for example a mountain croft, a converted shed, both of which would otherwise provide a perfectly reasonable and very cheap dwelling for the right person, Gov shouldn't force tenants to live a certain standard - and thus pay more - any more than owner-occupiers aren't).
Gov-imposed standards are important but should be minimal (fire alarms, CO alarms, structurally sound, GasSafe etc...) and applied to all properties (owned or rented) as all occupants should be protected to that level, even from the actions of a owner-occupier (including guests, neighbours, flats above in a building, children, and the public that have to pay in the event of a fire, demolition etc...)
Tenants should be able to have a service to go to *if* their contract is breached, or these minimum standards are breached. Then there can be a '£200' inspection, rather than an automatic annual inspection costing tenants an extra billion a year effectively.
You make some reasonable points, but one of the reasons for a compulsory inspection, rather than one requested by the tenant, is that most tenants would be too scared of eviction to request an inspection.
Indeed I think tenants already have the right to request an inspection from the council that the property meets acceptable homes standards, and councils can request that landlords take corrective action, but tenants generally don't dare to confront their landlord in that way.
OT MM. It looks like the film I suggested to you last week-Blue Story-as a likely Bafta winner is being banned. An excelent low budget English film. Get there fast while tickets last!
Wednesday is wobble day. The equivalent polls to this Wednesday (ie fieldwork just over 2 weeks out) saw a range of small Tory leads in 2017. That is certainly when a hung parliament begin to feel more than a longshot.
ORB, Survation and Yougov all showed the Tory lead narrowed to just 5-7 points.
"I have also bought turnout. I sense it will be in the high sixties."
camel said:
"Am on 5/1 at 70-75. Seems unlikely to be honest. Still, 5/1 sucked me in."
I`m on 50-59.99% at 7/1. Not one of my better bets, I fear.
But then again - I`m ashamed to say - I had 2.4/1 on Boris exit date 2019 and I unbelievably backed Tories to win 199 seats or less (when their position looked really bleak, missing 31/10, having no deal in place and BXP were looking to be a real threat).
Anyone have any worse bets that that??
We should do a thread dedicated to these on election day. Before the exit poll of course, so we can laugh when a few then shockingly win.
In March I bet at only 5/2 that Labour would win most seats. I was thinking the next GE might not be for a couple of years and much could change. I've since hedged out for a 50% loss.
In June, during the post-Euros peak, I had a nibble at 3/1 on the LDs to make 50+ gains. I also bet on Nigel Farage to become an MP at the next election at 4/5. With hindsight I doubt either of those was value at the time, esp the LD bet.
Fortunately most of my bets have aged better and I've had a good few weeks since the campaign was announced. As long as the Tories get any form of majority I'm doing fine, and if the LDs underperform (below 40 seats) and a few fairly safe constituency bets come in I should have a good night.
If this was Labour's only spending pledge this could be believable. But when this costs an absolute fortune and comes on top of everything else and was deemed by Labour so unimportant and low priority as to not be in the manifesto then I expect this would be the first thing dropped like a lead balloon after an election.
There was polling evidence that Labour lost in 2015 because voters believed Labour was right but did not believe Labour could enact its proposals to solve the problems it had identified. (Even the government took to cherrypicking the Edstone.)
This 2019 manifesto runs the same risks, on steroids. As you suggest, it is easily possible voters might agree that (say) these women have been hard done by, but doubt Labour will be able to compensate them (or build more houses, or negotiate a new Brexit deal or whatever floats each voter's boat). There is just too much in there, with no clear philosophy or rationale.
For those of us who want to see a centre left labour party so when it eventually takes power it acts with maturity we need to see Labour pummeled into the ground. We want no wonk to think "lets nationalise telecoms" ever again.
The 'dad bet' stuff reminds me of when mine wanted me to put money on him for a Grand National horse. I slung a little on for myself too, as I'd be annoyed if it won and I made nothing on it.
Damned thing won the race.
Family betting in Yorkshire:
If your brother Judd tells you to put the bet on, then put the bet on.
You make some reasonable points, but one of the reasons for a compulsory inspection, rather than one requested by the tenant, is that most tenants would be too scared of eviction to request an inspection.
Indeed I think tenants already have the right to request an inspection from the council that the property meets acceptable homes standards, and councils can request that landlords take corrective action, but tenants generally don't dare to confront their landlord in that way.
This - no tenant is going to ask for a council inspection unless there is valid reasons for it (and that reason will not currently be getting the house improved it will be scoring points for the council / housing associations waiting list).
Also the market determines the rental price - just because costs increase doesn't mean the landlord will be able to pass the increased costs on. Landlords will no doubt try, whether it works is a matter of supply and demand.
Mr. glw, are you saying it's a papier-mache HIP replacement?
Very good.
A quick bit of Googling and the ONS says there are 4.5 million private rented properties, at say £200 a pop (for a minimum) it needs a billion a year business to carry out all these inspections. It might even be a good idea — I'm not against it out of any anti-regulation bias — but Labour really ought to be able to explain how they intend to do things, otherwise it could be another HIPs.
Money spent by landlords will inevitably be charged via rent to tenants.
Also, why force tenants to have to live by certain standards, when some will prefer to choose standards that are different to what the government imposes? If they want to pay less for less (i.e. unfurnished, own kitchen equipment, smaller rooms, living in a shed) they should have the liberty to choose. Inhibitory standards will also reduce housing stock and inhibit letting (for example a mountain croft, a converted shed, both of which would otherwise provide a perfectly reasonable and very cheap dwelling for the right person, Gov shouldn't force tenants to live a certain standard - and thus pay more - any more than owner-occupiers aren't).
Gov-imposed standards are important but should be minimal (fire alarms, CO alarms, structurally sound, GasSafe etc...) and applied to all properties (owned or rented) as all occupants should be protected to that level, even from the actions of a owner-occupier (including guests, neighbours, flats above in a building, children, and the public that have to pay in the event of a fire, demolition etc...)
Tenants should be able to have a service to go to *if* their contract is breached, or these minimum standards are breached. Then there can be a '£200' inspection, rather than an automatic annual inspection costing tenants an extra billion a year effectively.
You make some reasonable points, but one of the reasons for a compulsory inspection, rather than one requested by the tenant, is that most tenants would be too scared of eviction to request an inspection.
Indeed I think tenants already have the right to request an inspection from the council that the property meets acceptable homes standards, and councils can request that landlords take corrective action, but tenants generally don't dare to confront their landlord in that way.
A start of tenancy inspection should be sufficient, perhaps followed by 5 yearly in a long tenancy.
If it gets us shot of the ludicrous licensing regime - cost in England about 102-x the Scottish version, then it would be fine.
Prepare for the most ugly result of an election ever beating 1983 by a whisker. Fortunately I have the means to take myself to France and providing Johnson's quasi fascist government doesn't impliment stuff that brings a reciprocal response from the French I can become a happy ex pat.
For those who are forced to live under this clown they have at least one thing to look forward to. No more Corbyn. One of the five people most responsible for this very British farce
Enjoy life in France with your luvvies Roger. You wont be missed.
Easterross! Welcome back. I've missed you. The only poster whose predicting ability was worse than mine.
The 'dad bet' stuff reminds me of when mine wanted me to put money on him for a Grand National horse. I slung a little on for myself too, as I'd be annoyed if it won and I made nothing on it.
Damned thing won the race.
Many years ago when I worked in a large office I used to collect money from people and then go to the bookies and bet it all on the horse with the highest odd in the Grand National. The joy was seeing the reaction in the bookies. Initial panic, followed by a call before realising they were dealing with an idiot and taking the bet.
One year our horse didn't stop to eat the privet at the first fence. Its name was Double You Again I think and from memory it was leading the race and at the last (I think) fence got taken out by riderless horses refusing to jump. Everyone had a whale of time even though I didn't have to go to the bookies to claim my huge winnings.
Wednesday is wobble day. The equivalent polls to this Wednesday (ie fieldwork just over 2 weeks out) saw a range of small Tory leads in 2017. That is certainly when a hung parliament begin to feel more than a longshot.
ORB, Survation and Yougov all showed the Tory lead narrowed to just 5-7 points.
Its not unrealistic. We dont really know the positive (or negative) impacts of lab manifesto and debates performance. It takes a while for things to filter through. It will be blind panic...
The 'dad bet' stuff reminds me of when mine wanted me to put money on him for a Grand National horse. I slung a little on for myself too, as I'd be annoyed if it won and I made nothing on it.
Damned thing won the race.
Many years ago when I worked in a large office I used to collect money from people and then go to the bookies and bet it all on the horse with the highest odd in the Grand National. The joy was seeing the reaction in the bookies. Initial panic, followed by a call before realising they were dealing with an idiot and taking the bet.
One year our horse didn't stop to eat the privet at the first fence. Its name was Double You Again I think and from memory it was leading the race and at the last (I think) fence got taken out by riderless horses refusing to jump. Everyone had a whale of time even though I didn't have to go to the bookies to claim my huge winnings.
Mr. glw, are you saying it's a papier-mache HIP replacement?
Very good.
A quick bit of Googling and the ONS says there are 4.5 million private rented properties, at say £200 a pop (for a minimum) it needs a billion a year business to carry out all these inspections. It might even be a good idea — I'm not against it out of any anti-regulation bias — but Labour really ought to be able to explain how they intend to do things, otherwise it could be another HIPs.
Money spent by landlords will inevitably be charged via rent to tenants.
Also, why force tenants to have to live by certain standards, when some will prefer to choose standards that are different to what the government imposes? If they want to pay less for less (i.e. unfurnished, own kitchen equipment, smaller rooms, living in a shed) they should have the liberty to choose. Inhibitory standards will also reduce housing stock and inhibit letting (for example a mountain croft, a converted shed, both of which would otherwise provide a perfectly reasonable and very cheap dwelling for the right person, Gov shouldn't force tenants to live a certain standard - and thus pay more - any more than owner-occupiers aren't).
Gov-imposed standards are important but should be minimal (fire alarms, CO alarms, structurally sound, GasSafe etc...) and applied to all properties (owned or rented) as all occupants should be protected to that level, even from the actions of a owner-occupier (including guests, neighbours, flats above in a building, children, and the public that have to pay in the event of a fire, demolition etc...)
Tenants should be able to have a service to go to *if* their contract is breached, or these minimum standards are breached. Then there can be a '£200' inspection, rather than an automatic annual inspection costing tenants an extra billion a year effectively.
You make some reasonable points, but one of the reasons for a compulsory inspection, rather than one requested by the tenant, is that most tenants would be too scared of eviction to request an inspection.
Indeed I think tenants already have the right to request an inspection from the council that the property meets acceptable homes standards, and councils can request that landlords take corrective action, but tenants generally don't dare to confront their landlord in that way.
Fair point too. I suppose a single gov.uk portal for tenants to invite council to do a 'random' inspection would deal with that, without the cost and onerousness of full register and annual inspections.
Also I'd still argue inspections should be per contract, with very basic min standards - thus allowing degrees of variation in contracts for properties suiting a tenant paying less (or more) for different circumstances.
There's some pretty stiff competition but I can't think of anyone who has so comprehensively trashed their own reputation in recent years as Nicky Morgan. That Good Morning Britain car crash was just amazing.
If a student voters they still only achieve a 50% turnout if they are registered at 2 addresses.
More to the point, allowing for those who have died or emigrated but are still on the register, or those who are multiple registered as landlords, second home owners or students, or people moved house who haven't yet been deleted from their old address, the theoretical maximum turnout is probably about 95%
How many of the dead will have voted by post? After all we know from some of the posters on this site that they have already voted. Over the whole country there must be some who the die before polling day.
not even seen my postal vote yet, some must be on the ball to have had them and voted
If this was Labour's only spending pledge this could be believable. But when this costs an absolute fortune and comes on top of everything else and was deemed by Labour so unimportant and low priority as to not be in the manifesto then I expect this would be the first thing dropped like a lead balloon after an election.
There was polling evidence that Labour lost in 2015 because voters believed Labour was right but did not believe Labour could enact its proposals to solve the problems it had identified. (Even the government took to cherrypicking the Edstone.)
This 2019 manifesto runs the same risks, on steroids. As you suggest, it is easily possible voters might agree that (say) these women have been hard done by, but doubt Labour will be able to compensate them (or build more houses, or negotiate a new Brexit deal or whatever floats each voter's boat). There is just too much in there, with no clear philosophy or rationale.
For those of us who want to see a centre left labour party so when it eventually takes power it acts with maturity we need to see Labour pummeled into the ground. We want no wonk to think "lets nationalise telecoms" ever again.
That is a different argument, and yes, I'd agree there are voter-repellant policies in there (and some that are just a bit odd, like Orgreave) and most that are the subject of legitimate political difference.
But my point is that even voters who agree with Labour's policy on X, might doubt Labour's ability to carry it out. That is what happened in 2015. That seems even more likely now.
Can I say as a WASPI woman that when I first learnt of the pension age increase I was hopping mad. I didn't have the option of continuing work as I was a carer so it did hit me financially. When I realised that it was to be phased in so my pension was delayed by just over a year, I was a bit happier. I understand the reasons for it but whatever the pros and cons of the argument to say that women did not know about it in advance is nonsense.
My own pennyworth is that there may be a case for compensating some women in real hardship.
There are big pension subsidies given to the very well-off (which many on pb.com no doubt avail themselves of).
I don't see any problem in a means-tested one-off payment to some WASPI women in real hardship. I don't think it would cost that much.
Labour's plan is ridiculous, as it will involve "compensating" some very well-off people.
I agree, means testing the compensation would both be fairer and significantly cheaper. Providing it, say, to any woman affected with less than XXk in assets.
From an electoral perspective, the policy might turn out to be beneficial for Labour. Labour does very badly with older voters, but that's 3.7m women who potentially now have a very good personal reason to vote Labour.
How many of those 3.7 million do you think will be gullible enough to fall for this when it wasn't in the manifesto and isn't costed?
You mean you think Labour would not honour its promise? I think that's very unlikely. Having made a public pledge like this, to not honour it would be electoral suicide.
they will have a "but" in there somewhere for sure
Mr. glw, are you saying it's a papier-mache HIP replacement?
Very good.
A quick bit of Googling and the ONS says there are 4.5 million private rented properties, at say £200 a pop (for a minimum) it needs a billion a year business to carry out all these inspections. It might even be a good idea — I'm not against it out of any anti-regulation bias — but Labour really ought to be able to explain how they intend to do things, otherwise it could be another HIPs.
Money spent by landlords will inevitably be charged via rent to tenants.
Also, why force tenants to have to live by certain standards, when some will prefer to choose standards that are different to what the government imposes? If they want to pay less for less (i.e. unfurnished, own kitchen equipment, smaller rooms, living in a shed) they should have the liberty to choose. Inhibitory standards will also reduce housing stock and inhibit letting (for example a mountain croft, a converted shed, both of which would otherwise provide a perfectly reasonable and very cheap dwelling for the right person, Gov shouldn't force tenants to live a certain standard - and thus pay more - any more than owner-occupiers aren't).
Gov-imposed standards are important but should be minimal (fire alarms, CO alarms, structurally sound, GasSafe etc...) and applied to all properties (owned or rented) as all occupants should be protected to that level, even from the actions of a owner-occupier (including guests, neighbours, flats above in a building, children, and the public that have to pay in the event of a fire, demolition etc...)
Tenants should be able to have a service to go to *if* their contract is breached, or these minimum standards are breached. Then there can be a '£200' inspection, rather than an automatic annual inspection costing tenants an extra billion a year effectively.
You make some reasonable points, but one of the reasons for a compulsory inspection, rather than one requested by the tenant, is that most tenants would be too scared of eviction to request an inspection.
Indeed I think tenants already have the right to request an inspection from the council that the property meets acceptable homes standards, and councils can request that landlords take corrective action, but tenants generally don't dare to confront their landlord in that way.
A start of tenancy inspection should be sufficient, perhaps followed by 5 yearly in a long tenancy.
If it gets us shot of the ludicrous licensing regime - cost in England about 102-x the Scottish version, then it would be fine.
Can I say as a WASPI woman that when I first learnt of the pension age increase I was hopping mad. I didn't have the option of continuing work as I was a carer so it did hit me financially. When I realised that it was to be phased in so my pension was delayed by just over a year, I was a bit happier. I understand the reasons for it but whatever the pros and cons of the argument to say that women did not know about it in advance is nonsense.
My own pennyworth is that there may be a case for compensating some women in real hardship.
There are big pension subsidies given to the very well-off (which many on pb.com no doubt avail themselves of).
I don't see any problem in a means-tested one-off payment to some WASPI women in real hardship. I don't think it would cost that much.
Labour's plan is ridiculous, as it will involve "compensating" some very well-off people.
Of course it is. It’s a straightforward bribe to people too stupid or unwilling to act on the basis of the information they were given. For those in real hardship, the benefits system should be used. But giving out money to a bunch of noisy woman just because ....stinks.
There's some pretty stiff competition but I can't think of anyone who has so comprehensively trashed their own reputation in recent years as Nicky Morgan. That Good Morning Britain car crash was just amazing.
Why is she even doing this stuff? She is not standing.
Prepare for the most ugly result of an election ever beating 1983 by a whisker. Fortunately I have the means to take myself to France and providing Johnson's quasi fascist government doesn't impliment stuff that brings a reciprocal response from the French I can become a happy ex pat.
For those who are forced to live under this clown they have at least one thing to look forward to. No more Corbyn. One of the five people most responsible for this very British farce
Enjoy life in France with your luvvies Roger. You wont be missed.
A rather unpleasant and unnecessary post.
To be fair, the original post was quite odious. Describing our government as "quasi fascist" when it has in fact called an election when the opposition spent some considerable time trying to stop it - and prevent the referendum result from being implemented - is deeply disingenuous and does a disservice to all those who have actually suffered at the hands of fascism.
Wednesday is wobble day. The equivalent polls to this Wednesday (ie fieldwork just over 2 weeks out) saw a range of small Tory leads in 2017. That is certainly when a hung parliament begin to feel more than a longshot.
ORB, Survation and Yougov all showed the Tory lead narrowed to just 5-7 points.
There's some pretty stiff competition but I can't think of anyone who has so comprehensively trashed their own reputation in recent years as Nicky Morgan. That Good Morning Britain car crash was just amazing.
Why is she even doing this stuff? She is not standing.
I can only presume she's been promised elevation to the Lords or something similar.
"I don't see any problem in a means-tested one-off payment to some WASPI women in real hardship. I don't think it would cost that much.
Labour's plan is ridiculous, as it will involve "compensating" some very well-off people."
Cyclefree said: "Of course it is. It’s a straightforward bribe to people too stupid or unwilling to act on the basis of the information they were given. For those in real hardship, the benefits system should be used. But giving out money to a bunch of noisy woman just because ....stinks."
I agree with Cyclefree - State Pension in a universal benefit, you either get it or you don`t. Waspi women lost court case remember. They were either ignorant of the change despite its wide advertisement or are trying it on.
There's some pretty stiff competition but I can't think of anyone who has so comprehensively trashed their own reputation in recent years as Nicky Morgan. That Good Morning Britain car crash was just amazing.
I thought she'd stood down as an MP at this election? Is she angling for a peerage?
There's some pretty stiff competition but I can't think of anyone who has so comprehensively trashed their own reputation in recent years as Nicky Morgan. That Good Morning Britain car crash was just amazing.
Why is she even doing this stuff? She is not standing.
Mr. kjh, must admit, I'd probably be more than a little peeved if that happened to me.
To be honest if it had made the last fence I suspect it would have got stuffed on the run in. There was a reason it was either 500/1 or 1000/1 (can't remember which but every year it was one or the other)
5% (+3%) of Leave voters back Jo Swinson as Best PM? WTF?
But down three with current LibDem voters! lol. Even her own supporters are put off by her "Prime Minister" schtick.
In a poll where your Bozo is down 4% and Swinson is up 1%. Desperate stuff, Mr Mark.
I'd punt that 16% for the leader of the third UK party in response to "who would make the best PM" is historically extremely high.
That's it, run along to her defence, like some little lap dog.
Because she can't cut it without you yapping to protect her?
I think you need a lie down.
That Survation does seem to show Lab recovering a bit, but I do like the 2% of Tories backing Jezza as best PM!
On pensions, I would suggest that pension age should be life expectancy minus 12 years.
For one in 47 Boris-backing Tories to sit down and watch him debate with Corbyn and come away thinking that Corbyn would make the better PM is indeed remarkable.
1 or 2% will agree to almost anything in a poll because they didn’t read the question or are trolling .
I once told a phone poller that I didn’t have a phone line...
5% (+3%) of Leave voters back Jo Swinson as Best PM? WTF?
But down three with current LibDem voters! lol. Even her own supporters are put off by her "Prime Minister" schtick.
In a poll where your Bozo is down 4% and Swinson is up 1%. Desperate stuff, Mr Mark.
I'd punt that 16% for the leader of the third UK party in response to "who would make the best PM" is historically extremely high.
That's it, run along to her defence, like some little lap dog.
Because she can't cut it without you yapping to protect her?
I think you need a lie down.
That Survation does seem to show Lab recovering a bit, but I do like the 2% of Tories backing Jezza as best PM!
On pensions, I would suggest that pension age should be life expectancy minus 12 years.
For one in 47 Boris-backing Tories to sit down and watch him debate with Corbyn and come away thinking that Corbyn would make the better PM is indeed remarkable.
1 or 2% will agree to almost anything in a poll because they didn’t read the question or are trolling .
I once told a phone poller that I didn’t have a phone line...
To be fair what was that even a question on a phone poll?
On WASPI. They're protesting the removal of an inequality in their favour. They were warned. They did know. They just don't like it and want a free bung of money. They think this money comes from the government "blob" and the government has to pay.
I wonder what their reaction would be if they were told their children and grandchildren would need to take out loans and pay them off the rest of their lives to give them their money?
Someone needs to tell them that this is the way it is and to stop grumbling as their children and grandchildren will already have to work for many years longer than they have done. It is not unfair. To give the WASPIs compensation would be massively unfair.
What’s worse is that this group have carefully excluded from their claim women born earlier and later in the 1950’s who are also impacted. Why, I wonder.
If the WASPI women are to be compensated so should these women be - and that will make the bill even larger, all to be paid for by others.
The unfairness of demanding equality but not accepting the consequences, of demanding that others - poorer and younger than you - should pay for what you are not entitled to legally needs to be hammered home.
Can I say as a WASPI woman that when I first learnt of the pension age increase I was hopping mad. I didn't have the option of continuing work as I was a carer so it did hit me financially. When I realised that it was to be phased in so my pension was delayed by just over a year, I was a bit happier. I understand the reasons for it but whatever the pros and cons of the argument to say that women did not know about it in advance is nonsense.
My own pennyworth is that there may be a case for compensating some women in real hardship.
There are big pension subsidies given to the very well-off (which many on pb.com no doubt avail themselves of).
I don't see any problem in a means-tested one-off payment to some WASPI women in real hardship. I don't think it would cost that much.
Labour's plan is ridiculous, as it will involve "compensating" some very well-off people.
Of course it is. It’s a straightforward bribe to people too stupid or unwilling to act on the basis of the information they were given. For those in real hardship, the benefits system should be used. But giving out money to a bunch of noisy woman just because ....stinks.
The Gemreen plan makes more sense by giving them universal basic income before anyone else if in hardship. It's still terrible but makes more sense
The 'dad bet' stuff reminds me of when mine wanted me to put money on him for a Grand National horse. I slung a little on for myself too, as I'd be annoyed if it won and I made nothing on it.
Damned thing won the race.
Family betting in Yorkshire:
If your brother Judd tells you to put the bet on, then put the bet on.
Kes? It is somehow telling that our national coming of age novel so depressingly confirms we cannot escape our destiny. As West Ham fans like David Cameron know, however high our bubbles float, then, like my dreams, they fade and die.
There's some pretty stiff competition but I can't think of anyone who has so comprehensively trashed their own reputation in recent years as Nicky Morgan. That Good Morning Britain car crash was just amazing.
For those of us who want to see a centre left labour party so when it eventually takes power it acts with maturity we need to see Labour pummeled into the ground. We want no wonk to think "lets nationalise telecoms" ever again.
A big loss spells the end of the Corbyn project. I don't have a problem with this but I do want the party to retain a radical edge rather than go back to being the timid creature of 2015. Let's keep the goal of a serious attack on inequality but try to find a leader with more brains and less baggage. My sense is the country will soon tire of having an essentially comic figure as PM, so the next GE ought to be very winnable. In which case let's win it - but for a purpose, not just to hold the fort and tinker until the Tories' next stint.
There's some pretty stiff competition but I can't think of anyone who has so comprehensively trashed their own reputation in recent years as Nicky Morgan. That Good Morning Britain car crash was just amazing.
"I have also bought turnout. I sense it will be in the high sixties."
camel said:
"Am on 5/1 at 70-75. Seems unlikely to be honest. Still, 5/1 sucked me in."
I`m on 50-59.99% at 7/1. Not one of my better bets, I fear.
But then again - I`m ashamed to say - I had 2.4/1 on Boris exit date 2019 and I unbelievably backed Tories to win 199 seats or less (when their position looked really bleak, missing 31/10, having no deal in place and BXP were looking to be a real threat).
Anyone have any worse bets that that??
We should do a thread dedicated to these on election day. Before the exit poll of course, so we can laugh when a few then shockingly win.
In March I bet at only 5/2 that Labour would win most seats. I was thinking the next GE might not be for a couple of years and much could change. I've since hedged out for a 50% loss.
In June, during the post-Euros peak, I had a nibble at 3/1 on the LDs to make 50+ gains. I also bet on Nigel Farage to become an MP at the next election at 4/5. With hindsight I doubt either of those was value at the time, esp the LD bet.
Fortunately most of my bets have aged better and I've had a good few weeks since the campaign was announced. As long as the Tories get any form of majority I'm doing fine, and if the LDs underperform (below 40 seats) and a few fairly safe constituency bets come in I should have a good night.
What it tells you is how febrile politics is at the moment.
I don’t think it matters even if the Tories win 450 seats in this election. Labour could still win 350 seats in the election after that.
Big swings are possible in any direction and political inertia that takes 2-3 electoral cycles to unravel, either way, no longer applies now so many old allegiances have broken down, and big majorities don’t give you extra strategic electoral “protection” when the tide definitively turns.
The 'dad bet' stuff reminds me of when mine wanted me to put money on him for a Grand National horse. I slung a little on for myself too, as I'd be annoyed if it won and I made nothing on it.
Damned thing won the race.
Family betting in Yorkshire:
If your brother Judd tells you to put the bet on, then put the bet on.
Kes? It is somehow telling that our national coming of age novel so depressingly confirms we cannot escape our destiny. As West Ham fans like David Cameron know, however high our bubbles float, then, like my dreams, they fade and die.
Indeed.
For fans and nostalgics, there's a gentle documentary on iplayer called Greg Davies: Looking for Kes.
Turns out the actor playing Billy Casper has not changed at all in 51 years.
Cyclefree said: "What’s worse is that this group have carefully excluded from their claim women born earlier and later in the 1950’s who are also impacted. Why, I wonder."
It`s a classic example of pressure-group politics - which I dislike. Trouble is, those that feel strongly in the other direction re Waspis (e.g. you, AlastairM, me etc etc) will not form a collective to lobby the government in the other direction.
We need strong government to resist these pressure-groups.
Can I say as a WASPI woman that when I first learnt of the pension age increase I was hopping mad. I didn't have the option of continuing work as I was a carer so it did hit me financially. When I realised that it was to be phased in so my pension was delayed by just over a year, I was a bit happier. I understand the reasons for it but whatever the pros and cons of the argument to say that women did not know about it in advance is nonsense.
My own pennyworth is that there may be a case for compensating some women in real hardship.
There are big pension subsidies given to the very well-off (which many on pb.com no doubt avail themselves of).
I don't see any problem in a means-tested one-off payment to some WASPI women in real hardship. I don't think it would cost that much.
Labour's plan is ridiculous, as it will involve "compensating" some very well-off people.
Of course it is. It’s a straightforward bribe to people too stupid or unwilling to act on the basis of the information they were given. For those in real hardship, the benefits system should be used. But giving out money to a bunch of noisy woman just because ....stinks.
Comments
But the Unions were worried about job losses so he thinks even if these weapons are evil in his eyes and would never be used and are a total waste of money in his eyes he still wants to spend that money because it gives Unionised workers something to do.
Does anybody know if Sinn Fein MPs draw their salaries while not turning up?
This happened in 1963 when Lord Home was appointed Tory leader and PM.
"What would the procedure be if Boris lost his seat but Tories won a majority?"
GIN1138 said: "Presumably there would be a meeting of the Parliamentary Party sometime on 13th December and they'd have to agree on an MP who would go and visit HMQ to say they are forming a government?"
They probably wouldn`t trust Boris to go see the queen anyway - given that he lied to her the last time ha ha
The decision might knock Labour a little in London, given the Mayor's involvement and the high profile campaign against uber backed by a few London Labour MPs
https://twitter.com/iancolintaylor/status/1198901598849777665
We're not worried about a poxy Championship club from the wrong side of the Pennines.
Boris would still be the leader of the Tory Party of course so I guess he could go and visit HMQ and tell her Javid, Raab, Priti. etc were forming a government and would be caretaker PM while a by election is arranged for him (Boris) ?
Would be fun to see it play out and see what did happen actually.
On pensions, I would suggest that pension age should be life expectancy minus 12 years.
I think either: the Queen calls for whoever is the deputy PM instead, following a Boris resignation
or
consults the great and good and calls for the Tory minister most likely to command a majority,
both of these followed by a Tory party process of appointing a new leader, who would then become PM.
It is conceivable, people being what they are, that Boris would fail to resign in the hope that he can wangle a safe seat in a quick by election. Such move might revive interest in the long desuetude of the Queen's power to sack a PM, which seems still to exist.
Hope Lady Hale's diary is clear.
Voting by social class UPPER/MIDDLE Conservatives 40% Labour 29% LibDem 19%
WORKING CLASS Conservative 45% Labour 31% LibDem 12% #GE2019
YouGov data
If on the morning of 12/12 all the polls are still showing double-digit leads for the Tories I'd expect Con majority should be 1.1 or even tighter than that. It might not be, but if the polls are double-digit leads it should be (remembering the polls were not double-digit leads by the end in 2017).
"What would the procedure be if Boris lost his seat but Tories won a majority?"
If my maths are correct the odds on the above scenario is only 7/1
Before the 20th century PMs in the Lords were common and there's no law against it but these days I agree that you couldn't really have that for longer than a few months after a GE.
Scousers on holiday:
https://youtu.be/EIhFwLjsQug
Uber is really a mayoral issue not a General Election one given the time frames of appeals.
On 23 October 1963, four days after becoming Prime Minister, Home disclaimed his earldom and associated lesser peerages, under the Peerage Act 1963.[n 11] Having been made a knight of the Order of the Thistle in 1962, he was known after stepping down from the Lords as Sir Alec Douglas-Home.[33] The safe Unionist seat of Kinross and West Perthshire was vacant, and Douglas-Home was adopted as his party's candidate. Parliament was due to meet on 24 October after the summer recess, but its return was postponed until 12 November pending the by-election.[122] For twenty days[n 12] Douglas-Home was Prime Minister while a member of neither house of Parliament, a situation without modern precedent.[n 13] He won the 7 November by-election with a majority of 9,328; the Liberal candidate was in second place and Labour in third.[125]
Con gain NewcastleNorth 500 majority
😈
Also, why force tenants to have to live by certain standards, when some will prefer to choose standards that are different to what the government imposes? If they want to pay less for less (i.e. unfurnished, own kitchen equipment, smaller rooms, living in a shed) they should have the liberty to choose. Inhibitory standards will also reduce housing stock and inhibit letting (for example a mountain croft, a converted shed, both of which would otherwise provide a perfectly reasonable and very cheap dwelling for the right person, Gov shouldn't force tenants to live a certain standard - and thus pay more - any more than owner-occupiers aren't).
Gov-imposed standards are important but should be minimal (fire alarms, CO alarms, structurally sound, GasSafe etc...) and applied to all properties (owned or rented) as all occupants should be protected to that level, even from the actions of a owner-occupier (including guests, neighbours, flats above in a building, children, and the public that have to pay in the event of a fire, demolition etc...)
Tenants should be able to have a service to go to *if* their contract is breached, or these minimum standards are breached. Then there can be a '£200' inspection, rather than an automatic annual inspection costing tenants an extra billion a year effectively.
Is it supposed to be this week, or next week?
The 'dad bet' stuff reminds me of when mine wanted me to put money on him for a Grand National horse. I slung a little on for myself too, as I'd be annoyed if it won and I made nothing on it.
Damned thing won the race.
https://twitter.com/roger_scully/status/1198892130913181696
*(Overpricing, imho)
Indeed I think tenants already have the right to request an inspection from the council that the property meets acceptable homes standards, and councils can request that landlords take corrective action, but tenants generally don't dare to confront their landlord in that way.
ORB, Survation and Yougov all showed the Tory lead narrowed to just 5-7 points.
In March I bet at only 5/2 that Labour would win most seats. I was thinking the next GE might not be for a couple of years and much could change. I've since hedged out for a 50% loss.
In June, during the post-Euros peak, I had a nibble at 3/1 on the LDs to make 50+ gains. I also bet on Nigel Farage to become an MP at the next election at 4/5. With hindsight I doubt either of those was value at the time, esp the LD bet.
Fortunately most of my bets have aged better and I've had a good few weeks since the campaign was announced. As long as the Tories get any form of majority I'm doing fine, and if the LDs underperform (below 40 seats) and a few fairly safe constituency bets come in I should have a good night.
If your brother Judd tells you to put the bet on, then put the bet on.
Also the market determines the rental price - just because costs increase doesn't mean the landlord will be able to pass the increased costs on. Landlords will no doubt try, whether it works is a matter of supply and demand.
If it gets us shot of the ludicrous licensing regime - cost in England about 102-x the Scottish version, then it would be fine.
One year our horse didn't stop to eat the privet at the first fence. Its name was Double You Again I think and from memory it was leading the race and at the last (I think) fence got taken out by riderless horses refusing to jump. Everyone had a whale of time even though I didn't have to go to the bookies to claim my huge winnings.
Also I'd still argue inspections should be per contract, with very basic min standards - thus allowing degrees of variation in contracts for properties suiting a tenant paying less (or more) for different circumstances.
But my point is that even voters who agree with Labour's policy on X, might doubt Labour's ability to carry it out. That is what happened in 2015. That seems even more likely now.
And here's the full set of data for 2017:
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/872797587413360640
"I don't see any problem in a means-tested one-off payment to some WASPI women in real hardship. I don't think it would cost that much.
Labour's plan is ridiculous, as it will involve "compensating" some very well-off people."
Cyclefree said: "Of course it is. It’s a straightforward bribe to people too stupid or unwilling to act on the basis of the information they were given. For those in real hardship, the benefits system should be used. But giving out money to a bunch of noisy woman just because ....stinks."
I agree with Cyclefree - State Pension in a universal benefit, you either get it or you don`t. Waspi women lost court case remember. They were either ignorant of the change despite its wide advertisement or are trying it on.
2017: The polls under-stated Labour
2019: ?
I once told a phone poller that I didn’t have a phone line...
If the WASPI women are to be compensated so should these women be - and that will make the bill even larger, all to be paid for by others.
The unfairness of demanding equality but not accepting the consequences, of demanding that others - poorer and younger than you - should pay for what you are not entitled to legally needs to be hammered home.
Of course, men get to retire earlier
https://youtu.be/lT_vOokVOGM
I don’t think it matters even if the Tories win 450 seats in this election. Labour could still win 350 seats in the election after that.
Big swings are possible in any direction and political inertia that takes 2-3 electoral cycles to unravel, either way, no longer applies now so many old allegiances have broken down, and big majorities don’t give you extra strategic electoral “protection” when the tide definitively turns.
For fans and nostalgics, there's a gentle documentary on iplayer called Greg Davies: Looking for Kes.
Turns out the actor playing Billy Casper has not changed at all in 51 years.
Ghastly little man.
It`s a classic example of pressure-group politics - which I dislike. Trouble is, those that feel strongly in the other direction re Waspis (e.g. you, AlastairM, me etc etc) will not form a collective to lobby the government in the other direction.
We need strong government to resist these pressure-groups.