Sure nobody cares but my thoughts on where we're going to end up!
My starting point is why would anyone voting Cons or Labour in 2017 not vote for them in 2019. I know there is some churn but I think it just muddies the waters.
For Cons I think their minimum is 40% based on losing some who can't stand Boris. Their ceiling is probably the 43.5% TMay got. Only way this could go higher, in my eyes, is to add any people in from 2017 who didn't vote due to Dementia Tax but will do this time.
Labour is harder but I'm not sure that they are going to lose as much as the polls currently show. I don't think there will be much switching between now and 12/12 apart from the Greens going back down to 2017 levels and some Lab 2017 voters who pretended they were going to vote Lib Dem going back.
The main thing will be the DK's disproportionately voting Lab. Apart from previous non-voters ending up voting Lab in 2017, I think this was the main reason the polls closed the gap last time.
My gut feel is Con 41/42, Lab 36/37 but Lab are more likely to be higher than Con. I think the polls will show this and there won't be the errors on the day shown in 2015 or 2017.
Would love people to reassure me that I'm wrong as this is a potential nightmare!
Thanks all.
I can’t reassure you as I think a very similar result 43/36 best case for Tories and 41/37 also possible. However in both scenarios, certainly the former and 60% chance in the latter Tories will win a small majority IMO because they won’t lose many seats to the Libs or SNP.
Just struck me. The board has become a lot more "Tory" and Brexity as the inevitability of them both triumphing has become clear. Where is @williamglenn Where is @Scott_P Where is the mighty @Noo ??
Scott P had a history of popping up only when things were going against the Tories. So as long as he stays away things are probably OK for them
Scott used to be a big Tory support, it was only Brexit that sent him into his current stance.
It is odd he has gone AWOL, as long as I have been posting on here, I think he has been downloading twitter on a daily basis.
Wasn't there (sensibly) an edict from on high that required a lessening of (mostly pointless) tweets posted and clogging up threads? A rule that ScottP could never live with, I would imagine
Scott has been in touch. He is well but hasn't posted since falling victim of the Vanilla reregistration requirement. He sends his best wishes and thanks everyone for their kind concern.
Shameful from the Tories who are now attacking EU citizens .
Claiming they take out 4 billion in welfare ignoring the fact they actually pay more in taxes than they take out .
And they sit there saying they want to welcome migrants , when they’re attacking EU nationals in this way . Utterly despicable.
All of them!? There is something completely screwed up with our tax and benefit system if we are paying £4 billion in welfare to them while they are all actually paying more in taxes than they take out. We really need to stop this ludicrous giving with one hand and taking away with another, simplify the tax and benefit system. Or do some of them pay taxes and some of them take benefits so some contribute more than they take and some take more than they contribute? So if we had a points based system we could continue to bring in those contributing more than they take but not bring in those taking more than they contribute?
Can anyone explain why people are so optimistic on the Tories' chances in Scotland? The latest poll suggests the SNP lead over the Tories has increased to 18pp from 8pp in 2017. There are 9 Tory held Scottish seats where the Tories had a lead of less than 10pp in 2017. And yet, the YG MRP expects the SNP to take just 2 seats from the Tories, and based on SNP seat totals Electoral Calculus and the betting markets expect something similar. My model predicts 10 SNP gains from Con. What does everyone know that I don't?
Because there is no actual voter swing from Con to SNP. So the SNP only overtaken the Cons if the is Con to LD or Con to Lab swing.
Sorry I don't follow! SNP vote share is up, Tory vote share is down (Labour down even more, Lib Dems up). That surely helps the SNP to take seats off the Tories? My model seems to agree with the consensus in E&W but is way off in Scotland. I am very willing to believe I am wrong, but right now I can't see why I am wrong.
Scotland's swing is aggressively non-uniform.
Look at what happened in 2015. SNP vote normalised at what the constituency Yes vote was plus a bit more. This meant 'weird' things like the SNP barely got any improvement in support in seats they held whilst breaking the swingometer in seats they had been 4th place in.
In 2017 the Lib Dem vote fell, but they quadrupled their seat count.
So what if the Tory vote falls in Glasgow Central if their vote holds up in Gordon.
The Conservatives start losing all their seats instantly if the 2010/15 Lib Dem voters who voter Tory in 2017 switch back to the Lib Dems. But that is not happening as much as I thought it would (or was implied when the Lib Dems were at 14% in Scottish polling).
Apparently Boz is trying to do Marr on Sunday instead of Neil. Poor effort if so
Hmm. Probably an astute safety-first move, given that Boris just has to count the days. But it does rather turn Jezza's performance into a win, as his supporters can now say 'at least our guy had the guts to turn up'.
Final point for now, as there seems to be a little tetchiness in the air, I would like to repeat something I said last night, and which others have noted.
The MRP pays no attention to tactical voting. This is a HUGE error. For people like me for whom on this occasion remaining in the EU trumps party loyalty, this is a driver that will affect the results in a significant number of seats.
If you bet at all, I'd advise you to do so accordingly. Tactical voting will be a hallmark of this election.
Ciao ciao. x
I think Tactical voting is the thing political obsessives always bang on about but it never comes about. I doubt more than half a dozen seats if that will be swung by tactical voting.
Worse than that, it says "According to the IFS analysis, Labour would also increase investment spending by £55bn a year, doubling current levels and substantially more than the Conservatives' offering. This includes the party's nationalisation plans on areas such as broadband." Which seems to imply that the nationalisations will cost less than £55bn a year!?!
Shameful from the Tories who are now attacking EU citizens .
Claiming they take out 4 billion in welfare ignoring the fact they actually pay more in taxes than they take out .
And they sit there saying they want to welcome migrants , when they’re attacking EU nationals in this way . Utterly despicable.
All of them!? There is something completely screwed up with our tax and benefit system if we are paying £4 billion in welfare to them while they are all actually paying more in taxes than they take out. We really need to stop this ludicrous giving with one hand and taking away with another, simplify the tax and benefit system. Or do some of them pay taxes and some of them take benefits so some contribute more than they take and some take more than they contribute? So if we had a points based system we could continue to bring in those contributing more than they take but not bring in those taking more than they contribute?
EU nationals are a net gain for the treasury. Those are the official stats .
Shameful from the Tories who are now attacking EU citizens .
Claiming they take out 4 billion in welfare ignoring the fact they actually pay more in taxes than they take out .
And they sit there saying they want to welcome migrants , when they’re attacking EU nationals in this way . Utterly despicable.
All of them!? There is something completely screwed up with our tax and benefit system if we are paying £4 billion in welfare to them while they are all actually paying more in taxes than they take out. We really need to stop this ludicrous giving with one hand and taking away with another, simplify the tax and benefit system. Or do some of them pay taxes and some of them take benefits so some contribute more than they take and some take more than they contribute? So if we had a points based system we could continue to bring in those contributing more than they take but not bring in those taking more than they contribute?
They may be paying more in tax than they directly receive but does anyone know how much tax one needs to pay to not be subsidised in cost of services & benefits in a year? Guess it's mostly companies and the rich paying our way?
Sure nobody cares but my thoughts on where we're going to end up!
My starting point is why would anyone voting Cons or Labour in 2017 not vote for them in 2019. I know there is some churn but I think it just muddies the waters.
For Cons I think their minimum is 40% based on losing some who can't stand Boris. Their ceiling is probably the 43.5% TMay got. Only way this could go higher, in my eyes, is to add any people in from 2017 who didn't vote due to Dementia Tax but will do this time.
Labour is harder but I'm not sure that they are going to lose as much as the polls currently show. I don't think there will be much switching between now and 12/12 apart from the Greens going back down to 2017 levels and some Lab 2017 voters who pretended they were going to vote Lib Dem going back.
The main thing will be the DK's disproportionately voting Lab. Apart from previous non-voters ending up voting Lab in 2017, I think this was the main reason the polls closed the gap last time.
My gut feel is Con 41/42, Lab 36/37 but Lab are more likely to be higher than Con. I think the polls will show this and there won't be the errors on the day shown in 2015 or 2017.
Would love people to reassure me that I'm wrong as this is a potential nightmare!
Thanks all.
I can’t reassure you as I think a very similar result 43/36 best case for Tories and 41/37 also possible. However in both scenarios, certainly the former and 60% chance in the latter Tories will win a small majority IMO because they won’t lose many seats to the Libs or SNP.
I agree the Tories won't get much different from 2017 but suspect it will be more efficient (smaller majorities in the south, narrow gains in the north) and am not sure why everybody seems to think Lab will be 5 or 6 points higher than the polls currently suggest - just because it happened last time?
Apparently Boz is trying to do Marr on Sunday instead of Neil. Poor effort if so
I applied the Richie Benaud principle to this one. There's obviously pros and cons but what would the opposition want him to do? On balance I suspect Labour would prefer he ducked AN, because that's a guaranteed hit they can exploit for the rest of the campaign. If he turns up, he may flounder, but then again he may not.
Labour would take the bird in the hand. They would want him to duck it. On the RB principle, he should attend.
Just struck me. The board has become a lot more "Tory" and Brexity as the inevitability of them both triumphing has become clear. Where is @williamglenn Where is @Scott_P Where is the mighty @Noo ??
Scott P had a history of popping up only when things were going against the Tories. So as long as he stays away things are probably OK for them
Scott used to be a big Tory support, it was only Brexit that sent him into his current stance.
It is odd he has gone AWOL, as long as I have been posting on here, I think he has been downloading twitter on a daily basis.
Wasn't there (sensibly) an edict from on high that required a lessening of (mostly pointless) tweets posted and clogging up threads? A rule that ScottP could never live with, I would imagine
Scott has been in touch. He is well but hasn't posted since falling victim of the Vanilla reregistration requirement. He sends his best wishes and thanks everyone for their kind concern.
He could have at least tweeted that, so you could have copied and pasted it!
A bug of the update is that it doesn't take you the first comment since you last looked at the site anymore
If Boris avoids Neil (and who could blame him) then most right-thinking people would think he was a complete ******* ******** ********. But then again most right-thinking people already think he is a complete ******* ******** ********. The rest of course sensibly don't care because they don't pay too much attention to this stuff.
Can anyone explain why people are so optimistic on the Tories' chances in Scotland? The latest poll suggests the SNP lead over the Tories has increased to 18pp from 8pp in 2017. There are 9 Tory held Scottish seats where the Tories had a lead of less than 10pp in 2017. And yet, the YG MRP expects the SNP to take just 2 seats from the Tories, and based on SNP seat totals Electoral Calculus and the betting markets expect something similar. My model predicts 10 SNP gains from Con. What does everyone know that I don't?
Because there is no actual voter swing from Con to SNP. So the SNP only overtaken the Cons if the is Con to LD or Con to Lab swing.
Sorry I don't follow! SNP vote share is up, Tory vote share is down (Labour down even more, Lib Dems up). That surely helps the SNP to take seats off the Tories? My model seems to agree with the consensus in E&W but is way off in Scotland. I am very willing to believe I am wrong, but right now I can't see why I am wrong.
Scotland's swing is aggressively non-uniform.
Look at what happened in 2015. SNP vote normalised at what the constituency Yes vote was plus a bit more. This meant 'weird' things like the SNP barely got any improvement in support in seats they held whilst breaking the swingometer in seats they had been 4th place in.
In 2017 the Lib Dem vote fell, but they quadrupled their seat count.
So what if the Tory vote falls in Glasgow Central if their vote holds up in Gordon.
The Conservatives start losing all their seats instantly if the 2010/15 Lib Dem voters who voter Tory in 2017 switch back to the Lib Dems. But that is not happening as much as I thought it would (or was implied when the Lib Dems were at 14% in Scottish polling).
There's a few different Scotlands I think
Central belt battle (Lab-SNP mainly) Borders (SNP - Tory) NE Scotland (SNP-Tory) Other Highland/Island (SNP-Tory-Lib Dem) Special cases (East Renfrewshire/Edinburgh West/Milngivie etc) & Edinburgh South
Just struck me. The board has become a lot more "Tory" and Brexity as the inevitability of them both triumphing has become clear. Where is @williamglenn Where is @Scott_P Where is the mighty @Noo ??
Scott P had a history of popping up only when things were going against the Tories. So as long as he stays away things are probably OK for them
Scott used to be a big Tory support, it was only Brexit that sent him into his current stance.
It is odd he has gone AWOL, as long as I have been posting on here, I think he has been downloading twitter on a daily basis.
Wasn't there (sensibly) an edict from on high that required a lessening of (mostly pointless) tweets posted and clogging up threads? A rule that ScottP could never live with, I would imagine
Scott has been in touch. He is well but hasn't posted since falling victim of the Vanilla reregistration requirement. He sends his best wishes and thanks everyone for their kind concern.
He could have at least tweeted that, so you could have copied and pasted it!
A bug of the update is that it doesn't take you the first comment since you last looked at the site anymore
Too many chickens are being counted.... some of them by non-Tories thinking we 'wets' may be tempted to peel off to the yellows... which I could easily have done.
Shame about their being in bed with the welsh independents as I may have mentioned as being my main problem.
I'm rationalising my vote for the Yellow Peril as a direct vote to stop a Corbynista being elected in my seat, as the last one proved to be so stellar.
I don’t like having to vote for my MP (who I consider an idiot), but I am frightened by the prospect of Corbyn as PM. I would be much happier with the choice of Lib Dem or Labour and would be doing the same as you.
Shameful from the Tories who are now attacking EU citizens .
Claiming they take out 4 billion in welfare ignoring the fact they actually pay more in taxes than they take out .
And they sit there saying they want to welcome migrants , when they’re attacking EU nationals in this way . Utterly despicable.
All of them!? There is something completely screwed up with our tax and benefit system if we are paying £4 billion in welfare to them while they are all actually paying more in taxes than they take out. We really need to stop this ludicrous giving with one hand and taking away with another, simplify the tax and benefit system. Or do some of them pay taxes and some of them take benefits so some contribute more than they take and some take more than they contribute? So if we had a points based system we could continue to bring in those contributing more than they take but not bring in those taking more than they contribute?
Your underlying assumption about social security is wrong. The same people will sometimes be recipients, and sometimes not, as their circumstances change. You can't categorise people permanently as one or the other.
Can anyone explain why people are so optimistic on the Tories' chances in Scotland? The latest poll suggests the SNP lead over the Tories has increased to 18pp from 8pp in 2017. There are 9 Tory held Scottish seats where the Tories had a lead of less than 10pp in 2017. And yet, the YG MRP expects the SNP to take just 2 seats from the Tories, and based on SNP seat totals Electoral Calculus and the betting markets expect something similar. My model predicts 10 SNP gains from Con. What does everyone know that I don't?
Because there is no actual voter swing from Con to SNP. So the SNP only overtaken the Cons if the is Con to LD or Con to Lab swing.
Sorry I don't follow! SNP vote share is up, Tory vote share is down (Labour down even more, Lib Dems up). That surely helps the SNP to take seats off the Tories? My model seems to agree with the consensus in E&W but is way off in Scotland. I am very willing to believe I am wrong, but right now I can't see why I am wrong.
Scotland's swing is aggressively non-uniform.
Look at what happened in 2015. SNP vote normalised at what the constituency Yes vote was plus a bit more. This meant 'weird' things like the SNP barely got any improvement in support in seats they held whilst breaking the swingometer in seats they had been 4th place in.
In 2017 the Lib Dem vote fell, but they quadrupled their seat count.
So what if the Tory vote falls in Glasgow Central if their vote holds up in Gordon.
The Conservatives start losing all their seats instantly if the 2010/15 Lib Dem voters who voter Tory in 2017 switch back to the Lib Dems. But that is not happening as much as I thought it would (or was implied when the Lib Dems were at 14% in Scottish polling).
There's a few different Scotlands I think & Edinburgh South
Apparently Boz is trying to do Marr on Sunday instead of Neil. Poor effort if so
I applied the Richie Benaud principle to this one. There's obviously pros and cons but what would the opposition want him to do? On balance I suspect Labour would prefer he ducked AN, because that's a guaranteed hit they can exploit for the rest of the campaign. If he turns up, he may flounder, but then again he may not.
Labour would take the bird in the hand. They would want him to duck it. On the RB principle, he should attend.
I don't think that is right, because the situation is not symmetrical. Labour need a disruptive event, so they would prefer Boris to be grilled by Andrew Neil in the hope that it would be a car-crash which they could edit to make look worse and post on social media. If it's not they wouldn't have lost anything much (and could probably edit it to look bad anyway). Boris is in the opposite position; he just needs to avoid a car crash.
Shameful from the Tories who are now attacking EU citizens .
Claiming they take out 4 billion in welfare ignoring the fact they actually pay more in taxes than they take out .
And they sit there saying they want to welcome migrants , when they’re attacking EU nationals in this way . Utterly despicable.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Your post is rot since you have no way of knowing how that total of contributions is made up. A large part of it, I suspect, will be a much smaller number of highly paid EU expats working in the UK for high salaries in the professions and in the City of London. Precisely the people that Corbyn will drive away, if he's elected. In a way these are a microcosm of the UK tax-base - a small percentage paying the lion's share of tax. Just the people who you purport to despise.
I agree, but why hand it to Boris at that point? They could have agreed to one the first week back in January and leave Boris with the embarrassment of dealing with Jan 31st and spend Xmas encouraging Farage to split Boris's vote. Instead they set a trap for themselves and walked straight in to it because they suffered from a political disease called "Corbyn's Blindness" where the sufferer, in spite of all evidence, believes they are on to be a dead-cert winner!!!!! Idiots. If anything shows Jo Swinson is not ready for the big-time, that was it.
Put simply, no. The polls were showing the prevarication and obstruction were only strengthening Johnson's position, not weakening it. The Tories were moving up inexorably in the polls each week the delay continued. Labour could also have blocked the GE and I suspect Swinson and Sturgeon thought if Labour were seen to be blocking a GE the Labour numbers would continue to fall. Johnson's position was being supported by the frustration of those just wanting the whole Brexit thing done with (and of course Revoking would have ended it though it wouldn't) and the perception the paralysis was caused by the MPs themselves. The election may be the opportunity to break the logjam but if it doesn't (and I suspect it won't), that's one less card Johnson has to play as he faces the 31/1/20 extension deadline. As for Jo Swinson claiming she could be PM, it's a much better rallying cry than "I'd like to win 30 seats".
Its really not, not when you're trying to portray yourself as a realist not a deluded fantasist. Honesty could have served her much better. If she had said she knows she couldn't be Prime Minister herself but that neither Boris Johnson nor Jeremy Corbyn leading a majority government was an attractive proposition. Suggest that a vote for the Liberal Democrats was a vote to deny Johnson and Corbyn a majority government. As for the insane revoke proposal - given they were never going to win a majority it was never going to happen, there was no reason to go down that rabbit hole. Again be honest and say "we want to remain, we will seek to get a referendum and campaign to remain in the EU". With Corbyn's prevarications they'd still be the undoubted Remain party but at least could claim to be democratic. Deny Johnson and Corbyn a majority could probably have been a better rallying cry than "I will be Prime Minister" followed by laughter and derision. One was plausible and could be attractive to many, the other made her look away with the fairies.
Apparently Boz is trying to do Marr on Sunday instead of Neil. Poor effort if so
I applied the Richie Benaud principle to this one. There's obviously pros and cons but what would the opposition want him to do? On balance I suspect Labour would prefer he ducked AN, because that's a guaranteed hit they can exploit for the rest of the campaign. If he turns up, he may flounder, but then again he may not.
Labour would take the bird in the hand. They would want him to duck it. On the RB principle, he should attend.
I don't think that is right, because the situation is not symmetrical. Labour need a disruptive event, so they would prefer Boris to be grilled by Andrew Neil in the hope that it would be a car-crash which they could edit to make look worse and post on social media. If it's not they wouldn't have lost anything much (and could probably edit it to look bad anyway). Boris is in the opposite position; he just needs to avoid a car crash.
Just struck me. The board has become a lot more "Tory" and Brexity as the inevitability of them both triumphing has become clear. Where is @williamglenn Where is @Scott_P Where is the mighty @Noo ??
Scott P had a history of popping up only when things were going against the Tories. So as long as he stays away things are probably OK for them
Scott used to be a big Tory support, it was only Brexit that sent him into his current stance.
It is odd he has gone AWOL, as long as I have been posting on here, I think he has been downloading twitter on a daily basis.
Wasn't there (sensibly) an edict from on high that required a lessening of (mostly pointless) tweets posted and clogging up threads? A rule that ScottP could never live with, I would imagine
Scott has been in touch. He is well but hasn't posted since falling victim of the Vanilla reregistration requirement. He sends his best wishes and thanks everyone for their kind concern.
He could have at least tweeted that, so you could have copied and pasted it!
A bug of the update is that it doesn't take you the first comment since you last looked at the site anymore
I think once you make your first comment in the thread it works as normal.
Shameful from the Tories who are now attacking EU citizens .
Claiming they take out 4 billion in welfare ignoring the fact they actually pay more in taxes than they take out .
And they sit there saying they want to welcome migrants , when they’re attacking EU nationals in this way . Utterly despicable.
All of them!? There is something completely screwed up with our tax and benefit system if we are paying £4 billion in welfare to them while they are all actually paying more in taxes than they take out. We really need to stop this ludicrous giving with one hand and taking away with another, simplify the tax and benefit system. Or do some of them pay taxes and some of them take benefits so some contribute more than they take and some take more than they contribute? So if we had a points based system we could continue to bring in those contributing more than they take but not bring in those taking more than they contribute?
EU nationals are a net gain for the treasury. Those are the official stats .
All of them? Or some of them? Believe it or not EU nationals are not a single homogenous and individual blob. Its actually many different people.
Apparently Boz is trying to do Marr on Sunday instead of Neil. Poor effort if so
I applied the Richie Benaud principle to this one. There's obviously pros and cons but what would the opposition want him to do? On balance I suspect Labour would prefer he ducked AN, because that's a guaranteed hit they can exploit for the rest of the campaign. If he turns up, he may flounder, but then again he may not.
Labour would take the bird in the hand. They would want him to duck it. On the RB principle, he should attend.
Also, Jezza's performance is now the stuff of legend. I suspect even the people who didn't even see it have the famed awfulness of it etched upon their psyche, and those who did see it now remember it as being far worse than it actually was. So Boris doesn't have to do that well to be better than the folklore.
I agree, but why hand it to Boris at that point? They could have agreed to one the first week back in January and leave Boris with the embarrassment of dealing with Jan 31st and spend Xmas encouraging Farage to split Boris's vote. Instead they set a trap for themselves and walked straight in to it because they suffered from a political disease called "Corbyn's Blindness" where the sufferer, in spite of all evidence, believes they are on to be a dead-cert winner!!!!! Idiots. If anything shows Jo Swinson is not ready for the big-time, that was it.
Put simply, no. The polls were showing the prevarication and obstruction were only strengthening Johnson's position, not weakening it. The Tories were moving up inexorably in the polls each week the delay continued. Labour could also have blocked the GE and I suspect Swinson and Sturgeon thought if Labour were seen to be blocking a GE the Labour numbers would continue to fall. Johnson's position was being supported by the frustration of those just wanting the whole Brexit thing done with (and of course Revoking would have ended it though it wouldn't) and the perception the paralysis was caused by the MPs themselves. The election may be the opportunity to break the logjam but if it doesn't (and I suspect it won't), that's one less card Johnson has to play as he faces the 31/1/20 extension deadline. As for Jo Swinson claiming she could be PM, it's a much better rallying cry than "I'd like to win 30 seats".
Corbyn, or his more rabid backers, seem to believe that the electorate is gagging for the chance to enter a Marxist Utopia. There were reports circulating at the time that saner heads held him back. I remember when May asked for him to agree an election, the general consensus was that he would be an idiot to agree to it, but he agreed so fast it was dizzying. As for Jo "I want to win 30 seats" Swinson, that would at least have had the virtue of not appearing utterly ridiculous. The LDs were never going to win this election. Even if the polls were accurate and Boris was trending upwards, why not leave him hanging. As it was, they gave him his election and he is leading by miles.... if the polls are right.
Shameful from the Tories who are now attacking EU citizens . Claiming they take out 4 billion in welfare ignoring the fact they actually pay more in taxes than they take out . And they sit there saying they want to welcome migrants , when they’re attacking EU nationals in this way . Utterly despicable.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Your post is rot since you have no way of knowing how that total of contributions is made up. A large part of it, I suspect, will be a much smaller number of highly paid EU expats working in the UK for high salaries in the professions and in the City of London. Precisely the people that Corbyn will drive away, if he's elected. In a way these are a microcosm of the UK tax-base - a small percentage paying the lion's share of tax. Just the people who you purport to despise.
Shameful from the Tories who are now attacking EU citizens .
Claiming they take out 4 billion in welfare ignoring the fact they actually pay more in taxes than they take out .
And they sit there saying they want to welcome migrants , when they’re attacking EU nationals in this way . Utterly despicable.
All of them!? There is something completely screwed up with our tax and benefit system if we are paying £4 billion in welfare to them while they are all actually paying more in taxes than they take out. We really need to stop this ludicrous giving with one hand and taking away with another, simplify the tax and benefit system. Or do some of them pay taxes and some of them take benefits so some contribute more than they take and some take more than they contribute? So if we had a points based system we could continue to bring in those contributing more than they take but not bring in those taking more than they contribute?
Your underlying assumption about social security is wrong. The same people will sometimes be recipients, and sometimes not, as their circumstances change. You can't categorise people permanently as one or the other.
I never suggested they are all permanently one or the other. But £4 billion of welfare is a hell of a lot of money, would you not agree? One suspects there are amongst the EU nationals some from whom the Exchequer does particularly well, some whom are consistently a recipient and some who vary from one to the other. Same as the rest of our population.
Shameful from the Tories who are now attacking EU citizens .
Claiming they take out 4 billion in welfare ignoring the fact they actually pay more in taxes than they take out .
And they sit there saying they want to welcome migrants , when they’re attacking EU nationals in this way . Utterly despicable.
All of them!? There is something completely screwed up with our tax and benefit system if we are paying £4 billion in welfare to them while they are all actually paying more in taxes than they take out. We really need to stop this ludicrous giving with one hand and taking away with another, simplify the tax and benefit system. Or do some of them pay taxes and some of them take benefits so some contribute more than they take and some take more than they contribute? So if we had a points based system we could continue to bring in those contributing more than they take but not bring in those taking more than they contribute?
They may be paying more in tax than they directly receive but does anyone know how much tax one needs to pay to not be subsidised in cost of services & benefits in a year? Guess it's mostly companies and the rich paying our way?
Yes, from The Migration Observatory at Oxford Uni. In 2018 the figures were single man 20 year old,10K . Couple 2 children 45K and couple 65+ 92K.
Edit: The 20 year old is also assumed not to be in receipt of in work benefits or housing credit. The Govt figures for a single person are 16K.
Also, Jezza's performance is now the stuff of legend. I suspect even the people who didn't even see it have the famed awfulness of it etched upon their psyche, and those who did see it now remember it as being far worse than it actually was. So Boris doesn't have to do that well to be better than the folklore.
But how does he explain his language surrounding various minorities? I was young and stupid(er)? I misspoke? I've moved on? None of which is the case. It will just sit there, unanswered. I know it's largely in the price but to have it out there on the BBC relentlessly will I think be decisive.
Shameful from the Tories who are now attacking EU citizens .
Claiming they take out 4 billion in welfare ignoring the fact they actually pay more in taxes than they take out .
And they sit there saying they want to welcome migrants , when they’re attacking EU nationals in this way . Utterly despicable.
All of them!? There is something completely screwed up with our tax and benefit system if we are paying £4 billion in welfare to them while they are all actually paying more in taxes than they take out. We really need to stop this ludicrous giving with one hand and taking away with another, simplify the tax and benefit system. Or do some of them pay taxes and some of them take benefits so some contribute more than they take and some take more than they contribute? So if we had a points based system we could continue to bring in those contributing more than they take but not bring in those taking more than they contribute?
EU nationals are a net gain for the treasury. Those are the official stats .
Anyone in work is a net gain to the treasury. Simply, the amount of money spent on people in work is de minimus. Some government costs are unrelated to the number of people in the country (interest payments, defence). Others are almost entirely related to the retired (the bulk of NHS spending, plus obviously pensions).
Even if you're earning just £15,000/year, then (so long as you don't end up retiring here), then you're probably contributing.
But that isn't the only cost. Economics is about supply and demand. More people cause additional demand for goods and services in the economy, which pushes up their price to the indigenous population. Rents, for example, are almost certainly higher because there are more people in the UK.
I agree, but why hand it to Boris at that point? They could have agreed to one the first week back in January and leave Boris with the embarrassment of dealing with Jan 31st and spend Xmas encouraging Farage to split Boris's vote. Instead they set a trap for themselves and walked straight in to it because they suffered from a political disease called "Corbyn's Blindness" where the sufferer, in spite of all evidence, believes they are on to be a dead-cert winner!!!!! Idiots. If anything shows Jo Swinson is not ready for the big-time, that was it.
I think people forget (or have never appreciated) the situation changed once Johnson got a deal, the tory rebels were no longer going to ever bring down the govt, and would very probably have passed the WA in exchange for parliamentary scrutiny of the FTA. Brexit was happening. If the LDs primary wish was to stop Brexit, they had to gamble an election.
Yes, but timing is everything. After Xmas with 31st Jan hurtling at us would have been better as Boris would have two things to sort out and if he asked for another extension then the Brexit Party might still have been taking Tory votes. They Boris his election and on his terms. That is never a good starting point.
And yet the guardian is happy with Corbyn’s lies on the NHS
The Guardian is not standing for election. Neither Corbyn not Johnson are fit to be PM.
The difference is that Johnson's party will get rid of him the second he becomes a liability. Corbyn’s party will, if he resigns, elect someone else with exactly the same views and policies.
Shameful from the Tories who are now attacking EU citizens .
Claiming they take out 4 billion in welfare ignoring the fact they actually pay more in taxes than they take out .
And they sit there saying they want to welcome migrants , when they’re attacking EU nationals in this way . Utterly despicable.
All of them!? There is something completely screwed up with our tax and benefit system if we are paying £4 billion in welfare to them while they are all actually paying more in taxes than they take out. We really need to stop this ludicrous giving with one hand and taking away with another, simplify the tax and benefit system. Or do some of them pay taxes and some of them take benefits so some contribute more than they take and some take more than they contribute? So if we had a points based system we could continue to bring in those contributing more than they take but not bring in those taking more than they contribute?
They may be paying more in tax than they directly receive but does anyone know how much tax one needs to pay to not be subsidised in cost of services & benefits in a year? Guess it's mostly companies and the rich paying our way?
Yes, from The Migration Observatory at Oxford Uni. In 2018 the figures were single man 20 year old,10K . Couple 2 children 45K and couple 65+ 92K.
Hah shows how skewed the system is against the single man
Looking at the betfair graph in the article the percentages for lab minority vs con minority were either wrong at the start (con more likely than labour) or are wrong now (labour more likely than con despite con lead increasing and solidifying).
Mr Thompson, your view on Swinson is hardly objective as you are so partisan. Personally I think there was no harm in her saying that in principle she could become PM, as in principle she could be. Her position has no less credibility than those that claim we can have a good Brexit. The latter view really is away with the fairies.
Shameful from the Tories who are now attacking EU citizens . Claiming they take out 4 billion in welfare ignoring the fact they actually pay more in taxes than they take out . And they sit there saying they want to welcome migrants , when they’re attacking EU nationals in this way . Utterly despicable.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Your post is rot since you have no way of knowing how that total of contributions is made up. A large part of it, I suspect, will be a much smaller number of highly paid EU expats working in the UK for high salaries in the professions and in the City of London. Precisely the people that Corbyn will drive away, if he's elected. In a way these are a microcosm of the UK tax-base - a small percentage paying the lion's share of tax. Just the people who you purport to despise.
Well indeed. One wonders how much taxation Virgil van Dijk alone pays? He is an EU national and I imagine he pays an absolute fortune in taxes each year - I also imagine if Corbyn's insane politics put a pay cap in he could be gone in the next transfer window. Considering the large Premier League clubs are profitable global businesses bringing in money from across the world - see how many Liverpool and Man Utd replica shirts there are worldwide - the amount the players get paid seems reasonable with the Exchequer raising a lot of taxation from football.
Just struck me. The board has become a lot more "Tory" and Brexity as the inevitability of them both triumphing has become clear. Where is @williamglenn Where is @Scott_P Where is the mighty @Noo ??
Scott P had a history of popping up only when things were going against the Tories. So as long as he stays away things are probably OK for them
Scott used to be a big Tory support, it was only Brexit that sent him into his current stance.
It is odd he has gone AWOL, as long as I have been posting on here, I think he has been downloading twitter on a daily basis.
Wasn't there (sensibly) an edict from on high that required a lessening of (mostly pointless) tweets posted and clogging up threads? A rule that ScottP could never live with, I would imagine
Scott has been in touch. He is well but hasn't posted since falling victim of the Vanilla reregistration requirement. He sends his best wishes and thanks everyone for their kind concern.
Mr Thompson, your view on Swinson is hardly objective as you are so partisan. Personally I think there was no harm in her saying that in principle she could become PM, as in principle she could be. Her position has no less credibility than those that claim we can have a good Brexit. The latter view really is away with the fairies.
I think it was the right statement but with the wrong delivery. It should have been delivered as an of course I would like to be PM with a smile on her face, not this is a serious campaign where I am expecting to be PM.
Mr Thompson, your view on Swinson is hardly objective as you are so partisan. Personally I think there was no harm in her saying that in principle she could become PM, as in principle she could be. Her position has no less credibility than those that claim we can have a good Brexit. The latter view really is away with the fairies.
But that is exactly the trouble. With the Tories out with the fairies on Brexit, and Labour out with the fairies on pretty much everything, there was an obvious opening for a party whose USP was that they were vaguely sane. Ms Swinson completely gratuitously blew it.
Also, Jezza's performance is now the stuff of legend. I suspect even the people who didn't even see it have the famed awfulness of it etched upon their psyche, and those who did see it now remember it as being far worse than it actually was. So Boris doesn't have to do that well to be better than the folklore.
But how does he explain his language surrounding various minorities? I was young and stupid(er)? I misspoke? I've moved on? None of which is the case. It will just sit there, unanswered. I know it's largely in the price but to have it out there on the BBC relentlessly will I think be decisive.
Employ the cheeky grin and amusingly flatulent utterances? Perhaps AN won't be able to spit out his questions for chuckling.
Johnson knows precisely what would be brought up in the Neil interview.
Financial relationship with Arcuri.
That would be one area. Let's face it, there is plenty of ammo. I think Johnson will bottle it. Andrew Neil is a class act and simply far too clever for pigmies like Johnson and Corbyn. Even Margaret Thatcher would have probably struggled with him, though she was massively more in control of her brief than either of the two numpties.
Shameful from the Tories who are now attacking EU citizens .
Claiming they take out 4 billion in welfare ignoring the fact they actually pay more in taxes than they take out .
And they sit there saying they want to welcome migrants , when they’re attacking EU nationals in this way . Utterly despicable.
All of them!? There is something completely screwed up with our tax and benefit system if we are paying £4 billion in welfare to them while they are all actually paying more in taxes than they take out. We really need to stop this ludicrous giving with one hand and taking away with another, simplify the tax and benefit system. Or do some of them pay taxes and some of them take benefits so some contribute more than they take and some take more than they contribute? So if we had a points based system we could continue to bring in those contributing more than they take but not bring in those taking more than they contribute?
EU nationals are a net gain for the treasury. Those are the official stats .
Anyone in work is a net gain to the treasury. Simply, the amount of money spent on people in work is de minimus. Some government costs are unrelated to the number of people in the country (interest payments, defence). Others are almost entirely related to the retired (the bulk of NHS spending, plus obviously pensions).
Even if you're earning just £15,000/year, then (so long as you don't end up retiring here), then you're probably contributing.
But that isn't the only cost. Economics is about supply and demand. More people cause additional demand for goods and services in the economy, which pushes up their price to the indigenous population. Rents, for example, are almost certainly higher because there are more people in the UK.
Single parent on, say, 12k a year with 10k rent getting UC is a net gain for the Treasury? I'd be surprised...
Looking at the betfair graph in the article the percentages for lab minority vs con minority were either wrong at the start (con more likely than labour) or are wrong now (labour more likely than con despite con lead increasing and solidifying).
Mr Thompson, your view on Swinson is hardly objective as you are so partisan. Personally I think there was no harm in her saying that in principle she could become PM, as in principle she could be. Her position has no less credibility than those that claim we can have a good Brexit. The latter view really is away with the fairies.
I wanted Swinson to do well though. I wanted Swinson to get the Remainers votes. It was in my partisan interests and I wanted the LDs to be in a position to challenge Labour for Opposition status next time if Labour didn't get rid of the pox of Corbynism. So no I'm not being negative for partisan reasons - for partisan reasons Swinson losing Remain voters to Labour is the last thing I wanted!!
Just struck me. The board has become a lot more "Tory" and Brexity as the inevitability of them both triumphing has become clear. Where is @williamglenn Where is @Scott_P Where is the mighty @Noo ??
I was wondering about Noo too. He went a bit strange - see his last few posts.
Looking at the betfair graph in the article the percentages for lab minority vs con minority were either wrong at the start (con more likely than labour) or are wrong now (labour more likely than con despite con lead increasing and solidifying).
Lots of prices on Betfair are often wrong
I know. It was just a betting tip related to the main article, or at least highlighting an angle someone better informed than me should be able to exploit. Kind of post that could be relevant on a political betting site.
Mr Thompson, your view on Swinson is hardly objective as you are so partisan. Personally I think there was no harm in her saying that in principle she could become PM, as in principle she could be. Her position has no less credibility than those that claim we can have a good Brexit. The latter view really is away with the fairies.
But that is exactly the trouble. With the Tories out with the fairies on Brexit, and Labour out with the fairies on pretty much everything, there was an obvious opening for a party whose USP was that they were vaguely sane. Ms Swinson completely gratuitously blew it.
Fair point, but I think people like Philip Thompson huffing and puffing about it when they are fanbois for Johnson - an out and out bullshitter extraordinaire, is a bit rich.
Looking at the betfair graph in the article the percentages for lab minority vs con minority were either wrong at the start (con more likely than labour) or are wrong now (labour more likely than con despite con lead increasing and solidifying).
Lots of prices on Betfair are often wrong
I know. It was just a betting tip related to the main article, or at least highlighting an angle someone better informed than me should be able to exploit. Kind of post that could be relevant on a political betting site.
I laid all the coalition options to scalp a few quid earlier on, they were all wildly short
Shameful from the Tories who are now attacking EU citizens .
Claiming they take out 4 billion in welfare ignoring the fact they actually pay more in taxes than they take out .
And they sit there saying they want to welcome migrants , when they’re attacking EU nationals in this way . Utterly despicable.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Your post is rot since you have no way of knowing how that total of contributions is made up. A large part of it, I suspect, will be a much smaller number of highly paid EU expats working in the UK for high salaries in the professions and in the City of London. Precisely the people that Corbyn will drive away, if he's elected. In a way these are a microcosm of the UK tax-base - a small percentage paying the lion's share of tax. Just the people who you purport to despise.
You post is desperate spin to avoid the fact that the Tories are engaging in disgusting scapegoating of EU nationals .
The facts are the facts EU nationals are a net gain for the treasury ! Do you approve of the Tories using those figures in their campaign literature .
Are you happy for the Tories to mislead the public into thinking EU nationals are somehow benefit scroungers.
If Boris avoids Neil (and who could blame him) then most right-thinking people would think he was a complete ******* ******** ********. But then again most right-thinking people already think he is a complete ******* ******** ********. The rest of course sensibly don't care because they don't pay too much attention to this stuff.
How many people would change their voting intention if a political leader failed to do a TV interview? I would suggest zero. How many people would change their voting intention if a political leader did the interview and got torn to pieces, like the hapless Mr Corbyn? Perhaps enough to change the result in quite a few marginal seats.
If Boris avoids Neil (and who could blame him) then most right-thinking people would think he was a complete ******* ******** ********. But then again most right-thinking people already think he is a complete ******* ******** ********. The rest of course sensibly don't care because they don't pay too much attention to this stuff.
How many people would change their voting intention if a political leader failed to do a TV interview? I would suggest zero. How many people would change their voting intention if a political leader did the interview and got torn to pieces, like the hapless Mr Corbyn? Perhaps enough to change the result in quite a few marginal seats.
Which is why he won't do it. On the other hand, if he were a person of principle and self-respect he would do it anyway, but we are talking about Boris Johnson, the shallowest person ever to hold the title of PM.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Your post is rot since you have no way of knowing how that total of contributions is made up. A large part of it, I suspect, will be a much smaller number of highly paid EU expats working in the UK for high salaries in the professions and in the City of London. Precisely the people that Corbyn will drive away, if he's elected. In a way these are a microcosm of the UK tax-base - a small percentage paying the lion's share of tax. Just the people who you purport to despise.
I don't agree with Nico very often, but it's worth looking at total UK government spending in detail. Total central government spending in 2020 was £848bn. Of this, the largest chunk (by a whisker) is health care at £162bn. Now, EU citizens will use the NHS while they're here. So this is a cost. But the vast bulk of health care spending is on oldies. (My favourite fact is that on average half of all the money spent on your health care will be in thel last six months of your life.) The median age for EU citizens in the UK is really low, like high 20s, so they are highly unlikely (on average) to be big recipients of the health care budget. Next up is pensions at £161bn. Very few EU citizens will be recieving UK pensions, and those that do will almost entirely be Irish. Welfare is £126bn, of which EU citizens take £4bn, so here they do take out - mostly through housing benefit and other in work benefits. (Which I personally do not think they should be eligible for. But it is worth remembering, that they are claiming these at half the rate of the rest of the population - 5.5% of people, 3% of welfare payments.) Education (£91bn) comes next. EU citizens in the UK *do* have children, so they will take out here. But while 5.5% of people in the UK are from the EU (3.6m) only 1.6% of children are from the EU. So EU citizens are taking less of public spending here. Interest payments (£52bn) are next. And if every EU citizen left, we'd still be paying those. Defence (£50bn) is last of the big spenders. And it's not clear we'd save a cent, again, if they left. So, just rough back of the envelope calculations would say that EU citizens don't take up anywhere near 5.5% of total government spendig. I'd reckon, given how small a proportion of the biggest two items they are, and given they are basically zero of items four and five, it's hard to say they are responsible for more than 1.5% of government spending at most. So, they'd need to earn 75% less than Brits on average for them not to be accretive to government finances. (And given more of them are in work, that number probably looks more like 80%.)
Am I the only one who's intensely relaxed about Boris ditching Neil? Why risk the possibility of a Chernobyl-level event? And given that Labour's resorting to dirty tricks with their dodgy NHS dossiers, I see no reason why the Tories shouldn't try to shaft Labour in every way imaginable, including this one.
If Boris avoids Neil (and who could blame him) then most right-thinking people would think he was a complete ******* ******** ********. But then again most right-thinking people already think he is a complete ******* ******** ********. The rest of course sensibly don't care because they don't pay too much attention to this stuff.
How many people would change their voting intention if a political leader failed to do a TV interview? I would suggest zero. How many people would change their voting intention if a political leader did the interview and got torn to pieces, like the hapless Mr Corbyn? Perhaps enough to change the result in quite a few marginal seats.
Which is why he won't do it. On the other hand, if he were a person of principle and self-respect he would do it anyway, but we are talking about Boris Johnson, the shallowest person ever to hold the title of PM.
...or the most canny, depending upon your personal bias.
Tories under Johnson doing seemingly better than under May or Cameron, UK likely out the EU shortly, Lib Dems going nowhere, Indyref2 looking like a decent long term bet....
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Your post is rot since you have no way of knowing how that total of contributions is made up. A large part of it, I suspect, will be a much smaller number of highly paid EU expats working in the UK for high salaries in the professions and in the City of London. Precisely the people that Corbyn will drive away, if he's elected. In a way these are a microcosm of the UK tax-base - a small percentage paying the lion's share of tax. Just the people who you purport to despise.
I don't agree with Nico very often, but it's worth looking at total UK government spending in detail. Total central government spending in 2020 was £848bn. Of this, the largest chunk (by a whisker) is health care at £162bn. Now, EU citizens will use the NHS while they're here. So this is a cost. But the vast bulk of health care spending is on oldies. (My favourite fact is that on average half of all the money spent on your health care will be in thel last six months of your life.) The median age for EU citizens in the UK is really low, like high 20s, so they are highly unlikely (on average) to be big recipients of the health care budget. Next up is pensions at £161bn. Very few EU citizens will be recieving UK pensions, and those that do will almost entirely be Irish. Welfare is £126bn, of which EU citizens take £4bn, so here they do take out - mostly through housing benefit and other in work benefits. (Which I personally do not think they should be eligible for. But it is worth remembering, that they are claiming these at half the rate of the rest of the population - 5.5% of people, 3% of welfare payments.) Education (£91bn) comes next. EU citizens in the UK *do* have children, so they will take out here. But while 5.5% of people in the UK are from the EU (3.6m) only 1.6% of children are from the EU. So EU citizens are taking less of public spending here. Interest payments (£52bn) are next. And if every EU citizen left, we'd still be paying those. Defence (£50bn) is last of the big spenders. And it's not clear we'd save a cent, again, if they left. So, just rough back of the envelope calculations would say that EU citizens don't take up anywhere near 5.5% of total government spendig. I'd reckon, given how small a proportion of the biggest two items they are, and given they are basically zero of items four and five, it's hard to say they are responsible for more than 1.5% of government spending at most. So, they'd need to earn 75% less than Brits on average for them not to be accretive to government finances. (And given more of them are in work, that number probably looks more like 80%.)
Great post, thank you. Nice to see lies spread by the purveyors of hate so completely and utterly dispatched.
Did MysticRose get banned? The comments the other night were unacceptable. No way is that person a LibDem supporter.
She’s that special category of “claimed-LibDem-but-Jezza-is-so-convincing-I’m-going-to-switch”
Known as a “Wollaston” for short
Errr ... no my points were well-argued but in this febrile atmosphere not everyone wishes to engage on an intellecutal level.
On which subject, it was great to see Margaret Thatcher's brilliant climate change speech again posted on here last night.
I'm a pragmatist above all else. Otherwise known as a Remainer. And a tactical voter.
Ignore us in your betting stakes at your peril.
It was more not wanting to engage on an anti semitic level than an intellectual one
No, I suggested that the 'Jewish community' need to be very careful not to appear to isolate antisemitism from other forms of racism, which are also on the increase, lest they play directly into the hands of those spreading this awful scourge.
It was a lesson drilled into me by Jewish peoples in Israel.
So there!
If anyone else is wondering, this is victim blaming, and very much frowned upon in polite society these days. It's the rough equivalent of "she was asking for it."
That is extremely shitty, especially as they had legal status until it was shut down.
I sort of see what they were trying to do, but I think it crosses the boundary into being agent provocateurs
Their logic is (i) Students paid but didn't attend classes or do any work (ii) therefore they knew that they weren't getting a proper education even though they were on a student visa (iii) therefore they are in breach of their visa conditions
Shameful from the Tories who are now attacking EU citizens .
Claiming they take out 4 billion in welfare ignoring the fact they actually pay more in taxes than they take out .
And they sit there saying they want to welcome migrants , when they’re attacking EU nationals in this way . Utterly despicable.
All of them!? There is something completely screwed up with our tax and benefit system if we are paying £4 billion in welfare to them while they are all actually paying more in taxes than they take out. We really need to stop this ludicrous giving with one hand and taking away with another, simplify the tax and benefit system. Or do some of them pay taxes and some of them take benefits so some contribute more than they take and some take more than they contribute? So if we had a points based system we could continue to bring in those contributing more than they take but not bring in those taking more than they contribute?
EU nationals are a net gain for the treasury. Those are the official stats .
Anyone in work is a net gain to the treasury. Simply, the amount of money spent on people in work is de minimus. Some government costs are unrelated to the number of people in the country (interest payments, defence). Others are almost entirely related to the retired (the bulk of NHS spending, plus obviously pensions).
Even if you're earning just £15,000/year, then (so long as you don't end up retiring here), then you're probably contributing.
But that isn't the only cost. Economics is about supply and demand. More people cause additional demand for goods and services in the economy, which pushes up their price to the indigenous population. Rents, for example, are almost certainly higher because there are more people in the UK.
Single parent on, say, 12k a year with 10k rent getting UC is a net gain for the Treasury? I'd be surprised...
"Even if you're earning just £15,000/year, then (so long as you don't end up retiring here), then you're probably contributing." That sentence means that more than 50% of people on £15,000 are contributing. You can't then point to an example of a single parent* on £12,000 + £10k housing benefit** + UC*** and say "Ha! You're wrong." * Single parents are way less than 50% of the population ** £10k housing benefit! You're going to have to (a) live in one of the more expensive parts of the UK, and (b) have multiple kids to qualify for that *** The cross over point where national insurance exceeds UC is surprisingly low. You also need to add all the VAT and other indirect taxes said single mother in the South pays
Am I the only one who's intensely relaxed about Boris ditching Neil? Why risk the possibility of a Chernobyl-level event? And given that Labour's resorting to dirty tricks with their dodgy NHS dossiers, I see no reason why the Tories shouldn't try to shaft Labour in every way imaginable, including this one.
Very much not alone. All people who are more concerned that he wins than they are about his suitability for the thing that is to be won will feel as you do.
Am I the only one who's intensely relaxed about Boris ditching Neil? Why risk the possibility of a Chernobyl-level event? And given that Labour's resorting to dirty tricks with their dodgy NHS dossiers, I see no reason why the Tories shouldn't try to shaft Labour in every way imaginable, including this one.
All I know is May being chicken cut through to non political types I knew, and I suspect Boris being chicken will as well. If something is tough, as a leader, you're supposed to overcome it, not wet your pants and skip it, trusting that no one is going to care.
Been out all day on the doorsteps. That soft Tory vote is hardening. Fear of Corbyn is bringng them back onboard. The LibDem women of a certain age realise the game is up - and they are not going to get Dr. Sarah re-elected. Apart from the "all Tories are f*cking arseholes" guy, the only venom that has come my way have been from these women. Real face-contorting hate. Not a good look, ladies.... Boris still proving Marmite, but when confronted with Marmite or Corbyn's Cup of Cold Sick, it's Marmite every time. Returning Officer will have a fun write in on the night. Knocked on one door and was told "Och noo, this is an SNP hoos....." I also found a UKIP/Survivalist. Thought we should all have guns to protect ourselves from the upcoming New World Order apocolypse. She'd been reading about it online. A lot. In the absence of a UKIP or Brexit candidate, I secured the vote of her and her husband....
I don't agree with Nico very often, but it's worth looking at total UK government spending in detail. Total central government spending in 2020 was £848bn. Of this, the largest chunk (by a whisker) is health care at £162bn. Now, EU citizens will use the NHS while they're here. So this is a cost. But the vast bulk of health care spending is on oldies. (My favourite fact is that on average half of all the money spent on your health care will be in thel last six months of your life.) The median age for EU citizens in the UK is really low, like high 20s, so they are highly unlikely (on average) to be big recipients of the health care budget. Next up is pensions at £161bn. Very few EU citizens will be recieving UK pensions, and those that do will almost entirely be Irish. Welfare is £126bn, of which EU citizens take £4bn, so here they do take out - mostly through housing benefit and other in work benefits. (Which I personally do not think they should be eligible for. But it is worth remembering, that they are claiming these at half the rate of the rest of the population - 5.5% of people, 3% of welfare payments.) Education (£91bn) comes next. EU citizens in the UK *do* have children, so they will take out here. But while 5.5% of people in the UK are from the EU (3.6m) only 1.6% of children are from the EU. So EU citizens are taking less of public spending here. Interest payments (£52bn) are next. And if every EU citizen left, we'd still be paying those. Defence (£50bn) is last of the big spenders. And it's not clear we'd save a cent, again, if they left. So, just rough back of the envelope calculations would say that EU citizens don't take up anywhere near 5.5% of total government spendig. I'd reckon, given how small a proportion of the biggest two items they are, and given they are basically zero of items four and five, it's hard to say they are responsible for more than 1.5% of government spending at most. So, they'd need to earn 75% less than Brits on average for them not to be accretive to government finances. (And given more of them are in work, that number probably looks more like 80%.)
That's current spending.
It doesn't consider capacity utilisation.
If - for example - our schools and hospitals are full to bursting we have the options of:
(i) increasing capex to build more facilities, with the increased overhead and associated running costs; (ii) providing a sub-optimal service by cramming more kids into the classroom; or (iii) reducing the demand
In any event, your calculation above doesn't take into account the limited capacity
Mr Thompson, your view on Swinson is hardly objective as you are so partisan. Personally I think there was no harm in her saying that in principle she could become PM, as in principle she could be. Her position has no less credibility than those that claim we can have a good Brexit. The latter view really is away with the fairies.
But that is exactly the trouble. With the Tories out with the fairies on Brexit, and Labour out with the fairies on pretty much everything, there was an obvious opening for a party whose USP was that they were vaguely sane. Ms Swinson completely gratuitously blew it.
Fair point, but I think people like Philip Thompson huffing and puffing about it when they are fanbois for Johnson - an out and out bullshitter extraordinaire, is a bit rich.
Except I am trying to be logical. Every party needs a USP - a Unique Selling Point. For Johnson's Tories it is Getting Brexit Done. For Corbyn's Labour it is spending billions on everything everywhere. What is Swinson's USP? It isn't a second referendum because Labour has that. My point and Richard Nabavi's point was that Swinson had a potential USP of "I'm a sensible moderate not like those other two" for people who believe that. But she threw that away with her delusions of grandeur. What did that leave as her USP? Its not good enough to say "well yes she was bullshitting but so was Johnson" - all that does is make everyone a bullshitter and thus negate that as a criticism of Johnson since they all have that in common.
Been out all day on the doorsteps. That soft Tory vote is hardening. Fear of Corbyn is bringng them back onboard. The LibDem women of a certain age realise the game is up - and they are not going to get Dr. Sarah re-elected. Apart from the "all Tories are f*cking arseholes" guy, the only venom that has come my way have been from these women. Real face-contorting hate. Not a good look, ladies.... Boris still proving Marmite, but when confronted with Marmite or Corbyn's Cup of Cold Sick, it's Marmite every time. Returning Officer will have a fun write in on the night. Knocked on one door and was told "Och noo, this is an SNP hoos....." I also found a UKIP/Survivalist. Thought we should all have guns to protect ourselves from the upcoming New World Order apocolypse. She'd been reading about it online. A lot. In the absence of a UKIP or Brexit candidate, I secured the vote of her and her husband....
That is extremely shitty, especially as they had legal status until it was shut down.
The bizarre bit is that they got people to come to America to a fake university and then deported them for coming to a fake university.
It seems like rather a waste of money.
I think they were in the US already add other fake universities and this was a way of identifying which students were unfortunately caught up by accident vs which ones were deliberately attending a fake school
Mr Thompson, your view on Swinson is hardly objective as you are so partisan. Personally I think there was no harm in her saying that in principle she could become PM, as in principle she could be. Her position has no less credibility than those that claim we can have a good Brexit. The latter view really is away with the fairies.
But that is exactly the trouble. With the Tories out with the fairies on Brexit, and Labour out with the fairies on pretty much everything, there was an obvious opening for a party whose USP was that they were vaguely sane. Ms Swinson completely gratuitously blew it.
Fair point, but I think people like Philip Thompson huffing and puffing about it when they are fanbois for Johnson - an out and out bullshitter extraordinaire, is a bit rich.
Except I am trying to be logical. Every party needs a USP - a Unique Selling Point. For Johnson's Tories it is Getting Brexit Done. For Corbyn's Labour it is spending billions on everything everywhere. What is Swinson's USP? It isn't a second referendum because Labour has that. My point and Richard Nabavi's point was that Swinson had a potential USP of "I'm a sensible moderate not like those other two" for people who believe that. But she threw that away with her delusions of grandeur. What did that leave as her USP? Its not good enough to say "well yes she was bullshitting but so was Johnson" - all that does is make everyone a bullshitter and thus negate that as a criticism of Johnson since they all have that in common.
And thrown it away she has. I have spent the day meeting them.....
Was just in the Channel 4 News office and saw 2 burly men bring in a large ice container. Quite a few protesters outside. I'm predicting viewing figures close to sub zero too.
Shameful from the Tories who are now attacking EU citizens . Claiming they take out 4 billion in welfare ignoring the fact they actually pay more in taxes than they take out . And they sit there saying they want to welcome migrants , when they’re attacking EU nationals in this way . Utterly despicable.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Your post is rot since you have no way of knowing how that total of contributions is made up. A large part of it, I suspect, will be a much smaller number of highly paid EU expats working in the UK for high salaries in the professions and in the City of London. Precisely the people that Corbyn will drive away, if he's elected. In a way these are a microcosm of the UK tax-base - a small percentage paying the lion's share of tax. Just the people who you purport to despise.
Well indeed. One wonders how much taxation Virgil van Dijk alone pays? He is an EU national and I imagine he pays an absolute fortune in taxes each year - I also imagine if Corbyn's insane politics put a pay cap in he could be gone in the next transfer window. Considering the large Premier League clubs are profitable global businesses bringing in money from across the world - see how many Liverpool and Man Utd replica shirts there are worldwide - the amount the players get paid seems reasonable with the Exchequer raising a lot of taxation from football.
When I was doing DD on an Italian football club, I found that most of the players had their own companies that were contracted by the club. I don't know if that's the case in the UK, but the footballers there had *very* savvy accountants.
Am I the only one who's intensely relaxed about Boris ditching Neil? Why risk the possibility of a Chernobyl-level event? And given that Labour's resorting to dirty tricks with their dodgy NHS dossiers, I see no reason why the Tories shouldn't try to shaft Labour in every way imaginable, including this one.
All I know is May being chicken cut through to non political types I knew, and I suspect Boris being chicken will as well. If something is tough, as a leader, you're supposed to overcome it, not wet your pants and skip it, trusting that no one is going to care.
Except May didn't do _any_ debates, whereas Boris is doing all the head-to-head ones with Corbyn, and even Corbyn hnimself is ducking out of a couple of extraneous ones, if I remember correctly. The narrative just doesn't work if people see Boris on stage with Corbyn, who is after all his only rival for the premiership.
Been out all day on the doorsteps. That soft Tory vote is hardening. Fear of Corbyn is bringng them back onboard. The LibDem women of a certain age realise the game is up - and they are not going to get Dr. Sarah re-elected. Apart from the "all Tories are f*cking arseholes" guy, the only venom that has come my way have been from these women. Real face-contorting hate. Not a good look, ladies.... Boris still proving Marmite, but when confronted with Marmite or Corbyn's Cup of Cold Sick, it's Marmite every time. Returning Officer will have a fun write in on the night. Knocked on one door and was told "Och noo, this is an SNP hoos....." I also found a UKIP/Survivalist. Thought we should all have guns to protect ourselves from the upcoming New World Order apocolypse. She'd been reading about it online. A lot. In the absence of a UKIP or Brexit candidate, I secured the vote of her and her husband....
All fine, your Conservative candidate my romp home by 40,000 votes and Stephen Timms in my constituency may also win by 40,000 votes but we both know neither seat is where this election is going to be decided.
Shameful from the Tories who are now attacking EU citizens . Claiming they take out 4 billion in welfare ignoring the fact they actually pay more in taxes than they take out . And they sit there saying they want to welcome migrants , when they’re attacking EU nationals in this way . Utterly despicable.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Your post is rot since you have no way of knowing how that total of contributions is made up. A large part of it, I suspect, will be a much smaller number of highly paid EU expats working in the UK for high salaries in the professions and in the City of London. Precisely the people that Corbyn will drive away, if he's elected. In a way these are a microcosm of the UK tax-base - a small percentage paying the lion's share of tax. Just the people who you purport to despise.
Well indeed. One wonders how much taxation Virgil van Dijk alone pays? He is an EU national and I imagine he pays an absolute fortune in taxes each year - I also imagine if Corbyn's insane politics put a pay cap in he could be gone in the next transfer window. Considering the large Premier League clubs are profitable global businesses bringing in money from across the world - see how many Liverpool and Man Utd replica shirts there are worldwide - the amount the players get paid seems reasonable with the Exchequer raising a lot of taxation from football.
When I was doing DD on an Italian football club, I found that most of the players had their own companies that were contracted by the club. I don't know if that's the case in the UK, but the footballers there had *very* savvy accountants.
There is always an ongoing battle between HMRC and the football industry so pretty similar.
That is extremely shitty, especially as they had legal status until it was shut down.
The bizarre bit is that they got people to come to America to a fake university and then deported them for coming to a fake university.
It seems like rather a waste of money.
I think they were in the US already add other fake universities and this was a way of identifying which students were unfortunately caught up by accident vs which ones were deliberately attending a fake school
Ah. In which case this is by no means a silly idea.
Still, I think it would be easier to go after the fake universities themselves, rather than the students. Taking down one fake university would cost far less and have much greater impact.
Am I the only one who's intensely relaxed about Boris ditching Neil? Why risk the possibility of a Chernobyl-level event? And given that Labour's resorting to dirty tricks with their dodgy NHS dossiers, I see no reason why the Tories shouldn't try to shaft Labour in every way imaginable, including this one.
Exactly. Labour have resorted to some pretty desperate tactics with the new dodgy dossier, so why should Boris help them with doing an interview he knows he cannot win. As everyone keeps saying, there is a mountain of ammunition to use against him. He'll take being called a coward and hiding away somewhere any day and all day over the catastrophically bad publicity that Corbyn received. It may be unfair, but so is producing a document and then falsely claiming it's some kind of blueprint to sell the NHS to Donald Trump.
Dirty tricks in an election campaign are OK so long as it's your side doing it, not the other.
Been out all day on the doorsteps. That soft Tory vote is hardening. Fear of Corbyn is bringng them back onboard. The LibDem women of a certain age realise the game is up - and they are not going to get Dr. Sarah re-elected. Apart from the "all Tories are f*cking arseholes" guy, the only venom that has come my way have been from these women. Real face-contorting hate. Not a good look, ladies.... Boris still proving Marmite, but when confronted with Marmite or Corbyn's Cup of Cold Sick, it's Marmite every time. Returning Officer will have a fun write in on the night. Knocked on one door and was told "Och noo, this is an SNP hoos....." I also found a UKIP/Survivalist. Thought we should all have guns to protect ourselves from the upcoming New World Order apocolypse. She'd been reading about it online. A lot. In the absence of a UKIP or Brexit candidate, I secured the vote of her and her husband....
Comments
There is something completely screwed up with our tax and benefit system if we are paying £4 billion in welfare to them while they are all actually paying more in taxes than they take out. We really need to stop this ludicrous giving with one hand and taking away with another, simplify the tax and benefit system.
Or do some of them pay taxes and some of them take benefits so some contribute more than they take and some take more than they contribute? So if we had a points based system we could continue to bring in those contributing more than they take but not bring in those taking more than they contribute?
Look at what happened in 2015. SNP vote normalised at what the constituency Yes vote was plus a bit more. This meant 'weird' things like the SNP barely got any improvement in support in seats they held whilst breaking the swingometer in seats they had been 4th place in.
In 2017 the Lib Dem vote fell, but they quadrupled their seat count.
So what if the Tory vote falls in Glasgow Central if their vote holds up in Gordon.
The Conservatives start losing all their seats instantly if the 2010/15 Lib Dem voters who voter Tory in 2017 switch back to the Lib Dems. But that is not happening as much as I thought it would (or was implied when the Lib Dems were at 14% in Scottish polling).
Which seems to imply that the nationalisations will cost less than £55bn a year!?!
He should get the interview over with.
Labour would take the bird in the hand. They would want him to duck it. On the RB principle, he should attend.
A bug of the update is that it doesn't take you the first comment since you last looked at the site anymore
But then again most right-thinking people already think he is a complete ******* ******** ********.
The rest of course sensibly don't care because they don't pay too much attention to this stuff.
Central belt battle (Lab-SNP mainly)
Borders (SNP - Tory)
NE Scotland (SNP-Tory)
Other Highland/Island (SNP-Tory-Lib Dem)
Special cases (East Renfrewshire/Edinburgh West/Milngivie etc)
& Edinburgh South
Your post is rot since you have no way of knowing how that total of contributions is made up. A large part of it, I suspect, will be a much smaller number of highly paid EU expats working in the UK for high salaries in the professions and in the City of London. Precisely the people that Corbyn will drive away, if he's elected.
In a way these are a microcosm of the UK tax-base - a small percentage paying the lion's share of tax. Just the people who you purport to despise.
Honesty could have served her much better. If she had said she knows she couldn't be Prime Minister herself but that neither Boris Johnson nor Jeremy Corbyn leading a majority government was an attractive proposition. Suggest that a vote for the Liberal Democrats was a vote to deny Johnson and Corbyn a majority government.
As for the insane revoke proposal - given they were never going to win a majority it was never going to happen, there was no reason to go down that rabbit hole. Again be honest and say "we want to remain, we will seek to get a referendum and campaign to remain in the EU". With Corbyn's prevarications they'd still be the undoubted Remain party but at least could claim to be democratic.
Deny Johnson and Corbyn a majority could probably have been a better rallying cry than "I will be Prime Minister" followed by laughter and derision. One was plausible and could be attractive to many, the other made her look away with the fairies.
Believe it or not EU nationals are not a single homogenous and individual blob. Its actually many different people.
As for Jo "I want to win 30 seats" Swinson, that would at least have had the virtue of not appearing utterly ridiculous. The LDs were never going to win this election.
Even if the polls were accurate and Boris was trending upwards, why not leave him hanging. As it was, they gave him his election and he is leading by miles.... if the polls are right.
But £4 billion of welfare is a hell of a lot of money, would you not agree? One suspects there are amongst the EU nationals some from whom the Exchequer does particularly well, some whom are consistently a recipient and some who vary from one to the other. Same as the rest of our population.
Financial relationship with Arcuri.
Edit: The 20 year old is also assumed not to be in receipt of in work benefits or housing credit. The Govt figures for a single person are 16K.
Damaging football with wage caps would not enthuse fans.
It will just sit there, unanswered. I know it's largely in the price but to have it out there on the BBC relentlessly will I think be decisive.
Even if you're earning just £15,000/year, then (so long as you don't end up retiring here), then you're probably contributing.
But that isn't the only cost. Economics is about supply and demand. More people cause additional demand for goods and services in the economy, which pushes up their price to the indigenous population. Rents, for example, are almost certainly higher because there are more people in the UK.
They Boris his election and on his terms. That is never a good starting point.
Corbyn’s party will, if he resigns, elect someone else with exactly the same views and policies.
https://twitter.com/LisPower1/status/1199705445792931840?s=19
Considering the large Premier League clubs are profitable global businesses bringing in money from across the world - see how many Liverpool and Man Utd replica shirts there are worldwide - the amount the players get paid seems reasonable with the Exchequer raising a lot of taxation from football.
The facts are the facts EU nationals are a net gain for the treasury ! Do you approve of the Tories using those figures in their campaign literature .
Are you happy for the Tories to mislead the public into thinking EU nationals are somehow benefit scroungers.
Of this, the largest chunk (by a whisker) is health care at £162bn. Now, EU citizens will use the NHS while they're here. So this is a cost. But the vast bulk of health care spending is on oldies. (My favourite fact is that on average half of all the money spent on your health care will be in thel last six months of your life.) The median age for EU citizens in the UK is really low, like high 20s, so they are highly unlikely (on average) to be big recipients of the health care budget.
Next up is pensions at £161bn. Very few EU citizens will be recieving UK pensions, and those that do will almost entirely be Irish.
Welfare is £126bn, of which EU citizens take £4bn, so here they do take out - mostly through housing benefit and other in work benefits. (Which I personally do not think they should be eligible for. But it is worth remembering, that they are claiming these at half the rate of the rest of the population - 5.5% of people, 3% of welfare payments.)
Education (£91bn) comes next. EU citizens in the UK *do* have children, so they will take out here. But while 5.5% of people in the UK are from the EU (3.6m) only 1.6% of children are from the EU. So EU citizens are taking less of public spending here.
Interest payments (£52bn) are next. And if every EU citizen left, we'd still be paying those.
Defence (£50bn) is last of the big spenders. And it's not clear we'd save a cent, again, if they left.
So, just rough back of the envelope calculations would say that EU citizens don't take up anywhere near 5.5% of total government spendig. I'd reckon, given how small a proportion of the biggest two items they are, and given they are basically zero of items four and five, it's hard to say they are responsible for more than 1.5% of government spending at most. So, they'd need to earn 75% less than Brits on average for them not to be accretive to government finances. (And given more of them are in work, that number probably looks more like 80%.)
It seems like rather a waste of money.
Tories under Johnson doing seemingly better than under May or Cameron, UK likely out the EU shortly, Lib Dems going nowhere, Indyref2 looking like a decent long term bet....
It's the rough equivalent of "she was asking for it."
Their logic is (i) Students paid but didn't attend classes or do any work (ii) therefore they knew that they weren't getting a proper education even though they were on a student visa (iii) therefore they are in breach of their visa conditions
That sentence means that more than 50% of people on £15,000 are contributing.
You can't then point to an example of a single parent* on £12,000 + £10k housing benefit** + UC*** and say "Ha! You're wrong."
* Single parents are way less than 50% of the population
** £10k housing benefit! You're going to have to (a) live in one of the more expensive parts of the UK, and (b) have multiple kids to qualify for that
*** The cross over point where national insurance exceeds UC is surprisingly low. You also need to add all the VAT and other indirect taxes said single mother in the South pays
It's pretty despicable.
You can see why people want to abolish Ice.
The LibDem women of a certain age realise the game is up - and they are not going to get Dr. Sarah re-elected. Apart from the "all Tories are f*cking arseholes" guy, the only venom that has come my way have been from these women. Real face-contorting hate. Not a good look, ladies....
Boris still proving Marmite, but when confronted with Marmite or Corbyn's Cup of Cold Sick, it's Marmite every time.
Returning Officer will have a fun write in on the night. Knocked on one door and was told "Och noo, this is an SNP hoos....."
I also found a UKIP/Survivalist. Thought we should all have guns to protect ourselves from the upcoming New World Order apocolypse. She'd been reading about it online. A lot.
In the absence of a UKIP or Brexit candidate, I secured the vote of her and her husband....
It doesn't consider capacity utilisation.
If - for example - our schools and hospitals are full to bursting we have the options of:
(i) increasing capex to build more facilities, with the increased overhead and associated running costs;
(ii) providing a sub-optimal service by cramming more kids into the classroom; or
(iii) reducing the demand
In any event, your calculation above doesn't take into account the limited capacity
What is Swinson's USP? It isn't a second referendum because Labour has that. My point and Richard Nabavi's point was that Swinson had a potential USP of "I'm a sensible moderate not like those other two" for people who believe that. But she threw that away with her delusions of grandeur. What did that leave as her USP?
Its not good enough to say "well yes she was bullshitting but so was Johnson" - all that does is make everyone a bullshitter and thus negate that as a criticism of Johnson since they all have that in common.
Still, I think it would be easier to go after the fake universities themselves, rather than the students. Taking down one fake university would cost far less and have much greater impact.
https://twitter.com/Holbornlolz/status/1200097776564088833
As Old Holborn put it, he hasn't thought this through, given things with XR might kick off from Dec 1st.
Dirty tricks in an election campaign are OK so long as it's your side doing it, not the other.