politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New YouGov poll carried out on Tuesday and Wednesday has CON l
Comments
-
Absolutely DAMNING focus group for the Libs on R4, none knew Farron and didn't want another referendum, DESPITE being Remainers.
Under 10 seats, get on it....
DYOR.0 -
It also depends on what the money will be used for instead.ThreeQuidder said:
It means that poorer families, who would get FSM anyway, are effectively subsidising richer families who don't need FSM.Alistair said:
Universal free school meals is good policy. I can't think of a justification for scraping it (as opposed to the other things that are rumoured for the chop which I can construct an agreement for)chestnut said:Scrapping universal free school meals for infants is a vote loser for the Tories. Bad move . Stupid, in fact. Pointless penny pinching.
There are other arguments for the policy, the most persuasive I heard when it was introduced was that it might reduce the stigma of being on FSM in the non universal years, but the subsidy argument is certainly one for removing it.0 -
Great report.RobD said:
Here's a report on the cost of means testing. If only 20% of pensioners received the means tested benefit, any cost less than £400 per claimant is a saving (underestimating it because I assumed each pensioner received £100).
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/10121464.pdf
"The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that maintaining existing claims for
Pension Credit cost £47 per claim in 2010-11, compared to £14 per claim for the non-
means-tested State Pension"
New claims cost more than existing.
So if we assume £40/pensioner extra expense and 12.5m pensioners then means testing all costs about £500m. Presumably many who are too wealthy won't bother to apply so that's an overestimate.
Either way - definitely looks like savings can be made.0 -
I see the "Ryan talking about Trump being paid by Putin" has a tremendous extra kicker. Ryan denied it until WaPo pointed out they had a tape.
https://twitter.com/ktumulty/status/8649661566161182720 -
I appreciate I'm going to be called names but I'm not sure what your poor old Dad is entitled to. I have enormous sympathy with your family but it isn't just govt responsibility to look after him.Jonathan said:I don't want my old dad, who had a stroke and spends most of his day desperately remembering to take his 530 pills having to worry about filling in a bloody form to get something he is entitled to.
What will happen is his anxiety will win, he won't fill in the form and he will lose out. Meanwhile a bean counter will see that as a success rather than the dismal failure it is.
We are all entitled to what the govt of the day decides to give us, its an arbitrary thing.
0 -
what is the definition of wealthy...rkrkrk said:
Great report.RobD said:
Here's a report on the cost of means testing. If only 20% of pensioners received the means tested benefit, any cost less than £400 per claimant is a saving (underestimating it because I assumed each pensioner received £100).
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/10121464.pdf
"The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that maintaining existing claims for
Pension Credit cost £47 per claim in 2010-11, compared to £14 per claim for the non-
means-tested State Pension"
New claims cost more than existing.
So if we assume £40/pensioner extra expense and 12.5m pensioners then means testing all costs about £500m. Presumably many who are too wealthy won't bother to apply so that's an overestimate.
Either way - definitely looks like savings can be made.0 -
Lose all your money at the spreads and you'll be eligible once again..SquareRoot said:Fecking wonderful .. just as I get entitled to winter fuel allowance, the fecking Tories want to take it away from me. I'll abstain!
0 -
The SNP missed the bus on both......DecrepitJohnL said:
Mrs Thatcher did have a magic money tree; two, in fact. North Sea Oil and privatisation receipts.RoyalBlue said:
Fortunately, nothing like a majority of the public think money grows on trees. This will not be nearly as damaging as you suggest.peter_from_putney said:
Totally agree - we've been down this divisive and highly contentious route before - shades in fact of Thatcher, the milk snatcher!chestnut said:Scrapping universal free school meals for infants is a vote loser for the Tories. Bad move . Stupid, in fact.
Scrap free school meals, scrap the triple lock, scrap the Winter Fuel Allowance., etc, etc. Is Theresa May actually targeting a majority of under 50 seats, perhaps based on the theory that it will somehow make the parliamentary party more manageable?
Thatcher won 2 landslides, btw
0 -
Ein volk, ein Reich, ein Theresa.RobD said:
Do keep up, we're already into year seven of the thousand year PB Tory reich.Bromptonaut said:Distinct lack of rejoicing from the PB Tories on here this morning.
How about a sing-song to cheer everyone up?
"Don't be stupid, be a smarty,
Come and join the Nasty party"0 -
A pensioner who ‘doesn’t need them’, like me, is likely to be paying tax, so just reduce my tax allowance, surely.Fysics_Teacher said:
What if it is added to an existing means tested benefit?Jonathan said:
Given the efficiency of the civil service, government it procurement and the specific difficulties of means testing elderly people who can't fill in online forms I wouldn't put it past them.RobD said:
You think means testing this will add on another billion?Jonathan said:
Wonders how much you would save if you stripped out civil service bureaucracy, ATOS, capita and complex IT systems and the assessment centres and now home help required to help old folk fill in chappy forms.RobD said:
Here's an analysis on it. Looks like it could save quite a bit, unless the cost of means testing exceeds £1.5bnJonathan said:
Means tests are hugely expensive particularly for the old and infirm who will need help to jump through hoops.RobD said:
You think it will cost more to means-test winter fuel allowance than to give it to everyone?Jonathan said:
This Tory obsession with means testing is weird. They love making people jump through hoops even when it costs them more overall . It's almost a fetishism to make anyone requiring help to feel second class.david_herdson said:
How about: those who can pay, should pay; and also, UFSM has resulted in a skewing of the actual FSM applicaions, meaning that many schools in deprived areas miss out on funding they'dotherwise be entitled to.Alistair said:
Universal free school meals is good policy. I can't think of a justification for scraping it (as opposed to the other things that are rumoured for the chop which I can construct an agreement for)chestnut said:Scrapping universal free school meals for infants is a vote loser for the Tories. Bad move . Stupid, in fact. Pointless penny pinching.
http://www.if.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Briefing-Note-Means-testing-Universal-Benefits.pdf
Means testing is a multi billion pound industry.0 -
We've taken down all the old "Ein Dave" ones.Bromptonaut said:
Ein volk, ein Reich, ein Theresa.RobD said:
Do keep up, we're already into year seven of the thousand year PB Tory reich.Bromptonaut said:Distinct lack of rejoicing from the PB Tories on here this morning.
How about a sing-song to cheer everyone up?
"Don't be stupid, be a smarty,
Come and join the Nasty party"0 -
The undeserving poor must be reminded of their undeservingness at every opportunity.Jonathan said:
This Tory obsession with means testing is weird. They love making people jump through hoops even when it costs them more overall . It's almost a fetishism to make anyone requiring help to feel second class.david_herdson said:
How about: those who can pay, should pay; and also, UFSM has resulted in a skewing of the actual FSM applicaions, meaning that many schools in deprived areas miss out on funding they'dotherwise be entitled to.Alistair said:
Universal free school meals is good policy. I can't think of a justification for scraping it (as opposed to the other things that are rumoured for the chop which I can construct an agreement for)chestnut said:Scrapping universal free school meals for infants is a vote loser for the Tories. Bad move . Stupid, in fact. Pointless penny pinching.
0 -
The mood music does seem to have changed overnight in respect of the Tory Manifesto. Yesterday the suggestion that this was going to be higher spending and higher taxes with a surprising degree of government activism. The leaks this morning suggest a Manifesto which looks realistically at what a country with a £50bn deficit heading into uncertain times can afford. This is inevitably going to result in a lot of hard and unpopular choices. It will certainly be radically different from what Labour is offering and it will be interesting to see how much of a taste for realism the UK has.
It is long past time that some of the freebies showered on pensioners were ended but the challenge is to find simple and cost effective ways of doing this. In respect of the winter fuel allowance one way would be to require pensioners who pay higher rate tax to repay it in the same way as I do with my CB in their tax returns. This would not hit a lot of pensioners but would affect those with generous index linked pensions.
There was some evidence that Universal Free School Meals helped overall performance but this always struck me as surprising. Why does poor Jonny do better at school because rich Frank is not paying for his lunch anymore and does Frank not insist on Mummy providing a packed lunch with his fois gras anyway? It will be interesting to see if the evidence has moved on from the pilots.
Being serious about people contributing to their care, even if only on death, seems inevitable. The priority of taxpayers is to ensure that there is a decent level of care available for everyone, not to ensure that people receive huge inheritances after the State has picked up the tab.
Selling this as a grown up approach is not going to be easy. We have too many politicians telling us what is or should be "free". It will be an interesting experiment.0 -
The Nasty Party are the ones to want to borrow tens of billions more every year, and load our children and their children with unsustainable debts in order to pay for their fantasy world where only 5% of the population pay for the other 95%.Bromptonaut said:Distinct lack of rejoicing from the PB Tories on here this morning.
How about a sing-song to cheer everyone up?
"Don't be stupid, be a smarty,
Come and join the Nasty party"0 -
It's a tricky one. Corbyn certainly pulls in some, and repels others. The dilemma is that getting rid of him will certainly lose some or all of the people who like him. But the people he alienates are quite likely to be alienated by any replacement as well. I am glad I don't have to solve that one.CarlottaVance said:Interesting analysis by YouGov:
Despite poor media coverage, internal splits and poor leader ratings, Labour’s support is currently at around the same level it was in 2015. This is down to a combination of adding people who will vote Labour because of Jeremy Corbyn and holding on to previous Labour voters despite of him. But the current coalition is unstable and might not hold
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/18/how-labours-support-holding/0 -
Mick Jagger?Fysics_Teacher said:There can't be that many people who get both the winter fuel allowance and child benefit surely?
0 -
Yeah, whatever.Sandpit said:
The Nasty Party are the ones to want to borrow tens of billions more every year, and load our children and their children with unsustainable debts in order to pay for their fantasy world where only 5% of the population pay for the other 95%.Bromptonaut said:Distinct lack of rejoicing from the PB Tories on here this morning.
How about a sing-song to cheer everyone up?
"Don't be stupid, be a smarty,
Come and join the Nasty party"0 -
Good analysis. YouGov possibly more urban in its sampling? Or (as I saw suggested) seriously infiltrated by new Momentum members who have signed up for their panels?Black_Rook said:I have collated polling histories, separated by company, for the period from 1 April to present.
Labour VI and deficit vs. the Conservatives is shown. I have selected ICM and YouGov, as they have published the largest number of polls at the most regular intervals throughout the relevant period.
ICM:
25%, -18
26%, -22
27%, -21 (first survey after election called)
28%, -19
28%, -19
28%, -18
27%, -22
28%, -20
YouGov:
25%, -17
23%, -21
24%, -24
25%, -23 (first survey after election called)
29%, -16
31%, -13
29%, -19
28%, -19
30%, -16
31%, -18
32%, -13
As you can see, ICM have shown no meaningful change in Labour's position throughout the campaign, whereas YouGov's numbers jumped early on, and have risen further since.
Both may be, but one must be, wrong. Labour cannot be both improving and flat-lining at the same time.
UKIP doubling is vote between YouGov polls does lead me thinking "Hmmm.....summats not right" as it doesn't fit with what is being seen on the doorstep.0 -
It's because "Ein Dave" didn't scan.RobD said:
We've taken down all the old "Ein Dave" ones.Bromptonaut said:
Ein volk, ein Reich, ein Theresa.RobD said:
Do keep up, we're already into year seven of the thousand year PB Tory reich.Bromptonaut said:Distinct lack of rejoicing from the PB Tories on here this morning.
How about a sing-song to cheer everyone up?
"Don't be stupid, be a smarty,
Come and join the Nasty party"0 -
Once again Carlotta conflates public opinion with what is right/wrong/necessary/unnecessary.
No doubt the public would favour a return of hanging. Doesn't make it right.0 -
Especially as this YouGov only allowed people to state UKIP who are in constituencies where they are standing.MarqueeMark said:
Good analysis. YouGov possibly more urban in its sampling? Or (as I saw suggested) seriously infiltrated by new Momentum members who have signed up for their panels?Black_Rook said:I have collated polling histories, separated by company, for the period from 1 April to present.
Labour VI and deficit vs. the Conservatives is shown. I have selected ICM and YouGov, as they have published the largest number of polls at the most regular intervals throughout the relevant period.
ICM:
25%, -18
26%, -22
27%, -21 (first survey after election called)
28%, -19
28%, -19
28%, -18
27%, -22
28%, -20
YouGov:
25%, -17
23%, -21
24%, -24
25%, -23 (first survey after election called)
29%, -16
31%, -13
29%, -19
28%, -19
30%, -16
31%, -18
32%, -13
As you can see, ICM have shown no meaningful change in Labour's position throughout the campaign, whereas YouGov's numbers jumped early on, and have risen further since.
Both may be, but one must be, wrong. Labour cannot be both improving and flat-lining at the same time.
UKIP doubling is vote between YouGov polls does lead me thinking "Hmmm.....summats not right" as it doesn't fit with what is being seen on the doorstep.0 -
Why not?bobajobPB said:Once again Carlotta conflates public opinion with what is right/wrong/necessary/unnecessary.
No doubt the public would favour a return of hanging. Doesn't make it right.0 -
Will be a joy to watch the PB Tories enthusiastically embrace policies they once bitterly opposed. Presumably the true believers were up at dawn this morning reading their hymn sheet from Central Office.0
-
Not seen much enthusiastic embracing from PB Tories either today or yesterday.bobajobPB said:Will be a joy to watch the PB Tories enthusiastically embrace policies they once bitterly opposed. Presumably the true believers were up at dawn this morning reading their hymn sheet from Central Office.
0 -
As someone on here once said, you praised the policy, now praise the U Turn.bobajobPB said:Will be a joy to watch the PB Tories enthusiastically embrace policies they once bitterly opposed. Presumably the true believers were up at dawn this morning reading their hymn sheet from Central Office.
0 -
Which is the response given by the vast majority of the people, when asked if they want to vote for a terrorist sympathising Marxist as their prime minister, accompanied by a bunch of 1970s throwbacks who can't do sums.Bromptonaut said:
Yeah, whatever.Sandpit said:
The Nasty Party are the ones to want to borrow tens of billions more every year, and load our children and their children with unsustainable debts in order to pay for their fantasy world where only 5% of the population pay for the other 95%.Bromptonaut said:Distinct lack of rejoicing from the PB Tories on here this morning.
How about a sing-song to cheer everyone up?
"Don't be stupid, be a smarty,
Come and join the Nasty party"0 -
Trying hard to remember who introduced the means tested, bureaucratic mess that is the tax credit system.....0
-
It wouldn't actually surprise me. The issue with means-tested FSM is that a lot of people don't claim them. I used to work at a school in South Wales where about 20% were entitled to them - but barely half the cohort actually did claim them. This had all sorts of knock-on effects. For one thing, it meant that around 10% were cash strapped and/or suffering from poor nutritional standards. That had a very bad effect on their concentration and as you can imagine, led to some tough classroom control situations. For another, it meant the school was put in the top bracket in Wales for income, when it should have been about halfway down. Its results were compared to Radyr and Penglais rather than Whitchurch. That meant ESTYN were always slating it.DavidL said:There was some evidence that Universal Free School Meals helped overall performance but this always struck me as surprising. Why does poor Jonny do better at school because rich Frank is not paying for his lunch anymore and does Frank not insist on Mummy providing a packed lunch with his fois gras anyway? It will be interesting to see if the evidence has moved on from the pilots.
I've always been in favour of UFSM after that, but the snag is they're not cheap and it's hard to see how to pay for them at present (Labour's proposal on the subject may be politely described as Fascist nonsense put forward by someone with no grasp of the real situation, the intellectual capacity of a particularly dense moron and a deep loathing of anyone slightly richer than they are). It is, counterintuitively, one of the reasons I am such a hawk on deficits. If we weren't sending tens of billions a year to rich oil sheikhs and bankers in interest payments we could spend that money feeding our children instead.0 -
Are the headline figures are based on Q1 (who will you vote for in the GE on 8th June) or Q3 (these are the candidates in your constituency, which will you vote for)?0
-
My father won't go to see a doc at the best of times. Anything that makes his health more bureaucratic to maintain will lead to his becoming even more sloppy. For crying out loud Labour, get a decent leader and bring these meddling, form-obsessed, curtain-twitching, penny pinching bureaucrats down. May is a dullard.Jonathan said:I don't want my old dad, who had a stroke and spends most of his day desperately remembering to take his 530 pills having to worry about filling in a bloody form to get something he is entitled to.
What will happen is his anxiety will win, he won't fill in the form and he will lose out. Meanwhile a bean counter will see that as a success rather than the dismal failure it is.0 -
Do you have a link to the tables? Couldn't see them on the YG website.ThreeQuidder said:Are the headline figures are based on Q1 (who will you vote for in the GE on 8th June) or Q3 (these are the candidates in your constituency, which will you vote for)?
0 -
Sandpit
I think that might be a slightly leading question!0 -
Fysics_Teacher said:
It also depends on what the money will be used for instead.ThreeQuidder said:
It means that poorer families, who would get FSM anyway, are effectively subsidising richer families who don't need FSM.Alistair said:
Universal free school meals is good policy. I can't think of a justification for scraping it (as opposed to the other things that are rumoured for the chop which I can construct an agreement for)chestnut said:Scrapping universal free school meals for infants is a vote loser for the Tories. Bad move . Stupid, in fact. Pointless penny pinching.
There are other arguments for the policy, the most persuasive I heard when it was introduced was that it might reduce the stigma of being on FSM in the non universal years, but the subsidy argument is certainly one for removing it.Fysics_Teacher said:
It also depends on what the money will be used for instead.ThreeQuidder said:
It means that poorer families, who would get FSM anyway, are effectively subsidising richer families who don't need FSM.Alistair said:
Universal free school meals is good policy. I can't think of a justification for scraping it (as opposed to the other things that are rumoured for the chop which I can construct an agreement for)chestnut said:Scrapping universal free school meals for infants is a vote loser for the Tories. Bad move . Stupid, in fact. Pointless penny pinching.
There are other arguments for the policy, the most persuasive I heard when it was introduced was that it might reduce the stigma of being on FSM in the non universal years, but the subsidy argument is certainly one for removing it.
There is no m0 -
Rob
It's still early.0 -
You're a bit rattled this morning, aren't you?Sandpit said:
Which is the response given by the vast majority of the people, when asked if they want to vote for a terrorist sympathising Marxist as their prime minister, accompanied by a bunch of 1970s throwbacks who can't do sums.Bromptonaut said:
Yeah, whatever.Sandpit said:
The Nasty Party are the ones to want to borrow tens of billions more every year, and load our children and their children with unsustainable debts in order to pay for their fantasy world where only 5% of the population pay for the other 95%.Bromptonaut said:Distinct lack of rejoicing from the PB Tories on here this morning.
How about a sing-song to cheer everyone up?
"Don't be stupid, be a smarty,
Come and join the Nasty party"
0 -
Sorry fat fingers.
There is no money to spend elsewhere. It is borrowed.0 -
Will be interesting to see if this is a spending neutral budget, or if the cuts are going to reduce the deficit. Unlikely, given the new target of mid-2020s (grumble).FattyBolger said:Sorry fat fingers.
There is no money to spend elsewhere. It is borrowed.0 -
It's just normal variation, around a lead of about 17% for the Conservatives. The very best numbers for Labour still give a result like 1997 in reverse.MarqueeMark said:
Good analysis. YouGov possibly more urban in its sampling? Or (as I saw suggested) seriously infiltrated by new Momentum members who have signed up for their panels?Black_Rook said:I have collated polling histories, separated by company, for the period from 1 April to present.
Labour VI and deficit vs. the Conservatives is shown. I have selected ICM and YouGov, as they have published the largest number of polls at the most regular intervals throughout the relevant period.
ICM:
25%, -18
26%, -22
27%, -21 (first survey after election called)
28%, -19
28%, -19
28%, -18
27%, -22
28%, -20
YouGov:
25%, -17
23%, -21
24%, -24
25%, -23 (first survey after election called)
29%, -16
31%, -13
29%, -19
28%, -19
30%, -16
31%, -18
32%, -13
As you can see, ICM have shown no meaningful change in Labour's position throughout the campaign, whereas YouGov's numbers jumped early on, and have risen further since.
Both may be, but one must be, wrong. Labour cannot be both improving and flat-lining at the same time.
UKIP doubling is vote between YouGov polls does lead me thinking "Hmmm.....summats not right" as it doesn't fit with what is being seen on the doorstep.0 -
You are right to be sceptical. We are gonna introduce an inverse IHT whereby for every £ you leave over £2m the government adds a £. Fully costed, you ask? It'll be funded by a levy on the sale of wheelchairs. And obviously it'll be higher if your executors can demonstrate that you have hunted the required minimum number of foxes.Bromptonaut said:
Yeah, whatever.Sandpit said:
The Nasty Party are the ones to want to borrow tens of billions more every year, and load our children and their children with unsustainable debts in order to pay for their fantasy world where only 5% of the population pay for the other 95%.Bromptonaut said:Distinct lack of rejoicing from the PB Tories on here this morning.
How about a sing-song to cheer everyone up?
"Don't be stupid, be a smarty,
Come and join the Nasty party"
Enjoy the next five years, and the five after that. Thereafter, some tweaks to the constitution will make 5 year periods a bit irrelevant.0 -
Not a leading question at all. We'll* be seeing many photos and videos in the next few weeks of Corbyn and McDonnell shaking hands with various despots, and of the lovely Diane trying to decide if a policeman costs £30 a year or £500,000 a year, and if she wants to hire 250 of them or 250,000 of them!bobajobPB said:Sandpit
I think that might be a slightly leading question!
*We might not see them, but voters in the top 100 Labour-held targets certainly will.0 -
Don't know if the Tories have decided yet?SquareRoot said:what is the definition of wealthy...
rkrkrk said:
Great report.RobD said:
Here's a report on the cost of means testing. If only 20% of pensioners received the means tested benefit, any cost less than £400 per claimant is a saving (underestimating it because I assumed each pensioner received £100).
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/10121464.pdf
"The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that maintaining existing claims for
Pension Credit cost £47 per claim in 2010-11, compared to £14 per claim for the non-
means-tested State Pension"
New claims cost more than existing.
So if we assume £40/pensioner extra expense and 12.5m pensioners then means testing all costs about £500m. Presumably many who are too wealthy won't bother to apply so that's an overestimate.
Either way - definitely looks like savings can be made.
May have missed it though...0 -
I bow to your hands on experience but I really struggle to understand why there was a reluctance to claim FSMs. Other than possibly the elderly we don't seem to have such inhibitions for other benefits. And for all the reasons you set out the schools themselves have positive incentives to encourage the take up.ydoethur said:
It wouldn't actually surprise me. The issue with means-tested FSM is that a lot of people don't claim them. I used to work at a school in South Wales where about 20% were entitled to them - but barely half the cohort actually did claim them. This had all sorts of knock-on effects. For one thing, it meant that around 10% were cash strapped and/or suffering from poor nutritional standards. That had a very bad effect on their concentration and as you can imagine, led to some tough classroom control situations. For another, it meant the school was put in the top bracket in Wales for income, when it should have been about halfway down. Its results were compared to Radyr and Penglais rather than Whitchurch. That meant ESTYN were always slating it.DavidL said:There was some evidence that Universal Free School Meals helped overall performance but this always struck me as surprising. Why does poor Jonny do better at school because rich Frank is not paying for his lunch anymore and does Frank not insist on Mummy providing a packed lunch with his fois gras anyway? It will be interesting to see if the evidence has moved on from the pilots.
I've always been in favour of UFSM after that, but the snag is they're not cheap and it's hard to see how to pay for them at present (Labour's proposal on the subject may be politely described as Fascist nonsense put forward by someone with no grasp of the real situation, the intellectual capacity of a particularly dense moron and a deep loathing of anyone slightly richer than they are). It is, counterintuitively, one of the reasons I am such a hawk on deficits. If we weren't sending tens of billions a year to rich oil sheikhs and bankers in interest payments we could spend that money feeding our children instead.
It just seems a very expensive solution to a genuine problem. If schools sold FSMs as an educational imperative for the good of the children entitled would it get a better response?0 -
Since the rest of the post proceeded from the assumption that the public viewed the GE as 'unnecessary" I think we may safely dismiss it as at odds with the facts. Like most of your posts.bobajobPB said:Once again Carlotta conflates public opinion with what is right/wrong/necessary/unnecessary.
0 -
LOL, not at all. Quite happy in fact, to see the price on a Labour majority move from 45 to 65 overnight.Bromptonaut said:
You're a bit rattled this morning, aren't you?Sandpit said:
Which is the response given by the vast majority of the people, when asked if they want to vote for a terrorist sympathising Marxist as their prime minister, accompanied by a bunch of 1970s throwbacks who can't do sums.Bromptonaut said:
Yeah, whatever.Sandpit said:
The Nasty Party are the ones to want to borrow tens of billions more every year, and load our children and their children with unsustainable debts in order to pay for their fantasy world where only 5% of the population pay for the other 95%.Bromptonaut said:Distinct lack of rejoicing from the PB Tories on here this morning.
How about a sing-song to cheer everyone up?
"Don't be stupid, be a smarty,
Come and join the Nasty party"0 -
freetochoose said:
Why not?bobajobPB said:Once again Carlotta conflates public opinion with what is right/wrong/necessary/unnecessary.
No doubt the public would favour a return of hanging. Doesn't make it right.
because bob knows best....obvs....0 -
I do love me some means testing. People complaining about filling some forms......I mean really.0
-
So the polls narrowing have had some effect and the Tories are not going after Bootle? That's a bit sad!Sandpit said:
Not a leading question at all. We'll* be seeing many photos and videos in the next few weeks of Corbyn and McDonnell shaking hands with various despots, and of the lovely Diane trying to decide if a policeman costs £30 a year or £500,000 a year, and if she wants to hire 250 of them or 250,000 of them!bobajobPB said:Sandpit
I think that might be a slightly leading question!
*We might not see them, but voters in the top 100 Labour-held targets certainly will.
Also means I have to resign myself to a third election on the spin where nobody will ask me nicely for my vote. Last person to do so was Williams in Ceredigion. Incidentally he's a nice guy, good constituency MP, hard worker, would expect him to hold on. But in my experience of him he hasn't got the personality or drive to be an effective leader (which I thought was rather odd given he's a former headmaster).0 -
As the analysis points out, many of those Corbyn pulls in are those who didn't vote last time - so the question must remain open whether they will vote this time.....Recidivist said:
It's a tricky one. Corbyn certainly pulls in some, and repels others. The dilemma is that getting rid of him will certainly lose some or all of the people who like him. But the people he alienates are quite likely to be alienated by any replacement as well. I am glad I don't have to solve that one.CarlottaVance said:Interesting analysis by YouGov:
Despite poor media coverage, internal splits and poor leader ratings, Labour’s support is currently at around the same level it was in 2015. This is down to a combination of adding people who will vote Labour because of Jeremy Corbyn and holding on to previous Labour voters despite of him. But the current coalition is unstable and might not hold
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/18/how-labours-support-holding/0 -
Does yougov pick up more non voters than other pollsters. I recently filled in a survey with voting intention but it didn't ask the scale on which I was likely to vote or specifically if I voted before?0
-
Don't think they're up yet.....time was they'd go up at 6am regular as clockwork...I blame 'the cuts'.....RobD said:
Do you have a link to the tables? Couldn't see them on the YG website.ThreeQuidder said:Are the headline figures are based on Q1 (who will you vote for in the GE on 8th June) or Q3 (these are the candidates in your constituency, which will you vote for)?
0 -
Have there been any schoolkids called Frank in the last 50 years?DavidL said:The mood music does seem to have changed overnight in respect of the Tory Manifesto. Yesterday the suggestion that this was going to be higher spending and higher taxes with a surprising degree of government activism. The leaks this morning suggest a Manifesto which looks realistically at what a country with a £50bn deficit heading into uncertain times can afford. This is inevitably going to result in a lot of hard and unpopular choices. It will certainly be radically different from what Labour is offering and it will be interesting to see how much of a taste for realism the UK has.
It is long past time that some of the freebies showered on pensioners were ended but the challenge is to find simple and cost effective ways of doing this. In respect of the winter fuel allowance one way would be to require pensioners who pay higher rate tax to repay it in the same way as I do with my CB in their tax returns. This would not hit a lot of pensioners but would affect those with generous index linked pensions.
There was some evidence that Universal Free School Meals helped overall performance but this always struck me as surprising. Why does poor Jonny do better at school because rich Frank is not paying for his lunch anymore and does Frank not insist on Mummy providing a packed lunch with his fois gras anyway? It will be interesting to see if the evidence has moved on from the pilots.
Being serious about people contributing to their care, even if only on death, seems inevitable. The priority of taxpayers is to ensure that there is a decent level of care available for everyone, not to ensure that people receive huge inheritances after the State has picked up the tab.
Selling this as a grown up approach is not going to be easy. We have too many politicians telling us what is or should be "free". It will be an interesting experiment.0 -
I think you underestimate how much of a stigma it still comes with in some areas. The town was working in had only just lost its steelworks and work, and self-reliance, was still seen as very important. Seeking help was seen as shameful. Some on minimum wage jobs didn't even realise that help didn't just come to the unemployed. Cannock is very similar.DavidL said:
I bow to your hands on experience but I really struggle to understand why there was a reluctance to claim FSMs. Other than possibly the elderly we don't seem to have such inhibitions for other benefits. And for all the reasons you set out the schools themselves have positive incentives to encourage the take up.ydoethur said:
It wouldn't actually surprise me. The issue with means-tested FSM is that a lot of people don't claim them. I used to work at a school in South Wales where about 20% were entitled to them - but barely half the cohort actually did claim them. ...
I've always been in favour of UFSM after that, but the snag is they're not cheap and it's hard to see how to pay for them at present (Labour's proposal on the subject may be politely described as Fascist nonsense put forward by someone with no grasp of the real situation, the intellectual capacity of a particularly dense moron and a deep loathing of anyone slightly richer than they are). It is, counterintuitively, one of the reasons I am such a hawk on deficits. If we weren't sending tens of billions a year to rich oil sheikhs and bankers in interest payments we could spend that money feeding our children instead.
It just seems a very expensive solution to a genuine problem. If schools sold FSMs as an educational imperative for the good of the children entitled would it get a better response?
Had I been teaching in Merthyr I expect it would have been different!
Edit - and to answer your last question yes, I think it would. Good food is more important than textbooks or iBoards. But it's not seen that way.0 -
Would it not be possible to use the income tax system? If you pay tax you don't get the winter grant, if you don't, you dochestnut said:Means testing the pensioners' Winter Fuel Payment is very easy because it will be aligned to the existing Pension Credit system. If they had any sense they would incorporate the Xmas Bonus and Cold Weather Payments into a single Winter Grant.
May's potential problem with universality and means testing is that there are a big rump of people who fall between means test beneficiaries and 'middle class freeloaders'.0 -
The downward drift feels a bit 2010, but the range of possible outcomes is still from workably large to eye-poppingly humongous majority. The really interesting focus is on what happens to Labour afterwards, so even a downward drift in the lead has its merits.0
-
Also good in terms of complacency.Ishmael_Z said:The downward drift feels a bit 2010, but the range of possible outcomes is still from workably large to eye-poppingly humongous majority. The really interesting focus is on what happens to Labour afterwards, so even a downward drift in the lead has its merits.
0 -
Then its the stigma that is the problem and what needs to be challenged. And almost all of those working on minimum wage with school age children will already be claiming WFTCs. Add it into that.ydoethur said:
I think you underestimate how much of a stigma it still comes with in some areas. The town was working in had only just lost its steelworks and work, and self-reliance, was still seen as very important. Seeking help was seen as shameful. Some on minimum wage jobs didn't even realise that help didn't just come to the unemployed. Cannock is very similar.DavidL said:
I bow to your hands on experience but I really struggle to understand why there was a reluctance to claim FSMs. Other than possibly the elderly we don't seem to have such inhibitions for other benefits. And for all the reasons you set out the schools themselves have positive incentives to encourage the take up.ydoethur said:
.DavidL said:
It just seems a very expensive solution to a genuine problem. If schools sold FSMs as an educational imperative for the good of the children entitled would it get a better response?
Had I been teaching in Merthyr I expect it would have been different!0 -
Not too many - but 'Frankie' has made a recent appearance:Casino_Royale said:
Have there been any schoolkids called Frank in the last 50 years?DavidL said:The mood music does seem to have changed overnight in respect of the Tory Manifesto. Yesterday the suggestion that this was going to be higher spending and higher taxes with a surprising degree of government activism. The leaks this morning suggest a Manifesto which looks realistically at what a country with a £50bn deficit heading into uncertain times can afford. This is inevitably going to result in a lot of hard and unpopular choices. It will certainly be radically different from what Labour is offering and it will be interesting to see how much of a taste for realism the UK has.
It is long past time that some of the freebies showered on pensioners were ended but the challenge is to find simple and cost effective ways of doing this. In respect of the winter fuel allowance one way would be to require pensioners who pay higher rate tax to repay it in the same way as I do with my CB in their tax returns. This would not hit a lot of pensioners but would affect those with generous index linked pensions.
There was some evidence that Universal Free School Meals helped overall performance but this always struck me as surprising. Why does poor Jonny do better at school because rich Frank is not paying for his lunch anymore and does Frank not insist on Mummy providing a packed lunch with his fois gras anyway? It will be interesting to see if the evidence has moved on from the pilots.
Being serious about people contributing to their care, even if only on death, seems inevitable. The priority of taxpayers is to ensure that there is a decent level of care available for everyone, not to ensure that people receive huge inheritances after the State has picked up the tab.
Selling this as a grown up approach is not going to be easy. We have too many politicians telling us what is or should be "free". It will be an interesting experiment.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/how-popular-is-my-name-new-ons-tool-shows-how-many-other-people-share-your-name-a7221551.html0 -
My great nephew, just like his dad and his granddad. But I think you are missing the point...Casino_Royale said:
Have there been any schoolkids called Frank in the last 50 years?DavidL said:The mood music does seem to have changed overnight in respect of the Tory Manifesto. Yesterday the suggestion that this was going to be higher spending and higher taxes with a surprising degree of government activism. The leaks this morning suggest a Manifesto which looks realistically at what a country with a £50bn deficit heading into uncertain times can afford. This is inevitably going to result in a lot of hard and unpopular choices. It will certainly be radically different from what Labour is offering and it will be interesting to see how much of a taste for realism the UK has.
It is long past time that some of the freebies showered on pensioners were ended but the challenge is to find simple and cost effective ways of doing this. In respect of the winter fuel allowance one way would be to require pensioners who pay higher rate tax to repay it in the same way as I do with my CB in their tax returns. This would not hit a lot of pensioners but would affect those with generous index linked pensions.
There was some evidence that Universal Free School Meals helped overall performance but this always struck me as surprising. Why does poor Jonny do better at school because rich Frank is not paying for his lunch anymore and does Frank not insist on Mummy providing a packed lunch with his fois gras anyway? It will be interesting to see if the evidence has moved on from the pilots.
Being serious about people contributing to their care, even if only on death, seems inevitable. The priority of taxpayers is to ensure that there is a decent level of care available for everyone, not to ensure that people receive huge inheritances after the State has picked up the tab.
Selling this as a grown up approach is not going to be easy. We have too many politicians telling us what is or should be "free". It will be an interesting experiment.0 -
Lots of new parents are fans of Italian jockeys and uncouth Scottish comedians then!CarlottaVance said:
Not too many - but 'Frankie' has made a recent appearance:Casino_Royale said:
Have there been any schoolkids called Frank in the last 50 years?DavidL said:The mood music does seem to have changed overnight in respect of the Tory Manifesto. Yesterday the suggestion that this was going to be higher spending and higher taxes with a surprising degree of government activism. The leaks this morning suggest a Manifesto which looks realistically at what a country with a £50bn deficit heading into uncertain times can afford. This is inevitably going to result in a lot of hard and unpopular choices. It will certainly be radically different from what Labour is offering and it will be interesting to see how much of a taste for realism the UK has.
It is long past time that some of the freebies showered on pensioners were ended but the challenge is to find simple and cost effective ways of doing this. In respect of the winter fuel allowance one way would be to require pensioners who pay higher rate tax to repay it in the same way as I do with my CB in their tax returns. This would not hit a lot of pensioners but would affect those with generous index linked pensions.
There was some evidence that Universal Free School Meals helped overall performance but this always struck me as surprising. Why does poor Jonny do better at school because rich Frank is not paying for his lunch anymore and does Frank not insist on Mummy providing a packed lunch with his fois gras anyway? It will be interesting to see if the evidence has moved on from the pilots.
Being serious about people contributing to their care, even if only on death, seems inevitable. The priority of taxpayers is to ensure that there is a decent level of care available for everyone, not to ensure that people receive huge inheritances after the State has picked up the tab.
Selling this as a grown up approach is not going to be easy. We have too many politicians telling us what is or should be "free". It will be an interesting experiment.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/how-popular-is-my-name-new-ons-tool-shows-how-many-other-people-share-your-name-a7221551.html0 -
I worked in a local authority in the education department and FSM had been a stigma, but each year we made a push to get people to register and year on year the stigma reduced and the take up increased. This was two ish years ago in a poor city.ydoethur said:
So the polls narrowing have had some effect and the Tories are not going after Bootle? That's a bit sad!Sandpit said:
Not a leading question at all. We'll* be seeing many photos and videos in the next few weeks of Corbyn and McDonnell shaking hands with various despots, and of the lovely Diane trying to decide if a policeman costs £30 a year or £500,000 a year, and if she wants to hire 250 of them or 250,000 of them!bobajobPB said:Sandpit
I think that might be a slightly leading question!
*We might not see them, but voters in the top 100 Labour-held targets certainly will.
Also means I have to resign myself to a third election on the spin where nobody will ask me nicely for my vote. Last person to do so was Williams in Ceredigion. Incidentally he's a nice guy, good constituency MP, hard worker, would expect him to hold on. But in my experience of him he hasn't got the personality or drive to be an effective leader (which I thought was rather odd given he's a former headmaster).0 -
The ground game is there in the mix also.Ishmael_Z said:The downward drift feels a bit 2010, but the range of possible outcomes is still from workably large to eye-poppingly humongous majority. The really interesting focus is on what happens to Labour afterwards, so even a downward drift in the lead has its merits.
0 -
It looks to me that Corbyn has now solidifies Ed Miliband 2015 voters behind him after his manifesto and Farron is polling the same as Clegg, the main change as confirmed by yougov is over half the 2015 UKIP voters are now voting Tory0
-
Paging IOS!!IanB2 said:
The ground game is there in the mix also.Ishmael_Z said:The downward drift feels a bit 2010, but the range of possible outcomes is still from workably large to eye-poppingly humongous majority. The really interesting focus is on what happens to Labour afterwards, so even a downward drift in the lead has its merits.
0 -
Quite. The 'means testing' is already in place for other benefits, things like free school meals and winter allowances could be incorporated into the existing system (especially the new Universal Benefit) for very little extra cost.DavidL said:
Then its the stigma that is the problem and what needs to be challenged. And almost all of those working on minimum wage with school age children will already be claiming WFTCs. Add it into that.ydoethur said:
I think you underestimate how much of a stigma it still comes with in some areas. The town was working in had only just lost its steelworks and work, and self-reliance, was still seen as very important. Seeking help was seen as shameful. Some on minimum wage jobs didn't even realise that help didn't just come to the unemployed. Cannock is very similar.DavidL said:
I bow to your hands on experience but I really struggle to understand why there was a reluctance to claim FSMs. Other than possibly the elderly we don't seem to have such inhibitions for other benefits. And for all the reasons you set out the schools themselves have positive incentives to encourage the take up.ydoethur said:
.DavidL said:
It just seems a very expensive solution to a genuine problem. If schools sold FSMs as an educational imperative for the good of the children entitled would it get a better response?
Had I been teaching in Merthyr I expect it would have been different!
We do need to be careful to ensure we don't catch people like @Jonathan's father from any more form filling though.0 -
The (unspecified %) slice of voters going Labour this time who weren't Labour last time yet still don't like Corbyn must be rather suspect. Those who will forgive Corbyn being an IRA supporter and give him their vote, but couldn't bear the sight of Ed Miliband eating a bacon sandwich? Hmmmmm.....CarlottaVance said:Interesting analysis by YouGov:
Despite poor media coverage, internal splits and poor leader ratings, Labour’s support is currently at around the same level it was in 2015. This is down to a combination of adding people who will vote Labour because of Jeremy Corbyn and holding on to previous Labour voters despite of him. But the current coalition is unstable and might not hold
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/18/how-labours-support-holding/
The 15% who voted Labour last time and will this time but don't like Corbyn are surely going to be the target of Sir Lynton's character assassination of Corbyn in the next three weeks - how many will stick with actually voting, and how many will come to think "you know what..." and sit on their hands. Hmmmmm.....
The 11% who didn't vote Labour last time but like Corbyn look to be the flakiest segment - how many old Communists can there be? And how many will actually get off their arses on the day (how many are actually eligible to vote?) Hmmmmmm.....
Lots of potential for Labour not to deliver anything like the YouGov vote share.0 -
Tory manifesto will say nobody will have to sell their homes in their lifetimes to pay for care only after death and only from assets above £100 000, migrant numbers will be cut and firms charged for hiring migrants and migrants charged for using the NHS and winter fuel payments means tested and universal free school meals ended
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-399565410 -
Our CEO's 8 year old is called Frank. His five year old is called Ray. The mother is American!Casino_Royale said:
Have there been any schoolkids called Frank in the last 50 years?DavidL said:The mood music does seem to have changed overnight in respect of the Tory Manifesto. Yesterday the suggestion that this was going to be higher spending and higher taxes with a surprising degree of government activism. The leaks this morning suggest a Manifesto which looks realistically at what a country with a £50bn deficit heading into uncertain times can afford. This is inevitably going to result in a lot of hard and unpopular choices. It will certainly be radically different from what Labour is offering and it will be interesting to see how much of a taste for realism the UK has.
It is long past time that some of the freebies showered on pensioners were ended but the challenge is to find simple and cost effective ways of doing this. In respect of the winter fuel allowance one way would be to require pensioners who pay higher rate tax to repay it in the same way as I do with my CB in their tax returns. This would not hit a lot of pensioners but would affect those with generous index linked pensions.
There was some evidence that Universal Free School Meals helped overall performance but this always struck me as surprising. Why does poor Jonny do better at school because rich Frank is not paying for his lunch anymore and does Frank not insist on Mummy providing a packed lunch with his fois gras anyway? It will be interesting to see if the evidence has moved on from the pilots.
Being serious about people contributing to their care, even if only on death, seems inevitable. The priority of taxpayers is to ensure that there is a decent level of care available for everyone, not to ensure that people receive huge inheritances after the State has picked up the tab.
Selling this as a grown up approach is not going to be easy. We have too many politicians telling us what is or should be "free". It will be an interesting experiment.
0 -
That is electrifying news surely? It makes it not like-for-like with previous polls - not necessarily a criticism, when circumstances change polling has to change too. But it means that kippers in ukip-free constituencies are stating a second choice, so less likely to convert into actually going and voting.RobD said:
Especially as this YouGov only allowed people to state UKIP who are in constituencies where they are standing.MarqueeMark said:
Good analysis. YouGov possibly more urban in its sampling? Or (as I saw suggested) seriously infiltrated by new Momentum members who have signed up for their panels?Black_Rook said:I have collated polling histories, separated by company, for the period from 1 April to present.
Labour VI and deficit vs. the Conservatives is shown. I have selected ICM and YouGov, as they have published the largest number of polls at the most regular intervals throughout the relevant period.
ICM:
25%, -18
26%, -22
27%, -21 (first survey after election called)
28%, -19
28%, -19
28%, -18
27%, -22
28%, -20
YouGov:
25%, -17
23%, -21
24%, -24
25%, -23 (first survey after election called)
29%, -16
31%, -13
29%, -19
28%, -19
30%, -16
31%, -18
32%, -13
As you can see, ICM have shown no meaningful change in Labour's position throughout the campaign, whereas YouGov's numbers jumped early on, and have risen further since.
Both may be, but one must be, wrong. Labour cannot be both improving and flat-lining at the same time.
UKIP doubling is vote between YouGov polls does lead me thinking "Hmmm.....summats not right" as it doesn't fit with what is being seen on the doorstep.
The other thing is, infiltrating yougov is so easy and effective and momentum have so few options, I would be astonished if they weren't doing it.0 -
It's a tricky one - I see the objections to means testing, but my view is that all adult benefits should be means tested, not least because it is the common weal that is being distributed, and a more realistic reflection of every other part of life. Engaging the population with their own financial future is much more sensible than showering them with goodies.Sandpit said:
Quite. The 'means testing' is already in place for other benefits, things like free school meals and winter allowances could be incorporated into the existing system (especially the new Universal Benefit) for very little extra cost.DavidL said:
Then its the stigma that is the problem and what needs to be challenged. And almost all of those working on minimum wage with school age children will already be claiming WFTCs. Add it into that.ydoethur said:
I think you underestimate how much of a stigma it still comes with in some areas. The town was working in had only just lost its steelworks and work, and self-reliance, was still seen as very important. Seeking help was seen as shameful. Some on minimum wage jobs didn't even realise that help didn't just come to the unemployed. Cannock is very similar.DavidL said:
I bow to your hands on experience but I really struggle to understand why there was a reluctance to claim FSMs. Other than possibly the elderly we don't seem to have such inhibitions for other benefits. And for all the reasons you set out the schools themselves have positive incentives to encourage the take up.ydoethur said:
.DavidL said:
It just seems a very expensive solution to a genuine problem. If schools sold FSMs as an educational imperative for the good of the children entitled would it get a better response?
Had I been teaching in Merthyr I expect it would have been different!
We do need to be careful to ensure we don't catch people like @Jonathan's father from any more form filling though.
0 -
If the price of ensuring poor kids get a good meal each day is giving well-off kids a free one, then it looks like money well spent to me.DavidL said:The mood music does seem to have changed overnight in respect of the Tory Manifesto. Yesterday the suggestion that this was going to be higher spending and higher taxes with a surprising degree of government activism. The leaks this morning suggest a Manifesto which looks realistically at what a country with a £50bn deficit heading into uncertain times can afford. This is inevitably going to result in a lot of hard and unpopular choices. It will certainly be radically different from what Labour is offering and it will be interesting to see how much of a taste for realism the UK has.
It is long past time that some of the freebies showered on pensioners were ended but the challenge is to find simple and cost effective ways of doing this. In respect of the winter fuel allowance one way would be to require pensioners who pay higher rate tax to repay it in the same way as I do with my CB in their tax returns. This would not hit a lot of pensioners but would affect those with generous index linked pensions.
There was some evidence that Universal Free School Meals helped overall performance but this always struck me as surprising. Why does poor Jonny do better at school because rich Frank is not paying for his lunch anymore and does Frank not insist on Mummy providing a packed lunch with his fois gras anyway? It will be interesting to see if the evidence has moved on from the pilots.
Being serious about people contributing to their care, even if only on death, seems inevitable. The priority of taxpayers is to ensure that there is a decent level of care available for everyone, not to ensure that people receive huge inheritances after the State has picked up the tab.
Selling this as a grown up approach is not going to be easy. We have too many politicians telling us what is or should be "free". It will be an interesting experiment.
0 -
Am I right in saying that polls, especially leading up to elections generally understate the Conservatives?
Shy tories and all that.0 -
This is the big one. It looks like much more than an "experiment" to me. It includes housing in personal assets. Wow! This contradicts the Conservatives' positive IHT moves under Osborne. I think it will have major effects on the personal savings rate (pushing it up) and upper-end house prices (pushing them down).DavidL said:
. . .
Being serious about people contributing to their care, even if only on death, seems inevitable. The priority of taxpayers is to ensure that there is a decent level of care available for everyone, not to ensure that people receive huge inheritances after the State has picked up the tab.
Selling this as a grown up approach is not going to be easy. We have too many politicians telling us what is or should be "free". It will be an interesting experiment.0 -
-
Half a mile wide and a quarter of an inch deep, to borrow a phrase.....MarqueeMark said:
Lots of potential for Labour not to deliver anything like the YouGov vote share.CarlottaVance said:Interesting analysis by YouGov:
Despite poor media coverage, internal splits and poor leader ratings, Labour’s support is currently at around the same level it was in 2015. This is down to a combination of adding people who will vote Labour because of Jeremy Corbyn and holding on to previous Labour voters despite of him. But the current coalition is unstable and might not hold
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/18/how-labours-support-holding/0 -
Generally speaking, but past performance is no guarantee of future success.freetochoose said:Am I right in saying that polls, especially leading up to elections generally understate the Conservatives?
Shy tories and all that. 0 -
Oh god oh god oh god. I agree with the measures proposed.
Why should Alan Sugar get a winter fuel allowance? Why should Simon Cowell's son get free school meals? Why shouldn't people who own houses use some of that wealth to pay for their own well-being? Why shouldn't there be a nudge to find home-grown talent?
It is realistic and hard-headed (not hearted). And right for the times we are in. Asking why it wasn't done earlier is conceding its merit.0 -
The Tories are suffering a little from complacency. Given their manifesto will have fewer goodies than labours massive spending, I don't see how it will lead to a boost, and labour are consistently improving. A well off majority now looks most plausible, not a landslide. The only reason it won't be is if Tory attacks finally hit home harder (obviously the overall message has already worked, that's why they're in the lead) because they've 'barely started' yet, but they've been saying that for weeks, views are fixed now, if you've gone back to labour why switch now?
Unless people believe we're headed for another polling disaster, which is possible, all that stuff about sub 25 scores will just have been laughable. Look out for the guest sub 10 lead. I'd expect 12 or so as the final lead.0 -
I am not so sure, if you voted for Ed Miliband you are likely to vote for Corbyn and Labour is about where it was in 2015, the big shift has been UKIP 2015 voters becoming Tory 2017 voters, UKIP acted as a gateway for pre 2015 Labour voters to now become ToriesCarlottaVance said:
Half a mile wide and a quarter of an inch deep, to borrow a phrase.....MarqueeMark said:
Lots of potential for Labour not to deliver anything like the YouGov vote share.CarlottaVance said:Interesting analysis by YouGov:
Despite poor media coverage, internal splits and poor leader ratings, Labour’s support is currently at around the same level it was in 2015. This is down to a combination of adding people who will vote Labour because of Jeremy Corbyn and holding on to previous Labour voters despite of him. But the current coalition is unstable and might not hold
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/18/how-labours-support-holding/0 -
The problem I have is that with means testing is that there has to be a cut off point: I earn £99pw and get free school meals, you earn £100pw and don't, hence you're worse off despite earning more. It brings into question exactly why and how govt dishes out "benefits" in their multitude of guises.Mortimer said:
It's a tricky one - I see the objections to means testing, but my view is that all adult benefits should be means tested, not least because it is the common weal that is being distributed, and a more realistic reflection of every other part of life. Engaging the population with their own financial future is much more sensible than showering them with goodies.Sandpit said:
Quite. The 'means testing' is already in place for other benefits, things like free school meals and winter allowances could be incorporated into the existing system (especially the new Universal Benefit) for very little extra cost.DavidL said:
Then its the stigma that is the problem and what needs to be challenged. And almost all of those working on minimum wage with school age children will already be claiming WFTCs. Add it into that.ydoethur said:
I think you underestimate how much of a stigma it still comes with in some areas. The town was working in had only just lost its steelworks and work, and self-reliance, was still seen as very important. Seeking help was seen as shameful. Some on minimum wage jobs didn't even realise that help didn't just come to the unemployed. Cannock is very similar.DavidL said:
I bow to your hands on experience but I really struggle to understand why there was a reluctance to claim FSMs. Other than possibly the elderly we don't seem to have such inhibitions for other benefits. And for all the reasons you set out the schools themselves have positive incentives to encourage the take up.ydoethur said:
.DavidL said:
It just seems a very expensive solution to a genuine problem. If schools sold FSMs as an educational imperative for the good of the children entitled would it get a better response?
Had I been teaching in Merthyr I expect it would have been different!
We do need to be careful to ensure we don't catch people like @Jonathan's father from any more form filling though.
The answer is always straightforward, if we tax people less they have more money and govt has less paperwork, rather than taxing them and giving it back.0 -
Could be folded into tax returns, that way there can be a taper? I agree with your last point in general though.freetochoose said:
The problem I have is that with means testing is that there has to be a cut off point: I earn £99pw and get free school meals, you earn £100pw and don't, hence you're worse off despite earning more. It brings into question exactly why and how govt dishes out "benefits" in their multitude of guises.Mortimer said:
It's a tricky one - I see the objections to means testing, but my view is that all adult benefits should be means tested, not least because it is the common weal that is being distributed, and a more realistic reflection of every other part of life. Engaging the population with their own financial future is much more sensible than showering them with goodies.Sandpit said:
Quite. The 'means testing' is already in place for other benefits, things like free school meals and winter allowances could be incorporated into the existing system (especially the new Universal Benefit) for very little extra cost.DavidL said:
Then its the stigma that is the problem and what needs to be challenged. And almost all of those working on minimum wage with school age children will already be claiming WFTCs. Add it into that.ydoethur said:
I think you underestimate how much of a stigma it still comes with in some areas. The town was working in had only just lost its steelworks and work, and self-reliance, was still seen as very important. Seeking help was seen as shameful. Some on minimum wage jobs didn't even realise that help didn't just come to the unemployed. Cannock is very similar.DavidL said:
I bow to your hands on experience but I really struggle to understand why there was a reluctance to claim FSMs. Other than possibly the elderly we don't seem to have such inhibitions for other benefits. And for all the reasons you set out the schools themselves have positive incentives to encourage the take up.ydoethur said:
.DavidL said:
It just seems a very expensive solution to a genuine problem. If schools sold FSMs as an educational imperative for the good of the children entitled would it get a better response?
Had I been teaching in Merthyr I expect it would have been different!
We do need to be careful to ensure we don't catch people like @Jonathan's father from any more form filling though.
The answer is always straightforward, if we tax people less they have more money and govt has less paperwork, rather than taxing them and giving it back.0 -
Not universally, though often. But with Corbyn so disliked and the Tories so high in the polls, shy labour seems fairly plausible this time. It might explain why labour support has picked up as they were shy before but now admitting they will vote labour again.freetochoose said:Am I right in saying that polls, especially leading up to elections generally understate the Conservatives?
Shy tories and all that.0 -
As the Tory manifesto comes out:
Much will be made of the popularity of parties’ manifesto pledges, but ultimately they are much less important to how people vote than other factors like leadership and core values.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/12/do-manifestos-matter/0 -
I think heavy targeting of Labour marginals by May and Crosby and CCHQ and Corbyn's going all over the place should see the Tories scrape the 100+ majority May wants but it will be more a Thatcher 1987 majority than a Thatcher 1983 or Blair 1997 or 2001peter_from_putney said:Baxterising YouGov's latest numbers suggests the following possible outcome:
Con .................. 371
Lab ................... 197
SNP .................... 55 (Sturgeon must love Baxter!)
LibDem ................. 5 (Yes, just the one Black Cab!)
Plaid ..................... 3
Green ................... 1 (Yes, just the one push bike!)
N.I. ..................... 18
Total (incl Spkr): 650
Con Majority ....... 92
Not altogether surprising post wannacry's impact on the NHS and post Labour being very much centre stage with their manifesto, resulting in support for both the Tories and LibDems being knocked back. The Tories launch their plans today; it will be interesting to see how the polls have moved overall by the weekend.0 -
All jokes aside, they do have a much larger membership, even if most of the new ones don't help out, if even some do the ground game will npbe more intense.Mortimer said:
Paging IOS!!IanB2 said:
The ground game is there in the mix also.Ishmael_Z said:The downward drift feels a bit 2010, but the range of possible outcomes is still from workably large to eye-poppingly humongous majority. The really interesting focus is on what happens to Labour afterwards, so even a downward drift in the lead has its merits.
0 -
That was true in 15 too.kle4 said:
All jokes aside, they do have a much larger membership, even if most of the new ones don't help out, if even some do the ground game will npbe more intense.Mortimer said:
Paging IOS!!IanB2 said:
The ground game is there in the mix also.Ishmael_Z said:The downward drift feels a bit 2010, but the range of possible outcomes is still from workably large to eye-poppingly humongous majority. The really interesting focus is on what happens to Labour afterwards, so even a downward drift in the lead has its merits.
0 -
Morning all. Anyone know when postal votes go out?0
-
Good morning, everyone.
I see Mr. Topping is being assimilated. His distinctiveness will be added to the strong stable cube. Resistance is futile.0 -
@RobD too many characters
Possibly.
Housing benefits, tax credits, FSMs, fuel allowance, I'm sure I've missed some, let's just all pay less tax and let the market take its course.
Housing benefits grossly distort the property market and as usual its the less well off that lose out in the long run.0 -
Betting on Tory wins in some of the more unlikely places touted here on PB looks braver now than it did a fortnight ago.HYUFD said:
I think heavy targeting of Labour marginals by May and Crosby and CCHQ and Corbyn's going all over the place should see the Tories scrape the 100+ majority May wants but it will be more a Thatcher 1987 majority than a Thatcher 1983 or Blair 1997 or 2001peter_from_putney said:Baxterising YouGov's latest numbers suggests the following possible outcome:
Con .................. 371
Lab ................... 197
SNP .................... 55 (Sturgeon must love Baxter!)
LibDem ................. 5 (Yes, just the one Black Cab!)
Plaid ..................... 3
Green ................... 1 (Yes, just the one push bike!)
N.I. ..................... 18
Total (incl Spkr): 650
Con Majority ....... 92
Not altogether surprising post wannacry's impact on the NHS and post Labour being very much centre stage with their manifesto, resulting in support for both the Tories and LibDems being knocked back. The Tories launch their plans today; it will be interesting to see how the polls have moved overall by the weekend.0 -
The best PM the Tories never had. He described the PM as 'Economically illiterate'.
She's really starting to grate. I'm not surprised Corbyn is catching up.
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-it-s-time-to-scrap-the-tory-migration-cap-a3541346.html0 -
Mr. B2, yes, although UK polls aren't always 100% reliable... could be wrong either way.0
-
TOPPING said:
Oh god oh god oh god. I agree with the measures proposed.
Why should Alan Sugar get a winter fuel allowance? Why should Simon Cowell's son get free school meals? Why shouldn't people who own houses use some of that wealth to pay for their own well-being? Why shouldn't there be a nudge to find home-grown talent?
It is realistic and hard-headed (not hearted). And right for the times we are in. Asking why it wasn't done earlier is conceding its merit.
We all know why subsidies for well off pensioners and Death Taxes were not tackled earlier, but Corbyn has gifted the elderly vote to the Tories and so now it does not have to be subsidised. Means testing for adult and using equity in homes to pay for care are both essential and could and should have been in place years ago.TOPPING said:Oh god oh god oh god. I agree with the measures proposed.
Why should Alan Sugar get a winter fuel allowance? Why should Simon Cowell's son get free school meals? Why shouldn't people who own houses use some of that wealth to pay for their own well-being? Why shouldn't there be a nudge to find home-grown talent?
It is realistic and hard-headed (not hearted). And right for the times we are in. Asking why it wasn't done earlier is conceding its merit.
I am less convinced on school meals. Giving well-off kids a free lunch to ensure less well-off kids get one too is worth it in my view.
0 -
Technically the editorial described the move as economically illiterate.Roger said:The best PM the Tories never had. He described the PM as 'Economically illiterate'.
She's really starting to grate. I'm not surprised Corbyn is catching up.
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-it-s-time-to-scrap-the-tory-migration-cap-a3541346.html0 -
Yep. People aren't swayed massively by promises to hold inquiries into the raid on the golden temp,e in Amritsar.CarlottaVance said:As the Tory manifesto comes out:
Much will be made of the popularity of parties’ manifesto pledges, but ultimately they are much less important to how people vote than other factors like leadership and core values.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/12/do-manifestos-matter/
But the manifestos can affect the mood music, what people think of the core values.
Labours was scattered but with a heavy focus on spending and workers rights. The lds was pretty realistic with a focus on many things, but it didn't even get paper headlines on the day it was launched, and insofar as anyone will hear, all it was was trying to overturn Brexit.0 -
In theory they can go out now (with further small batches for late applicants posted subsequently). In practice I would expect most EROs to be finalising their arrangements for a posting early next week (I have seen a few councils suggesting Tuesday for the main mailing)dyedwoolie said:Morning all. Anyone know when postal votes go out?
0 -
As ever, with hardly any time for overseas electors to get their ballots back in time.IanB2 said:
In theory they can go out now (with further small batches for late applicants posted subsequently). In practice I would expect most EROs to be finalising their arrangements for a posting early next week.dyedwoolie said:Morning all. Anyone know when postal votes go out?
0 -
I don't think it will impact things too much - but the membership is hundreds of thousands larger was what I meant, not merely larger than the Tories. There are more people to use even if most of the half million do t help.RobD said:
That was true in 15 too.kle4 said:
All jokes aside, they do have a much larger membership, even if most of the new ones don't help out, if even some do the ground game will npbe more intense.Mortimer said:
Paging IOS!!IanB2 said:
The ground game is there in the mix also.Ishmael_Z said:The downward drift feels a bit 2010, but the range of possible outcomes is still from workably large to eye-poppingly humongous majority. The really interesting focus is on what happens to Labour afterwards, so even a downward drift in the lead has its merits.
0 -
Corbyn isn't going anywhere.HYUFD said:It looks to me that Corbyn has now solidifies Ed Miliband 2015 voters behind him after his manifesto and Farron is polling the same as Clegg, the main change as confirmed by yougov is over half the 2015 UKIP voters are now voting Tory
0
