Skip to content
Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Steve Fisher’s model finds betting markets more pro-CON and an

SystemSystem Posts: 12,587
edited May 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Steve Fisher’s model finds betting markets more pro-CON and anti-LAB than other projections

Elections Etc

Read the full story here


«1345678

Comments

  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    1
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,939
    Second... Like Theresa May?
  • MarkLittlewoodMarkLittlewood Posts: 36
    3rd. Like ...the Greens?
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    edited May 2017
    the one post to read from the last thread:

    SouthamObserver said:
    May and the Tories are to be unreservedly applauded for making this a prominent issue. It's a shame it was not done years ago, but Labour learned a Death Tax lesson in 2010 and the Tories made a rod for their own back in deploying the term - so May's move is undoubtedly brave, if made a whole lot easier by the fact that she is facing Jeremy Corbyn. He really is a political game-changer.

    The debate should now be about whether the duty of care and payment should be placed entirely on the family concerned, or whether a pooling approach is a better one. I favour the latter, because any one of us might be affected by this and dementia is an illness just as much as any other; but I can understand why others might take the opposite view. Once the general election is out of the way we may just get a grown-up conversation going, which would be extraordinary, but also very positive. My guess is that the policy as currently set out by the Tories will not be the one that makes it to the statute books.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,316
    Corbyn's General Election leaflets from the 1980s onwards. Little has changed.

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/jeremy-corbyns-election-leaflets-show-how-he-has?utm_term=.awEKPg9E2#.qel7lokGx
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    SouthamObserver said:

    May and the Tories are to be unreservedly applauded for making this a prominent issue. It's a shame it was not done years ago, but Labour learned a Death Tax lesson in 2010 and the Tories made a rod for their own back in deploying the term - so May's move is undoubtedly brave, if made a whole lot easier by the fact that she is facing Jeremy Corbyn. He really is a political game-changer.

    The debate should now be about whether the duty of care and payment should be placed entirely on the family concerned, or whether a pooling approach is a better one. I favour the latter, because any one of us might be affected by this and dementia is an illness just as much as any other; but I can understand why others might take the opposite view. Once the general election is out of the way we may just get a grown-up conversation going, which would be extraordinary, but also very positive. My guess is that the policy as currently set out by the Tories will not be the one that makes it to the statute books.

    FPT

    Agree with all that.

    Partisan politics wise this now feels to me like the opposite of a budget cock up, where things look great for 24 hours and then it all falls apart; it looked lunatic at first, and the sense in it is just beginning to sink in.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    edited May 2017
    re the Bercow leaflet we received, why do we think backbencher Yvette Cooper is the Lab photo/quote supporting him when Farron and TMay are also on there doing the same.....

    Even Mr. Bercow seems to think the labour front bench is too toxic for his own constituency?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,130
    The betting markets seem to be about what people think should happen, rather than believing what polls are telling us (that is, a big, but not landslide, win for Tories). Now, the polls might be wrong, or misleading (if Lab are piling up votes where it won't help, and Tories gaining them where it will help),but getting to 400 looks beyond the Tories, and there's a pretty wide range on the Lab seats.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,411
    Seventh like ukip
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,756
    FPT: Mr. Jason, surely fifth in a row?

    2001, 2005, 2010, 2015 and then 2017.

    Assuming Labour lose seats. If we're returning to two party politics we may see some weird results [although I do expect Labour to lose seats, and a fair number].

    On-topic: interesting forecast. I'd prefer the Lib Dems to do a little worse, to be honest (purely for betting reasons).
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,496
    Ishmael_Z said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    May and the Tories are to be unreservedly applauded for making this a prominent issue. It's a shame it was not done years ago, but Labour learned a Death Tax lesson in 2010 and the Tories made a rod for their own back in deploying the term - so May's move is undoubtedly brave, if made a whole lot easier by the fact that she is facing Jeremy Corbyn. He really is a political game-changer.

    The debate should now be about whether the duty of care and payment should be placed entirely on the family concerned, or whether a pooling approach is a better one. I favour the latter, because any one of us might be affected by this and dementia is an illness just as much as any other; but I can understand why others might take the opposite view. Once the general election is out of the way we may just get a grown-up conversation going, which would be extraordinary, but also very positive. My guess is that the policy as currently set out by the Tories will not be the one that makes it to the statute books.

    FPT

    Agree with all that.

    Partisan politics wise this now feels to me like the opposite of a budget cock up, where things look great for 24 hours and then it all falls apart; it looked lunatic at first, and the sense in it is just beginning to sink in.
    I have no knowledge, but can't believe this policy hasn't been focus-grouped to death before seeing the light of day at the Manifesto launch... Which rather implies it is popular - or at least, not the negative initially assumed by some.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,411
    The difference between the various projections in the lead hardly seems worth making a fuss about?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,130
    edited May 2017
    Ishmael_Z said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    May and the Tories are to be unreservedly applauded for making this a prominent issue. It's a shame it was not done years ago, but Labour learned a Death Tax lesson in 2010 and the Tories made a rod for their own back in deploying the term - so May's move is undoubtedly brave, if made a whole lot easier by the fact that she is facing Jeremy Corbyn. He really is a political game-changer.

    The debate should now be about whether the duty of care and payment should be placed entirely on the family concerned, or whether a pooling approach is a better one. I favour the latter, because any one of us might be affected by this and dementia is an illness just as much as any other; but I can understand why others might take the opposite view. Once the general election is out of the way we may just get a grown-up conversation going, which would be extraordinary, but also very positive. My guess is that the policy as currently set out by the Tories will not be the one that makes it to the statute books.

    FPT

    Agree with all that.

    Partisan politics wise this now feels to me like the opposite of a budget cock up, where things look great for 24 hours and then it all falls apart; it looked lunatic at first, and the sense in it is just beginning to sink in.
    I doubt it, but it'd be an interesting change for the public - publicly admit, loudly, that there is a problem and that you have a solution which is not on the easy level of 'let's throw more money at it', then get rewarded as people, even if they don't like the specifics, think you are grasping the difficult problems.

    I think it more likely the Tories believe they have to do something like this in the next parliament, and since they believe they will win the grey vote, figure better to take a hit now at the cost of a smaller majority, than spring it as a surprise.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    kle4 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    May and the Tories are to be unreservedly applauded for making this a prominent issue. It's a shame it was not done years ago, but Labour learned a Death Tax lesson in 2010 and the Tories made a rod for their own back in deploying the term - so May's move is undoubtedly brave, if made a whole lot easier by the fact that she is facing Jeremy Corbyn. He really is a political game-changer.

    The debate should now be about whether the duty of care and payment should be placed entirely on the family concerned, or whether a pooling approach is a better one. I favour the latter, because any one of us might be affected by this and dementia is an illness just as much as any other; but I can understand why others might take the opposite view. Once the general election is out of the way we may just get a grown-up conversation going, which would be extraordinary, but also very positive. My guess is that the policy as currently set out by the Tories will not be the one that makes it to the statute books.

    FPT

    Agree with all that.

    Partisan politics wise this now feels to me like the opposite of a budget cock up, where things look great for 24 hours and then it all falls apart; it looked lunatic at first, and the sense in it is just beginning to sink in.
    I doubt it, but it'd be an interesting change for the public - publicly admit, loudly, that there is a problem and that you have a solution which is not on the easy level of 'let's throw more money at it', then get rewarded as people, even if they don't like the specifics, thing you are grasping the difficult problems.

    I think it more likely the Tories believe they have to do something like this in the next parliament, and since they believe they will win the grey vote, figure better to take a hit now at the cost of a smaller majority, than spring it as a surprise.
    Yup. Get the mandate for this and play 'scrooge' as per that Freedland piece.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/19/british-voters-rejecting-santa-embracing-scrooge-labour-popularity
  • ab195ab195 Posts: 477
    edited May 2017
    I think it makes sense to look at different sources of wealth differently. I moved to London for work, and by moving from place to place and gradually further from London (and accepting a commute), I am gaining a large chunk of equity in my house. But I don't think of it as "my" money. It's a paper profit and I don't mind surrendering it to look after my or my wife's health (or even placing it in a central risk pot). I'd feel differently if I'd inherited a family firm and the wealth represented graft over the generations and could be a "living thing" to pass on to my kids.

    Edit - mean to say I can also see why that might not be the same outside of the London commuter belt. This is complex.
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    I and others reported on Stephen Fisher's latest forecast yesterday.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but contrary to OGH's assertion, I thought Prof. Fisher was just about as wrong as everyone else in 2015, although iirc he was spot on in 2010.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,411
    Government is coming for property equity. The various parties are just trying to work out the best way to go about it.
  • JasonJason Posts: 1,614
    Morris_Dancer said:

    FPT: Mr. Jason, surely fifth in a row?

    2001, 2005, 2010, 2015 and then 2017.

    Assuming Labour lose seats. If we're returning to two party politics we may see some weird results [although I do expect Labour to lose seats, and a fair number].

    On-topic: interesting forecast. I'd prefer the Lib Dems to do a little worse, to be honest (purely for betting reasons).

    Yes, I realise that, but I thought it a tad dishonest to actually include the 2001 Labour landslide, even though they did lose 6 seats. OK, go on then, let's make it FIVE elections in a row where they've lost seats. Unprecedented in British democracy? Must be.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,951
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    the one post to read from the last thread:

    SouthamObserver said:
    May and the Tories are to be unreservedly applauded for making this a prominent issue. It's a shame it was not done years ago, but Labour learned a Death Tax lesson in 2010 and the Tories made a rod for their own back in deploying the term - so May's move is undoubtedly brave, if made a whole lot easier by the fact that she is facing Jeremy Corbyn. He really is a political game-changer.

    The debate should now be about whether the duty of care and payment should be placed entirely on the family concerned, or whether a pooling approach is a better one. I favour the latter, because any one of us might be affected by this and dementia is an illness just as much as any other; but I can understand why others might take the opposite view. Once the general election is out of the way we may just get a grown-up conversation going, which would be extraordinary, but also very positive. My guess is that the policy as currently set out by the Tories will not be the one that makes it to the statute books.

    SO is a Lab member who isnt voting Lab which IMO makes pooling less likely and shit life lottery losers liable.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,945
    MarkLittlewood said:

    3rd. Like ...the Greens?

    Are you including SNP in this prediction?
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,507
    that complex model result would suit me just fine.

    anyone following Irish politics betting? Leo Varadkar is 1/25 to be the next leader of Fine Gael and as I understand it will then almost certainly be elected Taoiseach. Betstars have him at 5/4 to be next Taoiseach behind Michael Martin at 8/11. these odds are inline with Paddys and Boylesports but their market is for Taoiseach after the next election.

    I could be missing something and there's a chance your bet might be palped but the wording of their market is pretty clear. Could be an opportunity there but DYOR.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    Re social care policy, I know that among my own family, there's been a bit of a backlash - my mum is saying now that she won't vote for the Conservatives off the back of this policy, the winter fuel allowances changes, and the ending of universal free school meals.

    TBH I found the Conservative manifesto deeply uninspiring - it was a document which provided very little hope that we as a country can progress to a better future.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,512
    Interesting wrinkle in the Trump/Russia investigation (Kushner now being, apparently, a person of interest):
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-mueller-idUSKCN18F2KK

    Within hours of Mueller's appointment on Wednesday, the White House began reviewing the Code of Federal Regulations, which restricts newly hired government lawyers from investigating their prior law firm’s clients for one year after their hiring, the sources said.

    An executive order signed by Trump in January extended that period to two years.

    Mueller's former law firm, WilmerHale, represents Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, who met with a Russian bank executive in December, and the president's former campaign manager Paul Manafort, who is a subject of a federal investigation.

    Legal experts said the ethics rule can be waived by the Justice Department, which appointed Mueller. He did not represent Kushner or Manafort directly at his former law firm.

    If the department did not grant a waiver, Mueller would be barred from investigating Kushner or Manafort, and this could greatly diminish the scope of the probe, experts said...
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    kle4 said:

    The betting markets seem to be about what people think should happen, rather than believing what polls are telling us (that is, a big, but not landslide, win for Tories). Now, the polls might be wrong, or misleading (if Lab are piling up votes where it won't help, and Tories gaining them where it will help),but getting to 400 looks beyond the Tories, and there's a pretty wide range on the Lab seats.

    Wrong .... the polls are consistently pointing to a Tory landslide with a majority of between 100 - 150 seats. Of course that might all change with tonight's polls.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    bigjohnowls said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    the one post to read from the last thread:

    SouthamObserver said:
    May and the Tories are to be unreservedly applauded for making this a prominent issue. It's a shame it was not done years ago, but Labour learned a Death Tax lesson in 2010 and the Tories made a rod for their own back in deploying the term - so May's move is undoubtedly brave, if made a whole lot easier by the fact that she is facing Jeremy Corbyn. He really is a political game-changer.

    The debate should now be about whether the duty of care and payment should be placed entirely on the family concerned, or whether a pooling approach is a better one. I favour the latter, because any one of us might be affected by this and dementia is an illness just as much as any other; but I can understand why others might take the opposite view. Once the general election is out of the way we may just get a grown-up conversation going, which would be extraordinary, but also very positive. My guess is that the policy as currently set out by the Tories will not be the one that makes it to the statute books.

    SO is a Lab member who isnt voting Lab which IMO makes pooling less likely and shit life lottery losers liable.
    Sorry, don't get what you are saying?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,951
    peter_from_putney said:

    I and others reported on Stephen Fisher's latest forecast yesterday.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but contrary to OGH's assertion, I thought Prof. Fisher was just about as wrong as everyone else in 2015, although iirc he was spot on in 2010.

    I thought he predicted a Tory Maj but could be wrong
  • isamisam Posts: 42,240
    edited May 2017
    I like Mike's concise threads about the science behind polling. Thank the Lord for two consecutive headers that don't try too hard to be funny, nor seek attention by trolling.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,756
    Ms. Apocalypse, as I expertly predicted, I'm also not very taken with the Conservative manifesto (although I think the Winter Fuel and school meals policies are fine).

    But the alternative is Corbyn. I'd probably even vote Green before him.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    peter_from_putney said:

    kle4 said:

    The betting markets seem to be about what people think should happen, rather than believing what polls are telling us (that is, a big, but not landslide, win for Tories). Now, the polls might be wrong, or misleading (if Lab are piling up votes where it won't help, and Tories gaining them where it will help),but getting to 400 looks beyond the Tories, and there's a pretty wide range on the Lab seats.

    Wrong .... the polls are consistently pointing to a Tory landslide with a majority of between 100 - 150 seats. Of course that might all change with tonight's polls.
    Not another front page headline to look forward to to replace my avatar?
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900
    kle4 said:

    The betting markets seem to be about what people think should happen, rather than believing what polls are telling us.....

    I dunno, if you feed current averages (Con47.5, Lab31, LD9, UKIP 4.5, Green 2.5) into baxter, you get 391-178. Spreadex midpoints are at 396-167, so not a million miles away.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,035
    The_Apocalypse said:

    Re social care policy, I know that among my own family, there's been a bit of a backlash - my mum is saying now that she won't vote for the Conservatives off the back of this policy, the winter fuel allowances changes, and the ending of universal free school meals.

    TBH I found the Conservative manifesto deeply uninspiring - it was a document which provided very little hope that we as a country can progress to a better future.

    Did your mum vote for Cameron?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,951
    Elections etc
    Central forecast: Con short of a majority by 38

    i WAS WRONG ie He was wrong
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,253
    IanB2 said:

    Government is coming for property equity. The various parties are just trying to work out the best way to go about it.

    I do not think much has changed other than the welcome increase to £100,000 protection of property value.

    As has been said earlier labour find themselves in the ridiculous position of backing the wealthy against the ordinary taxpayer. McDonnell was just jaw dropping when he said he uses the £200 to pay his fuel bill while earning £100,000

    It seems May is more in touch with the voter than any of these so called socialists
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,945
    The_Apocalypse said:

    Re social care policy, I know that among my own family, there's been a bit of a backlash - my mum is saying now that she won't vote for the Conservatives off the back of this policy, the winter fuel allowances changes, and the ending of universal free school meals.

    TBH I found the Conservative manifesto deeply uninspiring - it was a document which provided very little hope that we as a country can progress to a better future.

    Awaiting family verdict on the 'cut through' on this one. At least one person I know's own family have said it has made them at least reconsider a Con vote.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Ms. Apocalypse, as I expertly predicted, I'm also not very taken with the Conservative manifesto (although I think the Winter Fuel and school meals policies are fine).

    But the alternative is Corbyn. I'd probably even vote Green before him.

    I am probably going to vote Green in this election, as NOTA vote. The LDs campaign had put me off them, and I've liked the way some of the Green Party representatives e.g Johnathan Bartley - have come across during this election.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    What does "Volunteered" mean in the chart?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,181
    Blimey @ORB

    This week's ELBOW should be "interesting" :)
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,951
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    IanB2 said:

    Government is coming for property equity. The various parties are just trying to work out the best way to go about it.

    I do not think much has changed other than the welcome increase to £100,000 protection of property value.

    As has been said earlier labour find themselves in the ridiculous position of backing the wealthy against the ordinary taxpayer. McDonnell was just jaw dropping when he said he uses the £200 to pay his fuel bill while earning £100,000

    It seems May is more in touch with the voter than any of these so called socialists
    Ha Ha Ha
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,181
    Philip_Thompson said:

    What does "Volunteered" mean in the chart?

    Russian "conscripts" serving in the Wehrmacht.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,939
    Beers and popcorn on standby for Mega Polling Saturday - We'll soon find out how much damage has been done to #TeamTheresa
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    edited May 2017
    HYUFD said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    Re social care policy, I know that among my own family, there's been a bit of a backlash - my mum is saying now that she won't vote for the Conservatives off the back of this policy, the winter fuel allowances changes, and the ending of universal free school meals.

    TBH I found the Conservative manifesto deeply uninspiring - it was a document which provided very little hope that we as a country can progress to a better future.

    Did your mum vote for Cameron?
    No, she didn't like Cameron. But she did like May - she was pretty happy when she became PM. She wasn't a fan of Corbyn and thought that May would be the best person to negotiate Brexit. She is what you would all a 're-leaver', someone who voted Remain but supports the government going ahead with Brexit. But she says that she can't support this manifesto.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    edited May 2017
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    the one post to read from the last thread:

    SouthamObserver said:
    May and the Tories are to be unreservedly applauded for making this a prominent issue. It's a shame it was not done years ago, but Labour learned a Death Tax lesson in 2010 and the Tories made a rod for their own back in deploying the term - so May's move is undoubtedly brave, if made a whole lot easier by the fact that she is facing Jeremy Corbyn. He really is a political game-changer.

    The debate should now be about whether the duty of care and payment should be placed entirely on the family concerned, or whether a pooling approach is a better one. I favour the latter, because any one of us might be affected by this and dementia is an illness just as much as any other; but I can understand why others might take the opposite view. Once the general election is out of the way we may just get a grown-up conversation going, which would be extraordinary, but also very positive. My guess is that the policy as currently set out by the Tories will not be the one that makes it to the statute books.

    Agreed. We need a grown up debate on how we deal with a rapidly aging population and how we handle all of that in a reasonable way.

    Still not convinced it's not "brave" from TM's viewpoint to drag all this out from the longest of long grass three weeks before a GE (according to the FT it was inserted at the last moment at the behest of Nick Timothy in her office over the objections of others at the last minute - so was it road tested? He might go down in Tory party infamy if it is received very badly). Agree final law will have all kinds of tweaks and amendments to it - if TM gets a majority to implement it.

    Still the debate is now live, and that's good for the country.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,374
    bigjohnowls said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    the one post to read from the last thread:

    SouthamObserver said:
    May and the Tories are to be unreservedly applauded for making this a prominent issue. It's a shame it was not done years ago, but Labour learned a Death Tax lesson in 2010 and the Tories made a rod for their own back in deploying the term - so May's move is undoubtedly brave, if made a whole lot easier by the fact that she is facing Jeremy Corbyn. He really is a political game-changer.

    The debate should now be about whether the duty of care and payment should be placed entirely on the family concerned, or whether a pooling approach is a better one. I favour the latter, because any one of us might be affected by this and dementia is an illness just as much as any other; but I can understand why others might take the opposite view. Once the general election is out of the way we may just get a grown-up conversation going, which would be extraordinary, but also very positive. My guess is that the policy as currently set out by the Tories will not be the one that makes it to the statute books.

    SO is a Lab member who isnt voting Lab.
    I thought he'd left the party and joined an affiliated organisation?

    In any case 'I'm a Labour member but I'm not voting for the Jezaster' is probably going to be a very common theme in this election. Heck, look at Richmond!
  • JasonJason Posts: 1,614
    When are the polls actually due?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,411
    Tory candidates slam Theresa May’s dementia tax:

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/health-and-care/social-care/news/86104/tory-candidates-slam-theresa-mays-‘dementia-tax’
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,951
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Blimey @ORB

    This week's ELBOW should be "interesting" :)

    Pound Shop Thatcher House Snatcher not fully factored in yet.
  • NormNorm Posts: 1,251
    edited May 2017
    IanB2 said:

    Government is coming for property equity. The various parties are just trying to work out the best way to go about it.

    Indeed so but penalising the unlucky one sixth who happen to have someone who needs long term care doesn't seem the way to go about it. Russian roulette anyone? More pooling of risk and a cap are needed.
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    I've just checked back on Stephen Fisher's final election day forecast in 2015 and far from predicting a "Tory Majority", his central estimate was for them to win 285 seats, therefore a full FORTY seats short of achieving a majority. Furthermore he gave them only a 68% (i.e. a 2/3rds) chance of winning the most seats in the GE, so hardly a ringing endorsement of their prospects.
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    Philip_Thompson said:

    What does "Volunteered" mean in the chart?

    Good question .... no idea!
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,939
    Can anybody explain the media obsession with this Pippa woman?

    As far as I can see she just happens to be someone's sister. And that's it?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    peter_from_putney said:

    I've just checked back on Stephen Fisher's final election day forecast in 2015 and far from predicting a "Tory Majority", his central estimate was for them to win 285 seats, therefore a full FORTY seats short of achieving a majority. Furthermore he gave them only a 68% (i.e. a 2/3rds) chance of winning the most seats in the GE, so hardly a ringing endorsement of their prospects.

    What percentage chance did he give of them getting an outright majority?
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Apologies for going off topic so soon, but what and excellent last thread and contributions from all. PB at its best.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,939
    Jason said:

    When are the polls actually due?

    Our first, Opinium, should be out within the next hour or so,,,
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,130
    edited May 2017
    The_Apocalypse said:

    Re social care policy, I know that among my own family, there's been a bit of a backlash - my mum is saying now that she won't vote for the Conservatives off the back of this policy, the winter fuel allowances changes, and the ending of universal free school meals.

    TBH I found the Conservative manifesto deeply uninspiring - it was a document which provided very little hope that we as a country can progress to a better future.

    I found it to have a consistent message of steady progress - it wasn't shooting for inspiration, that's why it opened with the great challenges on their own page, to set the scene for a more sober document than Labour's spurgerthon, which certainly was full of very nice policies. They had different aims, clearly.

    Social care, winter fuel allowance and end of the triple lock are some bold policies against their own core vote I did not expect Theresa 'U-turn on NI rise' May to include, and I think the party deserves credit for that.

    Universal free school meals I'm unclear on, it seems like a decent policy on the face of it, but I know a chap with a lot of government and policy experience, and they claim the current policy is a dog's breakfast. But winter fuel and social care look like the Tories are willing to acknowledge things are more complicated than just spending more and more - even if like Southam I think it probable the policy on the latter will be tweaked, perhaps significantly, before it becomes law.

    The Labour alternative is to lay the foundations of a national care service in their first term, so not even done before 2022, to be paid for by they don't know, but it could be a number of things. The LDs are saying the 1p income tax rise in order to fund more social care and bringing NHS and social care into one seamless service (their manifesto overall is better presented than the others, more restrained than Labour's but seeking more change than the Tories)

    Are any of these truly inspiring?

    As I noted yesterday, I don't believe the words Labour Party, opposition or Corbyn appear in the Tory manifesto, amazingly.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    the one post to read from the last thread:

    SouthamObserver said:

    The debate should now be about whether the duty of care and payment should be placed entirely on the family concerned, or whether a pooling approach is a better one.

    Or May's third way, which is a hybrid of the two.

    We support each other collectively if the person in need of care has assets of £100k or less. Above that level it is the role of the individual and the family.

    That looks pretty reasonable and seems pretty fair when measured against average house prices in most of the country.

    It's worth remembering that a third of the population have zero in real estate assets.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,240
    edited May 2017
    Seems to me that the people annoyed by the policy on care are free market libertarian Gladstonians etc etc ie the people over represented on here compared to the outside world, a bit like PB leavers who wouldn't dirty their noses w immigration complaints

    I would say most Leavers are quite happy to have state "interference" in domestic issues as long it is the state we voted for. That is why UKIP got nowhere when they went on about flat taxes and privatising the NHS, and 13% in a GE when they majored on immigration.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,181
    bigjohnowls said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Blimey @ORB

    This week's ELBOW should be "interesting" :)

    Pound Shop Thatcher House Snatcher not fully factored in yet.
    Current Tory lead 14.4% in ELBOW so far this week.

    Cf. 19.4% w/ending 23rd April
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,411
    Norm said:

    IanB2 said:

    Government is coming for property equity. The various parties are just trying to work out the best way to go about it.

    Indeed so but penalising the unlucky one sixth who happen to have someone who needs long term care doesn't seem the way to go about it. Russian roulette anyone? More pooling of risk and a cap are needed.
    Would be better to ramp up IHT and use the proceeds to provide more care, I agree. But I can't see the Tories going down that path.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,180
    Norm said:

    IanB2 said:

    Government is coming for property equity. The various parties are just trying to work out the best way to go about it.

    Indeed so but penalising the unlucky one sixth who happen to have someone who needs long term care doesn't seem the way to go about it. Russian roulette anyone? More pooling and a cap are needed.
    At the moment, the burden is being imposed mostly on people who have to go into residential care, and run the risk of losing all but £23k. This proposal shares the burden more widely.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,756
    Mr. Gin, ha, my mother was complaining about the coverage just yesterday.

    I agree. Coverage of the royal family is fair enough. Don't care about the in-laws.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Blimey @ORB

    This week's ELBOW should be "interesting" :)

    Pound Shop Thatcher House Snatcher not fully factored in yet.
    Current Tory lead 14.4% in ELBOW so far this week.

    Cf. 19.4% w/ending 23rd April
    Pretty much in line with the polls pre-election announcement though IIRC - or is that w/e 23rd?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,130
    bigjohnowls said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    IanB2 said:

    Government is coming for property equity. The various parties are just trying to work out the best way to go about it.

    I do not think much has changed other than the welcome increase to £100,000 protection of property value.

    As has been said earlier labour find themselves in the ridiculous position of backing the wealthy against the ordinary taxpayer. McDonnell was just jaw dropping when he said he uses the £200 to pay his fuel bill while earning £100,000

    It seems May is more in touch with the voter than any of these so called socialists
    Ha Ha Ha
    Why is that laughable? She has often been ahead in polls with all most if not all social groups, and will probably still win the election, so if she is not more in touch with voters they apparently think she knows what's best for them.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,130
    peter_from_putney said:

    kle4 said:

    The betting markets seem to be about what people think should happen, rather than believing what polls are telling us (that is, a big, but not landslide, win for Tories). Now, the polls might be wrong, or misleading (if Lab are piling up votes where it won't help, and Tories gaining them where it will help),but getting to 400 looks beyond the Tories, and there's a pretty wide range on the Lab seats.

    Wrong .... the polls are consistently pointing to a Tory landslide with a majority of between 100 - 150 seats. Of course that might all change with tonight's polls.
    I stand corrected then.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,316
    GIN1138 said:

    Can anybody explain the media obsession with this Pippa woman?

    As far as I can see she just happens to be someone's sister. And that's it?

    A bridesmaid with a nice bum, who upstaged the bride, a couple of years ago.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,035
    The_Apocalypse said:

    HYUFD said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    Re social care policy, I know that among my own family, there's been a bit of a backlash - my mum is saying now that she won't vote for the Conservatives off the back of this policy, the winter fuel allowances changes, and the ending of universal free school meals.

    TBH I found the Conservative manifesto deeply uninspiring - it was a document which provided very little hope that we as a country can progress to a better future.

    Did your mum vote for Cameron?
    No, she didn't like Cameron. But she did like May - she was pretty happy when she became PM. She wasn't a fan of Corbyn and thought that May would be the best person to negotiate Brexit. She is what you would all a 're-leaver', someone who voted Remain but supports the government going ahead with Brexit. But she says that she can't support this manifesto.
    Well disappointing but no net loss for May then
  • JasonJason Posts: 1,614
    kle4 said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    Re social care policy, I know that among my own family, there's been a bit of a backlash - my mum is saying now that she won't vote for the Conservatives off the back of this policy, the winter fuel allowances changes, and the ending of universal free school meals.

    TBH I found the Conservative manifesto deeply uninspiring - it was a document which provided very little hope that we as a country can progress to a better future.

    I found it to have a consistent message of steady progress - it wasn't shooting for inspiration, that's why it opened with the great challenges on their own page, to set the scene for a more sober document than Labour's spurgerthon, which certainly was full of very nice policies. They had different aims, clearly.

    Social care, winter fuel allowance and end of the triple lock are some bold policies against their own core vote I did not expect Theresa 'U-turn on NI rise' May to include, and I think the party deserves credit for that.

    Universal free school meals I'm unclear on, it seems like a decent policy on the face of it, but I know a chap with a lot of government and policy experience, and they claim the current policy is a dog's breakfast. But winter fuel and social care look like the Tories are willing to acknowledge things are more complicated than just spending more and more - even if like Southam I think it probable the policy on the latter will be tweaked, perhaps significantly, before it becomes law.

    The Labour alternative is to lay the foundations of a national care service in their first time, so not even done before 2022, to be paid for by their don't know, but it could be a number of things. The LDs are saying the 1p income tax rise in order to fund more social care and bringing NHS and social care into one seamless service (their manifesto overall is better presented than the others, more restrained than Labour's but seeking more change than the Tories)

    Are any of these truly inspiring?

    As I noted yesterday, I don't believe the words Labour Party, opposition or Corbyn appear in the Tory manifesto, amazingly.
    The Yellows have resurrected the 'magic penny'. Only they have a world class pillock trying to sell it instead of a heavyweight like Chuck Kennedy (although he was permanently half cut during that campaign). I kinda miss Kennedy. He wasn't an identikit suit like Clegg, and he wasn't an Oscar winning bell end like Farron.
  • leomckinstryleomckinstry Posts: 54
    One point about the social care policy which I have not seen mentioned anywhere. Many have said that the Tories should have stuck with the Dilnot policy of an absolute cap on bills - I think he proposed £35,000. Sounds fair but the great problem with a cap is that it provides perverse incentives:
    a) to carers and homes to jack up their costs, knowing that the taxpayer will have to pay for everything beyond a certain threshold.
    b) to families to use the most expensive possible services.
    In case anyone thinks this is fanciful, the Daily Mail had a piece back in 2014 on a luxury care home in Hampshire where the charges were a £1000-a-week. Dilnot would be exceeded within less than 9 months. Similarly the Guardian had a report last December of a care home in London where the charges were £3000-a-month. With a cap, a vast new subsidized care market would develop, completely unsustainable for any Government. That is one reason why I am so in favour of the Tories' courageous approach, which is both fair to the taxpayer and encourages personal responsibility.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,035
    IanB2 said:

    Norm said:

    IanB2 said:

    Government is coming for property equity. The various parties are just trying to work out the best way to go about it.

    Indeed so but penalising the unlucky one sixth who happen to have someone who needs long term care doesn't seem the way to go about it. Russian roulette anyone? More pooling of risk and a cap are needed.
    Would be better to ramp up IHT and use the proceeds to provide more care, I agree. But I can't see the Tories going down that path.
    I think most Tories would rather pay for it if they need it with a £100k guarantee they get to keep than pay for it even if they don't need it and be certain of seeing their estate significantly eroded through higher inheritance tax
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,411
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    Norm said:

    IanB2 said:

    Government is coming for property equity. The various parties are just trying to work out the best way to go about it.

    Indeed so but penalising the unlucky one sixth who happen to have someone who needs long term care doesn't seem the way to go about it. Russian roulette anyone? More pooling of risk and a cap are needed.
    Would be better to ramp up IHT and use the proceeds to provide more care, I agree. But I can't see the Tories going down that path.
    I think most Tories would rather pay for it if they need it with a £100k guarantee they get to keep than pay for it even if they don't need it and be certain of seeing their estate significantly eroded through higher inheritance tax
    IRMC
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    bigjohnowls said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Blimey @ORB

    This week's ELBOW should be "interesting" :)

    Pound Shop Thatcher House Snatcher not fully factored in yet.
    Oh dear.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,951
    kle4 said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    IanB2 said:

    Government is coming for property equity. The various parties are just trying to work out the best way to go about it.

    I do not think much has changed other than the welcome increase to £100,000 protection of property value.

    As has been said earlier labour find themselves in the ridiculous position of backing the wealthy against the ordinary taxpayer. McDonnell was just jaw dropping when he said he uses the £200 to pay his fuel bill while earning £100,000

    It seems May is more in touch with the voter than any of these so called socialists
    Ha Ha Ha
    Why is that laughable? She has often been ahead in polls with all most if not all social groups, and will probably still win the election, so if she is not more in touch with voters they apparently think she knows what's best for them.
    I do not think much has changed is laughable

    That it is Left Wing to take a modest house off a life lottery loser.

    I have explained 4 times on last thread why nearly all of these are worse off even before house is taken.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    Philip_Thompson said:

    What does "Volunteered" mean in the chart?

    Estimates made by the general public, collected from the Times Red Box sweepstake on Twitter (this includes my brilliant, yet at the same time most likely disastrously wrong, prediction.)
    GIN1138 said:

    Beers and popcorn on standby for Mega Polling Saturday - We'll soon find out how much damage has been done to #TeamTheresa

    God alone knows what's coming next. Either the polls have gone barmy, or the country has, or both. I don't understand anymore.

    Meanwhile...

    https://twitter.com/PollingDigest/status/865944060959358976

    If Labour really are going to poll somewhere around 35% of the popular vote, then it's not just Ukip and the Greens that will have been bled white to get the extra support. Poor, tragic Timothy.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,035
    bigjohnowls said:

    kle4 said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    IanB2 said:

    Government is coming for property equity. The various parties are just trying to work out the best way to go about it.

    I do not think much has changed other than the welcome increase to £100,000 protection of property value.

    As has been said earlier labour find themselves in the ridiculous position of backing the wealthy against the ordinary taxpayer. McDonnell was just jaw dropping when he said he uses the £200 to pay his fuel bill while earning £100,000

    It seems May is more in touch with the voter than any of these so called socialists
    Ha Ha Ha
    Why is that laughable? She has often been ahead in polls with all most if not all social groups, and will probably still win the election, so if she is not more in touch with voters they apparently think she knows what's best for them.
    I do not think much has changed is laughable

    That it is Left Wing to take a modest house off a life lottery loser.

    I have explained 4 times on last thread why nearly all of these are worse off even before house is taken.
    Not if they need residential care, then they are better off and many who need personal care eventually need residential care too
  • isamisam Posts: 42,240
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Blimey @ORB

    This week's ELBOW should be "interesting" :)

    Pound Shop Thatcher House Snatcher not fully factored in yet.
    Oh dear.
    Pound Shop Gordon Miliband, snatching Milk in skirt and heels
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    bigjohnowls said:

    kle4 said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    IanB2 said:

    Government is coming for property equity. The various parties are just trying to work out the best way to go about it.

    I do not think much has changed other than the welcome increase to £100,000 protection of property value.

    As has been said earlier labour find themselves in the ridiculous position of backing the wealthy against the ordinary taxpayer. McDonnell was just jaw dropping when he said he uses the £200 to pay his fuel bill while earning £100,000

    It seems May is more in touch with the voter than any of these so called socialists
    Ha Ha Ha
    Why is that laughable? She has often been ahead in polls with all most if not all social groups, and will probably still win the election, so if she is not more in touch with voters they apparently think she knows what's best for them.
    I do not think much has changed is laughable

    That it is Left Wing to take a modest house off a life lottery loser.

    I have explained 4 times on last thread why nearly all of these are worse off even before house is taken.
    You seemed to be saying that someone with £250k in assets should have 90% of their care bill subsidised.

    That subsidy might be being part paid by people working on minimum wage living in a rented bedsit.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    Sean_F said:

    Norm said:

    IanB2 said:

    Government is coming for property equity. The various parties are just trying to work out the best way to go about it.

    Indeed so but penalising the unlucky one sixth who happen to have someone who needs long term care doesn't seem the way to go about it. Russian roulette anyone? More pooling and a cap are needed.
    At the moment, the burden is being imposed mostly on people who have to go into residential care, and run the risk of losing all but £23k. This proposal shares the burden more widely.
    Exactly.

    The gainers (I hesitate to say winners) in this proposal are those receiving long-term residential care, the unlucky one sixth.

    The losers are those receiving care at home (who have less protection, as BJO has articulated).

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    leomckinstry said:

    One point about the social care policy which I have not seen mentioned anywhere. Many have said that the Tories should have stuck with the Dilnot policy of an absolute cap on bills - I think he proposed £35,000. Sounds fair but the great problem with a cap is that it provides perverse incentives:
    a) to carers and homes to jack up their costs, knowing that the taxpayer will have to pay for everything beyond a certain threshold.
    b) to families to use the most expensive possible services.
    In case anyone thinks this is fanciful, the Daily Mail had a piece back in 2014 on a luxury care home in Hampshire where the charges were a £1000-a-week. Dilnot would be exceeded within less than 9 months. Similarly the Guardian had a report last December of a care home in London where the charges were £3000-a-month. With a cap, a vast new subsidized care market would develop, completely unsustainable for any Government. That is one reason why I am so in favour of the Tories' courageous approach, which is both fair to the taxpayer and encourages personal responsibility.

    Welcome to PB Leo.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,130
    Black_Rook said:


    God alone knows what's coming next. Either the polls have gone barmy, or the country has, or both. I don't understand anymore.

    Seconded.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    bigjohnowls said:

    kle4 said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    IanB2 said:

    Government is coming for property equity. The various parties are just trying to work out the best way to go about it.

    I do not think much has changed other than the welcome increase to £100,000 protection of property value.

    As has been said earlier labour find themselves in the ridiculous position of backing the wealthy against the ordinary taxpayer. McDonnell was just jaw dropping when he said he uses the £200 to pay his fuel bill while earning £100,000

    It seems May is more in touch with the voter than any of these so called socialists
    Ha Ha Ha
    Why is that laughable? She has often been ahead in polls with all most if not all social groups, and will probably still win the election, so if she is not more in touch with voters they apparently think she knows what's best for them.
    I do not think much has changed is laughable

    That it is Left Wing to take a modest house off a life lottery loser.

    I have explained 4 times on last thread why nearly all of these are worse off even before house is taken.
    you didn't answer my query about attendance allowance I note?
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    @kle4

    Well I'm not makifng the case that Labour or the LDs are offering anything inspiring (although I'd prefer a National Social Care service to the Conservative policy). I've been highly critical of Labour in the past, and even on this thread I've stated that I'm not voting for a party that is not Labour. As much I liked aspects of Labour's manifesto, I saw it overall as a milk and honey manifesto which presented a highly unrealistic vision. I doubt Corbyn can negotiate a good Brexit deal while being all things to all people, not in the least because Labour have conceded the end of freedom of movement, which is likely to cost us economically. Furthermore, I have my own doubts about Corbyn and his team competence with the exception of figures such as Rayner.

    But ultimately, Corbyn's manifesto is less relevant than May's because of the fact that this election has already been decided - the Conservatives are going to win on June 8th. Therefore I'm expecting at least some kind of vision of progress from them, and to my mind there was very little in the manifesto to indicate that. I'm concerned about how Winter Fuel allowance would be means tested. From what I recall of the IFS report/statement on the Triple Lock changes, they don't really go that far, and that's one aspect of where baby boomers benefit that I wanted to see significant changes. I am pro universal free school meals. I think their policy re the immigration target to be highly unrealistic and one which is bad economically.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,181
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Blimey @ORB

    This week's ELBOW should be "interesting" :)

    Pound Shop Thatcher House Snatcher not fully factored in yet.
    Current Tory lead 14.4% in ELBOW so far this week.

    Cf. 19.4% w/ending 23rd April
    Pretty much in line with the polls pre-election announcement though IIRC - or is that w/e 23rd?
    Week-ending 23rd = first Sunday after the Easter Hols.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,795
    Black_Rook said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    What does "Volunteered" mean in the chart?

    Estimates made by the general public, collected from the Times Red Box sweepstake on Twitter (this includes my brilliant, yet at the same time most likely disastrously wrong, prediction.)
    GIN1138 said:

    Beers and popcorn on standby for Mega Polling Saturday - We'll soon find out how much damage has been done to #TeamTheresa

    God alone knows what's coming next. Either the polls have gone barmy, or the country has, or both. I don't understand anymore.

    Meanwhile...

    https://twitter.com/PollingDigest/status/865944060959358976

    If Labour really are going to poll somewhere around 35% of the popular vote, then it's not just Ukip and the Greens that will have been bled white to get the extra support. Poor, tragic Timothy.
    Anyone that might vote for Corbyn has failed the sentience test. There really is no point in politics and democracy if even one person might do something so stupid.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,181
    isam said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Blimey @ORB

    This week's ELBOW should be "interesting" :)

    Pound Shop Thatcher House Snatcher not fully factored in yet.
    Oh dear.
    Pound Shop Gordon Miliband, snatching Milk in skirt and heels
    Gordo never had a 14% lead over his opponents, even during the election campaign!
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    bigjohnowls said:

    ...

    That it is Left Wing to take a modest house off a life lottery loser.

    I have explained 4 times on last thread why nearly all of these are worse off even before house is taken.

    But what you haven't explained is why the current proposal is worse than the current system (inherited from Labour, as it happens), where a smaller number of life lottery losers lose a lot more.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,180
    isam said:

    Seems to me that the people annoyed by the policy on care are free market libertarian Gladstonians etc etc ie the people over represented on here compared to the outside world, a bit like PB leavers who wouldn't dirty their noses w immigration complaints

    I would say most Leavers are quite happy to have state "interference" in domestic issues as long it is the state we voted for. That is why UKIP got nowhere when they went on about flat taxes and privatising the NHS, and 13% in a GE when they majored on immigration.

    I think that Theresa May is far too wedded to the belief that every social problem has a correct bureaucratic solution. Matthew Parris put it well when he said the reason why " burning social injustices" remain burning is because it would cost far too much to put them right (I would add that putting them right may cause greater forms of injustice).

    But, this care policy is boldly right.
  • JasonJason Posts: 1,614
    Not seen any overt ramping from any of the polling companies, so maybe nothing much has changed from the last batch? The Tories will take that, I would suggest.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    peter_from_putney said:

    I've just checked back on Stephen Fisher's final election day forecast in 2015 and far from predicting a "Tory Majority", his central estimate was for them to win 285 seats, therefore a full FORTY seats short of achieving a majority. Furthermore he gave them only a 68% (i.e. a 2/3rds) chance of winning the most seats in the GE, so hardly a ringing endorsement of their prospects.

    Some of us have been pointing out the fact that he got the last election wrong, although he certainly wasn't alone in that amongst the experts.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    kle4 said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    IanB2 said:

    Government is coming for property equity. The various parties are just trying to work out the best way to go about it.

    I do not think much has changed other than the welcome increase to £100,000 protection of property value.

    As has been said earlier labour find themselves in the ridiculous position of backing the wealthy against the ordinary taxpayer. McDonnell was just jaw dropping when he said he uses the £200 to pay his fuel bill while earning £100,000

    It seems May is more in touch with the voter than any of these so called socialists
    Ha Ha Ha
    Why is that laughable? She has often been ahead in polls with all most if not all social groups, and will probably still win the election, so if she is not more in touch with voters they apparently think she knows what's best for them.
    I do not think much has changed is laughable

    That it is Left Wing to take a modest house off a life lottery loser.

    I have explained 4 times on last thread why nearly all of these are worse off even before house is taken.
    you didn't answer my query about attendance allowance I note?
    should attendance allowance be means tested by the way?
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    Philip_Thompson said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    I've just checked back on Stephen Fisher's final election day forecast in 2015 and far from predicting a "Tory Majority", his central estimate was for them to win 285 seats, therefore a full FORTY seats short of achieving a majority. Furthermore he gave them only a 68% (i.e. a 2/3rds) chance of winning the most seats in the GE, so hardly a ringing endorsement of their prospects.

    What percentage chance did he give of them getting an outright majority?
    In fact, again based on hid final Election Day predictions, Prof. Fisher gave the Tories only a 6% chance of achieving an overall majority and furthermore made it only a 42% chance that the next Prime Minister, following the G.E. would be a Tory.
    I'm afraid OGH has got his facts quite wrong this time.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    ...

    That it is Left Wing to take a modest house off a life lottery loser.

    I have explained 4 times on last thread why nearly all of these are worse off even before house is taken.

    But what you haven't explained is why the current proposal is worse than the current system (inherited from Labour, as it happens), where a smaller number of life lottery losers lose a lot more.
    That is for you to argue at the doorstep, if you believe that.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    surbiton said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    ...

    That it is Left Wing to take a modest house off a life lottery loser.

    I have explained 4 times on last thread why nearly all of these are worse off even before house is taken.

    But what you haven't explained is why the current proposal is worse than the current system (inherited from Labour, as it happens), where a smaller number of life lottery losers lose a lot more.
    That is for you to argue at the doorstep, if you believe that.
    What on earth do you mean by 'believe it'? It's an incontrovertible fact.
  • leomckinstryleomckinstry Posts: 54
    AndyJS said:

    leomckinstry said:

    One point about the social care policy which I have not seen mentioned anywhere. Many have said that the Tories should have stuck with the Dilnot policy of an absolute cap on bills - I think he proposed £35,000. Sounds fair but the great problem with a cap is that it provides perverse incentives:
    a) to carers and homes to jack up their costs, knowing that the taxpayer will have to pay for everything beyond a certain threshold.
    b) to families to use the most expensive possible services.
    In case anyone thinks this is fanciful, the Daily Mail had a piece back in 2014 on a luxury care home in Hampshire where the charges were a £1000-a-week. Dilnot would be exceeded within less than 9 months. Similarly the Guardian had a report last December of a care home in London where the charges were £3000-a-month. With a cap, a vast new subsidized care market would develop, completely unsustainable for any Government. That is one reason why I am so in favour of the Tories' courageous approach, which is both fair to the taxpayer and encourages personal responsibility.

    Welcome to PB Leo.
    Thank you. I have followed PB as a passive observer for years but I have been so gripped by the standard of the election debate here that I decided to take the plunge this week.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    surbiton said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    ...

    That it is Left Wing to take a modest house off a life lottery loser.

    I have explained 4 times on last thread why nearly all of these are worse off even before house is taken.

    But what you haven't explained is why the current proposal is worse than the current system (inherited from Labour, as it happens), where a smaller number of life lottery losers lose a lot more.
    That is for you to argue at the doorstep, if you believe that.
    It is perfectly reasonable to ask critics of the policy to put forward a costed alternative.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,559
    GIN1138 said:

    Beers and popcorn on standby for Mega Polling Saturday - We'll soon find out how much damage has been done to #TeamTheresa

    Afternoon Gin, hope you are well
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    isam said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Blimey @ORB

    This week's ELBOW should be "interesting" :)

    Pound Shop Thatcher House Snatcher not fully factored in yet.
    Oh dear.
    Pound Shop Gordon Miliband, snatching Milk in skirt and heels
    The milk that got snatched was revolting, nicely warmed up to ambient by the time it got drunk at morning break, in 1/3 pint bottles with half the caps pecked through by nasty little birds.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,951
    chestnut said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    kle4 said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    IanB2 said:

    Government is coming for property equity. The various parties are just trying to work out the best way to go about it.

    I do not think much has changed other than the welcome increase to £100,000 protection of property value.

    As has been said earlier labour find themselves in the ridiculous position of backing the wealthy against the ordinary taxpayer. McDonnell was just jaw dropping when he said he uses the £200 to pay his fuel bill while earning £100,000

    It seems May is more in touch with the voter than any of these so called socialists
    Ha Ha Ha
    Why is that laughable? She has often been ahead in polls with all most if not all social groups, and will probably still win the election, so if she is not more in touch with voters they apparently think she knows what's best for them.
    I do not think much has changed is laughable

    That it is Left Wing to take a modest house off a life lottery loser.

    I have explained 4 times on last thread why nearly all of these are worse off even before house is taken.
    You seemed to be saying that someone with £250k in assets should have 90% of their care bill subsidised.

    That subsidy might be being part paid by people working on minimum wage living in a rented bedsit.
    I thought i was saying the policy would have a big impact on those unlucky enough to need social care for long periods of time and that most people would hardly notice argument was bollocks.

    The example I used was that 10years of social care for someone with less than £50k of cash currently costs them £20k. The equivalent in the example I used would be all their cash and half of their £200k house in 7.5 years

    I think pooling is the right way forward
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,130
    edited May 2017
    The_Apocalypse said:

    @kle4

    Well I'm not makifng the case that Labour or the LDs are offering anything inspiring

    No, but if people aren't voting Tory, but are voting, while they are free to vote however they like for whatever reason they like, it would be best if it was because they think the alternatives on offer are superior, not merely because they don't like the Tory offer. If you consider the Green approach superior, more power to you. Is their manifesto out yet? Their last one had tables and numbers in it, which I appreciated.

    Personally as I've often said I've never voted Tory, but there's been some real hysteria (a lot from their own side, on tactical grounds) over a rare attempt to be open and honest, not denying solutions to the problem will be difficult even for those who usually vote for them, such that I am considering doing so. I find the approach refreshing, even a little inspiring, in its own way. I think the main reason it may not be for most is that it is offering more of the same, by and large, as a message.

    A good day to all.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    isam said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Blimey @ORB

    This week's ELBOW should be "interesting" :)

    Pound Shop Thatcher House Snatcher not fully factored in yet.
    Oh dear.
    Pound Shop Gordon Miliband, snatching Milk in skirt and heels
    Gordo never had a 14% lead over his opponents, even during the election campaign!
    it's a new competition - the "most childish name calling of party leader" award.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,756
    Just backed the Lib Dems at 2.25 to be under 10% with Ladbrokes (my Betfair account is quite anaemic, hence not looking there).
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Blimey @ORB

    This week's ELBOW should be "interesting" :)

    Pound Shop Thatcher House Snatcher not fully factored in yet.
    Current Tory lead 14.4% in ELBOW so far this week.

    Cf. 19.4% w/ending 23rd April
    Sleazy, nasty Tories on the slide !
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025