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

kle4 said:

SeanT said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I have no idea why the Tories (if they were really scheming) just didn't publish a manifesto of boring shit about bin collection and other stuff that nobody will really change their vote over. There was / is absolutely no need to propose anything radical.

Then when they got the 100+ manifesto push through the OAP reforms in year 1. All the outcry would have been long forgotten come GE 2022.

If it is not in the manifesto the HOL could have caused chaos with it

One line in the manifesto would have solved that problem: We will reform the House of Lords.

FFS it needs reform anyway.

They do say they will reform it - it is cautious though.

Although comprehensive reform is not a priority we will ensure that the House of Lords
continues to fulfl its constitutional role as a revising and scrutinising chamber which
respects the primacy of the House of Commons. We have already undertaken reform to
allow the retirement of peers and the expulsion of members for poor conduct and will
continue to ensure the work of the House of Lords remains relevant and effective by
addressing issues such as its size

But 'issues such as its size' leaves the door open to more reform, if they feel they need to, as does the bit on enduring it 'fulfills its constitutional role'.

It probably means something more like parties which are grossly overrepresented won't get to nominate any new peers for a while.

Sean_F said:

peter_from_putney said:

SeanT said:

Before I go, some random Tory tweets from the last hour

https://twitter.com/fosterkenfost73/status/865984156722921472

https://twitter.com/PhillipDHopkin3/status/865987627983523843

And one non Tory

https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/865971015037399041

He's right on this:

https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/865972799399231488

One thing's for sure, Dementia Tax (note how the name has already stuck) is the mother of all stealth taxes. For God's sake, the last thing we need are yet more stealth taxes. If needs be increase the rate of income tax, incl the higher rate as was always the case before governments introduced all these smoke and mirror dishonest schemes which we're not supposed to notice, until we move house, die, etc, etc. Enough!

We should not be increasing income taxes so that some people can inherit more.

Taxes to rise on the young and most workers to prevent those with wealth paying their share of care but can keep £100,000 anyway.

Paristonda said:

kle4 said:

Paristonda said:

Now this may give Tories pause for thought:

https://twitter.com/DMReporter/status/865876515430576128

If the DM comments have turned on her then perhaps it really is bad.

That's another mark in the manifestos favour then.

Honestly, from what I've read so far of the Tory manifesto I'm generally relatively impressed - there are certainly specific policies I disagree with, some very important (Brexit), others less so (fox hunting), but overall better than I was expecting.

There's plenty I do not like about it, and it is not inspiring, there's more specifics in the LD one I would like (though plenty I dislike too), and the Labour one is full of nice stuff, but being relatively more restrained in its promises makes it more appealing to me.

ab195 said:

If I was Tim Farron I'd be out there on Sunday with a reheated Labour 2010 social care policy. Dominate the airwaves with the other half of the argument and say "you can't trust Labour but look, you need us in the Commons to moderate these Tory clowns". He could become part of the main narrative - Corbyn has shown no interest in doing so and if Farron gets there first all Labour can say is "me too".

Yeah, but they'd block Brexit too. Kills them stone dead.

david_herdson said:

kle4 said:

SeanT said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I have no idea why the Tories (if they were really scheming) just didn't publish a manifesto of boring shit about bin collection and other stuff that nobody will really change their vote over. There was / is absolutely no need to propose anything radical.

Then when they got the 100+ manifesto push through the OAP reforms in year 1. All the outcry would have been long forgotten come GE 2022.

If it is not in the manifesto the HOL could have caused chaos with it

One line in the manifesto would have solved that problem: We will reform the House of Lords.

FFS it needs reform anyway.

They do say they will reform it - it is cautious though.

Although comprehensive reform is not a priority we will ensure that the House of Lords
continues to fulfl its constitutional role as a revising and scrutinising chamber which
respects the primacy of the House of Commons. We have already undertaken reform to
allow the retirement of peers and the expulsion of members for poor conduct and will
continue to ensure the work of the House of Lords remains relevant and effective by
addressing issues such as its size

But 'issues such as its size' leaves the door open to more reform, if they feel they need to, as does the bit on enduring it 'fulfills its constitutional role'.

It probably means something more like parties which are grossly overrepresented won't get to nominate any new peers for a while.

It is sufficiently vague to allow for quite a bit, though lacking specificity would allow it to be more easily challenged.

Paristonda said:

Jason said:

Comments from the Mail, Twitter....come on. Seriously. You could get hundreds - possibly thousands - of highly organised Corbynistas in a heartbeat to hi-jack any phone-in or any newspaper message board, and especially Twitter. You can read some of those comments and see that most of them are so obviously non-Tories.

God, three weeks from election day and this level of panic with a comfortable double digit polling lead.

Unreal.

I was mostly playing Devil's Advocate / injecting more panic with the Mail tweet - of course it's unrepresentative, would be like citing The Canary to say Labour are on course for a landslide. I don't think this will change much at the end of the day but we may see a small polling dip - to those that don't look in enough detail, Dementia Tax is a powerful negative branding.

'Dementia Tax' is a powerful negative, but then again, so is 'Terrorist Sympathiser'. The first one is an unfair description, the other is 100% accurate.

YBarddCwsc said:

nunu said:

RIght. I've decided, I'm not voting for the Conservatives if this mad Dementia Tax stays as is.

I(and my siblings) COULD lose hundrends of thousands of pounds of our inheritance. Yes, this decision is based on pure greed, but greed is good. Even if Corbyn by some miracle won and reduced the IHT threshold we would still be better off then what May is planning. I think I'll abstain then voten for this.

Clown_Car_HQ said:

Clown_Car_HQ said:

nunu said:

RIght. I've decided, I'm not voting for the Conservatives if this mad Dementia Tax stays as is.

I(and my siblings) COULD lose hundrends of thousands of pounds of our inheritance. Yes, this decision is based on pure greed, but greed is good. Even if Corbyn by some miracle won and reduced the IHT threshold we would still be better off then what May is planning. I think I'll abstain then voten for this.

You could lose even more under the current system. My cousins certainly did.

Clown_Car_HQ is right, nunu.

Under the present system, you COULD lose everything down to 27 k before the State pays.

Does the current system include pension funds as assets?

My parents don't have £27k not including the house.

SeanT said:

So in about three hours we will find out, inter alia, if the country is going to be destroyed by communism, but, more importantly, if I am a pathetic wobbling meringue of a man, or a peerless political seer.

Yes yes, I know.

Having precipitated a shoal of fish jokes I'm reluctant to quibble with your self-annointed pudding descriptors, but meringue's are tough on the outside and insubstantial once you get in. There must be a more appropriate pudding. Peerless political seer is of course excluded

david_herdson said:

Re the expected post-manifest launch polls, I'd be anticipating a substantial drop in the Tory lead, possibly into single figures.

Bound to happen at some point. Do you think it will be a momentary thing or will they bounce back?

kyf_100 said:

Sean_F said:

peter_from_putney said:

SeanT said:

Before I go, some random Tory tweets from the last hour

https://twitter.com/fosterkenfost73/status/865984156722921472

https://twitter.com/PhillipDHopkin3/status/865987627983523843

And one non Tory

https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/865971015037399041

He's right on this:

https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/865972799399231488

One thing's for sure, Dementia Tax (note how the name has already stuck) is the mother of all stealth taxes. For God's sake, the last thing we need are yet more stealth taxes. If needs be increase the rate of income tax, incl the higher rate as was always the case before governments introduced all these smoke and mirror dishonest schemes which we're not supposed to notice, until we move house, die, etc, etc. Enough!

We should not be increasing income taxes so that some people can inherit more.

I would prefer to pay a premium of 5% in higher taxes over the course of my life than be in a situation where I lose my marbles, am forced into care, and the state takes everything, leaving my childen / grandchildren with a pittance between them after the state takes it all away for doubtless inefficient, over-expensive and padded out care subcontracted to private companies.

Heck, I would rather the government said "take out an insurance policy and pay for it yourself, if you don't you're on your own" than that. Though pooled risk through, say, an increase in NI levied on all seems far more measured and reasonable.

I wouldn't. I hope to leave my heirs something, but I won't make my life worse in order to do so.

kle4 said:

SeanT said:

bigjohnowls said:

Is this true hadnt spotted it

T.May’s manifesto SCRAPS BAN on elephant ivory sales bowing to millionaire antique lobbyists

Fake news. Surely. Screams of Fakery.

There is no mention of ivory in the manifesto. Assuming they would be coded than to refer to it, I'm not sure what section that would be under - free trade? Cannot see a reference that might be an ivory sales bit.

From what I can see, it appears to be that Ivory (or a coded reference) is not mentioned at all in the manifesto, whereas in 2015 there was explicit referral to an outright ban. Sounds more like an oversight than anything, but I believe there was controversy over this last year (we broke our promise to ban it)

May god have mercy on the tories if they propose bringing back hunting and ivory - Britain is a nation of animal lovers to the point of irrationality, I bet less than 10% of the population support ivory.

Paristonda said:

kle4 said:

SeanT said:

bigjohnowls said:

Is this true hadnt spotted it

T.May’s manifesto SCRAPS BAN on elephant ivory sales bowing to millionaire antique lobbyists

Fake news. Surely. Screams of Fakery.

There is no mention of ivory in the manifesto. Assuming they would be coded than to refer to it, I'm not sure what section that would be under - free trade? Cannot see a reference that might be an ivory sales bit.

From what I can see, it appears to be that Ivory (or a coded reference) is not mentioned at all in the manifesto, whereas in 2015 there was explicit referral to an outright ban. Sounds more like an oversight than anything, but I believe there was controversy over this last year (we broke our promise to ban it)

May god have mercy on the tories if they propose bringing back hunting and ivory - Britain is a nation of animal lovers to the point of irrationality, I bet less than 10% of the population support ivory.

Most likely an omission.

kyf_100 said:

Sean_F said:

peter_from_putney said:

SeanT said:

Before I go, some random Tory tweets from the last hour

https://twitter.com/fosterkenfost73/status/865984156722921472

https://twitter.com/PhillipDHopkin3/status/865987627983523843

And one non Tory

https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/865971015037399041

He's right on this:

https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/865972799399231488

One thing's for sure, Dementia Tax (note how the name has already stuck) is the mother of all stealth taxes. For God's sake, the last thing we need are yet more stealth taxes. If needs be increase the rate of income tax, incl the higher rate as was always the case before governments introduced all these smoke and mirror dishonest schemes which we're not supposed to notice, until we move house, die, etc, etc. Enough!

We should not be increasing income taxes so that some people can inherit more.

I would prefer to pay a premium of 5% in higher taxes over the course of my life than be in a situation where I lose my marbles, am forced into care, and the state takes everything, leaving my childen / grandchildren with a pittance between them after the state takes it all away for doubtless inefficient, over-expensive and padded out care subcontracted to private companies.

Heck, I would rather the government said "take out an insurance policy and pay for it yourself, if you don't you're on your own" than that. Though pooled risk through, say, an increase in NI levied on all seems far more measured and reasonable.

Like. It goes against the small c conservative priniple of making sure your children are provided for/looked after.

Anyway, I've been distracted as ever long enough, I have writing to do - I've resolved to try to get back into some fiction writing.

It's a tale of fractious politics in a fantasy setting, and the challenging of a system rigged in favour of cruel elites who oppress the common man, just what the people want.

Gallowgate said:

Everyone wants to eliminate the deficit but nobody wants to pay. Grim.

It was ever thus. I've always taken a cynical view of taxation: everybody thinks "the rich" should pay more, with their definition of "the rich" being "everybody who earns at least £1 more than I do," and/or "everybody who has a house worth £1 more than my house."

Theresa May has now chosen to test my cynical theory to destruction. In order to get away from the Tories' care reforms, elderly homeowners and their angry heirs alike now have to vote Labour: a party with a very significant negative reputation for incompetence and fiscal incontinence alike. What will they do?

My best guess at the moment is in line with what Mr Meeks has recently written on the subject: the tantrum throwing against the policy is likely to be limited - too many better off voters suspect that they will be voting for economic suicide by backing Labour - and to the extent that people are so outraged and/or mercenary that they decide to switch from Con to Lab in an effort to rescue the blessed inheritances - the switchers are liable to be disproportionately concentrated in Tory safe seats in Southern England, where their little rebellion will be useless.

If the attitudes of that focus group in Bury that I was referencing earlier to free school meals and uni tuition fees is anything to go by, the blowback against the Tory social care proposals in most of the key marginals is likely to be negligible.

If, on the other hand, I am completely wrong and the country is really prepared to vote for Labour's "free pony for every reader" manifesto, then God help us all.

kle4 said:

Anyway, I've been distracted as ever long enough, I have writing to do - I've resolved to try to get back into some fiction writing.

It's a tale of fractious politics in a fantasy setting, and the challenging of a system rigged in favour of cruel elites who oppress the common man, just what the people want.

Have you perhaps been inspired by SeanT's contributions on PB.com, his money and his lifestyle?

SeanT said:

david_herdson said:

Re the expected post-manifest launch polls, I'd be anticipating a substantial drop in the Tory lead, possibly into single figures.

I've been canvassing this afternoon and the Winter Fuel Allowance policy announcement has gone down like a bucket of cold sick. This is not because people disagree with the policy; it is because people disagree with what they think is the policy (i.e. that it's going to be scrapped).

That, combined with a failure to hit Labour over its own policy launch and, hence, people thinking more about Labour's policies (which are quite popular individually) rather than whether they're credible as a package or whether Corbyn and co could implement them - or whether they're capable of leading the country - has significantly reduced the negatives towards Labour.

CCHQ needs to up its game.

At what point do Tories start worrying? A single digit poll lead over..... Jeremy Corbyn, and John McDonnell, and Diane Abbott..... would be quite astonishingly poor.

We've also likely passed peak SCON - SNP likely to hit >45% - SCON cheerleaders now talking >25% being a good result !

nunu said:

kle4 said:

chestnut said:

The problem with this care proposal is that it is being perceived as inheritance tax.

Got it in one.

Nah, the problem with it is thatit is a shit policy. I rather pay higher National Insurance then this.

But this has been policy forever. Why are people talking as though it's something new?

david_herdson said:

Re the expected post-manifest launch polls, I'd be anticipating a substantial drop in the Tory lead, possibly into single figures.

I've been canvassing this afternoon and the Winter Fuel Allowance policy announcement has gone down like a bucket of cold sick. This is not because people disagree with the policy; it is because people disagree with what they think is the policy (i.e. that it's going to be scrapped).

That, combined with a failure to hit Labour over its own policy launch and, hence, people thinking more about Labour's policies (which are quite popular individually) rather than whether they're credible as a package or whether Corbyn and co could implement them - or whether they're capable of leading the country - has significantly reduced the negatives towards Labour.

CCHQ needs to up its game.

Hmm... interesting. I remember Jon Stewart mocking Dave when, during the 2010 debates, Dave got highly agitated about Labour's claim that the Tories planned to scrap free bus passes. But Dave was right to nail that lie - the Grey Vote is vastly powerful and must be courted at all costs. Theresa clearly doesn't understand this political rule of iron.

SeanT said:

david_herdson said:

Re the expected post-manifest launch polls, I'd be anticipating a substantial drop in the Tory lead, possibly into single figures.

I've been canvassing this afternoon and the Winter Fuel Allowance policy announcement has gone down like a bucket of cold sick. This is not because people disagree with the policy; it is because people disagree with what they think is the policy (i.e. that it's going to be scrapped).

That, combined with a failure to hit Labour over its own policy launch and, hence, people thinking more about Labour's policies (which are quite popular individually) rather than whether they're credible as a package or whether Corbyn and co could implement them - or whether they're capable of leading the country - has significantly reduced the negatives towards Labour.

CCHQ needs to up its game.

At what point do Tories start worrying? A single digit poll lead over..... Jeremy Corbyn, and John McDonnell, and Diane Abbott..... would be quite astonishingly poor.

Well, the worst thing they could do is panic. If the polls do narrow into single figures, and that is sustained all through next week, they'll probably tweak the plan or maybe even drop it in its entirety. If they do that, then they lose on the credibility stakes, and plenty of other voters who are not pensioners will notice that too. For example, me, another Tory voter.

Telling people thay have to pay more and lose benefits is damned hard to do, but that doesn't mean it isn't right and it shouldn't be followed through on. What would you prefer - this now, or another betrayal of voter trust in six months time?

The easy thing to do is what Labour are doing, to promise everyone a free lunch, and buggar the medium and long term catastrpohic consequences.

Get real. Corbyn is not going to win the election, not anyway, not anyhow, and not even close.

chestnut said:

The problem with this care proposal is that it is being perceived as inheritance tax.

Spot on!

Ishmael_Z said:

kyf_100 said:

Sean_F said:

peter_from_putney said:

SeanT said:

Before I go, some random Tory tweets from the last hour

https://twitter.com/fosterkenfost73/status/865984156722921472

https://twitter.com/PhillipDHopkin3/status/865987627983523843

And one non Tory

https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/865971015037399041

He's right on this:

https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/865972799399231488

One thing's for sure, Dementia Tax (note how the name has already stuck) is the mother of all stealth taxes. For God's sake, the last thing we need are yet more stealth taxes. If needs be increase the rate of income tax, incl the higher rate as was always the case before governments introduced all these smoke and mirror dishonest schemes which we're not supposed to notice, until we move house, die, etc, etc. Enough!

We should not be increasing income taxes so that some people can inherit more.

I would prefer to pay a premium of 5% in higher taxes over the course of my life than be in a situation where I lose my marbles, am forced into care, and the state takes everything, leaving my childen / grandchildren with a pittance between them after the state takes it all away for doubtless inefficient, over-expensive and padded out care subcontracted to private companies.

Heck, I would rather the government said "take out an insurance policy and pay for it yourself, if you don't you're on your own" than that. Though pooled risk through, say, an increase in NI levied on all seems far more measured and reasonable.

Not that I am defending the policy, but you misrepresent it. Who is going to force you into care, and why do you think you will not be able to choose for yourself who your carer is? The state doesn't "take everything", it just pays for some of your liability rather than all of it.

You may be right, I'm simply representing the "dementia tax" as I understand it.

The small print of the dementia tax may be music to my ears, for all I know (and yes, I understand the present situation could leave me with as little as 23k).

But from my understanding of it the proposed changes sound bad, like my children's inheritance is going to be taken away.

You can argue the fine print all you like, but the only thing that is going to cut through for the vast majority of politically non-engaged middle aged to elderly voters is the two words "dementia tax". For those reasons, whatever the fine print, it looks like an own goal.

chrisb said:

kle4 said:

SeanT said:

kle4 said:

RobD said:

Paristonda said:

Now this may give Tories pause for thought:

https://twitter.com/DMReporter/status/865876515430576128

If the DM comments have turned on her then perhaps it really is bad.

Online newspaper comments sections - the worst.

A lot of 'how dare you attack pensioners' comments I see, not considering whether pensioners (or some pensioners) deserve so many of the things they had, and whether it can be afforded, and if other priorities mean perhaps they need to pay more in these areas.

It doesn't matter. It's the perception. People hate this. You can sense it. They could have announced a big commission and then done this six months later, in a better way, but instead they decided to pour manure over the voters, BEFORE the election.

Of course I might easily be wrong, but what if I am right? And this is electorally toxic?

What do they do? How do the Tories row back? It's in the bloody manifesto: there in black and white. Hmm. Grr. Harrumph.

Gin.

If the voting public are more sophisticated than children (or political wonks like us), then they should be able to step back, consider this policy in context of the overall offer, and then decide if it is so bad that they must act against it, not merely react to it as being bad.

If this means a 50 seat majority rather than a 100 seat majority, that's fine by me, better governance with a smaller majority. The only danger would be Corbyn surviving, but that might have happened anyway.

Absolutely. From the manifesto:

We trust the people of this country, who know that we face difficult choices – and demand the respect of politicians who should be honest about how those choices can be resolved

That's the message they should be airing more in public.

I've no idea who's manifesto this is from!

Let's deconstruct it

We trust the people of this country.... I'm already wanting to kill them. Do WE trust you is the issue.

Who know that we face difficult choices... well yes maybe, but that's what I'm hoping you'll help with!

And demand the respect of politicians - er... We don't care - it's your job to earn our respect.

Who should be honest about how those choices should be resolved - This suggests that the debate that you and I might have is simply secondary to the real debate with grown up people who are called politcians.

Don't really care whose manifesto it is, but it is the most empty of statements.

Edit: So I had no idea when I commented as to who might have spouted this nonsense. I do know now though. What on earth are they thinking!?

The way things are going I might have to stay up on election night after all.

Face it Tories, May isn't very good and she has bolloxed up her manifesto.

I'm not saying she won't win with a healthy majority, but she doesn't deserve it.

chestnut said:

The problem with this care proposal is that it is being perceived as inheritance tax.

Yep, that's exactly how my parents see it. My mum was calling it a 'con', and saying that it gave people no motivation to work hard and save.

SandyRentool said:

The way things are going I might have to stay up on election night after all.

Face it Tories, May isn't very good and she has bolloxed up her manifesto.

I'm not saying she won't win with a healthy majority, but she doesn't deserve it.

If she wins a big majority, she clearly hasn't 'bolloxed up' her manifesto.

ydoethur said:

Luke said:

Long-time lurker, but sitting here in western Cardiff I thought I'd join the talk about the Cardiff seats.

Here are the results from this month's council elections for the wards in the relevant constituencies (multi-member constituencies include just the votes for each party's top candidate):

Cardiff Central
LD 9643
Lab 8682
Con 4072
PC 1573
Oth 2410

Cardiff West
Lab 10490
PC 10470
Con 6846
LD 2613
Oth 1130

Cardiff North
Con 14999
Lab 12610
PC 3306
LD 3147
Oth 3971

Cardiff South (NOT including Penarth)
Lab 8884
Con 3557
PC 3052
LD 1971
Oth 1806

Obviously there are particular circumstances for local elections - e.g. Plaid focused hugely on West to the detriment of their performance elsewhere. So DYOR!

Thank you and welcome.

Interesting to see those figures for central. Having said that Aberystwyth's students are not likely to be especially politically active anyway, is it different in Cardiff? And if so, might the Liberal Democrats benefit from the fact Cardiff University finishes on the 9th June?

I cast my first ever GE vote as a student in Aberystwyth, 1997.

Where have the last twenty years gone!

Jason said:

SandyRentool said:

The way things are going I might have to stay up on election night after all.

Face it Tories, May isn't very good and she has bolloxed up her manifesto.

I'm not saying she won't win with a healthy majority, but she doesn't deserve it.

If she wins a big majority, she clearly hasn't 'bolloxed up' her manifesto.

Corbyn is a very lucky man to be up against her. Can you imagine how far Dave would be winning by under the same circumstances. Not one coherently explained policy since she became PM. Still no clear Brexit vision. Piss poor.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

The way things are going I might have to stay up on election night after all.

Face it Tories, May isn't very good and she has bolloxed up her manifesto.

I'm not saying she won't win with a healthy majority, but she doesn't deserve it.

So manifesto's have to be crowd pleaser's rather than addressing the difficult problems of the day

The Labour manifesto included policies that will hit Tory voters.

The Conservative manifesto included policies that will hit Tory voters.

That's the difference.

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

The way things are going I might have to stay up on election night after all.

Face it Tories, May isn't very good and she has bolloxed up her manifesto.

I'm not saying she won't win with a healthy majority, but she doesn't deserve it.

So manifesto's have to be crowd pleaser's rather than addressing the difficult problems of the day

The Labour manifesto included policies that will hit Tory voters.

The Conservative manifesto included policies that will hit Tory voters.

That's the difference.

No the labour manifesto will hit ALL voters

Previously posted but worth reposting in light of today's press reports.

Re Corbyn and the IRA - let's look at now rather than the past.

Corbyn allies himself with anti-Semites at a time when there are increasing attacks on Jews, some of them viciously murderous. He takes money from Press TV, the propaganda arm of the Iranian regime, a regime which uses rape as a punishment and hangs gay men from cranes.

This is the leader of a party which claims to be in favour of gay rights, in favour of the rights of women and against racism. It has a leader who either simply does not understand the values he claims to believe in or is cynical about them or who believes that his enemy's enemy is his friend. I believe it to be the last. I think that the hard Left's belief in these values is skin deep and is chiefly used as a weapon against others. Certain victim groups are useful if they can be used to criticise others but can be - and are - dropped as soon as some other more fashionable "victim" group can trump them.

It is what happens when values are chiefly seen as a way of proclaiming one's own virtue and moral superiority rather than as moral imperatives which should determine one's actions.

But whatever the explanation it shows - to me anyway - that Corbyn is not a principled or honest politician, that he has appalling judgment (as he did with the IRA), that he simply cannot be trusted to act in the interests of British citizens and that he is, therefore, unfit to be a leader of a major political party let alone Prime Minister.

As for social care, I find it absurd that people should be incensed at the idea of using their rainy day savings for .... er .....rainy days.

It looks as if Labour wants us all to pay extra tax to fund social care for rich people so that Labour can then tax the inheritances received by the children of those rich people. Amazing how Labour seems to think that the rich should be taxed to pay for all the extra spending Labour has in mind but should not be expected to use their wealth to fund themselves during tough times.

Neither fair nor coherent, really.

Black_Rook said:

IanB2 said:

Black_Rook said:

kyf_100 said:

nunu said:

RIght. I've decided, I'm not voting for the Conservatives if this mad Dementia Tax stays as is.

I(and my siblings) COULD lose hundrends of thousands of pounds of our inheritance. Yes, this decision is based on pure greed, but greed is good. Even if Corbyn by some miracle won and reduced the IHT threshold we would still be better off then what May is planning. I think I'll abstain then voten for this.

I have also considered abstaining in this election.

The Tories have shifted uncomfortably to the left. May's vision of the UK is a parochial one, she is at best dull and managerial and at worst censorious and meddling.

Labour present a bright, optimistic vision of the future where everyone is happy and everything is paid for by the magic money tree. It is, of course, a complete lie. Plus, Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser who isn't fit to lead his own party let alone a government.

The lib dems stand for nothing any more other than opposition to Brexit. To vote for them would be to vote against democracy, if such a thing is possible.

I'm not a mad Kipper and couldn't give a toss if immigration is 50 or 500,000, so long as we have control over our own borders and make adequate infrastructure provision and help immigrants to integrate into society.

My main concerns are property prices being too high, small to medium sized businesses and higher rate tax payers being squeezed at the expense of large multinationals and the super rich who appear to pay proportionally far less. Generally I'm for lower taxes and less regulation. I'm also socially liberal and can't abide censorship or the government telling people what they can or can't do with their bodies.

Who do I vote for?

There's no socially liberal, economically dry, patriotic-yet-internationalist party out there.

I don't feel as if the Conservatives should be rewarded with my vote. Corbynism terrifies me.

Abstention feels like my least worst option.

If one is terrified of Corbyn but merely uncomfortable with May, then the least worse option is May.

The LDs have more to offer you than a position on Brexit, if you look again.

Perhaps. But how many people are going to bother to look at what the Liberal Democrats have to say about anything?

(EDIT: and regardless, one of only two parties has any chance of being in power after this election, and the Yellows ain't one of them.)

Not true.
Labour doesn't have a chance of being in power either.

calum said:

Boris alert !

https://twitter.com/pestononsunday/status/865941621803823105

The Tories must hope and pray that Boris doesn't blurt out something highly damaging about this care-reform stuff. Boris has got to utterly, completely, absolutely on-message, as the Tories' enemies will be watching like hawks.

Sean_F said:

Up till now, you'd potentially lose all but £23 k, so you should count your blessings.

Yes, I'm aware of the 23k thing. The thing is, as has been addressed down thread, this looks like an inheritance tax levied on people who are unfortunate enough to get dementia.

It's fundamentally un-Conservative, you could earn a million quid through your own hard work then get early onset dementia and have it all whittled away to nothing over the next twenty or more years. Pooled risk through the taxation system would allow people to keep more of their earnings and this effect is magnified the more you have to protect - in a sense, the "dementia tax" is a regressive one, one that deincentivises work (why turn 65 with a million when you can turn 65 with a hundred thousand, the government will take it off you anyway).

A better system would be pooled risk through higher taxation over the course of your lifetime, meaning everyone risks 5% of their life savings rather than some people see 90% taken away from them. If that's too interventionist there's always the option of having a choice to pay 5% of your income into a fund or else be given a brompton cocktail when your marbles fall out. Personally I'd choose the latter, because once my brain is gone I no longer exist. But the Conservative proposal is genuinely the worst of all possible worlds.

calum said:

Boris alert !

https://twitter.com/pestononsunday/status/865941621803823105

Oh god washed up Hugh getting a platform to wibble about Evil Tories, Phone Hacking, Leveson...

If the Dementia Tax was a Labour policy, would Tories be applauding it?

kyf_100 said:

Sean_F said:

Up till now, you'd potentially lose all but £23 k, so you should count your blessings.

Yes, I'm aware of the 23k thing. The thing is, as has been addressed down thread, this looks like an inheritance tax levied on people who are unfortunate enough to get dementia.

It's fundamentally un-Conservative, you could earn a million quid through your own hard work then get early onset dementia and have it all whittled away to nothing over the next twenty or more years. Pooled risk through the taxation system would allow people to keep more of their earnings and this effect is magnified the more you have to protect - in a sense, the "dementia tax" is a regressive one, one that deincentivises work (why turn 65 with a million when you can turn 65 with a hundred thousand, the government will take it off you anyway).

A better system would be pooled risk through higher taxation over the course of your lifetime, meaning everyone risks 5% of their life savings rather than some people see 90% taken away from them. If that's too interventionist there's always the option of having a choice to pay 5% of your income into a fund or else be given a brompton cocktail when your marbles fall out. Personally I'd choose the latter, because once my brain is gone I no longer exist. But the Conservative proposal is genuinely the worst of all possible worlds.

All your suggestions have been looked into by many including the insurance industry and the subject is just too complex to resolve without pain to some.

Can you even imagine if Theresa May had suggested a 5% care tax what would have happened

Cyclefree said:

Previously posted but worth reposting in light of today's press reports.

Re Corbyn and the IRA - let's look at now rather than the past.

Corbyn allies himself with anti-Semites at a time when there are increasing attacks on Jews, some of them viciously murderous. He takes money from Press TV, the propaganda arm of the Iranian regime, a regime which uses rape as a punishment and hangs gay men from cranes.

This is the leader of a party which claims to be in favour of gay rights, in favour of the rights of women and against racism. It has a leader who either simply does not understand the values he claims to believe in or is cynical about them or who believes that his enemy's enemy is his friend. I believe it to be the last. I think that the hard Left's belief in these values is skin deep and is chiefly used as a weapon against others. Certain victim groups are useful if they can be used to criticise others but can be - and are - dropped as soon as some other more fashionable "victim" group can trump them.

It is what happens when values are chiefly seen as a way of proclaiming one's own virtue and moral superiority rather than as moral imperatives which should determine one's actions.

But whatever the explanation it shows - to me anyway - that Corbyn is not a principled or honest politician, that he has appalling judgment (as he did with the IRA), that he simply cannot be trusted to act in the interests of British citizens and that he is, therefore, unfit to be a leader of a major political party let alone Prime Minister.

Wasn't he also caught out supporting Paul Eisen after he had denied doing so?

One of the more disturbing things about Corbyn is not just how hypocritical but how dishonest he is - especially given one of the things he claims sets him apart is his integrity!

FrancisUrquhart said:

calum said:

Boris alert !

https://twitter.com/pestononsunday/status/865941621803823105

Oh god washed up Hugh getting a platform to wibble about Evil Tories, Phone Hacking, Leveson...

I found this retweet of his funny though (and on point) re Mail headline on May:

https://twitter.com/JonnElledge/status/865319838494883840

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

The way things are going I might have to stay up on election night after all.

Face it Tories, May isn't very good and she has bolloxed up her manifesto.

I'm not saying she won't win with a healthy majority, but she doesn't deserve it.

So manifesto's have to be crowd pleaser's rather than addressing the difficult problems of the day

The Labour manifesto included policies that will hit Tory voters.

The Conservative manifesto included policies that will hit Tory voters.

That's the difference.

Not sure if you were being ironic or not but there is indeed a difference. The Tories appear to be willing to hit their own supporters because it is the right thing to do to put the necessary changes in place. Labour just want to hit the Tory supporters because they are Tories and because they (Labour) are envious little shits fighting what they perceive as some strange class warfare.

murali_s said:

Will the PB Tories finally admit that TMay is crap? She is politically hapless, dull, wooden and very uninspiring. David Cameron is in a different league to her.

Don't forget the fact that she can't stand up straight. Terrible posture .

bigjohnowls said:

Is this true hadnt spotted it

T.May’s manifesto SCRAPS BAN on elephant ivory sales bowing to millionaire antique lobbyists

The word "ivory" does not appear in the manifesto document.

chestnut said:

Tory communication has been diabolical in this campaign and recently.

The earnings pledge of "60% of the median" will mean bugger all to most people. Terrible messaging.

It means a cut from the £9 promised by GO to £8.20

Is that a clearer message for you?

murali_s said:

Will the PB Tories finally admit that TMay is crap? She is politically hapless, dull, wooden and very uninspiring. David Cameron is in a different league to her.

I've been pointing this out since last July.