politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Suddenly this election becomes a lot more difficult to call
Comments
-
Where they generate an annual return greater than your average debt servicing costs?MarqueeMark said:In what fucked up world would you borrow a quarter of a trillion pounds to buy back privatised industries - rather than spend it on health, education, housing.....
0 -
Err, isn't it "he" is desperate for them to be Tories as I said previously.foxinsoxuk said:0 -
Well, it fell into the political hole of reminding people that the current situation is actually shit. It didn't create a situation where lots of people will lose their homes - that's already the case.rottenborough said:welshowl said:
I doubt Crosby's plan was to go to "landslide" via "twitchy underwear" any more than Dunkirk was part of the plan for Normandy.
Curbing pensioner benefits after all the shelter they've had is morally right "all in it together" etc. The long term care situation also needs looking at for all our sakes so we will benefit from it being now firmly on the agenda. The essentials of the route they have chosen is that hateful word "progressive" in that rich southerners are going to be the supply of money for poor northerners at its most blunt. Ok they have chosen to individualise the risk which is a further choice but someone in a two up two down in Salford benefits over a £5m pad owner in Chelsea.
But thrice but, as an act of salesmanship, it's dire. These are a "masterclass" in creating doubt and fear. Marr is roasting Damian Green right now as to what level the WFA cuts will kick in. Nail on head - is it pensioners on 30k, 20k, 10k? So McDonnell can't miss can he as 12m are now in doubt and he can say he's protecting poor old ladies on 6k from freezing to death rather than having to defend (say) handing out cash to folk on 30k who spend it on a winter break in Marbella.
Ditto long term care. As I said at it's heart "progressive" (though risk is not pooled which is v odd) but it's way way too complex to explain on the doorstep two and a half weeks before an election. All folk hear is "they're taking my house if I'm ill, sort of, aren't they?". People are very very very emotive about their homes. You can use all the logic you like they won't listen, they'll just go into defence mode.
Facts are largely irrelevant "it's perception stupid ". If you are explaining you're losing. The Tories are explaining a lot on this, even as Labour's own policies are collectively "moon on a stick".
This policy stank of polling disaster from the moment Theresa May stood up to launch the manifesto.
The perception is generally awful by sounds of it. Although bit of a mixed response in my own family. Several terrified by the sound of it all - "losing control of our homes", one or two saying "let's wait for the detail".
I think the latter are being highly naive.0 -
The politicians I can understand - from any deal there is the upside of power, influence and income, and there will be personal loyalties and antagonisms at play as well, for sure. It's the voters I was questioning. LD/Lab and LD/Tory tactical voting, in both directions, seems to me quite possible, but Labour voters switching to Tory and vice versa can only be a few people whose opposition to an IndyRef swamps concerns about any other issue, surely?malcolmg said:
It highlights the dearth of talent in Tories and Labour in Scotland, both so bereft they have to help each other manage their drubbings.IanB2 said:
It amazes me that any sort of Labour-Tory or Tory-Labour tactical voting in the middle of a hard fought GE is particularly likely in the first place. But I am not Scottish so what do I know?CarlottaVance said:Well quite:
Some Labour activists are concerned that the suspensions in Aberdeen will have repercussions in next month’s general election. Labour’s last surviving Scottish MP in the 2015 SNP landslide was the member for Edinburgh South, Ian Murray. Even he would concede that among those who returned him to Westminster two years ago were a number of those who might traditionally have voted Tory. Will those same voters feel so happy supporting a Labour candidate now they know that party views them with such contempt?
http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/euan-mccolm-dugdale-blunders-with-suspension-of-disbelief-1-44521230 -
We tried that theory in the '70s and '80s, the problem is that when politicians have the choice of building a new water main or funding the NHS and Education they'll always choose the latter. Which is why we used to wait three months for a phone line to be installed and the water board used to lose half the stuff on its way from the reservoir and your house.IanB2 said:
Where they generate an annual return greater than your average debt servicing costs?MarqueeMark said:In what fucked up world would you borrow a quarter of a trillion pounds to buy back privatised industries - rather than spend it on health, education, housing.....
Oh, and it's an heroic assumption that government borrowing rates will stay as they are under Corbyn and McMao.0 -
After the car crash interview by Green just now on Marr and seeing the open goal presented to McDonnell, I really do think this toxic Tory policy (plus the WFA debacle) could now put Corbyn in No10.
Despite being arguably fairer than the status quo, it is reminding people that they will be unable to pass on their house (save a 100k residual) if they need long term care. I suspect millions don't actually realise this already happens anyway without floor or cap asi understand it but the perception is that this is a new Tory policy - we'll take your kids' inheritance off them.
As every Tory interviewee gets skewered on this every day now on and as the Tory press goes big on this, there must be a real risk now that the Tory lead evaporates to nothing or tiny numbers? As Corbyn continues to campaign well and impress on the stump with his utopian visions funded by magic money tree, I really do fear the worst now.
There's no way round this now for the Tories. Bed made, lie in it. They have torpedoed themselves.
Cretins.0 -
Not in the bit I quoted. see below.malcolmg said:
Err, isn't it "he" is desperate for them to be Tories as I said previously.foxinsoxuk said:
Is there any sign of the Unionist vote moving away from the Tories?
particularly in the cities. All the PB Scots are either SNP or SCon, so we are rather short of SLab or SLD views.0 -
I thought the whole point of this election was to give May a mandate.welshowl said:
No but there was talk of "consultation and Green Paper". If they still get in the turkey will be taken out and shot and will emerge as a fowl of a different feather.rottenborough said:
Has Green answered one of the fundamental questions on this piece of manifesto madness: that is, will the private, City-based insurance industry be running State-enforced Equitable Release schemes on people's homes to pay care costs?Sandpit said:
He was drowning at the start on the figures in the manifesto, but I thought he recovered somewhat near the end and gave a good account of himself on the social care issue.JackW said:
I must have missed the nano second when that occurred.Sandpit said:Damian Green doing a reasonable job of defending the social care policy now.
McDonnell now arguing that rich pensioners should pay less for social care, but still won't say where the money comes from.
So, I am going to take her at her word as far as the manifesto is concerned: there will be some kind of State-enforced scheme to take wealth from property to pay for social care down to a floor of £100K.
This will either by via Local Authority charges on property or some newly minted "account" run by insurance companies that is basically another form of equity release with all the issues of costs of the scheme and interest rates etc etc.
There will no longer be free care within the home for those who have some assets.
0 -
0
-
Surely the alarm bells must be ringing that if (and it's still a very big if) Labour can poll around 33% under Corbyn why will they do with the same policies under a personable younger leader?
We are at peak May at the moment and there must be a possibility that the WC Brexiters might strike out to the left next time if Brexit is failing to deliver for them.
I was really expecting the Lib Dems to be snapping at Labour's heals by now but it's not happening. I think, like many writing Labour's obituary, I failed to account for the fact that the Labour brand is still preferred to the Conservative brand. This time they are pulling in votes by masquerading as the Theresa May Party, how long it will work is another matter.0 -
The polling on the policy itself suggests that it's not especially unpopular.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Well, it fell into the political hole of reminding people that the current situation is actually shit. It didn't create a situation where lots of people will lose their homes - that's already the case.rottenborough said:welshowl said:
I doubt Crosby's plan was to go to "landslide" via "twitchy underwear" any more than Dunkirk was part of the plan for Normandy.
Curbing pensioner benefits after all the shelter they've had is morally right "all in it together" etc. The long term care situation also needs looking at for all our sakes so we will benefit from it being now firmly on the agenda. The essentials of the route they have chosen is that hateful word "progressive" in that rich southerners are going to be the supply of money for poor northerners at its most blunt. Ok they have chosen to individualise the risk which is a further choice but someone in a two up two down in Salford benefits over a £5m pad owner in Chelsea.
But thrice but, as an act of salesmanship, it's dire. These are a "masterclass" in creating doubt and fear. Marr is roasting Damian Green right now as to what level the WFA cuts will kick in. Nail on head - is it pensioners on 30k, 20k, 10k? So McDonnell can't miss can he as 12m are now in doubt and he can say he's protecting poor old ladies on 6k from freezing to death rather than having to defend (say) handing out cash to folk on 30k who spend it on a winter break in Marbella.
Ditto long term care. As I said at it's heart "progressive" (though risk is not pooled which is v odd) but it's way way too complex to explain on the doorstep two and a half weeks before an election. All folk hear is "they're taking my house if I'm ill, sort of, aren't they?". People are very very very emotive about their homes. You can use all the logic you like they won't listen, they'll just go into defence mode.
Facts are largely irrelevant "it's perception stupid ". If you are explaining you're losing. The Tories are explaining a lot on this, even as Labour's own policies are collectively "moon on a stick".
This policy stank of polling disaster from the moment Theresa May stood up to launch the manifesto.
The perception is generally awful by sounds of it. Although bit of a mixed response in my own family. Several terrified by the sound of it all - "losing control of our homes", one or two saying "let's wait for the detail".
I think the latter are being highly naive.0 -
" Of the 15% who intend to be tactical with their vote, 46% said they were trying to stop the SNP and 39% said they were trying to lock the Tories out. "IanB2 said:
It amazes me that any sort of Labour-Tory or Tory-Labour tactical voting in the middle of a hard fought GE is particularly likely in the first place. But I am not Scottish so what do I know?CarlottaVance said:Well quite:
Some Labour activists are concerned that the suspensions in Aberdeen will have repercussions in next month’s general election. Labour’s last surviving Scottish MP in the 2015 SNP landslide was the member for Edinburgh South, Ian Murray. Even he would concede that among those who returned him to Westminster two years ago were a number of those who might traditionally have voted Tory. Will those same voters feel so happy supporting a Labour candidate now they know that party views them with such contempt?
http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/euan-mccolm-dugdale-blunders-with-suspension-of-disbelief-1-4452123
http://www.scotsman.com/news/poll-15-of-scottish-voters-plan-to-vote-tactically-1-44519120 -
Dead right. As an act of "political selling" it was the brainless, to drag up something so utterly obscure and messy ( however noble the intention).TheWhiteRabbit said:
Well, it fell into the political hole of reminding people that the current situation is actually shit. It didn't create a situation where lots of people will lose their homes - that's already the case.rottenborough said:welshowl said:
I doubt Crosby's plan was to go to "landslide" via "twitchy underwear" any more than Dunkirk was part of the plan for Normandy.
Curbing pensioner benefits after all the shelter they've had is morally right "all in it together" etc. The long term care situation also needs looking at for all our sakes so we will benefit from it being now firmly on the agenda. The essentials of the route they have chosen is that hateful word "progressive" in that rich southerners are going to be the supply of money for poor northerners at its most blunt. Ok they have chosen to individualise the risk which is a further choice but someone in a two up two down in Salford benefits over a £5m pad owner in Chelsea.
But thrice but, as an act of salesmanship, it's dire. These are a "masterclass" in creating doubt and fear. Marr is roasting Damian Green right now as to what level the WFA cuts will kick in. Nail on head - is it pensioners on 30k, 20k, 10k? So McDonnell can't miss can he as 12m are now in doubt and he can say he's protecting poor old ladies on 6k from freezing to death rather than having to defend (say) handing out cash to folk on 30k who spend it on a winter break in Marbella.
Ditto long term care. As I said at it's heart "progressive" (though risk is not pooled which is v odd) but it's way way too complex to explain on the doorstep two and a half weeks before an election. All folk hear is "they're taking my house if I'm ill, sort of, aren't they?". People are very very very emotive about their homes. You can use all the logic you like they won't listen, they'll just go into defence mode.
Facts are largely irrelevant "it's perception stupid ". If you are explaining you're losing. The Tories are explaining a lot on this, even as Labour's own policies are collectively "moon on a stick".
This policy stank of polling disaster from the moment Theresa May stood up to launch the manifesto.
The perception is generally awful by sounds of it. Although bit of a mixed response in my own family. Several terrified by the sound of it all - "losing control of our homes", one or two saying "let's wait for the detail".
I think the latter are being highly naive.0 -
The correct comparison isn't to some sort of Utopian 'National Care Service', funded by a magic money tree - it's to the situation as it currently is, where people (and their children) are already being forced to sell their homes during their lifetime to pay for care.rottenborough said:welshowl said:
I doubt Crosby's plan was to go to "landslide" via "twitchy underwear" any more than Dunkirk was part of the plan for Normandy.
Curbing pensioner benefits after all the shelter they've had is morally right "all in it together" etc. The long term care situation also needs looking at for all our sakes so we will benefit from it being now firmly on the agenda. The essentials of the route they have chosen is that hateful word "progressive" in that rich southerners are going to be the supply of money for poor northerners at its most blunt. Ok they have chosen to individualise the risk which is a further choice but someone in a two up two down in Salford benefits over a £5m pad owner in Chelsea.
But thrice but, as an act of salesmanship, it's dire. These are a "masterclass" in creating doubt and fear. Marr is roasting Damian Green right now as to what level the WFA cuts will kick in. Nail on head - is it pensioners on 30k, 20k, 10k? So McDonnell can't miss can he as 12m are now in doubt and he can say he's protecting poor old ladies on 6k from freezing to death rather than having to defend (say) handing out cash to folk on 30k who spend it on a winter break in Marbella.
Ditto long term care. As I said at it's heart "progressive" (though risk is not pooled which is v odd) but it's way way too complex to explain on the doorstep two and a half weeks before an election. All folk hear is "they're taking my house if I'm ill, sort of, aren't they?". People are very very very emotive about their homes. You can use all the logic you like they won't listen, they'll just go into defence mode.
Facts are largely irrelevant "it's perception stupid ". If you are explaining you're losing. The Tories are explaining a lot on this, even as Labour's own policies are collectively "moon on a stick".
This policy stank of polling disaster from the moment Theresa May stood up to launch the manifesto.
The perception is generally awful by sounds of it. Although bit of a mixed response in my own family. Several terrified by the sound of it all - "losing control of our homes", one or two saying "let's wait for the detail".
I think the latter are being highly naive.0 -
You're making the same mistake as McMao of confusing spending with investment.MarqueeMark said:In what fucked up world would you borrow a quarter of a trillion pounds to buy back privatised industries - rather than spend it on health, education, housing.....
Nationalisation (particularly if carrried out by the bunch of halfwits proposing it) is not a particularly sensible policy, but the financing of it at current borrowing rates (and assuming a competent government) is not indefensible.
The 'fucked up world' you ask about is the one in which government can borrow very large sums at what were, until quite recently, inconceivably low interest rates.
0 -
I bet that sounded amazing in McDonnell's head.CarlottaVance said:0 -
Quite so. But why less than three weeks before an election? Timing is everything. You don't cremate granny just before your five year old's birthday party do you?Sandpit said:
The correct comparison isn't to some sort of Utopian 'National Care Service', funded by a magic money tree - it's to the situation as it currently is, where people (and their children) are already being forced to sell their homes during their lifetime to pay for care.rottenborough said:welshowl said:
I doubt Crosby's plan was to go to "landslide" via "twitchy underwear" any more than Dunkirk was part of the plan for Normandy.
Curbing pensioner benefits after all the shelter they've had is morally right "all in it together" etc. The long term care situation also needs looking at for all our sakes so we will benefit from it being now firmly on the agenda. The essentials of the route they have chosen is that hateful word "progressive" in that rich southerners are going to be the supply of money for poor northerners at its most blunt. Ok they have chosen to individualise the risk which is a further choice but someone in a two up two down in Salford benefits over a £5m pad owner in Chelsea.
But thrice but, as an act of salesmanship, it's dire. These are a "masterclass" in creating doubt and fear. Marr is roasting Damian Green right now as to what level the WFA cuts will kick in. Nail on head - is it pensioners on 30k, 20k, 10k? So McDonnell can't miss can he as 12m are now in doubt and he can say he's protecting poor old ladies on 6k from freezing to death rather than having to defend (say) handing out cash to folk on 30k who spend it on a winter break in Marbella.
Ditto long term care. As I said at it's heart "progressive" (though risk is not pooled which is v odd) but it's way way too complex to explain on the doorstep two and a half weeks before an election. All folk hear is "they're taking my house if I'm ill, sort of, aren't they?". People are very very very emotive about their homes. You can use all the logic you like they won't listen, they'll just go into defence mode.
Facts are largely irrelevant "it's perception stupid ". If you are explaining you're losing. The Tories are explaining a lot on this, even as Labour's own policies are collectively "moon on a stick".
This policy stank of polling disaster from the moment Theresa May stood up to launch the manifesto.
The perception is generally awful by sounds of it. Although bit of a mixed response in my own family. Several terrified by the sound of it all - "losing control of our homes", one or two saying "let's wait for the detail".
I think the latter are being highly naive.0 -
Yeah, I wasn't arguing that nationalised industries are necessarily better run. Although there are pros and cons - it's not a one way argument - and some of the upsides for railways are potentially attractive.Sandpit said:
We tried that theory in the '70s and '80s, the problem is that when politicians have the choice of building a new water main or funding the NHS and Education they'll always choose the latter. Which is why we used to wait three months for a phone line to be installed and the water board used to lose half the stuff on its way from the reservoir and your house.IanB2 said:
Where they generate an annual return greater than your average debt servicing costs?MarqueeMark said:In what fucked up world would you borrow a quarter of a trillion pounds to buy back privatised industries - rather than spend it on health, education, housing.....
My point was simply that as an investment it might make sense. They always have the option of doing what Blair tried with Royal Mail - own the shares but otherwise let the industry pretty much run itself, just as it would with any other shareholder.
Sometimes government is very short sighted. I remember when Pickles was telling local councils to sell all their property as part of the austerity costs; my council looked at its portfolio and most of the commercial side was making a much better return than we could get from any other source. A council holds a batch of shops and offices and renting them out at commercial rates, using the income to support public services, would be mad to sell up, a fact that Pickles despite being a Tory seemed to struggle with.0 -
Indeed. They may get away with it as it has happened two weeks or so from polling day. Other stuff will have come up by then.Bob__Sykes said:After the car crash interview by Green just now on Marr and seeing the open goal presented to McDonnell, I really do think this toxic Tory policy (plus the WFA debacle) could now put Corbyn in No10.
Despite being arguably fairer than the status quo, it is reminding people that they will be unable to pass on their house (save a 100k residual) if they need long term care. I suspect millions don't actually realise this already happens anyway without floor or cap asi understand it but the perception is that this is a new Tory policy - we'll take your kids' inheritance off them.
As every Tory interviewee gets skewered on this every day now on and as the Tory press goes big on this, there must be a real risk now that the Tory lead evaporates to nothing or tiny numbers? As Corbyn continues to campaign well and impress on the stump with his utopian visions funded by magic money tree, I really do fear the worst now.
There's no way round this now for the Tories. Bed made, lie in it. They have torpedoed themselves.
Cretins.
But many are voting by post already.
It has certainly go down like a cup of cold sick in my household. We were promised a cap and now there won't be one.0 -
Blimey, McDonnell says some daft things when angry, fortunately he’s easily rattled.CarlottaVance said:0 -
Take your point, and that's what we have to decide on in a couple of weeks, but I suspect it would be amended in reality.rottenborough said:
I thought the whole point of this election was to give May a mandate.welshowl said:
No but there was talk of "consultation and Green Paper". If they still get in the turkey will be taken out and shot and will emerge as a fowl of a different feather.rottenborough said:
Has Green answered one of the fundamental questions on this piece of manifesto madness: that is, will the private, City-based insurance industry be running State-enforced Equitable Release schemes on people's homes to pay care costs?Sandpit said:
He was drowning at the start on the figures in the manifesto, but I thought he recovered somewhat near the end and gave a good account of himself on the social care issue.JackW said:
I must have missed the nano second when that occurred.Sandpit said:Damian Green doing a reasonable job of defending the social care policy now.
McDonnell now arguing that rich pensioners should pay less for social care, but still won't say where the money comes from.
So, I am going to take her at her word as far as the manifesto is concerned: there will be some kind of State-enforced scheme to take wealth from property to pay for social care down to a floor of £100K.
This will either by via Local Authority charges on property or some newly minted "account" run by insurance companies that is basically another form of equity release with all the issues of costs of the scheme and interest rates etc etc.
There will no longer be free care within the home for those who have some assets.0 -
Sophy on Sky just skewered Tim Farron with a quote from 2009 in support of repealing the hunting ban.
Edit: and a quote about him being anti-abortion.0 -
The cap that wasn't accounting for the hotel aspect of care costs and so would take years of paying bills to ever actually reach?rottenborough said:
Indeed. They may get away with it as it has happened two weeks or so from polling day. Other stuff will have come up by then.Bob__Sykes said:After the car crash interview by Green just now on Marr and seeing the open goal presented to McDonnell, I really do think this toxic Tory policy (plus the WFA debacle) could now put Corbyn in No10.
Despite being arguably fairer than the status quo, it is reminding people that they will be unable to pass on their house (save a 100k residual) if they need long term care. I suspect millions don't actually realise this already happens anyway without floor or cap asi understand it but the perception is that this is a new Tory policy - we'll take your kids' inheritance off them.
As every Tory interviewee gets skewered on this every day now on and as the Tory press goes big on this, there must be a real risk now that the Tory lead evaporates to nothing or tiny numbers? As Corbyn continues to campaign well and impress on the stump with his utopian visions funded by magic money tree, I really do fear the worst now.
There's no way round this now for the Tories. Bed made, lie in it. They have torpedoed themselves.
Cretins.
But many are voting by post already.
It has certainly go down like a cup of cold sick in my household. We were promised a cap and now there won't be one.0 -
In what world does a Tory lead of 9-18% result in a win for Corbyn?Bob__Sykes said:After the car crash interview by Green just now on Marr and seeing the open goal presented to McDonnell, I really do think this toxic Tory policy (plus the WFA debacle) could now put Corbyn in No10.
Despite being arguably fairer than the status quo, it is reminding people that they will be unable to pass on their house (save a 100k residual) if they need long term care. I suspect millions don't actually realise this already happens anyway without floor or cap asi understand it but the perception is that this is a new Tory policy - we'll take your kids' inheritance off them.
As every Tory interviewee gets skewered on this every day now on and as the Tory press goes big on this, there must be a real risk now that the Tory lead evaporates to nothing or tiny numbers? As Corbyn continues to campaign well and impress on the stump with his utopian visions funded by magic money tree, I really do fear the worst now.
There's no way round this now for the Tories. Bed made, lie in it. They have torpedoed themselves.
Cretins.0 -
" Of the 15% who intend to be tactical with their vote, 46% said they were trying to stop the SNP and 39% said they were trying to lock the Tories out. "foxinsoxuk said:
Not in the bit I quoted. see below.malcolmg said:
Err, isn't it "he" is desperate for them to be Tories as I said previously.foxinsoxuk said:
Is there any sign of the Unionist vote moving away from the Tories?
particularly in the cities. All the PB Scots are either SNP or SCon, so we are rather short of SLab or SLD views.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/poll-15-of-scottish-voters-plan-to-vote-tactically-1-44519120 -
Good post, and reasonable points, except that the care policy isn't really progressive, as it simply won't affect the truly wealthy (like your £5m pad owner), and lotteries aren't progressive.welshowl said:
I doubt Crosby's plan was to go to "landslide" via "twitchy underwear" any more than Dunkirk was part of the plan for Normandy.
Curbing pensioner benefits after all the shelter they've had is morally right "all in it together" etc. The long term care situation also needs looking at for all our sakes so we will benefit from it being now firmly on the agenda. The essentials of the route they have chosen is that hateful word "progressive" in that rich southerners are going to be the supply of money for poor northerners at its most blunt. Ok they have chosen to individualise the risk which is a further choice but someone in a two up two down in Salford benefits over a £5m pad owner in Chelsea.
But thrice but, as an act of salesmanship, it's dire. These are a "masterclass" in creating doubt and fear. Marr is roasting Damian Green right now as to what level the WFA cuts will kick in. Nail on head - is it pensioners on 30k, 20k, 10k? So McDonnell can't miss can he as 12m are now in doubt and he can say he's protecting poor old ladies on 6k from freezing to death rather than having to defend (say) handing out cash to folk on 30k who spend it on a winter break in Marbella.
Ditto long term care. As I said at it's heart "progressive" (though risk is not pooled which is v odd) but it's way way too complex to explain on the doorstep two and a half weeks before an election. All folk hear is "they're taking my house if I'm ill, sort of, aren't they?". People are very very very emotive about their homes. You can use all the logic you like they won't listen, they'll just go into defence mode.
Facts are largely irrelevant "it's perception stupid ". If you are explaining you're losing. The Tories are explaining a lot on this, even as Labour's own policies are collectively "moon on a stick".0 -
The anti abortion thing we already know about.Sandpit said:Sophy on Sky just skewered Tim Farron with a quote from 2009 in support of repealing the hunting ban.
Edit: and a quote about him being anti-abortion.
With all of these positions combined though, I have to ask: why is he a LD?0 -
https://twitter.com/MarrShow/status/866218794779201536SimonStClare said:
Blimey, McDonnell says some daft things when angry, fortunately he’s easily rattled.CarlottaVance said:0 -
Labour MP pushing the boundaries of #fakenews
https://twitter.com/jon_trickett/status/8662147536345702460 -
Mr. Owl, just so. The timing is horrendous given there's not been a solid defence *and* the Conservatives failed to hit Labour's tax-and-spend fantasy manifesto *and* they haven't hit Corbyn-McDonnell over their dodgy IRA comments.0
-
Well I did not think I would say this but having watched Marr this morning , I would prefer McDonnell in power rather than Green . Fortunately I do not live in a marginal seat so will not have any pressure to choose between Labour and the Conservatives .0
-
There won't be a Tory lead of 9-18 points though once this cold sick policy is further digested over the next fortnight.Sean_F said:
In what world does a Tory lead of 9-18% result in a win for Corbyn?Bob__Sykes said:After the car crash interview by Green just now on Marr and seeing the open goal presented to McDonnell, I really do think this toxic Tory policy (plus the WFA debacle) could now put Corbyn in No10.
Despite being arguably fairer than the status quo, it is reminding people that they will be unable to pass on their house (save a 100k residual) if they need long term care. I suspect millions don't actually realise this already happens anyway without floor or cap asi understand it but the perception is that this is a new Tory policy - we'll take your kids' inheritance off them.
As every Tory interviewee gets skewered on this every day now on and as the Tory press goes big on this, there must be a real risk now that the Tory lead evaporates to nothing or tiny numbers? As Corbyn continues to campaign well and impress on the stump with his utopian visions funded by magic money tree, I really do fear the worst now.
There's no way round this now for the Tories. Bed made, lie in it. They have torpedoed themselves.
Cretins.
If the lead reduces to 5 points then May loses her majority, will be untenable as Tory leader and Corbyn will be PM in my view.0 -
Unfortunately only Sky Bet are offering a market on the Indianapolis 500, but the betting does look a bit skewed towards names people know. Alonso is joint favourite at 8-1 and Juan Pablo Montoya is 10-1 which look far too short.
The race is a bit like the Grand National in that you have to survive in tact to the last 20 laps or so and then be in position to have a go, so there's a lot of luck in terms of not being taken out and hoping the cautions play to your advantage.
I've had a few quid on JR Hildebrand at 28-1. He made the Top 9 shootout for pole tonight and he's come close before (he crashed on the final corner in 2011 while leading).0 -
That's ideology not careful analysis of costs and cash flow by Pickles. Selling off capital items to generate current account spending is the only thing some Tories know.IanB2 said:
Sometimes government is very short sighted. I remember when Pickles was telling local councils to sell all their property as part of the austerity costs; my council looked at its portfolio and most of the commercial side was making a much better return than we could get from any other source. A council holds a batch of shops and offices and renting them out at commercial rates, using the income to support public services, would be mad to sell up, a fact that Pickles despite being a Tory seemed to struggle with.0 -
Not really in May's style to row back like that.welshowl said:
Take your point, and that's what we have to decide on in a couple of weeks, but I suspect it would be amended in reality.rottenborough said:
I thought the whole point of this election was to give May a mandate.welshowl said:
No but there was talk of "consultation and Green Paper". If they still get in the turkey will be taken out and shot and will emerge as a fowl of a different feather.rottenborough said:
Has Green answered one of the fundamental questions on this piece of manifesto madness: that is, will the private, City-based insurance industry be running State-enforced Equitable Release schemes on people's homes to pay care costs?Sandpit said:
He was drowning at the start on the figures in the manifesto, but I thought he recovered somewhat near the end and gave a good account of himself on the social care issue.JackW said:
I must have missed the nano second when that occurred.Sandpit said:Damian Green doing a reasonable job of defending the social care policy now.
McDonnell now arguing that rich pensioners should pay less for social care, but still won't say where the money comes from.
So, I am going to take her at her word as far as the manifesto is concerned: there will be some kind of State-enforced scheme to take wealth from property to pay for social care down to a floor of £100K.
This will either by via Local Authority charges on property or some newly minted "account" run by insurance companies that is basically another form of equity release with all the issues of costs of the scheme and interest rates etc etc.
There will no longer be free care within the home for those who have some assets.
0 -
Not surprising given your previous comments on Tories!MarkSenior said:Well I did not think I would say this but having watched Marr this morning , I would prefer McDonnell in power rather than Green . Fortunately I do not live in a marginal seat so will not have any pressure to choose between Labour and the Conservatives .
0 -
I realised after our discussion last night that Cameron (who had promised there would be a cap) knew he was going when he promised it.rottenborough said:
Indeed. They may get away with it as it has happened two weeks or so from polling day. Other stuff will have come up by then.Bob__Sykes said:After the car crash interview by Green just now on Marr and seeing the open goal presented to McDonnell, I really do think this toxic Tory policy (plus the WFA debacle) could now put Corbyn in No10.
Despite being arguably fairer than the status quo, it is reminding people that they will be unable to pass on their house (save a 100k residual) if they need long term care. I suspect millions don't actually realise this already happens anyway without floor or cap asi understand it but the perception is that this is a new Tory policy - we'll take your kids' inheritance off them.
As every Tory interviewee gets skewered on this every day now on and as the Tory press goes big on this, there must be a real risk now that the Tory lead evaporates to nothing or tiny numbers? As Corbyn continues to campaign well and impress on the stump with his utopian visions funded by magic money tree, I really do fear the worst now.
There's no way round this now for the Tories. Bed made, lie in it. They have torpedoed themselves.
Cretins.
But many are voting by post already.
It has certainly go down like a cup of cold sick in my household. We were promised a cap and now there won't be one.
The social care cap was due to be introduced in 2020.
Cameron already announced in 2015 that he wouldn’t serve a full term.
So, it was always just posturing. It is easy to solve problems by pushing the problem onto your successor, which is all the social care cap ever was.
Now, whoever is elected in 2017 will have to solve the problem, and I’m afraid that there are no simple answers.0 -
Where did I say there was no evidence of appetite for an immediate referendum? In any case, one subsample at 44% does not equal 'firming up at 45'.Theuniondivvie said:0 -
https://twitter.com/Daniel_Sugarman/status/866218726328238081isam said:Labour MP pushing the boundaries of #fakenews
https://twitter.com/jon_trickett/status/8662147536345702460 -
She's rolled back in the past when her policies have faced a backlash.Nigelb said:
Not really in May's style to row back like that.welshowl said:
Take your point, and that's what we have to decide on in a couple of weeks, but I suspect it would be amended in reality.rottenborough said:
I thought the whole point of this election was to give May a mandate.welshowl said:
No but there was talk of "consultation and Green Paper". If they still get in the turkey will be taken out and shot and will emerge as a fowl of a different feather.rottenborough said:
Has Green answered one of the fundamental questions on this piece of manifesto madness: that is, will the private, City-based insurance industry be running State-enforced Equitable Release schemes on people's homes to pay care costs?Sandpit said:
He was drowning at the start on the figures in the manifesto, but I thought he recovered somewhat near the end and gave a good account of himself on the social care issue.JackW said:
I must have missed the nano second when that occurred.Sandpit said:Damian Green doing a reasonable job of defending the social care policy now.
McDonnell now arguing that rich pensioners should pay less for social care, but still won't say where the money comes from.
So, I am going to take her at her word as far as the manifesto is concerned: there will be some kind of State-enforced scheme to take wealth from property to pay for social care down to a floor of £100K.
This will either by via Local Authority charges on property or some newly minted "account" run by insurance companies that is basically another form of equity release with all the issues of costs of the scheme and interest rates etc etc.
There will no longer be free care within the home for those who have some assets.
0 -
-
YouGov is the only poll this weekend with single digit Tory lead.0
-
An LD in Westmoreland is a different thing from an LD in West London.The_Apocalypse said:
The anti abortion thing we already know about.Sandpit said:Sophy on Sky just skewered Tim Farron with a quote from 2009 in support of repealing the hunting ban.
Edit: and a quote about him being anti-abortion.
With all of these positions combined though, I have to ask: why is he a LD?
Apart from the EU worship.0 -
Farron needs to realise this isn't America where dozens of Conservative Christians are up in arms about abortion.calum said:0 -
Wouldn't it have been better politics for Labour to "invest" £250 billion on a National Care Service. instead of paying billions to city investors buying back privatised companies.Nigelb said:
You're making the same mistake as McMao of confusing spending with investment.MarqueeMark said:In what fucked up world would you borrow a quarter of a trillion pounds to buy back privatised industries - rather than spend it on health, education, housing.....
Nationalisation (particularly if carrried out by the bunch of halfwits proposing it) is not a particularly sensible policy, but the financing of it at current borrowing rates (and assuming a competent government) is not indefensible.
The 'fucked up world' you ask about is the one in which government can borrow very large sums at what were, until quite recently, inconceivably low interest rates.0 -
According to BBC front page, Green has specifically said they will not amend the policy.Nigelb said:
Not really in May's style to row back like that.welshowl said:
Take your point, and that's what we have to decide on in a couple of weeks, but I suspect it would be amended in reality.rottenborough said:
I thought the whole point of this election was to give May a mandate.welshowl said:
No but there was talk of "consultation and Green Paper". If they still get in the turkey will be taken out and shot and will emerge as a fowl of a different feather.rottenborough said:
Has Green answered one of the fundamental questions on this piece of manifesto madness: that is, will the private, City-based insurance industry be running State-enforced Equitable Release schemes on people's homes to pay care costs?Sandpit said:
He was drowning at the start on the figures in the manifesto, but I thought he recovered somewhat near the end and gave a good account of himself on the social care issue.JackW said:
I must have missed the nano second when that occurred.Sandpit said:Damian Green doing a reasonable job of defending the social care policy now.
McDonnell now arguing that rich pensioners should pay less for social care, but still won't say where the money comes from.
So, I am going to take her at her word as far as the manifesto is concerned: there will be some kind of State-enforced scheme to take wealth from property to pay for social care down to a floor of £100K.
This will either by via Local Authority charges on property or some newly minted "account" run by insurance companies that is basically another form of equity release with all the issues of costs of the scheme and interest rates etc etc.
There will no longer be free care within the home for those who have some assets.
This is what is going to happen.
0 -
"Tories 'won't look again' at social care plans" now the headline on bbc news. She has burnt her bridges.The_Apocalypse said:
She's rolled back in the past when her policies have faced a backlash.Nigelb said:
Not really in May's style to row back like that.welshowl said:
Take your point, and that's what we have to decide on in a couple of weeks, but I suspect it would be amended in reality.rottenborough said:
I thought the whole point of this election was to give May a mandate.welshowl said:
No but there was talk of "consultation and Green Paper". If they still get in the turkey will be taken out and shot and will emerge as a fowl of a different feather.rottenborough said:
Has Green answered one of the fundamental questions on this piece of manifesto madness: that is, will the private, City-based insurance industry be running State-enforced Equitable Release schemes on people's homes to pay care costs?Sandpit said:
He was drowning at the start on the figures in the manifesto, but I thought he recovered somewhat near the end and gave a good account of himself on the social care issue.JackW said:
I must have missed the nano second when that occurred.Sandpit said:Damian Green doing a reasonable job of defending the social care policy now.
McDonnell now arguing that rich pensioners should pay less for social care, but still won't say where the money comes from.
So, I am going to take her at her word as far as the manifesto is concerned: there will be some kind of State-enforced scheme to take wealth from property to pay for social care down to a floor of £100K.
This will either by via Local Authority charges on property or some newly minted "account" run by insurance companies that is basically another form of equity release with all the issues of costs of the scheme and interest rates etc etc.
There will no longer be free care within the home for those who have some assets.
Leadsom would not have been worse than this.0 -
Hope Liam can escape unharmedCarlottaVance said:
0 -
If you aren't socially liberal, I don't see how you have a place in a party centred around social liberalism and social democracy.another_richard said:
An LD in Westmoreland is a different thing from an LD in West London.The_Apocalypse said:
The anti abortion thing we already know about.Sandpit said:Sophy on Sky just skewered Tim Farron with a quote from 2009 in support of repealing the hunting ban.
Edit: and a quote about him being anti-abortion.
With all of these positions combined though, I have to ask: why is he a LD?
Apart from the EU worship.0 -
That's an interesting question - can one be liberal and Christian?The_Apocalypse said:
The anti abortion thing we already know about.Sandpit said:Sophy on Sky just skewered Tim Farron with a quote from 2009 in support of repealing the hunting ban.
Edit: and a quote about him being anti-abortion.
With all of these positions combined though, I have to ask: why is he a LD?
I'd say yes you can. It's possible to have your own view on something while allowing others to take a different point of view.
Were it not for their stance on the EU, I'd certainly consider voting LD over a more authoritarian Conservative party.0 -
If Labour did get in then the shares in those companies would spiral over night, and the Government would have to pay the value. In fact it would be better than betting, a surefire return if you can get in early enough.nunu said:
Wouldn't it have been better politics for Labour to "invest" £250 billion on a National Care Service. instead of paying billions to city investors buying back privatised companies.Nigelb said:
You're making the same mistake as McMao of confusing spending with investment.MarqueeMark said:In what fucked up world would you borrow a quarter of a trillion pounds to buy back privatised industries - rather than spend it on health, education, housing.....
Nationalisation (particularly if carrried out by the bunch of halfwits proposing it) is not a particularly sensible policy, but the financing of it at current borrowing rates (and assuming a competent government) is not indefensible.
The 'fucked up world' you ask about is the one in which government can borrow very large sums at what were, until quite recently, inconceivably low interest rates.0 -
delete0
-
Agree , it makes you wonder what planet they live on, how any labour voter would vote Tory seems bizarre.IanB2 said:
The politicians I can understand - from any deal there is the upside of power, influence and income, and there will be personal loyalties and antagonisms at play as well, for sure. It's the voters I was questioning. LD/Lab and LD/Tory tactical voting, in both directions, seems to me quite possible, but Labour voters switching to Tory and vice versa can only be a few people whose opposition to an IndyRef swamps concerns about any other issue, surely?malcolmg said:
It highlights the dearth of talent in Tories and Labour in Scotland, both so bereft they have to help each other manage their drubbings.IanB2 said:
It amazes me that any sort of Labour-Tory or Tory-Labour tactical voting in the middle of a hard fought GE is particularly likely in the first place. But I am not Scottish so what do I know?CarlottaVance said:Well quite:
Some Labour activists are concerned that the suspensions in Aberdeen will have repercussions in next month’s general election. Labour’s last surviving Scottish MP in the 2015 SNP landslide was the member for Edinburgh South, Ian Murray. Even he would concede that among those who returned him to Westminster two years ago were a number of those who might traditionally have voted Tory. Will those same voters feel so happy supporting a Labour candidate now they know that party views them with such contempt?
http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/euan-mccolm-dugdale-blunders-with-suspension-of-disbelief-1-44521230 -
So no backing down from the government Re. social care and stealing the WFA from old age pensioners in the south to give to Scottish pensioners...
As Cameron found out not 12 months ago... When politicians decide to go to war with their electorate typically there's only one loser...0 -
He couldn't exactly have said yes, could he? The questions would then be 'what is it going to be different', 'why didn't you do that originally' etc. That doesn't mean it is set in stone, especially as it goes through parliament.rottenborough said:
According to BBC front page, Green has specifically said they will not amend the policy.Nigelb said:
Not really in May's style to row back like that.welshowl said:
Take your point, and that's what we have to decide on in a couple of weeks, but I suspect it would be amended in reality.rottenborough said:
I thought the whole point of this election was to give May a mandate.welshowl said:
No but there was talk of "consultation and Green Paper". If they still get in the turkey will be taken out and shot and will emerge as a fowl of a different feather.rottenborough said:
Has Green answered one of the fundamental questions on this piece of manifesto madness: that is, will the private, City-based insurance industry be running State-enforced Equitable Release schemes on people's homes to pay care costs?Sandpit said:
He was drowning at the start on the figures in the manifesto, but I thought he recovered somewhat near the end and gave a good account of himself on the social care issue.JackW said:
I must have missed the nano second when that occurred.Sandpit said:Damian Green doing a reasonable job of defending the social care policy now.
McDonnell now arguing that rich pensioners should pay less for social care, but still won't say where the money comes from.
So, I am going to take her at her word as far as the manifesto is concerned: there will be some kind of State-enforced scheme to take wealth from property to pay for social care down to a floor of £100K.
This will either by via Local Authority charges on property or some newly minted "account" run by insurance companies that is basically another form of equity release with all the issues of costs of the scheme and interest rates etc etc.
There will no longer be free care within the home for those who have some assets.
This is what is going to happen.0 -
Easier to flip than a pancakeThe_Apocalypse said:
She's rolled back in the past when her policies have faced a backlash.Nigelb said:
Not really in May's style to row back like that.welshowl said:
Take your point, and that's what we have to decide on in a couple of weeks, but I suspect it would be amended in reality.rottenborough said:
I thought the whole point of this election was to give May a mandate.welshowl said:
No but there was talk of "consultation and Green Paper". If they still get in the turkey will be taken out and shot and will emerge as a fowl of a different feather.rottenborough said:
Has Green answered one of the fundamental questions on this piece of manifesto madness: that is, will the private, City-based insurance industry be running State-enforced Equitable Release schemes on people's homes to pay care costs?Sandpit said:
He was drowning at the start on the figures in the manifesto, but I thought he recovered somewhat near the end and gave a good account of himself on the social care issue.JackW said:
I must have missed the nano second when that occurred.Sandpit said:Damian Green doing a reasonable job of defending the social care policy now.
McDonnell now arguing that rich pensioners should pay less for social care, but still won't say where the money comes from.
So, I am going to take her at her word as far as the manifesto is concerned: there will be some kind of State-enforced scheme to take wealth from property to pay for social care down to a floor of £100K.
This will either by via Local Authority charges on property or some newly minted "account" run by insurance companies that is basically another form of equity release with all the issues of costs of the scheme and interest rates etc etc.
There will no longer be free care within the home for those who have some assets.0 -
Apols, got you mixed up with Carlotta.RobD said:
Where did I say there was no evidence of appetite for an immediate referendum? In any case, one subsample at 44% does not equal 'firming up at 45'.Theuniondivvie said:
How I did that, I just don't know.0 -
You are one of the (unintentionally) funniest posters on PB. Keep up the good work.Bob__Sykes said:After the car crash interview by Green just now on Marr and seeing the open goal presented to McDonnell, I really do think this toxic Tory policy (plus the WFA debacle) could now put Corbyn in No10.
0 -
Westmorland does like its hunting.CarlottaVance said:0 -
Isn't one of their possible plans to force all shareholders to become bond holders instead, thereby avoiding this kind of pay day?HaroldO said:
If Labour did get in then the shares in those companies would spiral over night, and the Government would have to pay the value. In fact it would be better than betting, a surefire return if you can get in early enough.nunu said:
Wouldn't it have been better politics for Labour to "invest" £250 billion on a National Care Service. instead of paying billions to city investors buying back privatised companies.Nigelb said:
You're making the same mistake as McMao of confusing spending with investment.MarqueeMark said:In what fucked up world would you borrow a quarter of a trillion pounds to buy back privatised industries - rather than spend it on health, education, housing.....
Nationalisation (particularly if carrried out by the bunch of halfwits proposing it) is not a particularly sensible policy, but the financing of it at current borrowing rates (and assuming a competent government) is not indefensible.
The 'fucked up world' you ask about is the one in which government can borrow very large sums at what were, until quite recently, inconceivably low interest rates.0 -
Nah, I still think Leadsom would have been pretty bad.Ishmael_Z said:
"Tories 'won't look again' at social care plans" now the headline on bbc news. She has burnt her bridges.The_Apocalypse said:
She's rolled back in the past when her policies have faced a backlash.Nigelb said:
Not really in May's style to row back like that.welshowl said:
Take your point, and that's what we have to decide on in a couple of weeks, but I suspect it would be amended in reality.rottenborough said:
I thought the whole point of this election was to give May a mandate.welshowl said:
No but there was talk of "consultation and Green Paper". If they still get in the turkey will be taken out and shot and will emerge as a fowl of a different feather.rottenborough said:
Has Green answered one of the fundamental questions on this piece of manifesto madness: that is, will the private, City-based insurance industry be running State-enforced Equitable Release schemes on people's homes to pay care costs?Sandpit said:
He was drowning at the start on the figures in the manifesto, but I thought he recovered somewhat near the end and gave a good account of himself on the social care issue.JackW said:
I must have missed the nano second when that occurred.Sandpit said:Damian Green doing a reasonable job of defending the social care policy now.
McDonnell now arguing that rich pensioners should pay less for social care, but still won't say where the money comes from.
So, I am going to take her at her word as far as the manifesto is concerned: there will be some kind of State-enforced scheme to take wealth from property to pay for social care down to a floor of £100K.
This will either by via Local Authority charges on property or some newly minted "account" run by insurance companies that is basically another form of equity release with all the issues of costs of the scheme and interest rates etc etc.
There will no longer be free care within the home for those who have some assets.
Leadsom would not have been worse than this.
This saga is a larger statement on the lack of political talent among both parties in this country.
For that reason the foreseeable future does not look bright.0 -
I suspect that the people who oppose the controversial policies have stronger feelings about them than those who support the policies.Sean_F said:
The polling on the policy itself suggests that it's not especially unpopular.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Well, it fell into the political hole of reminding people that the current situation is actually shit. It didn't create a situation where lots of people will lose their homes - that's already the case.rottenborough said:welshowl said:
I doubt Crosby's plan was to go to "landslide" via "twitchy underwear" any more than Dunkirk was part of the plan for Normandy.
Curbing pensioner benefits after all the shelter they've had is morally right "all in it together" etc. The long term care situation also needs looking at for all our sakes so we will benefit from it being now firmly on the agenda. The essentials of the route they have chosen is that hateful word "progressive" in that rich southerners are going to be the supply of money for poor northerners at its most blunt. Ok they have chosen to individualise the risk which is a further choice but someone in a two up two down in Salford benefits over a £5m pad owner in Chelsea.
But thrice but, as an act of salesmanship, it's dire. These are a "masterclass" in creating doubt and fear. Marr is roasting Damian Green right now as to what level the WFA cuts will kick in. Nail on head - is it pensioners on 30k, 20k, 10k? So McDonnell can't miss can he as 12m are now in doubt and he can say he's protecting poor old ladies on 6k from freezing to death rather than having to defend (say) handing out cash to folk on 30k who spend it on a winter break in Marbella.
Ditto long term care. As I said at it's heart "progressive" (though risk is not pooled which is v odd) but it's way way too complex to explain on the doorstep two and a half weeks before an election. All folk hear is "they're taking my house if I'm ill, sort of, aren't they?". People are very very very emotive about their homes. You can use all the logic you like they won't listen, they'll just go into defence mode.
Facts are largely irrelevant "it's perception stupid ". If you are explaining you're losing. The Tories are explaining a lot on this, even as Labour's own policies are collectively "moon on a stick".
This policy stank of polling disaster from the moment Theresa May stood up to launch the manifesto.
The perception is generally awful by sounds of it. Although bit of a mixed response in my own family. Several terrified by the sound of it all - "losing control of our homes", one or two saying "let's wait for the detail".
I think the latter are being highly naive.
They are therefore more likely to be outspoken and/or change their vote.0 -
Trickett's deleted that retweet.
0 -
-
It’s LD policy and how one votes that matters, not personal beliefs. Tim comes unstuck again.calum said:0 -
-
Good moaning tout le monde.
I see that last night's discussion continues. This link tabulates the proportion of house value needed to fund residential care in different parts of the county.
https://www.royallondon.com/about/media/news/2017/march/half-the-value-of-your-home-at-risk-from-average-care-home-stay/
0 -
Boris less on message than Green:
The Foreign secretary tells the Peston on Sunday programme: “I do understand people’s reservations and the questions people are asking about the detail.
“There will be a consultation to get it right.”0 -
Morning GIN, not like you to be pushing Tory lies. We pay dearly to keep our pensioners warm in the winter, if people in England are greedy Barstewards and happy to vote Nasty party to cut the WFA , look at them , don't try to blame other people who are putting their hands in their pockets and missing out on other things to help their pensioners.GIN1138 said:So no backing down from the government Re. social care and stealing the WFA from old age pensioners in the south to give to Scottish pensioners...
As Cameron found out not 12 months ago... When politicians decide to go to war with their electorate typically there's only one loser...0 -
They'll be able to review the detail before it gets to parliament, but they can't unprint the manifesto, and to try and do so would be the worst of both worlds.nunu said:
which is politician speak for yes.Ishmael_Z said:Marr: you gonna rethink?
Green: nope.
The bigger mistake by the Tories was hiding away and complacently leaving the field for Labour to lose. So they now find themselves on the back foot having to respond.0 -
I could imagine there being some "clarification" on the income level of those who will DEFINITELY keep the Winter Fuel Allowance. Keep a chunk of the crumblies happy.rottenborough said:
According to BBC front page, Green has specifically said they will not amend the policy.Nigelb said:
Not really in May's style to row back like that.welshowl said:
Take your point, and that's what we have to decide on in a couple of weeks, but I suspect it would be amended in reality.rottenborough said:
I thought the whole point of this election was to give May a mandate.welshowl said:
No but there was talk of "consultation and Green Paper". If they still get in the turkey will be taken out and shot and will emerge as a fowl of a different feather.rottenborough said:
Has Green answered one of the fundamental questions on this piece of manifesto madness: that is, will the private, City-based insurance industry be running State-enforced Equitable Release schemes on people's homes to pay care costs?Sandpit said:
He was drowning at the start on the figures in the manifesto, but I thought he recovered somewhat near the end and gave a good account of himself on the social care issue.JackW said:
I must have missed the nano second when that occurred.Sandpit said:Damian Green doing a reasonable job of defending the social care policy now.
McDonnell now arguing that rich pensioners should pay less for social care, but still won't say where the money comes from.
So, I am going to take her at her word as far as the manifesto is concerned: there will be some kind of State-enforced scheme to take wealth from property to pay for social care down to a floor of £100K.
This will either by via Local Authority charges on property or some newly minted "account" run by insurance companies that is basically another form of equity release with all the issues of costs of the scheme and interest rates etc etc.
There will no longer be free care within the home for those who have some assets.
This is what is going to happen.0 -
I know several Catholics (for example) who take socially liberal positions on homosexuality, abortion, and contraception. In fact it's not that uncommon: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/most-uk-catholics-support-abortion-and-use-of-contraception-2083291.htmlSandpit said:
That's an interesting question - can one be liberal and Christian?The_Apocalypse said:
The anti abortion thing we already know about.Sandpit said:Sophy on Sky just skewered Tim Farron with a quote from 2009 in support of repealing the hunting ban.
Edit: and a quote about him being anti-abortion.
With all of these positions combined though, I have to ask: why is he a LD?
I'd say yes you can. It's possible to have your own view on something while allowing others to take a different point of view.
Were it not for their stance on the EU, I'd certainly consider voting LD over a more authoritarian Conservative party.
I think the trouble is when you add all of Farron's views up. It's one thing when his views on abortion, homosexuality, and fox hunting are in isolation. But altogether? He comes off more as a social conservative. Especially with the fox hunting thing. That's one area where you can't just have a view that doesn't really affect anyone.
0 -
The 'Tories suffer because of p*ssed off pensioners' does not seem to be fully borne out by the data:
YouGov Con lead vs Lab (diff vs 16/17)
18-24: -33 (+3)
25-49 :-16 (-8)
50-65: +21 (-2)
65+ : +50 (-3)0 -
Boris always tacks towards the fence regardless of the question being asked.RobD said:Boris less on message than Green:
The Foreign secretary tells the Peston on Sunday programme: “I do understand people’s reservations and the questions people are asking about the detail.
“There will be a consultation to get it right.”0 -
TUD , you throwing out insults , bet Rob's gear is more fashionable than tweed and pearls with monocle. He sounds more Zara.Theuniondivvie said:
Apols, got you mixed up with Carlotta.RobD said:
Where did I say there was no evidence of appetite for an immediate referendum? In any case, one subsample at 44% does not equal 'firming up at 45'.Theuniondivvie said:
How I did that, I just don't know.0 -
Cheeky bugger!malcolmg said:
TUD , you throwing out insults , bet Rob's gear is more fashionable than tweed and pearls with monocle. He sounds more Zara.Theuniondivvie said:
Apols, got you mixed up with Carlotta.RobD said:
Where did I say there was no evidence of appetite for an immediate referendum? In any case, one subsample at 44% does not equal 'firming up at 45'.Theuniondivvie said:
How I did that, I just don't know.
0 -
It is also the one with the latest field work all post Conservative manifesto car crash .Sunil_Prasannan said:YouGov is the only poll this weekend with single digit Tory lead.
0 -
The children of the pensioners appear most worked up about it, for some reason.CarlottaVance said:The 'Tories suffer because of p*ssed off pensioners' does not seem to be fully borne out by the data:
YouGov Con lead vs Lab (diff vs 16/17)
18-24: -33 (+3)
25-49 :-16 (-8)
50-65: +21 (-2)
65+ : +50 (-3)0 -
Nope, there was a Survation poll with a lead of 12, which was taken a day afterwards.MarkSenior said:
It is also the one with the latest field work all post Conservative manifesto car crash .Sunil_Prasannan said:YouGov is the only poll this weekend with single digit Tory lead.
0 -
Already done that. Less than £153 keepMarqueeMark said:
I could imagine there being some "clarification" on the income level of those who will DEFINITELY keep the Winter Fuel Allowance. Keep a chunk of the crumblies happy.rottenborough said:
According to BBC front page, Green has specifically said they will not amend the policy.Nigelb said:
Not really in May's style to row back like that.welshowl said:
Take your point, and that's what we have to decide on in a couple of weeks, but I suspect it would be amended in reality.rottenborough said:
I thought the whole point of this election was to give May a mandate.welshowl said:
No but there was talk of "consultation and Green Paper". If they still get in the turkey will be taken out and shot and will emerge as a fowl of a different feather.rottenborough said:
Has Green answered one of the fundamental questions on this piece of manifesto madness: that is, will the private, City-based insurance industry be running State-enforced Equitable Release schemes on people's homes to pay care costs?Sandpit said:
He was drowning at the start on the figures in the manifesto, but I thought he recovered somewhat near the end and gave a good account of himself on the social care issue.JackW said:
I must have missed the nano second when that occurred.Sandpit said:Damian Green doing a reasonable job of defending the social care policy now.
McDonnell now arguing that rich pensioners should pay less for social care, but still won't say where the money comes from.
So, I am going to take her at her word as far as the manifesto is concerned: there will be some kind of State-enforced scheme to take wealth from property to pay for social care down to a floor of £100K.
This will either by via Local Authority charges on property or some newly minted "account" run by insurance companies that is basically another form of equity release with all the issues of costs of the scheme and interest rates etc etc.
There will no longer be free care within the home for those who have some assets.
This is what is going to happen.
ie Pension Credit Guarenteed 1 million keep 10 million lose0 -
That's always the case. All changes produce winners and losers. The people who are angry are those who view the welfare state as a kind of all you can eat buffet, where once you've paid into the system, you're damn well going to claim all you can, rather than viewing it as a safety net.another_richard said:
I suspect that the people who oppose the controversial policies have stronger feelings about them than those who support the policies.Sean_F said:
The polling on the policy itself suggests that it's not especially unpopular.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Well, it fell into the political hole of reminding people that the current situation is actually shit. It didn't create a situation where lots of people will lose their homes - that's already the case.rottenborough said:welshowl said:
I doubt Crosby's plan was to go to "landslide" via "twitchy underwear" any more than Dunkirk was part of the plan for Normandy.
Curbing pensioner benefits after all the shelter they've had is morally right "all in it together" etc. The long term care situation also needs looking at for all our sakes so we will benefit from it being now firmly on the agenda. The essentials of the route they have chosen is that hateful word "progressive" in that rich southerners are going to be the supply of money for poor northerners at its most blunt. Ok they have chosen to individualise the risk which is a further choice but someone in a two up two down in Salford benefits over a £5m pad owner in Chelsea.
But thrice but, as an act of salesmanship, it's dire. These are a "masterclass" in creating doubt and fear. Marr is roasting Damian Green right now as to what level the WFA
Ditto long term care. As I said at it's heart "progressive" (though risk is not pooled which is v odd) but it's way way too complex to explain on the doorstep two and a half weeks before an election. All folk hear is "they're taking my house if I'm ill, sort of, aren't they?". People are very very very emotive about their homes. You can use all the logic you like they won't listen, they'll just go into defence mode.
Facts are largely irrelevant "it's perception stupid ". If you are explaining you're losing. The Tories are explaining a lot on this, even as Labour's own policies are collectively "moon on a stick".
This policy stank of polling disaster from the moment Theresa May stood up to launch the manifesto.
The perception is generally awful by sounds of it. Although bit of a mixed response in my own family. Several terrified by the sound of it all - "losing control of our homes", one or two saying "let's wait for the detail".
I think the latter are being highly naive.
They are therefore more likely to be outspoken and/or change their vote.0 -
Yes the main thing viewers will remember is that Green, apart from not being particularly impressive in the interview this morning, apparently pocketed a fat wodge in privatised water - the Tories are visibly beginning to wobble badly now.MarkSenior said:Well I did not think I would say this but having watched Marr this morning , I would prefer McDonnell in power rather than Green . Fortunately I do not live in a marginal seat so will not have any pressure to choose between Labour and the Conservatives .
0 -
The Liberal Democrats describe themselves as liberals and democrats not social liberals or social democrats.The_Apocalypse said:
If you aren't socially liberal, I don't see how you have a place in a party centred around social liberalism and social democracy.another_richard said:
An LD in Westmoreland is a different thing from an LD in West London.The_Apocalypse said:
The anti abortion thing we already know about.Sandpit said:Sophy on Sky just skewered Tim Farron with a quote from 2009 in support of repealing the hunting ban.
Edit: and a quote about him being anti-abortion.
With all of these positions combined though, I have to ask: why is he a LD?
Apart from the EU worship.
0 -
I like the comparison to the Grand National. Half the field won't finish, and for most of them it will be pure luck whether they get caught up in someone else's accident or mistime a fuel stop against a yellow.tlg86 said:Unfortunately only Sky Bet are offering a market on the Indianapolis 500, but the betting does look a bit skewed towards names people know. Alonso is joint favourite at 8-1 and Juan Pablo Montoya is 10-1 which look far too short.
The race is a bit like the Grand National in that you have to survive in tact to the last 20 laps or so and then be in position to have a go, so there's a lot of luck in terms of not being taken out and hoping the cautions play to your advantage.
I've had a few quid on JR Hildebrand at 28-1. He made the Top 9 shootout for pole tonight and he's come close before (he crashed on the final corner in 2011 while leading).
That said, 28-1 on Hildebrand seems like value.0 -
"IF"Bob__Sykes said:
There won't be a Tory lead of 9-18 points though once this cold sick policy is further digested over the next fortnight.Sean_F said:
In what world does a Tory lead of 9-18% result in a win for Corbyn?Bob__Sykes said:After the car crash interview by Green just now on Marr and seeing the open goal presented to McDonnell, I really do think this toxic Tory policy (plus the WFA debacle) could now put Corbyn in No10.
Despite being arguably fairer than the status quo, it is reminding people that they will be unable to pass on their house (save a 100k residual) if they need long term care. I suspect millions don't actually realise this already happens anyway without floor or cap asi understand it but the perception is that this is a new Tory policy - we'll take your kids' inheritance off them.
As every Tory interviewee gets skewered on this every day now on and as the Tory press goes big on this, there must be a real risk now that the Tory lead evaporates to nothing or tiny numbers? As Corbyn continues to campaign well and impress on the stump with his utopian visions funded by magic money tree, I really do fear the worst now.
There's no way round this now for the Tories. Bed made, lie in it. They have torpedoed themselves.
Cretins.
If the lead reduces to 5 points then May loses her majority, will be untenable as Tory leader and Corbyn will be PM in my view.0 -
Yes, but in reality, it's obvious that social democracy has a place in the part as result of the SDP wing.another_richard said:
The Liberal Democrats describe themselves as liberals and democrats not social liberals or social democrats.The_Apocalypse said:
If you aren't socially liberal, I don't see how you have a place in a party centred around social liberalism and social democracy.another_richard said:
An LD in Westmoreland is a different thing from an LD in West London.The_Apocalypse said:
The anti abortion thing we already know about.Sandpit said:Sophy on Sky just skewered Tim Farron with a quote from 2009 in support of repealing the hunting ban.
Edit: and a quote about him being anti-abortion.
With all of these positions combined though, I have to ask: why is he a LD?
Apart from the EU worship.0 -
It's clear now that it is going to be brutal for whoever wins.0
-
Dominic Raab getting back to Brexit and strong leadership. Pretty good job of defending the 'honest' care proposals too. Much better than Damian Green.0
-
What a strange election. The Greens (Lucas and Bartley) and SNP (Salmond and Sturgeon) seem to have more leadership talent than Tories, Labour and LDs combined.The_Apocalypse said:
Nah, I still think Leadsom would have been pretty bad.Ishmael_Z said:
"Tories 'won't look again' at social care plans" now the headline on bbc news. She has burnt her bridges.The_Apocalypse said:
She's rolled back in the past when her policies have faced a backlash.Nigelb said:
Not really in May's style to row back like that.welshowl said:
Take your point, and that's what we have to decide on in a couple of weeks, but I suspect it would be amended in reality.rottenborough said:
I thought the whole point of this election was to give May a mandate.welshowl said:
No but there was talk of "consultation and Green Paper". If they still get in the turkey will be taken out and shot and will emerge as a fowl of a different feather.rottenborough said:
Has Green answered one of the fundamental questions on this piece of manifesto madness: that is, will the private, City-based insurance industry be running State-enforced Equitable Release schemes on people's homes to pay care costs?Sandpit said:
He was drowning at the start on the figures in the manifesto, but I thought he recovered somewhat near the end and gave a good account of himself on the social care issue.JackW said:
I must have missed the nano second when that occurred.Sandpit said:Damian Green doing a reasonable job of defending the social care policy now.
McDonnell now arguing that rich pensioners should pay less for social care, but still won't say where the money comes from.
So, I am going to take her at her word as far as the manifesto is concerned: there will be some kind of State-enforced scheme to take wealth from property to pay for social care down to a floor of £100K.
This will either by via Local Authority charges on property or some newly minted "account" run by insurance companies that is basically another form of equity release with all the issues of costs of the scheme and interest rates etc etc.
There will no longer be free care within the home for those who have some assets.
Leadsom would not have been worse than this.
This saga is a larger statement on the lack of political talent among both parties in this country.
For that reason the foreseeable future does not look bright.
If though, Mr Timothy is in charge of this thinking, is it a sequel to the problems they had with Mr Cummings?0 -
A safety net with half of the netting stolen isnt functionalSean_F said:
That's always the case. All changes produce winners and losers. The people who are angry are those who view the welfare state as a kind of all you can eat buffet, where once you've paid into the system, you're damn well going to claim all you can, rather than viewing it as a safety net.another_richard said:
I suspect that the people who oppose the controversial policies have stronger feelings about them than those who support the policies.Sean_F said:
The polling on the policy itself suggests that it's not especially unpopular.TheWhiteRabbit said:rottenborough said:welshowl said:
I doubt Crosby's plan was to go to "landslide" via "twitchy underwear" any more than Dunkirk was part of the plan for Normandy.
Curbing pensioner benefits after all the shelter they've had is morally right "all in it together" etc. The long term care situation also needs looking at for all our sakes so we will benefit from it being now firmly on the agenda. The essentials of the route they have chosen is that hateful word "progressive" in that rich southerners are going to be the supply of money for poor northerners at its most blunt. Ok they have chosen to individualise the risk which is a further choice but someone in a two up two down in Salford benefits over a £5m pad owner in Chelsea.
But thrice but, as an act of salesmanship, it's dire. These are a "masterclass" in creating doubt and fear. Marr is roasting Damian Green right now as to what level the WFA
Ditto long term care. As I said at it's heart "progressive" (though risk is not pooled which is v odd) but it's way way too complex to explain on the doorstep two and a half weeks before an election. All folk hear is "they're taking my house if I'm ill, sort of, aren't they?". People are very very very emotive about their homes. You can use all the logic you like they won't listen, they'll just go into defence mode.
Facts are largely irrelevant "it's perception stupid ". If you are explaining you're losing. The Tories are explaining a lot on this, even as Labour's own policies are collectively "moon on a stick".
This policy stank of polling disaster from the moment Theresa May stood up to launch the manifesto.
The perception is generally awful by sounds of it. Although bit of a mixed response in my own family. Several terrified by the sound of it all - "losing control of our homes", one or two saying "let's wait for the detail".
I think the latter are being highly naive.
They are therefore more likely to be outspoken and/or change their vote.0 -
There has been some internal debate in the Lib Dems re fox-hunting. Opposition to the ban was very much in the minority, but it came from the liberal-as-in-libertarian wing rather than the dominant liberal-as-in-social-liberal wing. It's still a view rooted in a deep liberal principle - let people do as they will, unless they are harming others - but it is increasingly out of place in a Lib Dem party that has a more cosmopolitan outlook.The_Apocalypse said:
The anti abortion thing we already know about.Sandpit said:Sophy on Sky just skewered Tim Farron with a quote from 2009 in support of repealing the hunting ban.
Edit: and a quote about him being anti-abortion.
With all of these positions combined though, I have to ask: why is he a LD?
In fact philosophically it's coming from a not entirely dissimilar place as Lib Dem views on the deciminalisation of drugs ... or go back some decades, to the legalisation of gay sex.0 -
Hush and tush... there's spin to be spun.RobD said:
Nope, there was a Survation poll with a lead of 12, which was taken a day afterwards.MarkSenior said:
It is also the one with the latest field work all post Conservative manifesto car crash .Sunil_Prasannan said:YouGov is the only poll this weekend with single digit Tory lead.
0 -
Nigelb said:
You're making the same mistake as McMao of confusing spending with investment.MarqueeMark said:In what fucked up world would you borrow a quarter of a trillion pounds to buy back privatised industries - rather than spend it on health, education, housing.....
Nationalisation (particularly if carrried out by the bunch of halfwits proposing it) is not a particularly sensible policy, but the financing of it at current borrowing rates (and assuming a competent government) is not indefensible.
The 'fucked up world' you ask about is the one in which government can borrow very large sums at what were, until quite recently, inconceivably low interest rates.
Let's have McMao go into the market and ask to borrow a quarter of a trillion pounds. And see what rates he is getting then....
And how is a Socialist Government going into the business of running trains and water and etc etc etc "investment"?0 -
Because he favours more powers for the EU and is on the left economically.The_Apocalypse said:
The anti abortion thing we already know about.Sandpit said:Sophy on Sky just skewered Tim Farron with a quote from 2009 in support of repealing the hunting ban.
Edit: and a quote about him being anti-abortion.
With all of these positions combined though, I have to ask: why is he a LD?0 -
JUST 9 points .............
Anyway - this is what the choice is people
Do you really think a marxist chancellor who thinks understanding capitalism is an effective insult is what we need as a country?
https://order-order.com/2017/05/21/mcdonnell-v-green-handbags/
Green: “You don’t understand capitalism.”
McDonnell: “You certainly do, don’t you.“
0
