politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Suddenly this election becomes a lot more difficult to call
Options
Comments
-
I have been door knocking fir the last 4 weeks at least 40 doors a day...MarqueeMark said:
Door some door knocking of your own and you'll find out!timmo said:
In what way?MarqueeMark said:Polls and door-knocking results are out of sync.....
I dont understand what you are getting at?0 -
Indeed.Sean_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:
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:
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.
And we have a very 'take it from them and give it to me' mentality so when people think they are having things taken from themselves and given to others they get very angry.
Thinking about the WFA Scottish madness the extra expenditure in not means testing it for a couple of years before it becomes devolved can't be very much at all. Yet it has incredible power to aggravate in England and Wales. It really was political madness to exempt Scotland.0 -
ps - look at the video for the infamous death stare.Floater said: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.“
No wonder Chris Mullins said what he said.0 -
He has a big foxhunting constituency.MyBurningEars said:
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.
Betfair Sportsbook Con 7/2, Fish Finger 100/1.0 -
Despite PB Tory Panic
I am confident TMICIPM
I AM SURE THAT WILL CALM NERVES!!!0 -
It wouldn't happen that way.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.
On railways, it would happen when the franchises came up for renewal and would be open to the public sector who would win them (in the absence of EU rules on public/private competition).
On utilities, there would be a price freeze (or even price reduction) with big fines if investment in safety and quality is not maintained. That would have to be at the expense of dividends or unsustainable debt. Prices would not spiral but plummet.
Of course this strategy could not be pursued if we remained in the EU, but every cloud has a silver lining.0 -
Well said.IanB2 said:
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.
Being cynical though I would say the sale of Royal Mail, student loanbook etc was never about public finances (indeed they made them worse) it was about conservative ideology.
Admittedly someone like Pickles might be clueless - but for many they just want a smaller state and are happy to pretend they don't understand.0 -
+1. I too have been impressed with the Greens. Not because I'm that left-wing, but that they are at least saying some things that I can relate to and their team comes across well. I really liked Bartley on Question Time this week.rural_voter said: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.
If though, Mr Timothy is in charge of this thinking, is it a sequel to the problems they had with Mr Cummings?
Sturgeon has been the best of all the opposition leaders for sometime now, and Salmond was always better than Ed Miliband.
Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill are a disaster team. Timothy in particular will be the architect of the disaster.0 -
ICM still have a 20pt lead and triple figure majority
It is the Gold Standard
No chance of Jezza being PM0 -
There is palpable desire for Mrs May to finish the job. More UKIP -> Con and L -> Switchers than ive ever witnessed.timmo said:
I have been door knocking fir the last 4 weeks at least 40 doors a day...MarqueeMark said:
Door some door knocking of your own and you'll find out!timmo said:
In what way?MarqueeMark said:Polls and door-knocking results are out of sync.....
I dont understand what you are getting at?0 -
Had. Unless there is a new poll?bigjohnowls said:ICM still have a 20pt lead and triple figure majority
It is the Gold Standard
No chance of Jezza being PM0 -
LDs are surely on the right economically, at least since the orange book and coalition with the Tories.Sean_F said:
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 -
So now we've gone from Tory landslide to Corbyn PM in less than a week. Absurd.
People are starting to lose their minds if they genuinely believe Corbyn will be PM on June 9th.
I've never seen a bigger collective meltdown. Tory hearts must be made of candy floss.0 -
We were talking about the utilities, hence share price talk.Barnesian said:
It wouldn't happen that way.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.
On railways, it would happen when the franchises came up for renewal and would be open to the public sector who would win them (in the absence of EU rules on public/private competition).
On utilities, there would be a price freeze (or even price reduction) with big fines if investment in safety and quality is not maintained. That would have to be at the expense of dividends or unsustainable debt. Prices would not spiral but plummet.
Of course this strategy could not be pursued if we remained in the EU, but every cloud has a silver lining.
If the government did the latter then there would be legal cases from various institutions for years, the stock market would take a beating (as such pensions, including mine) and private sector investment would plummet. But hey ho, sound great apart from that.0 -
FAKE NEWS!!!! (Labour style)
https://order-order.com/2017/05/21/trickett-tweets-fake-news/
Is he stupid or does he think the public are?0 -
Except they aren't entirely. People are rightly cautious about anecdotal canvass reports in principle, but they readily believe reports that support what they think is the narrative.MarqueeMark said:Polls and door-knocking results are out of sync.....
Journalists also think it's a better story if they find a canvasser who says it's a disaster, everyone hates Corbyn, than a canvasser who says it's not wonderful but OK.
I make no special claims for my canvass experiences, which were certainly wrong in 2015, but I do tell the truth. I've divided my time between Nottingham North where I live (apparently safe Lab, but overwhelmingly the WWC that May is wooing), Nottingham South (key Tory target) and Broxtowe (Labour target in a better year). Some general points:
1. 2015 Labour voters are generally still Labour. Corbyn divides them - some love him, some dislike him, many are worried that he won't win. Very few are actually defecting, and since the manifesto launch that's almost dried up.
2. 2015 Tory voters are generally still Tory. Some of these give "Corbyn" as the reason, but when you engage with them they usually turn out to have voted Tory since 2010. Like Plato here, they often say they voted for Blair, but in the same spirit that I say I was once a communist - it's not influencing their current thinking. However, a journalist could easily get the impression that there are lot of potential Labour voters only deterred by Corbyn. Not so, in my opinion - which is good for the Tories becuase their vote is nice and solid. (But see below.)
3.2015 LibDem voters no longer see the point in these seats where the LibDems are not in contention at all. For a while they were splitting 50-50 Lab/Con. This week they've shifted to be mostly Lab.
4.2015 UKIP voters have mostly given up on UKIP. Up to last week, they were nearly all going Tory or abstaining. As Brexit recedes in the campaign this is starting to change, and ex-Lab UKIP voters are coming back to Lab, mainly because they like the manifesto and dislike the Tory one.
I was told yesterday, but cannot verify it, that other canvassers are starting to find Con-Lab switchers in non-trivial numbers. The reasons are mostly manifesto-linked, plus a perception that Corbyn is not the shambling monster depicted by the media and is seen to be rather good at actual campaigning.
Summary: the Tories will win a medium-sized victory on current showing. However, neither a Tory landslide or NOM can be entirely ruled out.-1 -
@ShippersUnbound: Jess Phillips on Corbyn's plan to stack up vote share. "Vote share is about as much use as a chocolate fire guard". She wants seats0
-
I don't know how some people here would have coped with the 1983 and 1987 campaigns, when polls were throwing out single digit leads from time to time.bigjohnowls said:Despite PB Tory Panic
I am confident TMICIPM
I AM SURE THAT WILL CALM NERVES!!!0 -
Water nationalisation could be very successful. There'll be no need for OfWat or price controls once the industry is run by a beneficent government and it would enable a massive transfer of resources from the washed to the unwashed.0
-
This site is mild compared to all the "we're doomed", "we've blown it" stuff on ConHome!Jason said:So now we've gone from Tory landslide to Corbyn PM in less than a week. Absurd.
People are starting to lose their minds if they genuinely believe Corbyn will be PM on June 9th.
I've never seen a bigger collective meltdown. Tory hearts must be made of candy floss.
Although tbf it's the chances of a massive landslide, rather than victory, that most of them are mourning.0 -
Orange Bookers as a force have died since the coalition. Electing Farron was part of the backlash to that group.DecrepitJohnL said:
LDs are surely on the right economically, at least since the orange book and coalition with the Tories.Sean_F said:
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?
They should just have Clegg run the party again and be done with it.
He'd actually be better than Farron, who is awful. Farron is the reason why I eventually decided that I couldn't vote LD at this election.0 -
I think the WFA will be reversed for the North which will be enough to shut everyone up. In the end people will be faced with a choice of Theresa vs Corbyn and once it comes down to that they will pick the mediocre but not crazy one.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 -
0
-
Does the all-you-can-eat buffet analogy really apply here? It is not as if people are deliberately getting Alzheimer's or Parkinson's to claim their quota of brain scans.Sean_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.0 -
Fair enough , the Conservative lead fell more in Survation 18 to 12 points than in Yougov 13 to 9 points , trend is clear .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 -
No but most Polls have only shown a small narrowing so surely must be circa 18 next time.RobD said:
Had. Unless there is a new poll?bigjohnowls said:ICM still have a 20pt lead and triple figure majority
It is the Gold Standard
No chance of Jezza being PM
Gold Standard filters out vote for me I only want most of your house when you die which will be popular when people understand it0 -
Anyone who seriously thinks Corbyn will be PM three weeks from now can get 14 on Betfair right now. Labour most seats is an even better 20.Jason said:So now we've gone from Tory landslide to Corbyn PM in less than a week. Absurd.
People are starting to lose their minds if they genuinely believe Corbyn will be PM on June 9th.
I've never seen a bigger collective meltdown. Tory hearts must be made of candy floss.
Please put lots on, because I want to back the other side at a better price!0 -
The big difference politically is whether you seek to impose your own moral prescriptions on others, through social policy and especially through the criminal law. You can hold very conservative private views about what is "right" but leave other people to make decisions according to their own conscience and desires - that's very much the kind of liberalism that Farron espouses, which is why I think a lot of the questioning of his personal views is somewhat unfair/missing the point.The_Apocalypse said:
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 -
Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!0
-
Because the last YouGov was only a few days ago. Fell more in YouGov if you compare it to last week'sMarkSenior said:
Fair enough , the Conservative lead fell more in Survation 18 to 12 points than in Yougov 13 to 9 points , trend is clear .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 -
Thanks for the update. But I think NOM can be ruled out.NickPalmer said:
Except they aren't entirely. People are rightly cautious about anecdotal canvass reports in principle, but they readily believe reports that support what they think is the narrative.MarqueeMark said:Polls and door-knocking results are out of sync.....
Journalists also think it's a better story if they find a canvasser who says it's a disaster, everyone hates Corbyn, than a canvasser who says it's not wonderful but OK.
I make no special claims for my canvass experiences, which were certainly wrong in 2015, but I do tell the truth. I've divided my time between Nottingham North where I live (apparently safe Lab, but overwhelmingly the WWC that May is wooing), Nottingham South (key Tory target) and Broxtowe (Labour target in a better year). Some general points:
1. 2015 Labour voters are generally still Labour. Corbyn divides them - some love him, some dislike him, many are worried that he won't win. Very few are actually defecting, and since the manifesto launch that's almost dried up.
2. 2015 Tory voters are generally still Tory. Some of these give "Corbyn" as the reason, but when you engage with them they usually turn out to vote voted Tory since 2010. Like Plato here, they often say they voted for Blair, but in the same spirit that I say I was once a communist - it's not influencing their current thinking. However, a journalist could easily get the impression that there are lot of Tory voters only deterred by Corbyn. Not so, in my opinion - which is good for the Tories becuase their vote is nice and solid. (But see below.)
3.2015 LibDem voters no longer see the point in these seats where the LibDems are not in contention at all. For a while they were splitting 50-50 Lab/Con. This week they've shifted to be mostly Lab.
4.2015 UKIP voters have mostly given up on UKIP. Up to last week, they were nearly all going Tory or abstaining. As Brexit recedes in the campaign this is starting to change, and ex-Lab UKIP voters are comin back to Lab, mainly because they like the manifesto and dislike the Tory one.
I was told yesterday, but cannot verify it, that other canvassers are starting to find Con-Lab switchers in non-trivial numbers. The reasons are mostly manifesto-linked, plus a perception that Corbyn is not the shambling monster depicted by the media and is seen to be rather good at actual campaigning.
Summary: the Tories will win a medium-sized victory on current showing. However, neither a Tory landslide or NOM can be entirely ruled out.
For TM to get fewer seats than last time would need a new plan of charging pensioners to use the NHS or something like that.0 -
Ooo, a bit of expectations management?bigjohnowls said:
No but most Polls have only shown a small narrowing so surely must be circa 18 next time.RobD said:
Had. Unless there is a new poll?bigjohnowls said:ICM still have a 20pt lead and triple figure majority
It is the Gold Standard
No chance of Jezza being PM
Gold Standard filters out vote for me I only want most of your house when you die which will be popular when people understand it
Most polls have not shown a small narrowing. Survation from 18 to 12, YouGov from 18 last weekend to 9. 0 -
@WikiGuido: Corbyn refuses five times to condemn the IRA0
-
LDs still not getting any uptick though... They seem to be totally floundering and getting no tractiin whatsoever.MarkSenior said:
Fair enough , the Conservative lead fell more in Survation 18 to 12 points than in Yougov 13 to 9 points , trend is clear .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.
LD cllrs in Sutton telling me that they have given up on Sutton and Cheam and Car and Wallington looming very bad for Brake. Wouldnt be surpriaed if Lab lush LD into 2nd in Sutton and Cheam0 -
Tory increased Maj nailed on.Sean_F said:
I don't know how some people here would have coped with the 1983 and 1987 campaigns, when polls were throwing out single digit leads from time to time.bigjohnowls said:Despite PB Tory Panic
I am confident TMICIPM
I AM SURE THAT WILL CALM NERVES!!!
Not sure I would be comfortable on 400 seats in spread market though0 -
+1MyBurningEars said:
The big difference politically is whether you seek to impose your own moral prescriptions on others, through social policy and especially through the criminal law. You can hold very conservative private views about what is "right" but leave other people to make decisions according to their own conscience and desires - that's very much the kind of liberalism that Farron espouses, which is why I think a lot of the questioning of his personal views is somewhat unfair/missing the point.The_Apocalypse said:
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.
It's what we irreligious should be wanting from religious people, since the alternative is the interfering aggression of the fundamentalists, whether Christian or Islamic.0 -
Subsamples meh. My gut instinct is that the Tory gains are concentrated in safe-looking Lab seats in the north and their operation in London is a bit crap, but I don't think one should draw too many conclusions from micro-sample analysis.CarlottaVance said:FPT:
YouGov - regional swings
Con lead (diff 18/19 vs 16/17 May)
Lon: -10 (-13)
Sou: +22 (+1)
Mid: +11 (+1)
Nth: -14 (-11)
Sc: +6 (-)
Colour me sceptical - but there are some huge internal swings, while other regions haven't budged.....0 -
Top post but dont expect PB Tories to get itDecrepitJohnL said:
Does the all-you-can-eat buffet analogy really apply here? It is not as if people are deliberately getting Alzheimer's or Parkinson's to claim their quota of brain scans.Sean_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.0 -
For a lot of people who call themselves liberal, that isn't good enough. You have to have the correct private beliefs.MyBurningEars said:
The big difference politically is whether you seek to impose your own moral prescriptions on others, through social policy and especially through the criminal law. You can hold very conservative private views about what is "right" but leave other people to make decisions according to their own conscience and desires - that's very much the kind of liberalism that Farron espouses, which is why I think a lot of the questioning of his personal views is somewhat unfair/missing the point.The_Apocalypse said:
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 -
I laughed at that, I probably shouldn't have done!DecrepitJohnL said:
Does the all-you-can-eat buffet analogy really apply here? It is not as if people are deliberately getting Alzheimer's or Parkinson's to claim their quota of brain scans.Sean_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.
The dole when you're unemployed is certainly on the "safety net" side of insurance. Healthcare needs, on the other hand, are not generally seen as an issue where there is a safety net if you can't afford it yourself - indeed, for complex/catastrophic health care in particular, there often isn't a private alternative to the NHS even if you could afford it. I think people's expectations re help with dementia care from the state are higher because because of this.0 -
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.Sandpit said:Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
0 -
Indeed exempting Scotland must be just what the Tory candidate in Carlisle is having nightmares about.another_richard said:
Indeed.Sean_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:
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:
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.
And we have a very 'take it from them and give it to me' mentality so when people think they are having things taken from themselves and given to others they get very angry.
Thinking about the WFA Scottish madness the extra expenditure in not means testing it for a couple of years before it becomes devolved can't be very much at all. Yet it has incredible power to aggravate in England and Wales. It really was political madness to exempt Scotland.
WFA is ripe for reform. If Richard Branson is a UK resident I assume he's gets it, and he owns a Carribean island and a fleet of jets to get him there, and yet someone earning 13k a year is paying a bit to help him heat his home. Can you think of a more lunatic way of spending taxpayers' money? However, thr Govt has contrived not to tell us at what point rich pensioners will cease to be subsidised, whilst poor old ladies in Berwick are wondering if they will have the money they did have to feed the meter. Can you think of a more lunatic presentational cock up on welfare policy?
0 -
Correct, he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. This is in the Parliamentary record.Jason said:
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.Sandpit said:Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
I think Andrew Neil might be somewhat harder on this point than the young Sophy, who admitted that this was all before she was born. (Wiki reckons she's 32).0 -
Amazing looking back to 2010-2015 that the Tories were behind in the polls for almost the whole time, yet won easily. The polls for 2-3 weeks before the 2015 GE mostly had Labour ahead
0 -
Yeah. I'll bet someone finds evidence to the contrary in the next few days.tlg86 said:
She said after the interview that someone had got in touch with them to say that he wasn't on the editorial board.Sandpit said:Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
0 -
Much easier to find May out in a lie.tlg86 said:
She said after the interview that someone had got in touch with them to say that he wasn't on the editorial board.Sandpit said:Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
Its easy her lips are moving0 -
Morning Owen.bigjohnowls said:
Much easier to find May out in a lie.tlg86 said:
She said after the interview that someone had got in touch with them to say that he wasn't on the editorial board.Sandpit said:Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
Its easy her lips are moving0 -
So it destroys Corbyn's defence, then. The lie that he did all that stuff to encourage peace has to be nailed.Sandpit said:
Correct, he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. This is in the Parliamentary record.Jason said:
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.Sandpit said:Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
I think Andrew Neil might be somewhat harder on this point than the young Sophy, who admitted that this was all before she was born. (Wiki reckons she's 32).
It puzzles me why the Tories haven't gone after him on this.0 -
Tbf on abortion he did state he wanted restrictions on it: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/16/tim-farron-says-hes-pro-choice-after-2007-interview-emergesMyBurningEars said:
The big difference politically is whether you seek to impose your own moral prescriptions on others, through social policy and especially through the criminal law. You can hold very conservative private views about what is "right" but leave other people to make decisions according to their own conscience and desires - that's very much the kind of liberalism that Farron espouses, which is why I think a lot of the questioning of his personal views is somewhat unfair/missing the point.The_Apocalypse said:
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.
Fox Hunting well, affects foxes - so it's kind of not the same as having personally negative views on homosexuality but not imposing them via law. If you advocate for Fox Hunting, or at least don't want to get rid of it, then it will obviously affect foxes.0 -
It seems to me that her trouble this week has come from being too honest!bigjohnowls said:
Much easier to find May out in a lie.tlg86 said:
She said after the interview that someone had got in touch with them to say that he wasn't on the editorial board.Sandpit said:Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
Its easy her lips are moving0 -
Lol.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.
I'm sure he doesn't smoke a pipe either.0 -
Betfair is finally moving this morning. Tory majority now out to 1.11 (1/9, less commission).
I hesitate to describe anything as free money, but does anyone seriously think the Tories are going backwards in the marginals?
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28051210/market?marketId=1.1190407080 -
Yes - some of the sage's here wanted any rebalancing between the grey vote and younger generations hidden it seems.... to be revealed only once the election was done and dusted.tlg86 said:
It seems to me that her trouble this week has come from being too honest!bigjohnowls said:
Much easier to find May out in a lie.tlg86 said:
She said after the interview that someone had got in touch with them to say that he wasn't on the editorial board.Sandpit said:Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
Its easy her lips are moving0 -
They haven't yet no, not to say they won't. No point in exhausting your best attacks early I suppose.Jason said:
So it destroys Corbyn's defence, then. The lie that he did all that stuff to encourage peace has to be nailed.Sandpit said:
Correct, he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. This is in the Parliamentary record.Jason said:
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.Sandpit said:Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
I think Andrew Neil might be somewhat harder on this point than the young Sophy, who admitted that this was all before she was born. (Wiki reckons she's 32).
It puzzles me why the Tories haven't gone after him on this.0 -
That's right, though last night's polls give different results on that (Survation has a majority pro, YouGov the opposite). But salience is important here. In an abstract sort of way, lots of people may feel a policy sounds OK, but if a minority thinks eeek, it means my family will lose our home, that may shift their votes (or make them stay at home), while the vaguely assenting majority forget all about it.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.0 -
The all-you-can-eat buffet analogy is a bit unfortunate, but it isn't wrong in the way you think it is. You think it self-evident that your own money is there for paying for nice things, someone else ought to pay for the consequences of nasty things. Not so: if your house falls down or your car breaks down, that is your lookout unless you have an insurer or a welfare state behind you. At the moment home care is outwith the welfare state and the debate is about whether it is brought within it. Thinking that you can surreptitiously bring it within the welfare state at no extra cost, because it has a sort of NHS-y feel about it, is paying for a fixed price 3 course meal and trying to leverage another two courses out of the restaurant for no extra money.bigjohnowls said:
Top post but dont expect PB Tories to get itDecrepitJohnL said:
Does the all-you-can-eat buffet analogy really apply here? It is not as if people are deliberately getting Alzheimer's or Parkinson's to claim their quota of brain scans.Sean_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.0 -
At what point will the remaining Lib Dems realise that the Tories are the best bet in town. Reasonably sane and May is reasonably 'social democrat'.CarlottaVance said:
Corbyn's group consists of those who won't grow up or can't add up.
Yes, people worrying about dementia or Alzheimers has nothing to with it. Inheritance is everything. A tweak (maybe, a little more than a tweak) in the threshold and the issue is dead.IanB2 said:
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)
Call it £200k, maybe £250k tax free and it will pass without issue.
0 -
Nobody thinks it can be brought in for free. I think pooling is the way forward.Ishmael_Z said:
The all-you-can-eat buffet analogy is a bit unfortunate, but it isn't wrong in the way you think it is. You think it self-evident that your own money is there for paying for nice things, someone else ought to pay for the consequences of nasty things. Not so: if your house falls down or your car breaks down, that is your lookout unless you have an insurer or a welfare state behind you. At the moment home care is outwith the welfare state and the debate is about whether it is brought within it. Thinking that you can surreptitiously bring it within the welfare state at no extra cost, because it has a sort of NHS-y feel about it, is paying for a fixed price 3 course meal and trying to leverage another two courses out of the restaurant for no extra money.bigjohnowls said:
Top post but dont expect PB Tories to get itDecrepitJohnL said:
Does the all-you-can-eat buffet analogy really apply here? It is not as if people are deliberately getting Alzheimer's or Parkinson's to claim their quota of brain scans.Sean_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.
Much better than theft.0 -
Theft? Seriously?bigjohnowls said:
Nobody thinks it can be brought in for free. I think pooling is the way forward.Ishmael_Z said:
The all-you-can-eat buffet analogy is a bit unfortunate, but it isn't wrong in the way you think it is. You think it self-evident that your own money is there for paying for nice things, someone else ought to pay for the consequences of nasty things. Not so: if your house falls down or your car breaks down, that is your lookout unless you have an insurer or a welfare state behind you. At the moment home care is outwith the welfare state and the debate is about whether it is brought within it. Thinking that you can surreptitiously bring it within the welfare state at no extra cost, because it has a sort of NHS-y feel about it, is paying for a fixed price 3 course meal and trying to leverage another two courses out of the restaurant for no extra money.bigjohnowls said:
Top post but dont expect PB Tories to get itDecrepitJohnL said:
Does the all-you-can-eat buffet analogy really apply here? It is not as if people are deliberately getting Alzheimer's or Parkinson's to claim their quota of brain scans.Sean_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.
Much better than theft.0 -
I think he voted against the Anglo Irish agreement which was earlier and different.Jason said:
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.Sandpit said:Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
Good Friday I don't think had a vote in parliament.
From his speeches around the time though I think he was in favour.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1999-07-05a.653.0
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1999-12-14a.196.20 -
An overview of the anti-SNP tactical voting effort !!
https://wingsoverscotland.com/this-wheels-on-fire/#more-951420 -
Good bet at 1.11 IMOSandpit said:Betfair is finally moving this morning. Tory majority now out to 1.11 (1/9, less commission).
I hesitate to describe anything as free money, but does anyone seriously think the Tories are going backwards in the marginals?
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28051210/market?marketId=1.119040708
I will stick with my Tories LT 399.5 @ EVS0 -
Theresa May is not a Social Democrat.0
-
Yes, from where they were two weeks ago. Actually losing marinals requires a further movement. 9-1 seems quite generous odds against that possibility.Sandpit said:Betfair is finally moving this morning. Tory majority now out to 1.11 (1/9, less commission).
I hesitate to describe anything as free money, but does anyone seriously think the Tories are going backwards in the marginals?
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28051210/market?marketId=1.1190407080 -
Most people have a far more nuanced view of moral issues in practice than the organisations to which they belong have in public.The_Apocalypse said:
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.
I'm a Catholic, don't see much of a problem with contraception but didn't have sex before marriage, think the church were disgraceful in their attitude towards condoms to combat AIDS, don't have a problem with homosexuality, think civil partnership was a good compromise, am against abortion completely and (to tie the last two together) think it was terrible to force the brilliant Catholic adoption agencies to close down. I also support fox hunting and the Conservative attempt at the social care question.
Everyone will find something to beat me with in the above, but that me and who I am. I will be judged in the end by God and by my family, not by anyone else.0 -
All property is theft isn't it???RobD said:
Theft? Seriously?bigjohnowls said:
Nobody thinks it can be brought in for free. I think pooling is the way forward.Ishmael_Z said:
The all-you-can-eat buffet analogy is a bit unfortunate, but it isn't wrong in the way you think it is. You think it self-evident that your own money is there for paying for nice things, someone else ought to pay for the consequences of nasty things. Not so: if your house falls down or your car breaks down, that is your lookout unless you have an insurer or a welfare state behind you. At the moment home care is outwith the welfare state and the debate is about whether it is brought within it. Thinking that you can surreptitiously bring it within the welfare state at no extra cost, because it has a sort of NHS-y feel about it, is paying for a fixed price 3 course meal and trying to leverage another two courses out of the restaurant for no extra money.bigjohnowls said:
Top post but dont expect PB Tories to get itDecrepitJohnL said:
Does the all-you-can-eat buffet analogy really apply here? It is not as if people are deliberately getting Alzheimer's or Parkinson's to claim their quota of brain scans.Sean_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.
Much better than theft.0 -
The fact they're about to go into Brexit negotiations in which concessions on Northern Ireland's status are likely probably has something to do with it.Jason said:
So it destroys Corbyn's defence, then. The lie that he did all that stuff to encourage peace has to be nailed.Sandpit said:
Correct, he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. This is in the Parliamentary record.Jason said:
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.Sandpit said:Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
I think Andrew Neil might be somewhat harder on this point than the young Sophy, who admitted that this was all before she was born. (Wiki reckons she's 32).
It puzzles me why the Tories haven't gone after him on this.0 -
How much will moving the Threshold from £!00k to £250k costchestnut said:
At what point will the remaining Lib Dems realise that the Tories are the best bet in town. Reasonably sane and May is reasonably 'social democrat'.CarlottaVance said:
Corbyn's group consists of those who won't grow up or can't add up.
Yes, people worrying about dementia or Alzheimers has nothing to with it. Inheritance is everything. A tweak (maybe, a little more than a tweak) in the threshold and the issue is dead.IanB2 said:
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)
Call it £200k, maybe £250k tax free and it will pass without issue.
How are you going to raise the extra money?0 -
Take a look at her policies and give her Labour branding and you'll realise she is. It's why I think the party will dump her once Brexit is finalised.The_Apocalypse said:Theresa May is not a Social Democrat.
0 -
There's no way that doesn't create losers. At present, the people who lose massively are those need residential care and own more than £23k. The proposed change is fairer than the present system.bigjohnowls said:
Nobody thinks it can be brought in for free. I think pooling is the way forward.Ishmael_Z said:
The all-you-can-eat buffet analogy is a bit unfortunate, but it isn't wrong in the way you think it is. You think it self-evident that your own money is there for paying for nice things, someone else ought to pay for the consequences of nasty things. Not so: if your house falls down or your car breaks down, that is your lookout unless you have an insurer or a welfare state behind you. At the moment home care is outwith the welfare state and the debate is about whether it is brought within it. Thinking that you can surreptitiously bring it within the welfare state at no extra cost, because it has a sort of NHS-y feel about it, is paying for a fixed price 3 course meal and trying to leverage another two courses out of the restaurant for no extra money.bigjohnowls said:
Top post but dont expect PB Tories to get itDecrepitJohnL said:
Does the all-you-can-eat buffet analogy really apply here? It is not as if people are deliberately getting Alzheimer's or Parkinson's to claim their quota of brain scans.Sean_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.
Much better than theft.0 -
Less than 400 at evens, that's a fantastic bet and now very easily covered.bigjohnowls said:
Good bet at 1.11 IMOSandpit said:Betfair is finally moving this morning. Tory majority now out to 1.11 (1/9, less commission).
I hesitate to describe anything as free money, but does anyone seriously think the Tories are going backwards in the marginals?
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28051210/market?marketId=1.119040708
I will stick with my Tories LT 399.5 @ EVS0 -
One of the lessons of the Referendum was that Remain fired all their weaponry in the first few days of the campaign. (As was commented upon here at the time.) Then they had nothing left to use.HaroldO said:
They haven't yet no, not to say they won't. No point in exhausting your best attacks early I suppose.Jason said:
So it destroys Corbyn's defence, then. The lie that he did all that stuff to encourage peace has to be nailed.Sandpit said:
Correct, he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. This is in the Parliamentary record.Jason said:
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.Sandpit said:Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
I think Andrew Neil might be somewhat harder on this point than the young Sophy, who admitted that this was all before she was born. (Wiki reckons she's 32).
It puzzles me why the Tories haven't gone after him on this.
With postal votes this week, it might be the optimum time for the Tories to dip into their arsenal and start lobbing some grenades about.... Remind people what is really at stake in this election.
0 -
Re abortion - how do you feel about it if the life of the mother is threatened? I know of someone in my family who did not want an abortion but was told by doctors that if she had the baby she would die (and she already had four kids at the time to look after).Sandpit said:
Most people have a far more nuanced view of moral issues in practice than the organisations to which they belong have in public.The_Apocalypse said:
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.
I'm a Catholic, don't see much of a problem with contraception, think the church were disgraceful in their attitude towards condoms to combat AIDS, don't have a problem with homosexuality, think civil partnership was a good compromise, am against abortion completely and (to tie the last two together) think it was terrible to force the brilliant Catholic adoption agencies to close down. I also support fox hunting and the Conservative attempt at the social care question.
Everyone will find something to beat me with in the above, but that me and who I am. I will be judged in the end by God and by my family, not by anyone else.
0 -
That depends on the marginal seat in question. Marginal and semi-marginal seats with big UKIP votes will still be very good for the Conservatives (even Yougov has 60% of UKIP voters going Conservative).Sandpit said:Betfair is finally moving this morning. Tory majority now out to 1.11 (1/9, less commission).
I hesitate to describe anything as free money, but does anyone seriously think the Tories are going backwards in the marginals?
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28051210/market?marketId=1.1190407080 -
-
I don't think the lefties on here realise that.Scrapheap_as_was said:
All property is theft isn't it???RobD said:
Theft? Seriously?bigjohnowls said:
Nobody thinks it can be brought in for free. I think pooling is the way forward.Ishmael_Z said:
The all-you-can-eat buffet analogy is a bit unfortunate, but it isn't wrong in the way you think it is. You think it self-evident that your own money is there for paying for nice things, someone else ought to pay for the consequences of nasty things. Not so: if your house falls down or your car breaks down, that is your lookout unless you have an insurer or a welfare state behind you. At the moment home care is outwith the welfare state and the debate is about whether it is brought within it. Thinking that you can surreptitiously bring it within the welfare state at no extra cost, because it has a sort of NHS-y feel about it, is paying for a fixed price 3 course meal and trying to leverage another two courses out of the restaurant for no extra money.bigjohnowls said:
Top post but dont expect PB Tories to get itDecrepitJohnL said:
Does the all-you-can-eat buffet analogy really apply here? It is not as if people are deliberately getting Alzheimer's or Parkinson's to claim their quota of brain scans.Sean_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.
Much better than theft.
0 -
Scott_P said:
Improvement. It used to be everything above £23,000.
And you don't have to sell the property while they're still alive.
0 -
Was too slow to edit.rkrkrk said:
I think he voted against the Anglo Irish agreement which was earlier and different.Jason said:
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.Sandpit said:Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
Good Friday I don't think had a vote in parliament.
From his speeches around the time though I think he was in favour.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1999-07-05a.653.0
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1999-12-14a.196.2
There was a vote and Corbyn voted for the Good Friday Agreement.
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=1998-07-20&number=340&mpn=Jeremy_Corbyn&mpc=Islington_North&house=commons0 -
We're pretty good at having the PCP get rid of leaders who push too far.MaxPB said:
Take a look at her policies and give her Labour branding and you'll realise she is. It's why I think the party will dump her once Brexit is finalised.The_Apocalypse said:Theresa May is not a Social Democrat.
Mrs May will find them supportive until Brexit is done though. When things calm down they'll also give her credit for raising the social care problem which has been push down the road for too long. They'll probably draw the line at the internet regulation bollocks though.0 -
You are correct he argued in the past for restrictions on abortion, but note that he distinguished between the social/practical issues of abortion policy (e.g. women would still have abortions, a ban on abortions would have serious negative social consequences) from his personal view that abortions are wrong. He did argue for restrictions on abortion, which he has now turned his back on, but a lot of this boils down to who counts as "others" in the liberal dictum of "doing no harm to others". If you think clumps of cells/foetuses/unborn children (however you see fit to frame it) are "others" then Farron's formulation of a law balancing rights/needs/freedom/practical realities of woman and embryo is consistent with liberal principles.The_Apocalypse said:
Tbf on abortion he did state he wanted restrictions on it: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/16/tim-farron-says-hes-pro-choice-after-2007-interview-emerges
Fox Hunting well, affects foxes - so it's kind of not the same as having personally negative views on homosexuality but not imposing them via law. If you advocate for Fox Hunting, or at least don't want to get rid of it, then it will obviously affect foxes.
Similarly, are foxes really "others"? Country folk tend to have more unromantic views of wild animals than city-dwellers. I think it fair to say modern social liberals have, in comparison to traditional social norms, attached a higher status to animals ("animal rights", or Peter Singer's concept of "animal interests", are a relatively recent idea) and downgraded the status of the embryo or unborn child. But these are matters of degree - only a tiny minority of people believe that killing an animal should be a crime punished with similar severity to the murder of a fellow human, and a relatively small minority believe in late-term abortion on demand (the more developed the foetus, the more restrictions people seem willing to accept on its termination).
That means Farron's views may be somewhat out of kilter with what you might expect a modern liberal to believe, but winning the Lib Dem leadership election shows that many people who identify strongly as liberal see him as one of their own. Think it helps to split out the underlying principles (which he is clearly strong on) from the matrix of socio-cultural assumptions and viewpoints that everyone carries around with them (where he has a different background to what you might expect).0 -
I think she's way more statist than your average Tory, but there are a number of her policies that Social Democrats (generally) wouldn't pursue.MaxPB said:
Take a look at her policies and give her Labour branding and you'll realise she is. It's why I think the party will dump her once Brexit is finalised.The_Apocalypse said:Theresa May is not a Social Democrat.
For example:
- Her desire to regulate the Internet, especially in regard to countering the dangers of 'pornography'
- Her social care policy
- Her desire to leave the Single Market
- Her immigration target
If the party dumps her after Brexit, who could they replace her with?0 -
Andrew Neil on Tories' social care plan: "A stealth inheritance tax of 100% on everything above £100,000."
PB Tories shouting at TV "Its not a Tax"
Viewers cant hear
A 100% Stealth tax is theft in my view0 -
She is socially conservative but economically social democrat. Or, more likely, doesn't have any particularly strong views on the economy and is simply going where she thinks Brexit points her.The_Apocalypse said:
I think she's way more statist than your average Tory, but there are a number of her policies that Social Democrats (generally) wouldn't pursue.MaxPB said:
Take a look at her policies and give her Labour branding and you'll realise she is. It's why I think the party will dump her once Brexit is finalised.The_Apocalypse said:Theresa May is not a Social Democrat.
For example:
- Her desire to regulate the Internet, especially in regard to countering the dangers of 'pornography'
- Her social care policy
- Her desire to leave the Single Market
- Her immigration target
If the party dumps her after Brexit, who could they replace her with?0 -
Are you sure?Sandpit said:
Correct, he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. This is in the Parliamentary record.Jason said:
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.Sandpit said:Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
I think Andrew Neil might be somewhat harder on this point than the young Sophy, who admitted that this was all before she was born. (Wiki reckons she's 32).
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=1998-07-20&number=340&mpn=Jeremy_Corbyn&mpc=Islington_North&house=commons
Seems to be him voting in favour?0 -
A Neil where will the £8Bn come from.
You have a black hole then
No answer No answer No answer
Car Crash0 -
Sounds like you're in the wrong party.bigjohnowls said:Andrew Neil on Tories' social care plan: "A stealth inheritance tax of 100% on everything above £100,000."
PB Tories shouting at TV "Its not a Tax"
Viewers cant hear
A 100% Stealth tax is theft in my view0 -
-
Wait, tax is theft?bigjohnowls said:Andrew Neil on Tories' social care plan: "A stealth inheritance tax of 100% on everything above £100,000."
PB Tories shouting at TV "Its not a Tax"
Viewers cant hear
A 100% Stealth tax is theft in my view0 -
That is probably the most difficult scenario, to which the answer is that the doctors should deliver the baby at the latest stage possible and do all they can to preserve life.The_Apocalypse said:
Re abortion - how do you feel about it if the life of the mother is threatened? I know of someone in my family who did not want an abortion but was told by doctors that if she had the baby she would die (and she already had four kids at the time to look after).Sandpit said:
Most people have a far more nuanced view of moral issues in practice than the organisations to which they belong have in public.The_Apocalypse said:
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.
I'm a Catholic, don't see much of a problem with contraception, think the church were disgraceful in their attitude towards condoms to combat AIDS, don't have a problem with homosexuality, think civil partnership was a good compromise, am against abortion completely and (to tie the last two together) think it was terrible to force the brilliant Catholic adoption agencies to close down. I also support fox hunting and the Conservative attempt at the social care question.
Everyone will find something to beat me with in the above, but that me and who I am. I will be judged in the end by God and by my family, not by anyone else.0 -
To be fair, Gauke did essentially say, 'Trust us, we're Tories'.bigjohnowls said:A Neil where will the £8Bn come from.
You have a black hole then
No answer No answer No answer
Car Crash0 -
PB Lefties will be joining with the Bow Group and the Delingpoles of this world soonHaroldO said:
Wait, tax is theft?bigjohnowls said:Andrew Neil on Tories' social care plan: "A stealth inheritance tax of 100% on everything above £100,000."
PB Tories shouting at TV "Its not a Tax"
Viewers cant hear
A 100% Stealth tax is theft in my view0 -
How is this 'pooling' going to work? Who will be contributing to the pool? Will it be income related, asset-related, age-related?Sean_F said:
There's no way that doesn't create losers. At present, the people who lose massively are those need residential care and own more than £23k. The proposed change is fairer than the present system.bigjohnowls said:
Nobody thinks it can be brought in for free. I think pooling is the way forward.Ishmael_Z said:
The all-you-can-eat buffet analogy is a bit unfortunate, but it isn't wrong in the way you think it is. You think it self-evident that your own money is there for paying for nice things, someone else ought to pay for the consequences of nasty things. Not so: if your house falls down or your car breaks down, that is your lookout unless you have an insurer or a welfare state behind you. At the moment home care is outwith the welfare state and the debate is about whether it is brought within it. Thinking that you can surreptitiously bring it within the welfare state at no extra cost, because it has a sort of NHS-y feel about it, is paying for a fixed price 3 course meal and trying to leverage another two courses out of the restaurant for no extra money.bigjohnowls said:
Top post but dont expect PB Tories to get itDecrepitJohnL said:
Does the all-you-can-eat buffet analogy really apply here? It is not as if people are deliberately getting Alzheimer's or Parkinson's to claim their quota of brain scans.Sean_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.
Much better than theft.
https://www.royallondon.com/about/media/news/2017/march/half-the-value-of-your-home-at-risk-from-average-care-home-stay/
People are already having to sell their homes to pay for residential care.0 -
Sandpit said:
Betfair is finally moving this morning. Tory majority now out to 1.11 (1/9, less commission).
I hesitate to describe anything as free money, but does anyone seriously think the Tories are going backwards in the marginals?
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28051210/market?marketId=1.1190407080 -
Hence all true communists drink Earl Grey.Scrapheap_as_was said:
All property is theft isn't it???RobD said:
Theft? Seriously?bigjohnowls said:
Nobody thinks it can be brought in for free. I think pooling is the way forward.Ishmael_Z said:
The all-you-can-eat buffet analogy is a bit unfortunate, but it isn't wrong in the way you think it is. You think it self-evident that your own money is there for paying for nice things, someone else ought to pay for the consequences of nasty things. Not so: if your house falls down or your car breaks down, that is your lookout unless you have an insurer or a welfare state behind you. At the moment home care is outwith the welfare state and the debate is about whether it is brought within it. Thinking that you can surreptitiously bring it within the welfare state at no extra cost, because it has a sort of NHS-y feel about it, is paying for a fixed price 3 course meal and trying to leverage another two courses out of the restaurant for no extra money.bigjohnowls said:
Top post but dont expect PB Tories to get itDecrepitJohnL said:
Does the all-you-can-eat buffet analogy really apply here? It is not as if people are deliberately getting Alzheimer's or Parkinson's to claim their quota of brain scans.Sean_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.
Much better than theft.0 -
Probably because it is not true: Corbyn voted against the earlier Anglo-Irish Agreement, as did some Conservatives and Loyalist MPs.Jason said:
So it destroys Corbyn's defence, then. The lie that he did all that stuff to encourage peace has to be nailed.Sandpit said:
Correct, he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. This is in the Parliamentary record.Jason said:
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.Sandpit said:Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
I think Andrew Neil might be somewhat harder on this point than the young Sophy, who admitted that this was all before she was born. (Wiki reckons she's 32).
It puzzles me why the Tories haven't gone after him on this.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1985/nov/27/anglo-irish-agreement
So it's safer to let the papers and social media spread the smear, or fake news, or whatever we call it these days.0 -
It is amazing what people will agree or disagree with depending on who said itScrapheap_as_was said:
PB Lefties will be joining with the Bow Group and the Delingpoles of this world soonHaroldO said:
Wait, tax is theft?bigjohnowls said:Andrew Neil on Tories' social care plan: "A stealth inheritance tax of 100% on everything above £100,000."
PB Tories shouting at TV "Its not a Tax"
Viewers cant hear
A 100% Stealth tax is theft in my view0 -
-
He's wants to win the Labour PartyScott_P said:@ShippersUnbound: Jess Phillips on Corbyn's plan to stack up vote share. "Vote share is about as much use as a chocolate fire guard". She wants seats
Raise extra money?bigjohnowls said:
How much will moving the Threshold from £!00k to £250k costchestnut said:
At what point will the remaining Lib Dems realise that the Tories are the best bet in town. Reasonably sane and May is reasonably 'social democrat'.CarlottaVance said:
Corbyn's group consists of those who won't grow up or can't add up.
Yes, people worrying about dementia or Alzheimers has nothing to with it. Inheritance is everything. A tweak (maybe, a little more than a tweak) in the threshold and the issue is dead.IanB2 said:
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)
Call it £200k, maybe £250k tax free and it will pass without issue.
How are you going to raise the extra money?
Well, subsidies like the one you are receiving will alter, won't they?
I still haven't quite worked out why you are out door knocking all the time whilst your wife needs £400 a week care?0 -
Perception is everything.MarkHopkins said:Scott_P said:
Improvement. It used to be everything above £23,000.
And you don't have to sell the property while they're still alive.0
This discussion has been closed.