If we have anywhere near a similar drop, we will be in Hung Parliament territory.
We need regional polls. The national polls this time is almost useless.
For the sake of argument, and that nightmare scenario did transpire on June 9th, who would the Tories have to form a coalition with? Fishfinger's dozen or so MPs? The DUP? Surely not the SNP. Unless we make an assumption Labour could get the most seats? Doesn't seem very likely, not now.
I have mixed feelings about these attacks on Corbyn's IRA support.
They're mixed foor under Corbyn. That doesn't change at all. If you're ok now you'll probably be less ok under Corbyn, and if you're rich now you'll be living elsewhere.
"The truth is that if you're poor now you'll be poor under Corbyn."
No. If you're poor now, you'll be even worse off under Corbyn.
Corbyn is offering a fantasy that will become a nightmare. Anyone who has looked at these kind of policies throughout the world knows how they end up.
Delete "Corbyn" throughout, replace with "Brexit". Still works.
Still didn't stop many of the poor voting for Brexit.
That may be true - Brexit is a one-off thing though. I know the raveling and unraveling might go on for many years, but the effect is basically a cliff-edge - scaling, or leaping off as you choose.
Corbynism is (potentially) a spiraling down into the abyss. Oddly I imagine that you're going to agree
Brexit is worse, definitely. Corbyn can change or be got rid of. Brexit will drag on forever.
You still don't get it. And you never will. For me and many people, Brexit = Independence.
You're saying "Independence will drag on forever, once we're free, we're free"
For a lot of us, maybe 52% or more, that is good thing.
That's because you (and your mythical many people) are deranged. Britain was independent last year and probably had more practical influence over its future than it will in a couple of years' time.
Control is nothing without power. In future, Britain will be a country that will have things done to it rather than participate in the doing.
So "independent" we can't leave this economic bloc without literally destroying the nation? As you continuously insist?
That's like telling a slave he's entirely free to go, but if he tries to leave we can't promise he won't be electrified by the invisible, lethal, Electro-Slave energy-dome we have erected over the cotton plantation, just to, you know, keep out annoying hawkers of patterned kerchiefs.
Isn't it more like telling an employee he's free to resign, but is unlikely to find an equally good salary elsewhere?
Postal votes should start being opened soon, I think? I wonder if we'll get a report from Labour Uncut on the clues gleaned surreptitiously from these opening sessions, as we did in 2015.
As an aside, the Chilterns are fucking beautiful. I've walked them before, but, today, Wow.
It has the perfect combination of hills and hidden valleys and red kites and exquisite little villages and it's just 45 minutes from Marylebone (the most charming and usable of London termini). Incredible rural beauty less than an hour from the heart of the world's greatest city?
We are a lucky country.
Remember that the next time the developer lobby leans on the government of the day and argues for building in the green belt.
I'm with you, bruv.
I love rural English beauty. It's a unique and precious thing. And it is another reason I am in favour of Brexit.
There is simply no way you can import 300,000 people every single year - most of whom want to live in England, and SE England at that - and pretend that, in the end, this won't impact the countryside we have left.
This is what Remainers won't face. Net migration of 330,000 a year was simply unsustainable. We don't have room for a population of 80m, 90m, 120m. An economy built on the sugar rush of immigration is an economy headed for socio-economic diabetes.
We need to find a new way to grow. Not by numbers alone.
At the same population density as the area of Edinburgh I live in (my house, as does every house on the street, has it's own garden) would require 23 square kilometers of space for those 300,000 people.
Or 0.009% of the land area of the UK.
Why does everyone need a garden ? Unless you like weeds.
My mum has won Redridge in Bloom five times over the last 12 years.
I say this was a combination of political obsessives
(a) Genuinely changing their minds as a result of deep thought/instinct following the murder (b) Trying to be smart by saying they were going to vote the way that they thought was more likely to win
As it happens, the murder seemed to have no effect on the politically unengaged majority who don't answer opinion polls. Lots of people are uninterested in current affairs, don't watch news on the tv or read the papers. Facebook, twitter and instagram are only political if you choose them to be, and most don't.
Opinion polls only reflect the opinions of the politically engaged. Someone in the PB good books should write a thread about it
You're ignoring that a huge bulk of postal voting would have been done prior to Cox's assassination. And the polls were peak leave when postal voting started.
As an aside, the Chilterns are fucking beautiful. I've walked them before, but, today, Wow.
It has the perfect combination of hills and hidden valleys and red kites and exquisite little villages and it's just 45 minutes from Marylebone (the most charming and usable of London termini). Incredible rural beauty less than an hour from the heart of the world's greatest city?
We are a lucky country.
Remember that the next time the developer lobby leans on the government of the day and argues for building in the green belt.
I'm with you, bruv.
I love rural English beauty. It's a unique and precious thing. And it is another reason I am in favour of Brexit.
There is simply no way you can import 300,000 people every single year - most of whom want to live in England, and SE England at that - and pretend that, in the end, this won't impact the countryside we have left.
This is what Remainers won't face. Net migration of 330,000 a year was simply unsustainable. We don't have room for a population of 80m, 90m, 120m. An economy built on the sugar rush of immigration is an economy headed for socio-economic diabetes.
We need to find a new way to grow. Not by numbers alone.
At the same population density as the area of Edinburgh I live in (my house, as does every house on the street, has it's own garden) would require 23 square kilometers of space for those 300,000 people.
Or 0.009% of the land area of the UK.
Why does everyone need a garden ? Unless you like weeds.
My mum has won Redridge in Bloom five times over the last 12 years.
Wasn't that for her front garden? Or am I remembering somebody else.
So if the Labour vote is increasing but the Conservative vote is not diminishing, where does that leave swing-back?
Or are we seeing swing-back going against a government this time? I thought swing-back was in the final stages of the campaign?
The electorate is very polarised. 43-46% is a very solid Conservative result. But 34-38% shows Labour has picked up every left wing voter, bar SNP and Plaid supporters.
Postal votes should start being opened soon, I think? I wonder if we'll get a report from Labour Uncut on the clues gleaned surreptitiously from these opening sessions, as we did in 2015.
So if the Labour vote is increasing but the Conservative vote is not diminishing, where does that leave swing-back?
Or are we seeing swing-back going against a government this time? I thought swing-back was in the final stages of the campaign?
The electorate is very polarised. 43-46% is a very solid Conservative result. But 34-38% shows Labour has picked up every left wing voter, bar SNP and Plaid supporters.
Perhaps, perhaps not. The real worry for the Tories would be if the non-Tories are combining behind the candidate best placed to beat them in their local seat. That would still show in the national polls as a rising Labour vote share and a dropping away for the LibDems, PC and Greens, but would leave the latter much better placed to turn votes into seats in their relatively few target seats.
Currently, the Tories remarkably consistent, but Labour's 34-38 varies wildly from one pollster to the other. 4 percentage points is outside the MoE. Something ain't right, it can't be.
Final polling will be fascinating, but they can't all be right.
Some sighs of relief coming from CCHQ round about now, I would suggest. It hasn't got any worse for the Tories, and maybe the start of a slow upward tick until polling day.
With Corbyn tied up trying to vainly defend the indefensible, May has to seize the initiative sharpish for the whole of next week. Easier said than done, but the Tories, if they are smart enough, could kill off the social care and WFP narratives and nail Corbyn on security and defence.
How do the Tories "kill off the Social Care" issue and will anyone care to ask Mrs. May why it is that the Scots get this benefit absolutely for free, whereas the English and Welsh victims of dementia, etc face having to shell out many tens of thousands of pounds.
It's a good question, and if I had all the answers, I wouldn't be sitting at my keyboard on a Saturday night discussing the finer points of anal retention with serial anoraks.
Jason - it's all about prioritising one's time. Take Sean Thomas for example, he manages to contribute to PB.com most evenings whilst still seemingly able to enjoy more than his fair share of "fun".
Delete "Corbyn" throughout, replace with "Brexit". Still works.
Still didn't stop many of the poor voting for Brexit.
That may be true - Brexit is a one-off thing though. I know the raveling and unraveling might go on for many years, but the effect is basically a cliff-edge - scaling, or leaping off as you choose.
Corbynism is (potentially) a spiraling down into the abyss. Oddly I imagine that you're going to agree
Brexit is worse, definitely. Corbyn can change or be got rid of. Brexit will drag on forever.
You still don't get it. And you never will. For me and many people, Brexit = Independence.
You're saying "Independence will drag on forever, once we're free, we're free"
For a lot of us, maybe 52% or more, that is good thing.
That's because you (and your mythical many people) are deranged. Britain was independent last year and probably had more practical influence over its future than it will in a couple of years' time.
Control is nothing without power. In future, Britain will be a country that will have things done to it rather than participate in the doing.
So "independent" we can't leave this economic bloc without literally destroying the nation? As you continuously insist?
That's like telling a slave he's entirely free to go, but if he tries to leave we can't promise he won't be electrified by the invisible, lethal, Electro-Slave energy-dome we have erected over the cotton plantation, just to, you know, keep out annoying hawkers of patterned kerchiefs.
I realise that you're deranged, but I have never (never mind continuously) insisted that Britain couldn't leave the EU without destroying the nation, either literally or metaphorically. In practice, it is simply heading for an entirely avoidable disaster, thanks in large part to the way in which Leavers conducted their campaign,
The lunatic Brexiteers are still painting themselves in woad, putting blades in their Ford Cortina wheels and investigating the practicalities of altering the planet's plate tectonics. When the wretched Brexit process is complete, these are not people whose views are going to be anxiously sought when deciding either the burning topics of the day or in sorting out the humdrum matters of international cooperation.
As an aside, the Chilterns are fucking beautiful. I've walked them before, but, today, Wow.
It has the perfect combination of hills and hidden valleys and red kites and exquisite little villages and it's just 45 minutes from Marylebone (the most charming and usable of London termini). Incredible rural beauty less than an hour from the heart of the world's greatest city?
We are a lucky country.
Remember that the next time the developer lobby leans on the government of the day and argues for building in the green belt.
I'm with you, bruv.
I love rural English beauty. It's a unique and precious thing. And it is another reason I am in favour of Brexit.
There is simply no way you can import 300,000 people every single year - most of whom want to live in England, and SE England at that - and pretend that, in the end, this won't impact the countryside we have left.
This is what Remainers won't face. Net migration of 330,000 a year was simply unsustainable. We don't have room for a population of 80m, 90m, 120m. An economy built on the sugar rush of immigration is an economy headed for socio-economic diabetes.
We need to find a new way to grow. Not by numbers alone.
At the same population density as the area of Edinburgh I live in (my house, as does every house on the street, has it's own garden) would require 23 square kilometers of space for those 300,000 people.
Or 0.009% of the land area of the UK.
Fly over even the South East of England, and outside the M25 it is mostly fields.
If you look at projections on UK population, based on current levels of immigration, the number of working age people is broadly stable over coming years, in part due to immigration and in part due to endogenous fertility. The population growth is nearly all in the over 65's and the over 75's in particular. Without immigration we have a contacting workforce.
One answer is for people to work longer (which conveniently matches making pensions more affordable) but perhaps "flow" will make us all happier. Certainly I see an increasing number of patients continuing to work well into their late sixties/early seventies.
As an aside, the Chilterns are fucking beautiful. I've walked them before, but, today, Wow.
It has the perfect combination of hills and hidden valleys and red kites and exquisite little villages and it's just 45 minutes from Marylebone (the most charming and usable of London termini). Incredible rural beauty less than an hour from the heart of the world's greatest city?
We are a lucky country.
Remember that the next time the developer lobby leans on the government of the day and argues for building in the green belt.
I'm with you, bruv.
I love rural English beauty. It's a unique and precious thing. And it is another reason I am in favour of Brexit.
There is simply no way you can import 300,000 people every single year - most of whom want to live in England, and SE England at that - and pretend that, in the end, this won't impact the countryside we have left.
This is what Remainers won't face. Net migration of 330,000 a year was simply unsustainable. We don't have room for a population of 80m, 90m, 120m. An economy built on the sugar rush of immigration is an economy headed for socio-economic diabetes.
We need to find a new way to grow. Not by numbers alone.
At the same population density as the area of Edinburgh I live in (my house, as does every house on the street, has it's own garden) would require 23 square kilometers of space for those 300,000 people.
Or 0.009% of the land area of the UK.
Why does everyone need a garden ? Unless you like weeds.
My mum has won Redridge in Bloom five times over the last 12 years.
Wasn't that for her front garden? Or am I remembering somebody else.
It was front garden, but many houses lack even a front garden, correct?
I say this was a combination of political obsessives
(a) Genuinely changing their minds as a result of deep thought/instinct following the murder (b) Trying to be smart by saying they were going to vote the way that they thought was more likely to win
As it happens, the murder seemed to have no effect on the politically unengaged majority who don't answer opinion polls. Lots of people are uninterested in current affairs, don't watch news on the tv or read the papers. Facebook, twitter and instagram are only political if you choose them to be, and most don't.
Opinion polls only reflect the opinions of the politically engaged. Someone in the PB good books should write a thread about it
You're ignoring that a huge bulk of postal voting would have been done prior to Cox's assassination. And the polls were peak leave when postal voting started.
In 2015 the polls, the people who obsess over polls, and the betting, which is largely shaped by people who obsess over polls, made NOM a certainty '1.1 free money'
They feed off each other, inside the over engaged bubble. That's why they are so often so wrong.
On the other hand, for things like Lab leader they are very accurate, because the people being polled and the people with a vote at the ballot have the same level of engagement
The election has opened a lot of people's eyes to social care facts. I knew nothing - now I've maged to google a little. I understand that the costs of residential care are between 30k and 50k per annum, depending on nursing needs, and that home care is around around 6k per year per hour per day (if that makes sense).
The only thing I don't know is what's the prognosis after the first time care is required. snip
My mother needed residential care for 5 years. Fees were 35k - 40k. You pay yourself unless you have total assets less than about 23k.
There are 300,000 elderly presently in residential care. Now you see the problem -- the bill each year is about 10 billion pounds. (Remember, 1p on income tax raises about 4 or 5 billion).
And we haven’t yet budgeted for the millions of elderly who need in-home care.
Corbyn thinks the National Care Service can be set up for 3 billion a year (number from Labour Manifesto). It really can’t. It needs much more.
It would be interesting to see a believable costing for setting up the National Care Service, and how much we would all pay in income tax.
So what is the solution? More tax? Pay for it your self or ski from 60, smoke drink and enjoy life?
Care home costs in the NW are about £24K pa, so it varies You can increase that by 50% if it includes nursing. Of course some places I suppose are deemed 'better' and so even more expensive http://www.payingforcare.org/care-home-fees People with no assets get care but at what quality? Home care if it is possible is much cheaper and I can see little problem in the asset limit being raised to £100k. The tories are raising the IHT limit and Labour are lowering it.
OK --- FWIW My mother in law's partner was in care for oh 2 years before he died aged 91. We topped up I think some LA contribution. She is living with us now (we have gone to the trouble to convert part of the house) and she is 92 herself. It remains to be seen what will happen. She is not in brilliant health and is infirm but gets about slowly with stick and walker. And where needed a wheelchair. In my opinion she has had very good treatment in the NHS, for a cancer and eye and chest/respiratory problems. We are doing all we can to keep her at home and active. We are I believe being responsible. My mother in law has assets but not enormously so and not based on a big posh house etc. Being selfish the Tory proposals are to our benefit I think. We hope that she would only go into a home in extremis and at a sad last resort.
As an aside, the Chilterns are fucking beautiful. I've walked them before, but, today, Wow.
It has the perfect combination of hills and hidden valleys and red kites and exquisite little villages and it's just 45 minutes from Marylebone (the most charming and usable of London termini). Incredible rural beauty less than an hour from the heart of the world's greatest city?
We are a lucky country.
Remember that the next time the developer lobby leans on the government of the day and argues for building in the green belt.
I'm with you, bruv.
I love rural English beauty. It's a unique and precious thing. And it is another reason I am in favour of Brexit.
There is simply no way you can import 300,000 people every single year - most of whom want to live in England, and SE England at that - and pretend that, in the end, this won't impact the countryside we have left.
This is what Remainers won't face. Net migration of 330,000 a year was simply unsustainable. We don't have room for a population of 80m, 90m, 120m. An economy built on the sugar rush of immigration is an economy headed for socio-economic diabetes.
We need to find a new way to grow. Not by numbers alone.
At the same population density as the area of Edinburgh I live in (my house, as does every house on the street, has it's own garden) would require 23 square kilometers of space for those 300,000 people.
Or 0.009% of the land area of the UK.
Why does everyone need a garden ? Unless you like weeds.
My mum has won Redridge in Bloom five times over the last 12 years.
Wasn't that for her front garden? Or am I remembering somebody else.
It was front garden, but many houses lack even a front garden, correct?
True. Especially in Redbridge, where they typically consist of concrete with a car parked on it.
As an aside, the Chilterns are fucking beautiful. I've walked them before, but, today, Wow.
It has the perfect combination of hills and hidden valleys and red kites and exquisite little villages and it's just 45 minutes from Marylebone (the most charming and usable of London termini). Incredible rural beauty less than an hour from the heart of the world's greatest city?
We are a lucky country.
Remember that the next time the developer lobby leans on the government of the day and argues for building in the green belt.
I'm with you, bruv.
I love rural English beauty. It's a unique and precious thing. And it is another reason I am in favour of Brexit.
There is simply no way you can import 300,000 people every single year - most of whom want to live in England, and SE England at that - and pretend that, in the end, this won't impact the countryside we have left.
This is what Remainers won't face. Net migration of 330,000 a year was simply unsustainable. We don't have room for a population of 80m, 90m, 120m. An economy built on the sugar rush of immigration is an economy headed for socio-economic diabetes.
We need to find a new way to grow. Not by numbers alone.
Utter bollocks, from start to finish. 2.27% of the UK's land is built on.
Delete "Corbyn" throughout, replace with "Brexit". Still works.
Still didn't stop many of the poor voting for Brexit.
That may be true - Brexit is a one-off thing though. I know the raveling and unraveling might go on for many years, but the effect is basically a cliff-edge - scaling, or leaping off as you choose.
Corbynism is (potentially) a spiraling down into the abyss. Oddly I imagine that you're going to agree
Brexit is worse, definitely. Corbyn can change or be got rid of. Brexit will drag on forever.
You still don't get it. And you never will. For me and many people, Brexit = Independence.
You're saying "Independence will drag on forever, once we're free, we're free"
For a lot of us, maybe 52% or more, that is good thing.
That's because you (and your mythical many people) are deranged. Britain was independent last year and probably had more practical influence over its future than it will in a couple of years' time.
Control is nothing without power. In future, Britain will be a country that will have things done to it rather than participate in the doing.
So "independent" we can't leave this economic bloc without literally destroying the nation? As you continuously insist?
That's like telling a slave he's entirely free to go, but if he tries to leave we can't promise he won't be electrified by the invisible, lethal, Electro-Slave energy-dome we have erected over the cotton plantation, just to, you know, keep out annoying hawkers of patterned kerchiefs.
I realise that you're deranged, but I have never (never mind continuously) insisted that Britain couldn't leave the EU without destroying the nation, either literally or metaphorically. In practice, it is simply heading for an entirely avoidable disaster, thanks in large part to the way in which Leavers conducted their campaign,
The lunatic Brexiteers are still painting themselves in woad, putting blades in their Ford Cortina wheels and investigating the practicalities of altering the planet's plate tectonics. When the wretched Brexit process is complete, these are not people whose views are going to be anxiously sought when deciding either the burning topics of the day or in sorting out the humdrum matters of international cooperation.
Some sighs of relief coming from CCHQ round about now, I would suggest. It hasn't got any worse for the Tories, and maybe the start of a slow upward tick until polling day.
With Corbyn tied up trying to vainly defend the indefensible, May has to seize the initiative sharpish for the whole of next week. Easier said than done, but the Tories, if they are smart enough, could kill off the social care and WFP narratives and nail Corbyn on security and defence.
Better to win the last two weeks of the campaign rather than the start of it.
There is plenty of experience in the Tory campaign of what is not working to draw upon.
Comments
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/05/02/revealed-eds-night-time-dash-to-casa-brand-driven-by-postal-ballot-panic/
A PB hack?? Putin's boys have no bounds.
Final polling will be fascinating, but they can't all be right.
NEW THREAD
The lunatic Brexiteers are still painting themselves in woad, putting blades in their Ford Cortina wheels and investigating the practicalities of altering the planet's plate tectonics. When the wretched Brexit process is complete, these are not people whose views are going to be anxiously sought when deciding either the burning topics of the day or in sorting out the humdrum matters of international cooperation.
One answer is for people to work longer (which conveniently matches making pensions more affordable) but perhaps "flow" will make us all happier. Certainly I see an increasing number of patients continuing to work well into their late sixties/early seventies.
We are going to be a gerontocracy.
Southeast
Cons up 5%
Labour up 10%
LD down 1%
UKIP down 10%
London
Cons down 2%
Labour no change
LD up 6%
UKIP down 3%
Hmm
They feed off each other, inside the over engaged bubble. That's why they are so often so wrong.
On the other hand, for things like Lab leader they are very accurate, because the people being polled and the people with a vote at the ballot have the same level of engagement
http://www.payingforcare.org/care-home-fees
People with no assets get care but at what quality?
Home care if it is possible is much cheaper and I can see little problem in the asset limit being raised to £100k.
The tories are raising the IHT limit and Labour are lowering it.
OK --- FWIW
My mother in law's partner was in care for oh 2 years before he died aged 91. We topped up I think some LA contribution. She is living with us now (we have gone to the trouble to convert part of the house) and she is 92 herself. It remains to be seen what will happen. She is not in brilliant health and is infirm but gets about slowly with stick and walker. And where needed a wheelchair. In my opinion she has had very good treatment in the NHS, for a cancer and eye and chest/respiratory problems. We are doing all we can to keep her at home and active.
We are I believe being responsible. My mother in law has assets but not enormously so and not based on a big posh house etc. Being selfish the Tory proposals are to our benefit I think. We hope that she would only go into a home in extremis and at a sad last resort.
Yours faithfully,
A. Calvinist
http://www.decanter.com/reviews/romania/wine-atlas-feteasca-neagra-romania-2014/
for £3.50 in store.
Try some and see if its as good as that posh wine you drink these days.
There is plenty of experience in the Tory campaign of what is not working to draw upon.