In 6 months time we may be saying how clever of TMay to get a 30 seat majority now and postpone the recession-related shellacking she was due in 2020.
An interesting quote from that article:
However, Mr Gardener said: "The number of people in work has continued to rise at a healthy pace. Indeed, the unemployment rate fell to a 42-year low in the three months to March."
I think the tories should be banging on more about that
Rich people will never understand zero hour contracts and the damage they do long term to young people. This is why people vote Tory they don't understand what its like to be homeless, have no job, be on a zero contract, unable to afford the rent and don't have the bank of mum and dad to support them for a deposit or a roof over their heads to save for a deposit.
When you listen to young people who vote tory they have one thing in common; they live with mum and dad or mum and dad are paying the vast majority of bills and providing the resources to get ahead of their competition
Do you realise that ZHC are most heavily used in the charitable sector (over a third of contracts) and the public sector (around a quarter of contracts) not the private sector (under 8% of contracts). So its not those nasty capitalists at all
Charity?
Do you know how much directors are paid at charities? They get more than the PM. 6 figure salaries and the other people in the office are doing it out of the goodness in their heart or on a zero hour contract.
Look at the size of the houses these directors working for charities actually live in compared to people on zero hour contracts.
Surprisingly cautious? They don't even include the cost to the exchequer of re-nationalisation, let alone their overoptimistic predictions from how much revenue their tax hikes will bring in..
The water companies alone will cost £66 billion, and buying will make absolutely no difference to the service, for that to happen much more money will have to be spent.
So no Labour's manifesto is not fully costed, and anyone who says it is is a chump.
Borrow 66 billion. Interest is say 1 billion per year. Change nothing except have govt owning all shares. Govt receives the 2 billion profit the water industry makes.
Voila - nationalisation has paid for itself.
Except Labour is all about ending "profiteering" in the utilities, so no there won't be £2 billion in profit, probably the opposite.
And there is the effect which all this additional borrowing will have on the interest the government will have to pay on its existing debt as it gets rolled over. That too is added to the burden.
As best I can tell Labour wants to have an economy similar to the one we had in the 1970's - nationalized industries, unions with unlimited powers, high taxes. I suppose if Brexit happens, exchange controls will be next.
BTW what is Labour's position on Brexit? If Corbyn does become PM what will Labour be looking to do?
PV samples it is been implied are very 'interesting'.
I thought it was proved on here that PV samples were a load of bollocks? No one sees enough of them to get a grasp, or something like that? Or you simply can't see them?
Perhaps in the fog of battle I have wilfully misremembered.
No it is quite possible to get a very accurate assessment of the situation. It only takes a bit of experience It is a consistent and verifiable skill. You only need regular samples to pick up a trend. You can't determine a seat that will be lost by a thousand, but you can tell the ones that are going to be lost by 5,000.
In 6 months time we may be saying how clever of TMay to get a 30 seat majority now and postpone the recession-related shellacking she was due in 2020.
An interesting quote from that article:
However, Mr Gardener said: "The number of people in work has continued to rise at a healthy pace. Indeed, the unemployment rate fell to a 42-year low in the three months to March."
I think the tories should be banging on more about that
Rich people will never understand zero hour contracts and the damage they do long term to young people. This is why people vote Tory they don't understand what its like to be homeless, have no job, be on a zero contract, unable to afford the rent and don't have the bank of mum and dad to support them for a deposit or a roof over their heads to save for a deposit.
When you listen to young people who vote tory they have one thing in common; they live with mum and dad or mum and dad are paying the vast majority of bills and providing the resources to get ahead of their competition
"Rich people will never understand zero hour contracts and the damage they do long term to young people. "
Sigh.
ZHCs have a clear defined role in an economy and are popular with a certain % of the population. Those, like myself barely ten years ago, who want experience and money while working their way to something else.
Banning them, making that a cornerstone of the campaign, is a very retrograde, narrow view of the topic.
Hardly surprising. Big biz is terrified of Corbyn.
where exactly are the tories pissing all that doh? Please don't tell me it's *all*going on fb and youtube ad's.....
That is the question I would like the answer to also.
Pretty much every begging email I get from the LibDems mentions the cost of online stuff like FB adds, so it must be eating up a good slice of the parties' spending.
The point is - if you think Labour should have included a cost of 66 billion in their manifesto, - then you simply do not understand how government finances work.
*sigh*
If you think Labour should promise to nationalise things without explaining the costs and benefits of doing so — make the case, don't just follow party dogma — then you are probably a Corbyn supporter and beyond reason.
Now I understand why Remain didn't use Theresa May during EU Ref campaign.
Maybe they should have smuggled her into the Leave camp? Think what she could have done to their vote share
A bit unfair, she gave a good speech on why Britain should stay in the EU that TOPPING linked below. She clearly didn't sign up to the project fear aspects (although she's doing that no with the no deal stuff)
Fair enough, but her behaviour makes me wonder. If she was a Remainer, why would she want to be a PM who has to be a "Leave" PM? Either she was never a Remainer and was just following Cabinet policy or if she was a Remainer then the lure of power was too much to resist.
It's possible that she genuinely thought that her Home Office EU negotiations could be used as a model for Brexit and didn't appreciate the gravity of the decisions that will need to be made. It's certainly my impression that one of the main factors in pushing her to go for an early election was the realisation that she was going 'alone and naked' into the negotiations.
Then we are heading up S**t Creek and the paddles are going overboard.
That is, without doubt, the case. And May has blown her chances of a White Cliffs of Dover, We Shall Never Surrender Brexit by being so useless. The Tories are going to get rid of her sooner rather than later, I imagine. But who takes over who can keep them together?
In 6 months time we may be saying how clever of TMay to get a 30 seat majority now and postpone the recession-related shellacking she was due in 2020.
An interesting quote from that article:
However, Mr Gardener said: "The number of people in work has continued to rise at a healthy pace. Indeed, the unemployment rate fell to a 42-year low in the three months to March."
I think the tories should be banging on more about that
Rich people will never understand zero hour contracts and the damage they do long term to young people. This is why people vote Tory they don't understand what its like to be homeless, have no job, be on a zero contract, unable to afford the rent and don't have the bank of mum and dad to support them for a deposit or a roof over their heads to save for a deposit.
When you listen to young people who vote tory they have one thing in common; they live with mum and dad or mum and dad are paying the vast majority of bills and providing the resources to get ahead of their competition
"Rich people will never understand zero hour contracts and the damage they do long term to young people. "
Sigh.
ZHCs have a clear defined role in an economy and are popular with a certain % of the population. Those, like myself barely ten years ago, who want experience and money while working their way to something else.
Banning them, making that a cornerstone of the campaign, is a very retrograde, narrow view of the topic.
Have you worked on a zero hour contract?
yes, as clearly stated in the post.
So you support the right of employers changing your hourly rate after working those hours?
Since the first Yougov mega poll was released 3 days ago we have had a total of six polls. three of them have been Yougov all basically showing the same thing, one Survey Monkey showing a Tory lead of 6% and a poll each from Kantar and ICM showing leads of 10% and 12%.
The only mention of the polls that do not follow the narrative of 'Tories doing badly' was the rather passing reference "On the day ICM gave the Tories a 12% lead, YouGov analysis has the Tories losing their majority". It would be nice if the thread headers at least mentioned the other polls since anyone just reading the thread headers would not even know they existed.
If Yougov does turn out to be as flawed as many on all sides seem to think it is, then the site's preoccupation with it to the detriment of other polls will be seen to be rather foolish.
YouGov do have the limelight at the moment, and are drowning out coverage of other polls.
And yet for some reason if they were showing substantial Tory leads I am not so sure they would be getting the same attention.
They do, remember the night when we had polls showing Tory leads in the 20s?
All the polls were showing the same thing and all were being treated equally. Why are you currently ignoring polls that show the Tories in a better position than Yougov? The last time you showed a chart from any pollster other than Yougov was 6 days and 16 threads ago.
I'm not ignoring them.
I shall be doing a piece on them this weekend.
Panelbase was nearly a fortnight old and I have huge concerns about Surveymonkey and the Survation phone poll that is UK wide.
The latter two showed shrinking Tory leads but didn't get a thread.
PV samples it is been implied are very 'interesting'.
I thought it was proved on here that PV samples were a load of bollocks? No one sees enough of them to get a grasp, or something like that? Or you simply can't see them?
Perhaps in the fog of battle I have wilfully misremembered.
No it is quite possible to get a very accurate assessment of the situation. It only takes a bit of experience It is a consistent and verifiable skill. You only need regular samples to pick up a trend. You can't determine a seat that will be lost by a thousand, but you can tell the ones that are going to be lost by 5,000.
Isn't it now the case that the Electoral Commission has instructed that postal voting verification shall take place in a manner whereby it is not possible to see the ballot form being extracted from the ballot envelope? Some places might not be following this.
This is the first election since I started PB when I haven't received a call advising about PV counting is going.
Those have long been the rules, however. Clearly after the various reports circulating last time they are just making an effort to take more care to keep the votes concealed. Which is a good thing.
In 6 months time we may be saying how clever of TMay to get a 30 seat majority now and postpone the recession-related shellacking she was due in 2020.
An interesting quote from that article:
However, Mr Gardener said: "The number of people in work has continued to rise at a healthy pace. Indeed, the unemployment rate fell to a 42-year low in the three months to March."
I think the tories should be banging on more about that
Rich people will never understand zero hour contracts and the damage they do long term to young people. This is why people vote Tory they don't understand what its like to be homeless, have no job, be on a zero contract, unable to afford the rent and don't have the bank of mum and dad to support them for a deposit or a roof over their heads to save for a deposit.
When you listen to young people who vote tory they have one thing in common; they live with mum and dad or mum and dad are paying the vast majority of bills and providing the resources to get ahead of their competition
"Rich people will never understand zero hour contracts and the damage they do long term to young people. "
Sigh.
ZHCs have a clear defined role in an economy and are popular with a certain % of the population. Those, like myself barely ten years ago, who want experience and money while working their way to something else.
Banning them, making that a cornerstone of the campaign, is a very retrograde, narrow view of the topic.
Have you worked on a zero hour contract?
yes, as clearly stated in the post.
So you support the right of employers changing your hourly rate after working those hours?
That would surprise me. What evidence do you have of that?
Have to say, the Tories response across the board is not one of a party that thinks it's in any danger of a hung parliament. They might be wrong/complacent of course, but their internal polling and targetting was exceptionally good in 2015.
These schedules are agreed days in advance between HQ and the local campaigns, however, not least so local media and a crowd of helpers can be lined up in advance. Of course plans can be changed, but if the Tories suddenly cleared their diaries and all rushed to Kensington and Hastings you can bet it would soon become a big story...
Hardly surprising. Big biz is terrified of Corbyn.
where exactly are the tories pissing all that doh? Please don't tell me it's *all*going on fb and youtube ad's.....
That is the question I would like the answer to also.
Pretty much every begging email I get from the LibDems mentions the cost of online stuff like FB adds, so it must be eating up a good slice of the parties' spending.
And it counts as part of the national spend, not the local spend.
These schedules are agreed days in advance between HQ and the local campaigns, however, not least so local media and a crowd of helpers can be lined up in advance. Of course plans can be changed, but if the Tories suddenly cleared their diaries and all rushed to Kensington and Hastings you can bet it would soon become a big story...
Yeah, but it's been more than days since the polling slump
Have to say, the Tories response across the board is not one of a party that thinks it's in any danger of a hung parliament. They might be wrong/complacent of course, but their internal polling and targetting was exceptionally good in 2015.
Although Mrs May has been campaigning in Twickenham, which doesn't suggest she's too optimistic...
Have to say, the Tories response across the board is not one of a party that thinks it's in any danger of a hung parliament. They might be wrong/complacent of course, but their internal polling and targetting was exceptionally good in 2015.
Although Mrs May has been campaigning in Twickenham, which doesn't suggest she's too optimistic...
Twickenham is precisely THE seat May needs to be losing in order to destroy Labour.
Now I understand why Remain didn't use Theresa May during EU Ref campaign.
Maybe they should have smuggled her into the Leave camp? Think what she could have done to their vote share
A bit unfair, she gave a good speech on why Britain should stay in the EU that TOPPING linked below. She clearly didn't sign up to the project fear aspects (although she's doing that no with the no deal stuff)
Fair enough, but her behaviour makes me wonder. If she was a Remainer, why would she want to be a PM who has to be a "Leave" PM? Either she was never a Remainer and was just following Cabinet policy or if she was a Remainer then the lure of power was too much to resist.
It's possible that she genuinely thought that her Home Office EU negotiations could be used as a model for Brexit and didn't appreciate the gravity of the decisions that will need to be made. It's certainly my impression that one of the main factors in pushing her to go for an early election was the realisation that she was going 'alone and naked' into the negotiations.
Then we are heading up S**t Creek and the paddles are going overboard.
That is, without doubt, the case. And May has blown her chances of a White Cliffs of Dover, We Shall Never Surrender Brexit by being so useless. The Tories are going to get rid of her sooner rather than later, I imagine. But who takes over who can keep them together?
I wonder if it will ever get so FUBAR that people will start yelling "STOP"?
Even some of the Leavers on here seem to getting a bit lukewarm on the whole process
In 6 months time we may be saying how clever of TMay to get a 30 seat majority now and postpone the recession-related shellacking she was due in 2020.
An interesting quote from that article:
However, Mr Gardener said: "The number of people in work has continued to rise at a healthy pace. Indeed, the unemployment rate fell to a 42-year low in the three months to March."
I think the tories should be banging on more about that
Rich people will never understand zero hour contracts and the damage they do long term to young people. This is why people vote Tory they don't understand what its like to be homeless, have no job, be on a zero contract, unable to afford the rent and don't have the bank of mum and dad to support them for a deposit or a roof over their heads to save for a deposit.
When you listen to young people who vote tory they have one thing in common; they live with mum and dad or mum and dad are paying the vast majority of bills and providing the resources to get ahead of their competition
"Rich people will never understand zero hour contracts and the damage they do long term to young people. "
Sigh.
ZHCs have a clear defined role in an economy and are popular with a certain % of the population. Those, like myself barely ten years ago, who want experience and money while working their way to something else.
Banning them, making that a cornerstone of the campaign, is a very retrograde, narrow view of the topic.
Have you worked on a zero hour contract?
yes, as clearly stated in the post.
So you support the right of employers changing your hourly rate after working those hours?
That would surprise me. What evidence do you have of that?
if that is indeed happening, then I would not support it.
In 6 months time we may be saying how clever of TMay to get a 30 seat majority now and postpone the recession-related shellacking she was due in 2020.
An interesting quote from that article:
However, Mr Gardener said: "The number of people in work has continued to rise at a healthy pace. Indeed, the unemployment rate fell to a 42-year low in the three months to March."
I think the tories should be banging on more about that
Rich people will never understand zero hour contracts and the damage they do long term to young people. This is why people vote Tory they don't understand what its like to be homeless, have no job, be on a zero contract, unable to afford the rent and don't have the bank of mum and dad to support them for a deposit or a roof over their heads to save for a deposit.
When you listen to young people who vote tory they have one thing in common; they live with mum and dad or mum and dad are paying the vast majority of bills and providing the resources to get ahead of their competition
Do you realise that ZHC are most heavily used in the charitable sector (over a third of contracts) and the public sector (around a quarter of contracts) not the private sector (under 8% of contracts). So its not those nasty capitalists at all
Charity?
Do you know how much directors are paid at charities? They get more than the PM. 6 figure salaries and the other people in the office are doing it out of the goodness in their heart or on a zero hour contract.
Look at the size of the houses these directors working for charities actually live in compared to people on zero hour contracts.
I think you're tarring everyone with the same brush there.
You're talking about the massive lefty-leaning lobbying organisations that came from charitable roots but are now just political campaigning groups. Oxfam, NSPCC, RSPCA, Shelter etc. How many people did Shelter actually, erm, shelter, last Christmas?
They are only in it for the money - that's true and they won't ever see any of mine.
Real charities still exist. I do a few things for a few that are still voluntary almost to the top and even then the directors are paid realistically and frugally. We still see it as a vocation and it's not enough to make a living from full time.
As best I can tell Labour wants to have an economy similar to the one we had in the 1970's - nationalized industries, unions with unlimited powers, high taxes. I suppose if Brexit happens, exchange controls will be next.
That's more or less what I think Corbyn and McDonnell are about, undoing the legacy of the Thatcher, Major, and Blair years. Payback for their supporters and the unions.
But it will be worse than during the 1970s, because as bad as the British economy was then it wasn't vastly different from other similar sized economies. The economy was bad, but it was in the same ballpark as others. If we reverse back to the 1970s, other economies will not follow us, they aren't going to undo their liberalisation, they aren't going to start nationalising things, and they will be delighted to see foreign investment head to safer shores. So we will be miles behind similar competitor economies.
If Brexit is a kick in the nuts for the UK economy, Labour under Corbyn would be like losing a leg.
Have to say, the Tories response across the board is not one of a party that thinks it's in any danger of a hung parliament. They might be wrong/complacent of course, but their internal polling and targetting was exceptionally good in 2015.
Although Mrs May has been campaigning in Twickenham, which doesn't suggest she's too optimistic...
That Mrs. May was in Plymouth Sutton yesterday ( CON majority 521) is very telling. The YouGov model has it as likely LAB.
Have to say, the Tories response across the board is not one of a party that thinks it's in any danger of a hung parliament. They might be wrong/complacent of course, but their internal polling and targetting was exceptionally good in 2015.
Although Mrs May has been campaigning in Twickenham, which doesn't suggest she's too optimistic...
Twickenham is precisely THE seat May needs to be losing in order to destroy Labour.
I'm actually more convinced from these interminable discussions that people who are massively, vocally antiZHCs have likely never been on one.
There are substantial downsides to ZHCs, but a ban is stupid, because for some people in some circumstances a ZHC works better for them that the alternative, which may well be no work.
Now I understand why Remain didn't use Theresa May during EU Ref campaign.
Maybe they should have smuggled her into the Leave camp? Think what she could have done to their vote share
A bit unfair, she gave a good speech on why Britain should stay in the EU that TOPPING linked below. She clearly didn't sign up to the project fear aspects (although she's doing that no with the no deal stuff)
Fair enough, but her behaviour makes me wonder. If she was a Remainer, why would she want to be a PM who has to be a "Leave" PM? Either she was never a Remainer and was just following Cabinet policy or if she was a Remainer then the lure of power was too much to resist.
It's possible that she genuinely thought that her Home Office EU negotiations could be used as a model for Brexit and didn't appreciate the gravity of the decisions that will need to be made. It's certainly my impression that one of the main factors in pushing her to go for an early election was the realisation that she was going 'alone and naked' into the negotiations.
Then we are heading up S**t Creek and the paddles are going overboard.
That is, without doubt, the case. And May has blown her chances of a White Cliffs of Dover, We Shall Never Surrender Brexit by being so useless. The Tories are going to get rid of her sooner rather than later, I imagine. But who takes over who can keep them together?
I wonder if it will ever get so FUBAR that people will start yelling "STOP"?
Even some of the Leavers on here seem to getting a bit lukewarm on the whole process
In your dreams. Get on with it and bugger off to Southern Ireland.
PV samples it is been implied are very 'interesting'.
I thought it was proved on here that PV samples were a load of bollocks? No one sees enough of them to get a grasp, or something like that? Or you simply can't see them?
Perhaps in the fog of battle I have wilfully misremembered.
No it is quite possible to get a very accurate assessment of the situation. It only takes a bit of experience It is a consistent and verifiable skill. You only need regular samples to pick up a trend. You can't determine a seat that will be lost by a thousand, but you can tell the ones that are going to be lost by 5,000.
Isn't it now the case that the Electoral Commission has instructed that postal voting verification shall take place in a manner whereby it is not possible to see the ballot form being extracted from the ballot envelope? Some places might not be following this.
This is the first election since I started PB when I haven't received a call advising about PV counting is going.
In Sutton there is an observation table set uo for agents who wish to watch the sampking take place..
Now I understand why Remain didn't use Theresa May during EU Ref campaign.
Maybe they should have smuggled her into the Leave camp? Think what she could have done to their vote share
A bit unfair, she gave a good speech on why Britain should stay in the EU that TOPPING linked below. She clearly didn't sign up to the project fear aspects (although she's doing that no with the no deal stuff)
Fair enough, but her behaviour makes me wonder. If she was a Remainer, why would she want to be a PM who has to be a "Leave" PM? Either she was never a Remainer and was just following Cabinet policy or if she was a Remainer then the lure of power was too much to resist.
It's possible that she genuinely thought that her Home Office EU negotiations could be used as a model for Brexit and didn't appreciate the gravity of the decisions that will need to be made. It's certainly my impression that one of the main factors in pushing her to go for an early election was the realisation that she was going 'alone and naked' into the negotiations.
Then we are heading up S**t Creek and the paddles are going overboard.
That is, without doubt, the case. And May has blown her chances of a White Cliffs of Dover, We Shall Never Surrender Brexit by being so useless. The Tories are going to get rid of her sooner rather than later, I imagine. But who takes over who can keep them together?
If May gets a majority over 50 it is Brexit on her terms, indeed only a hung parliament would likely see soft Brexit
In 6 months time we may be saying how clever of TMay to get a 30 seat majority now and postpone the recession-related shellacking she was due in 2020.
An interesting quote from that article:
However, Mr Gardener said: "The number of people in work has continued to rise at a healthy pace. Indeed, the unemployment rate fell to a 42-year low in the three months to March."
I think the tories should be banging on more about that
Rich people will never understand zero hour contracts and the damage they do long term to young people. This is why people vote Tory they don't understand what its like to be homeless, have no job, be on a zero contract, unable to afford the rent and don't have the bank of mum and dad to support them for a deposit or a roof over their heads to save for a deposit.
When you listen to young people who vote tory they have one thing in common; they live with mum and dad or mum and dad are paying the vast majority of bills and providing the resources to get ahead of their competition
"Rich people will never understand zero hour contracts and the damage they do long term to young people. "
Sigh.
ZHCs have a clear defined role in an economy and are popular with a certain % of the population. Those, like myself barely ten years ago, who want experience and money while working their way to something else.
Banning them, making that a cornerstone of the campaign, is a very retrograde, narrow view of the topic.
Have you worked on a zero hour contract?
yes, as clearly stated in the post.
So you support the right of employers changing your hourly rate after working those hours?
That would surprise me. What evidence do you have of that?
London Companies Sales Jobs. Construction jobs. Finance jobs.
Jobs where your paid an agreed hourly rate or you get commission. The job is more difficult than expected and the employer simple undercuts your wage and when you appeal there is nothing you can do about it.
There is nothing in a zero hour contract stopping employers breaking pay and conditions.
In Hampstead and Kilburn Labour won last time with a very small majority. The Lib Dems were a long long way behind. So this is a marginal where the Tories really should be confident of winning and should be putting some effort into.
And yet the only party that I can see regularly leafleting etc are the Lib Dems who have absolutely no chance here unless something amazing happens. The Tories sent a leaflet once at the very start. The Labour MP actually bothered to canvass and was personally impressive. Either the Tories think it in the bag or they are focusing their efforts elsewhere in the constituency or they are being useless/complacent.
Have to say, the Tories response across the board is not one of a party that thinks it's in any danger of a hung parliament. They might be wrong/complacent of course, but their internal polling and targetting was exceptionally good in 2015.
Although Mrs May has been campaigning in Twickenham, which doesn't suggest she's too optimistic...
Twickenham is precisely THE seat May needs to be losing in order to destroy Labour.
I don't follow your argument on that one. She needs to carry what she has got and take seats off Labour. The Lib Dems might pick up a few seats but they are being treated as a fringe party due to the fact they only won 8 seats at the last election and came fourth in the popular vote. Will be interesting to see if they get back into third in votes but I think they will be fifth in seats behind Con, Lab, SNP, DUP and then Lib Dem.
An interesting factor in the podcast on the previous thread was that voters remember the bad parts of the Conservative manifesto and the good parts of Labour's. Ironically, one pundit then advised the Tories to go negative! Surely what Theresa May needs to do is to show us her path to the broad, sunlit uplands.
It's impossible to compete with Labour on that front since they are promising everything to everyone.
Actually, Labour's costed manifesto is surprisingly cautious. It is the uncosted Conservative one that is the pig in the poke. You might disagree with Labour's costings and assumptions and priorities but at least they are there.
From the man who regularly tells us everything would have been tickety-boo if only we had stayed the course with Gordon Brown....
Labour's manifesto is a giant con. If implemented, it would require vast tax rises. Those who could leave would. Those who remain would have their pips squeaked in a way Dennis Healy could never have dreamt of.
Ask the Chancellor about Conservative plans to increase taxes after the election. We know he has them. We know they are not in the manifesto.
In 6 months time we may be saying how clever of TMay to get a 30 seat majority now and postpone the recession-related shellacking she was due in 2020.
An interesting quote from that article:
However, Mr Gardener said: "The number of people in work has continued to rise at a healthy pace. Indeed, the unemployment rate fell to a 42-year low in the three months to March."
I think the tories should be banging on more about that
Rich people will never understand zero hour contracts and the damage they do long term to young people. This is why people vote Tory they don't understand what its like to be homeless, have no job, be on a zero contract, unable to afford the rent and don't have the bank of mum and dad to support them for a deposit or a roof over their heads to save for a deposit.
When you listen to young people who vote tory they have one thing in common; they live with mum and dad or mum and dad are paying the vast majority of bills and providing the resources to get ahead of their competition
"Rich people will never understand zero hour contracts and the damage they do long term to young people. "
Sigh.
ZHCs have a clear defined role in an economy and are popular with a certain % of the population. Those, like myself barely ten years ago, who want experience and money while working their way to something else.
Banning them, making that a cornerstone of the campaign, is a very retrograde, narrow view of the topic.
Have you worked on a zero hour contract?
yes, as clearly stated in the post.
So you support the right of employers changing your hourly rate after working those hours?
That would surprise me. What evidence do you have of that?
London Companies Sales Jobs. Construction jobs. Finance jobs.
Jobs where your paid an agreed hourly rate or you get commission. The job is more difficult than expected and the employer simple undercuts your wage and when you appeal there is nothing you can do about it.
There is nothing in a zero hour contract stopping employers breaking pay and conditions.
Have to say, the Tories response across the board is not one of a party that thinks it's in any danger of a hung parliament. They might be wrong/complacent of course, but their internal polling and targetting was exceptionally good in 2015.
Although Mrs May has been campaigning in Twickenham, which doesn't suggest she's too optimistic...
Twickenham is precisely THE seat May needs to be losing in order to destroy Labour.
Have to say, the Tories response across the board is not one of a party that thinks it's in any danger of a hung parliament. They might be wrong/complacent of course, but their internal polling and targetting was exceptionally good in 2015.
Although Mrs May has been campaigning in Twickenham, which doesn't suggest she's too optimistic...
Twickenham is precisely THE seat May needs to be losing in order to destroy Labour.
I don't follow your argument on that one. She needs to carry what she has got and take seats off Labour. The Lib Dems might pick up a few seats but they are being treated as a fringe party due to the fact they only won 8 seats at the last election and came fourth in the popular vote. Will be interesting to see if they get back into third in votes but I think they will be fifth in seats behind Con, Lab, SNP, DUP and then Lib Dem.
I think Pulpstar is talking about the types of voters she needs to appeal to.
I'm actually more convinced from these interminable discussions that people who are massively, vocally antiZHCs have likely never been on one.
There are substantial downsides to ZHCs, but a ban is stupid, because for some people in some circumstances a ZHC works better for them that the alternative, which may well be no work.
They [LibDems] are more honest than the Tories about the need to raise taxes for public services; and more sensible than Labour, spreading the burden rather than leaning only on high-earners. Unlike Labour they would reverse the Tories’ most regressive welfare cuts. They are on the right side of other issues: for devolution of power from London, reform of the voting system and the House of Lords, and regulation of markets for drugs and sex.
..against a backward-looking Labour Party and an inward-looking Tory party about to compound its historic mistake over Brexit, they get our vote...consider a vote for the Lib Dems as a down-payment for the future. Our hope is that they become one element of a party of the radical centre, essential for a thriving, prosperous Britain.
How many times do opinion polls have to be wrong before people realise they're a load of old shit?
"If the polls called it incorrectly in the last two national elections, why should take seriously what they tell us now? Why did they indicate one thing, pretty strongly, only for the public to say something different? I believe it’s because they are not recording the opinion of the public as a whole but extrapolating the opinion of the type who like answering opinion polls - the politically engaged."
I've been sceptical all along about the accuracy of opinion polls. But most people didn't seem very sceptical before. The doubts seemed to emerge when some of the polls started showing only small Tory leads.
Where the opinion poll sceptics remain confident of a Tory victory, I don't know what that's based on.
Canvassing. Possibly rumours of postal votes too, if people were being naughty.
Hmm. Maybe some people within the parties have access to sophisticated analyses of canvass data that might tell them something that opinion polling doesn't. But I don't believe that about the Tory enthusiasts posting here.
If she wins a decent majority - 50+ - she'll survive, if she gets over 80 or 100 everyone will forget her dire campaign (until the next one).
If she gets over 80 or 100 she won't have had a dire campaign, by definition. There aren't any points awarded for style and technique.
Take your point, but even if she wins pretty big, she's had a dire campaign in terms of personal ratings, the manifesto launch, &c. Remember she is up against a crazy Marxist with terrorist sympathies.
She has way more money, she had most of the media, she had the crucial advantage of surprise, of choosing when and how to fight. She SHOULD be winning by 80-100 seats in this scenario. It's par.
All that is correct. But it won't matter. She will have won and when Conservative MPs get back to Westminster all they'll notice is that there are a lot more of them than there were before.
They may get a bit nervous in about 4 1/2 years' time perhaps but an awful will have happened between now and then.
Surprisingly cautious? They don't even include the cost to the exchequer of re-nationalisation, let alone their overoptimistic predictions from how much revenue their tax hikes will bring in..
The water companies alone will cost £66 billion, and buying will make absolutely no difference to the service, for that to happen much more money will have to be spent.
So no Labour's manifesto is not fully costed, and anyone who says it is is a chump.
Borrow 66 billion. Interest is say 1 billion per year. Change nothing except have govt owning all shares. Govt receives the 2 billion profit the water industry makes.
Do you realise that ZHC are most heavily used in the charitable sector (over a third of contracts) and the public sector (around a quarter of contracts) not the private sector (under 8% of contracts). So its not those nasty capitalists at all
If it kills off chuggers I'm all for it.
WHere are these stats Indigo?
There was a report by the CPID in 2013. Going back to check it seems they published an update to the figures for 2015.
Hardly surprising. Big biz is terrified of Corbyn.
where exactly are the tories pissing all that doh? Please don't tell me it's *all*going on fb and youtube ad's.....
That is the question I would like the answer to also.
I think pb.com should crowd scource the leaflets/surveys they recieve, although this is obviously not the only way the parties are spending money it will give us idea where they are targetting. If a pb poster reports for example has recieved three lots of leaflets in Bolsover it is clear they are expecting a big majority if however someone recieves lots of materials from the tories in what people expected to be an easy Gain for them then maybe that tells us something different?
Ealing North: " lots of leaflets from labour and my uni age sister recieved another one from lab saying don't vote lib dem. Nothing from anyone else.
In 6 months time we may be saying how clever of TMay to get a 30 seat majority now and postpone the recession-related shellacking she was due in 2020.
An interesting quote from that article:
However, Mr Gardener said: "The number of people in work has continued to rise at a healthy pace. Indeed, the unemployment rate fell to a 42-year low in the three months to March."
I think the tories should be banging on more about that
Rich people will never understand zero hour contracts and the damage they do long term to young people. This is why people vote Tory they don't understand what its like to be homeless, have no job, be on a zero contract, unable to afford the rent and don't have the bank of mum and dad to support them for a deposit or a roof over their heads to save for a deposit.
When you listen to young people who vote tory they have one thing in common; they live with mum and dad or mum and dad are paying the vast majority of bills and providing the resources to get ahead of their competition
"Rich people will never understand zero hour contracts and the damage they do long term to young people. "
Sigh.
ZHCs have a clear defined role in an economy and are popular with a certain % of the population. Those, like myself barely ten years ago, who want experience and money while working their way to something else.
Banning them, making that a cornerstone of the campaign, is a very retrograde, narrow view of the topic.
Have you worked on a zero hour contract?
yes, as clearly stated in the post.
So you support the right of employers changing your hourly rate after working those hours?
Who does ? I'm not sure very many are arguing for the status quo - there is, for example, a government sponsored review in process which is likely to recommend (for instance) the right of workers to convert from zero hours to fixed contracts.
Of course, as always, the devil will be in the detail - but it's interesting to note that McDonalds recentlygave their ZOC employees exactly that option, and only 20% opted to convert.
Surprisingly cautious? They don't even include the cost to the exchequer of re-nationalisation, let alone their overoptimistic predictions from how much revenue their tax hikes will bring in..
The water companies alone will cost £66 billion, and buying will make absolutely no difference to the service, for that to happen much more money will have to be spent.
So no Labour's manifesto is not fully costed, and anyone who says it is is a chump.
Borrow 66 billion. Interest is say 1 billion per year. Change nothing except have govt owning all shares. Govt receives the 2 billion profit the water industry makes.
Voila - nationalisation has paid for itself.
Interest of 1.5% is a very big assumption.
Nah. You just engage in financial repression to drive down yields. Nothing distorting about that at all, of course.
I'm actually more convinced from these interminable discussions that people who are massively, vocally antiZHCs have likely never been on one.
There are substantial downsides to ZHCs, but a ban is stupid, because for some people in some circumstances a ZHC works better for them that the alternative, which may well be no work.
Throw in a potential early on, but ... yes.
I'm not proposing a ban on zhcs.
I think it should be law that employers cannot change the pay conditions of zhc employees under any circumstances. You agree an hourly rate or a fee and it must be honoured. If the employer needs to cut costs, you don't let work.
Now I understand why Remain didn't use Theresa May during EU Ref campaign.
Maybe they should have smuggled her into the Leave camp? Think what she could have done to their vote share
A bit unfair, she gave a good speech on why Britain should stay in the EU that TOPPING linked below. She clearly didn't sign up to the project fear aspects (although she's doing that no with the no deal stuff)
Fair enough, but her behaviour makes me wonder. If she was a Remainer, why would she want to be a PM who has to be a "Leave" PM? Either she was never a Remainer and was just following Cabinet policy or if she was a Remainer then the lure of power was too much to resist.
It's possible that she genuinely thought that her Home Office EU negotiations could be used as a model for Brexit and didn't appreciate the gravity of the decisions that will need to be made. It's certainly my impression that one of the main factors in pushing her to go for an early election was the realisation that she was going 'alone and naked' into the negotiations.
Then we are heading up S**t Creek and the paddles are going overboard.
That is, without doubt, the case. And May has blown her chances of a White Cliffs of Dover, We Shall Never Surrender Brexit by being so useless. The Tories are going to get rid of her sooner rather than later, I imagine. But who takes over who can keep them together?
I wonder if it will ever get so FUBAR that people will start yelling "STOP"?
Even some of the Leavers on here seem to getting a bit lukewarm on the whole process
People are entitled to change their mind. What I don't see is the mechanism by which such a change of mind could be implemented before the March 2019 deadline? What if the rest of the EU says "no" to a request to stay in?
In 6 months time we may be saying how clever of TMay to get a 30 seat majority now and postpone the recession-related shellacking she was due in 2020.
An interesting quote from that article:
However, Mr Gardener said: "The number of people in work has continued to rise at a healthy pace. Indeed, the unemployment rate fell to a 42-year low in the three months to March."
I think the tories should be banging on more about that
Rich people will never understand zero hour contracts and the damage they do long term to young people. This is why people vote Tory they don't understand what its like to be homeless, have no job, be on a zero contract, unable to afford the rent and don't have the bank of mum and dad to support them for a deposit or a roof over their heads to save for a deposit.
When you listen to young people who vote tory they have one thing in common; they live with mum and dad or mum and dad are paying the vast majority of bills and providing the resources to get ahead of their competition
"Rich people will never understand zero hour contracts and the damage they do long term to young people. "
Sigh.
ZHCs have a clear defined role in an economy and are popular with a certain % of the population. Those, like myself barely ten years ago, who want experience and money while working their way to something else.
Banning them, making that a cornerstone of the campaign, is a very retrograde, narrow view of the topic.
Have you worked on a zero hour contract?
yes, as clearly stated in the post.
So you support the right of employers changing your hourly rate after working those hours?
That isn't a feature of a ZHC, that is a feature of a shite contract. Some ZHC state an hourly rate, its the fact that there is no guarantee of work that makes it a ZHC.
I seem to recall another election where YouGov volume of polling output was distorting what other polls were suggesting..... and also there was often the holiday polling hypothesis. Are these both redundant now?
An interesting factor in the podcast on the previous thread was that voters remember the bad parts of the Conservative manifesto and the good parts of Labour's. Ironically, one pundit then advised the Tories to go negative! Surely what Theresa May needs to do is to show us her path to the broad, sunlit uplands.
It's impossible to compete with Labour on that front since they are promising everything to everyone.
Actually, Labour's costed manifesto is surprisingly cautious. It is the uncosted Conservative one that is the pig in the poke. You might disagree with Labour's costings and assumptions and priorities but at least they are there.
From the man who regularly tells us everything would have been tickety-boo if only we had stayed the course with Gordon Brown....
Labour's manifesto is a giant con. If implemented, it would require vast tax rises. Those who could leave would. Those who remain would have their pips squeaked in a way Dennis Healy could never have dreamt of.
Ask the Chancellor about Conservative plans to increase taxes after the election. We know he has them. We know they are not in the manifesto.
Taxes definitely going up under the Tories after this election.
Taxes have to rise to pay for the debt and increasing avoidance of high earners. The big one and I know this from friends and families is flipping houses. So before your loved one dies, you sign the house to the sons daughters wife/husband. Avoiding inheritance tax. The rich will not pay the dementia tax only the middle class.
I wouldn't read much at all into party donations in a single week of the campaign.
It covers only large donations, whereas small contributions are very important on the local level at this point. At the national level, it won't really change spending plans over the campaign period (you've either got a mailing planned or not now - you can't really change much that's booked in, or supplement it - it's just about coming out with more or less debt).
It's also worth noting that two-thirds of the Tory total is accounted for by a big donation from JCB and two from investment fund managers, whereas Labour got the bulk of its union contributions in an earlier period. For the SNP, as TSE notes, they have a fair bit in the bank (from those lottery winners for a start) and it's even more variable for them given they only cover a fraction of the country.
PV samples it is been implied are very 'interesting'.
I thought it was proved on here that PV samples were a load of bollocks? No one sees enough of them to get a grasp, or something like that? Or you simply can't see them?
Perhaps in the fog of battle I have wilfully misremembered.
No it is quite possible to get a very accurate assessment of the situation. It only takes a bit of experience It is a consistent and verifiable skill. You only need regular samples to pick up a trend. You can't determine a seat that will be lost by a thousand, but you can tell the ones that are going to be lost by 5,000.
Isn't it now the case that the Electoral Commission has instructed that postal voting verification shall take place in a manner whereby it is not possible to see the ballot form being extracted from the ballot envelope? Some places might not be following this.
This is the first election since I started PB when I haven't received a call advising about PV counting is going.
In Sutton there is an observation table set uo for agents who wish to watch the sampking take place..
No, they watch the verification (of voter's details against the application forms). There is no sampling.
On polling if labour enthusiasm is up to vote then its seats where they racked up big majorities under blair that which later collapsed due to voter apathy are the seats we should be looking at. Some marginals have seen very little movement in 15-20 years but a lot of seats in the midlands, north have seen the labour vote decrease by 15,000-20,000.
Comments
Do you know how much directors are paid at charities? They get more than the PM. 6 figure salaries and the other people in the office are doing it out of the goodness in their heart or on a zero hour contract.
Look at the size of the houses these directors working for charities actually live in compared to people on zero hour contracts.
As best I can tell Labour wants to have an economy similar to the one we had in the 1970's - nationalized industries, unions with unlimited powers, high taxes. I suppose if Brexit happens, exchange controls will be next.
BTW what is Labour's position on Brexit? If Corbyn does become PM what will Labour be looking to do?
If you think Labour should promise to nationalise things without explaining the costs and benefits of doing so — make the case, don't just follow party dogma — then you are probably a Corbyn supporter and beyond reason.
Again, just what is going on there?
I shall be doing a piece on them this weekend.
Panelbase was nearly a fortnight old and I have huge concerns about Surveymonkey and the Survation phone poll that is UK wide.
The latter two showed shrinking Tory leads but didn't get a thread.
His opinion of UK pollsters was fairly excruciating after 2015 - Probably worth revisiting
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/05/jim-messina-interview-how-the-pollsters-got-it-wrong-and-why-labour-lost/
I've still no idea how this election will pan out. I think tory win but no ideal of scale.
Even some of the Leavers on here seem to getting a bit lukewarm on the whole process
I would still support ZHCs, in principle.
You're talking about the massive lefty-leaning lobbying organisations that came from charitable roots but are now just political campaigning groups. Oxfam, NSPCC, RSPCA, Shelter etc. How many people did Shelter actually, erm, shelter, last Christmas?
They are only in it for the money - that's true and they won't ever see any of mine.
Real charities still exist. I do a few things for a few that are still voluntary almost to the top and even then the directors are paid realistically and frugally. We still see it as a vocation and it's not enough to make a living from full time.
But it will be worse than during the 1970s, because as bad as the British economy was then it wasn't vastly different from other similar sized economies. The economy was bad, but it was in the same ballpark as others. If we reverse back to the 1970s, other economies will not follow us, they aren't going to undo their liberalisation, they aren't going to start nationalising things, and they will be delighted to see foreign investment head to safer shores. So we will be miles behind similar competitor economies.
If Brexit is a kick in the nuts for the UK economy, Labour under Corbyn would be like losing a leg.
So no need for fundraising/donations
PS when is Thanet decision due?
Get on with it and bugger off to Southern Ireland.
If my deductions are correct, Labour are on 50% and the Conservatives on 33% in this YouGov London poll.
Sales Jobs.
Construction jobs.
Finance jobs.
Jobs where your paid an agreed hourly rate or you get commission. The job is more difficult than expected and the employer simple undercuts your wage and when you appeal there is nothing you can do about it.
There is nothing in a zero hour contract stopping employers breaking pay and conditions.
In Hampstead and Kilburn Labour won last time with a very small majority. The Lib Dems were a long long way behind. So this is a marginal where the Tories really should be confident of winning and should be putting some effort into.
And yet the only party that I can see regularly leafleting etc are the Lib Dems who have absolutely no chance here unless something amazing happens. The Tories sent a leaflet once at the very start. The Labour MP actually bothered to canvass and was personally impressive. Either the Tories think it in the bag or they are focusing their efforts elsewhere in the constituency or they are being useless/complacent.
1) The LDs cannot win
2) Brexit feels more like a retreat to Olde Englande than a reaching out to a global world.
https://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/870236254377562112
Can anyone point me to a resource that shows Industry-Specific Multiples for EBIT when valuing businesses in the UK? (SME).
he's even more popular than Osborne
..against a backward-looking Labour Party and an inward-looking Tory party about to compound its historic mistake over Brexit, they get our vote...consider a vote for the Lib Dems as a down-payment for the future. Our hope is that they become one element of a party of the radical centre, essential for a thriving, prosperous Britain.
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21722855-leaders-both-main-parties-have-turned-away-decades-old-vision-open-liberal?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/thebritishelectionthemiddlehasfallenoutofbritishpolitics
They may get a bit nervous in about 4 1/2 years' time perhaps but an awful will have happened between now and then.
Of course all that is IF she wins....
https://www.cipd.co.uk/Images/zero-hours-and-short-hours-contracts-in-the-uk_2015-employer-employee-perspectives_tcm18-10713.pdf
The new numbers are private sector 24, public sector 32, voluntary sector 31.
Ealing North: " lots of leaflets from labour and my uni age sister recieved another one from lab saying don't vote lib dem. Nothing from anyone else.
I'm not sure very many are arguing for the status quo - there is, for example, a government sponsored review in process which is likely to recommend (for instance) the right of workers to convert from zero hours to fixed contracts.
Of course, as always, the devil will be in the detail - but it's interesting to note that McDonalds recentlygave their ZOC employees exactly that option, and only 20% opted to convert.
kiss of death
I think it should be law that employers cannot change the pay conditions of zhc employees under any circumstances. You agree an hourly rate or a fee and it must be honoured. If the employer needs to cut costs, you don't let work.
Plenty of sand to bury your head in.
As others have found to their cost
Do not underestimate Jeremy Corbyn
As the good book said on the cover.
Taxes have to rise to pay for the debt and increasing avoidance of high earners. The big one and I know this from friends and families is flipping houses. So before your loved one dies, you sign the house to the sons daughters wife/husband. Avoiding inheritance tax. The rich will not pay the dementia tax only the middle class.
It covers only large donations, whereas small contributions are very important on the local level at this point. At the national level, it won't really change spending plans over the campaign period (you've either got a mailing planned or not now - you can't really change much that's booked in, or supplement it - it's just about coming out with more or less debt).
It's also worth noting that two-thirds of the Tory total is accounted for by a big donation from JCB and two from investment fund managers, whereas Labour got the bulk of its union contributions in an earlier period. For the SNP, as TSE notes, they have a fair bit in the bank (from those lottery winners for a start) and it's even more variable for them given they only cover a fraction of the country.
Croydon Central
Hendon
There aren't many marginals in London.
But, not that well.
I can't believe Osborne is leading with Gwyneth Paltrow's tits.