welsh opinion poll out around 4pm and according to Roger Scully...
Prof Roger Scully Retweeted SharpendITV And it's an interesting one!
Well latest ones have had Labour restore their advantage after that schock one suggesting a Tory majority in Wales. If anywhere got spooked by the possibility of a Tory majority, it was apparently Wales.
That you gov nonsense now has Labour SECOND in Ceredigion but the bookies have them at least 100/1
Decent-sized university in Ceredigion....
Two universities I think, Aberystwyth and Lampeter.
yes but both terms end this Saturday and most have already gone home
Anybody know what proportion of students have postal votes? I assume it is not large - especially if they were late in signing up to the register in the first place.
Many will be registered both at home and university (which is all perfectly legitimate, just that you can't vote in both). I suspect they are actually slightly more likely to vote at home as Mum and Dad are about and they may well go at the same time whereas numerous other distractions exist at university. But it does disperse the vote away from university towns.
From my experience, registration for a postal vote is quite unusual, partly due to laziness and partly due to possibility of voting at home instead.
If mum and dad flip there home to my spouse, does that mean the state pays for all there social care under the tory social care policy?
Only if it were done a long time in advance. Otherwise it'd be "deliberate deprivation". At best the transaction would be reversed by a court, at worst they'd be prosecuted for fraud.
A woman in my great uncle's old care home did try doing it a long way in advance, and transferred her home to her daughter in law. Then her daughter in law evicted her.
We won't evict mum and dad.
But I'm told that this is very common practice in the leafy tory shires. So again the tax will fall on the middle class.
If they are still living there then under present rules the state will not pay a penny, and it won't matter how long ago they made the gift. They will be treated as if they still own it. I've no idea what would happen under the new proposals but I can't see why that would change.
Aged 60 transfer ownership of the house but retain a 20 year leasehold interest with 4 options to extend by 5 years.
Whatever the wording is, you must have no association with that asset therefrom.
If mum and dad flip there home to my spouse, does that mean the state pays for all there social care under the tory social care policy?
Only if it were done a long time in advance. Otherwise it'd be "deliberate deprivation". At best the transaction would be reversed by a court, at worst they'd be prosecuted for fraud.
A woman in my great uncle's old care home did try doing it a long way in advance, and transferred her home to her daughter in law. Then her daughter in law evicted her.
We won't evict mum and dad.
But I'm told that this is very common practice in the leafy tory shires. So again the tax will fall on the middle class.
If they are still living there then under present rules the state will not pay a penny, and it won't matter how long ago they made the gift. They will be treated as if they still own it. I've no idea what would happen under the new proposals but I can't see why that would change.
Aged 60 transfer ownership of the house but retain a 20 year leasehold interest with 4 options to extend by 5 years.
That works if you pay something close to a market rent. And better not let anyone catch you receiving the rent back from the kids!
And in addition the kids will have to pay tax on the rental income....
Yep.
All of which just underlines how tragic the manifesto launch was. If people understood how the current system works it wouldn't have done the damage it has. It was up to May/Timothy/Lynton/whoever's fuck up it was to explain all this but they didn't.
what the numbers people are forgetting is in 2015 tories wanted to vote and had policies to vote for while labour didn't have policies or a leader to vote for.
Today is the opposite; tories aren't voting for policies or may but just to stop corbyn and labour voters have a reason to vote.
I don't believe this is correct. I've been voting against something rather than for something for at least the last two GEs and I'm "only" 50. In my experience the more, err, mature a person is, the grumpier they are. And the grumpier they are, the more inclined they are to vote against something.
I get the feeling that a lot of Tories are really, really against Corbyn .... regardless of their attitude towards May.
If mum and dad flip there home to my spouse, does that mean the state pays for all there social care under the tory social care policy?
Only if it were done a long time in advance. Otherwise it'd be "deliberate deprivation". At best the transaction would be reversed by a court, at worst they'd be prosecuted for fraud.
A woman in my great uncle's old care home did try doing it a long way in advance, and transferred her home to her daughter in law. Then her daughter in law evicted her.
We won't evict mum and dad.
But I'm told that this is very common practice in the leafy tory shires. So again the tax will fall on the middle class.
If they are still living there then under present rules the state will not pay a penny, and it won't matter how long ago they made the gift. They will be treated as if they still own it. I've no idea what would happen under the new proposals but I can't see why that would change.
Aged 60 transfer ownership of the house but retain a 20 year leasehold interest with 4 options to extend by 5 years.
You'd have to pay market rent though wouldn't you?
Charles' idea is a good one. You are making the house leasehold, and then the freehold is being gifted to you. Sure, there will be some charges (because a house with a 20 year lease on it has value), but it will be massively less than it would be previously.
Charles is wasted in corporate finance, and should be a tax accountant.
Theory. May doesn't care about the Labour surge, she thinks it won't turn out and it shores up her support to stop Jezza. She's playing a 45 to 47 strategy and knows if they turn out she's home and hosed. If the surge fades a little (2 percent or 3 maybe) and the polls are on the mean side for the blues as usual by a percent or so she's over the line. Everything she says or does for the next week is about making sure Brexiteers, kippers and the blue rinsers vote and vote blue.
Banging on about grammar schools is a core vote strategy.
I agree; Lynton knows what he's doing.
But the Tory vote isn't the problem according to public polling, Con vote is steady, it's the Labour surge (klaxon alert) that is the issue. I don't see how grammars arrests the surge.
Perhaps private polling or canvassing returns are telling them that the Labour surge is bollocks ?
This feels terrible. This feels like YouGov is right, and the Tories are gonna lose seats.
This feels like Trump, this feels like Brexit.
Labour are now 5/1 to have most seats....
Wales is poorest part of the UK. Corbyn is promising to give them lots of cash, paid for by rich people and corporations. It would be staggering if it wasn't going down well there....
Labour already run devolved Wales, the poorest part of the UK.
If Labour run the UK then they will stop Wales being the poorest region - by bringing England, Scotland and NI down to the level of Wales.
+1. It would be better if they were looking at replacing or reducing some existing taxation at the same time, which of course they won't. But it's more sensible than ramping up tax for high earners, since land cannot leave the country whereas income can. It also has the potential advantage of collecting a contribution from lots of foreign landlords and property owners who currently pay next to nothing.
Could get a bit expensive for most of the supermarkets, water companies, electric companies, and indeed any other company that owns lots of premium land. Of course the second you allow companies any quarter from the new tax you will see all those foreign landlords and property owners incorporate and transfer their holdings to the company. Tricky one.
Indeed, and that would be on top of business rates (unless it replaced them, but then you have to re-coup that cost).
Og and it would then push businesses offshore, and combined with the increase in Corporation Tax. Brilliant.
The vast majority of people that vote are not exercised by politics generally. They want something for the next five years. Work out what they want and you have your result. It's blindingly obvious what the country wants for the next five years.
Not blindingly obvious to me. They want a Tory government, but not a comfortable one?
If mum and dad flip there home to my spouse, does that mean the state pays for all there social care under the tory social care policy?
Only if it were done a long time in advance. Otherwise it'd be "deliberate deprivation". At best the transaction would be reversed by a court, at worst they'd be prosecuted for fraud.
A woman in my great uncle's old care home did try doing it a long way in advance, and transferred her home to her daughter in law. Then her daughter in law evicted her.
We won't evict mum and dad.
But I'm told that this is very common practice in the leafy tory shires. So again the tax will fall on the middle class.
If they are still living there then under present rules the state will not pay a penny, and it won't matter how long ago they made the gift. They will be treated as if they still own it. I've no idea what would happen under the new proposals but I can't see why that would change.
Aged 60 transfer ownership of the house but retain a 20 year leasehold interest with 4 options to extend by 5 years.
You'd have to pay market rent though wouldn't you?
Charles' idea is a good one. You are making the house leasehold, and then the freehold is being gifted to you. Sure, there will be some charges (because a house with a 20 year lease on it has value), but it will be massively less than it would be previously.
Charles is wasted in corporate finance, and should be a tax accountant.
Hmmph. I advise on this stuff for a living. Can Charles and I swap jobs? His sounds a lot more glamorous than mine!
If mum and dad flip there home to my spouse, does that mean the state pays for all there social care under the tory social care policy?
Only if it were done a long time in advance. Otherwise it'd be "deliberate deprivation". At best the transaction would be reversed by a court, at worst they'd be prosecuted for fraud.
A woman in my great uncle's old care home did try doing it a long way in advance, and transferred her home to her daughter in law. Then her daughter in law evicted her.
We won't evict mum and dad.
But I'm told that this is very common practice in the leafy tory shires. So again the tax will fall on the middle class.
If they are still living there then under present rules the state will not pay a penny, and it won't matter how long ago they made the gift. They will be treated as if they still own it. I've no idea what would happen under the new proposals but I can't see why that would change.
Aged 60 transfer ownership of the house but retain a 20 year leasehold interest with 4 options to extend by 5 years.
You'd have to pay market rent though wouldn't you?
Charles' idea is a good one. You are making the house leasehold, and then the freehold is being gifted to you. Sure, there will be some charges (because a house with a 20 year lease on it has value), but it will be massively less than it would be previously.
Charles is wasted in corporate finance, and should be a tax accountant.
Apart from the fact you have to pay tax on the rental income. ooops.
The vast majority of people that vote are not exercised by politics generally. They want something for the next five years. Work out what they want and you have your result. It's blindingly obvious what the country wants for the next five years.
Not blindingly obvious to me. They want a Tory government, but not a comfortable one?
They want lots of free things and they want someone else to pay for them.
+1. It would be better if they were looking at replacing or reducing some existing taxation at the same time, which of course they won't. But it's more sensible than ramping up tax for high earners, since land cannot leave the country whereas income can. It also has the potential advantage of collecting a contribution from lots of foreign landlords and property owners who currently pay next to nothing.
The trouble with LVT is it can be all things to all people depending on how you implement it. LVT under a Government that is committed to low taxation is a great idea for the reasons you set out. LVT under an incompetent Government or one who believes in higher levels of taxation (and generally those two are one and the same thing) would be pretty disastrous for many.
Then you have to ask if you include those sectors of the economy that take up large amounts of land - farming etc. If you do then you risk driving them out of business or at the very least increasing food prices dramatically. If you don't then you have removed the vast majority of land from the tax.
A well administered LVT would be a good thing (and I say that as someone with 3 acres of smallholding who would almost certainly end up paying more no matter what).
A poorly administered LVT would be a very bad thing.
Now which do you think is the more likely under any of the prospective governments we are faced with in the foreseeable future?
The vast majority of people that vote are not exercised by politics generally. They want something for the next five years. Work out what they want and you have your result. It's blindingly obvious what the country wants for the next five years.
Not blindingly obvious to me. They want a Tory government, but not a comfortable one?
Cheapest Brexit possible and steady economy. The NEXT election is the social change election.
Banging on about grammar schools is a core vote strategy.
I agree; Lynton knows what he's doing.
This isn't Lynton. If it was, Dave would have banged on about it in 2015.
You should not be running a core vote campaign unless you expect to lose badly.
At this rate, Graham Brady's postbag in the first week will be bulging.
But Cameron didn't believe in grammar schools. Whether that was Hilton's influence or because he just didn't think it was a good idea doesn't matter... it just wasn't something available to Crosby.
Crosby is influential, but ultimately he works with what he's got. His approach is then a "core vote" one in a sense, which is what contrasts with people like Hilton. That doesn't mean he isn't interested in people who haven't voted Tory in the past. What it means is that he aims to make any election about X, where X is a fairly divisive, motivating thing that some people disagree with you on, but more than half agree with you on. When it works, it's great. In 2015 it was "do you want Sturgeon calling the shots?", now it's "does Corbyn or May represent your values?". But woe betide you if you get it wrong, as he did with Goldsmith ("Do you really want a Muslim mayor?").
Just now, he remains right to keep to it on May v Corbyn. But it's looking less of an obvious call by the day, because the actual work underpinning it, and reminding people every day of what they think the answer is, has been lacking in quality.
Yes: May vs Corbyn was the right strategic call but I can't believe that grammar schools are a serious vote-winner and even if they were in principle, how do you introduce them alongside free schools and academies? When they were widespread in the 1940s-60s, the whole system was run by LEAs - as it had to be. The return of grammars would mean the return of bog-standard secondaries and a huge (if somewhat ironic) victory for the blob.
Banging on about grammar schools is a core vote strategy.
I agree; Lynton knows what he's doing.
But the Tory vote isn't the problem according to public polling, Con vote is steady, it's the Labour surge (klaxon alert) that is the issue. I don't see how grammars arrests the surge.
Perhaps private polling or canvassing returns are telling them that the Labour surge is bollocks ?
Messina and the anothet Tory strategist posted tweets yesterday dismissing YouGov. Implies that what they are seeing doesn't tallying up with YouGov's results.
Banging on about grammar schools is a core vote strategy.
I agree; Lynton knows what he's doing.
But the Tory vote isn't the problem according to public polling, Con vote is steady, it's the Labour surge (klaxon alert) that is the issue. I don't see how grammars arrests the surge.
Perhaps private polling or canvassing returns are telling them that the Labour surge is bollocks ?
Messina and the anothet Tory strategist posted tweets yesterday dismissing YouGov. Implies that what they are seeing doesn't tallying up with YouGov's results.
I can believe that is true, although I don't know that tweets of such people can be taken as proof of it. Of course they'd dismiss.
Dear God, I'd do ANYTHING. ANYTHING to go back in time and have Ed Miliband government right now.
He'd be a way better PM than either May or Corbyn. We'd have not had Brexit either.
Ed Miliband would have been a very poor PM. Obviously a zillion times better than Corbyn would be, but that's the lowest bar it's possible to imagine.
May is a reasonably good PM, and a much better PM than she is a campaigner or speech-maker. Of course she's not in Cameron's league, but no-one should be surprised at that.
If mum and dad flip there home to my spouse, does that mean the state pays for all there social care under the tory social care policy?
Only if it were done a long time in advance. Otherwise it'd be "deliberate deprivation". At best the transaction would be reversed by a court, at worst they'd be prosecuted for fraud.
A woman in my great uncle's old care home did try doing it a long way in advance, and transferred her home to her daughter in law. Then her daughter in law evicted her.
We won't evict mum and dad.
But I'm told that this is very common practice in the leafy tory shires. So again the tax will fall on the middle class.
If they are still living there then under present rules the state will not pay a penny, and it won't matter how long ago they made the gift. They will be treated as if they still own it. I've no idea what would happen under the new proposals but I can't see why that would change.
Aged 60 transfer ownership of the house but retain a 20 year leasehold interest with 4 options to extend by 5 years.
You'd have to pay market rent though wouldn't you?
Only have to pay ground rent on the freehold - not full rent.
Banging on about grammar schools is a core vote strategy.
I agree; Lynton knows what he's doing.
But the Tory vote isn't the problem according to public polling, Con vote is steady, it's the Labour surge (klaxon alert) that is the issue. I don't see how grammars arrests the surge.
Perhaps private polling or canvassing returns are telling them that the Labour surge is bollocks ?
Messina and the anothet Tory strategist posted tweets yesterday dismissing YouGov. Implies that what they are seeing doesn't tallying up with YouGov's results.
I can believe that is true, although I don't know that tweets of such people can be taken as proof of it. Of course they'd dismiss.
Banging on about grammar schools is a core vote strategy.
I agree; Lynton knows what he's doing.
But the Tory vote isn't the problem according to public polling, Con vote is steady, it's the Labour surge (klaxon alert) that is the issue. I don't see how grammars arrests the surge.
UKIP switchers are the key now, going on about grammars will be to shore that vote up.
Banging on about grammar schools is a core vote strategy.
I agree; Lynton knows what he's doing.
But the Tory vote isn't the problem according to public polling, Con vote is steady, it's the Labour surge (klaxon alert) that is the issue. I don't see how grammars arrests the surge.
Perhaps private polling or canvassing returns are telling them that the Labour surge is bollocks ?
Messina and the anothet Tory strategist posted tweets yesterday dismissing YouGov. Implies that what they are seeing doesn't tallying up with YouGov's results.
I can believe that is true, although I don't know that tweets of such people can be taken as proof of it. Of course they'd dismiss.
The last line is clearly right except that it's worth looking at how often they've expressed opinions on other polling/survey data (even those which have shown a material narrowing).
I agree if Corbyn gets in, the pressure to 'cancel' Brexit will be huge.
How many people voting Labour are still very much for Brexit? The idea that Corbyn would can Brexit would be toxic to Labour north of the Severn-Wash line. And by giving away all his trading chips up front (as he has done), the EU could give a truly shit take-it-or-leave-it deal, knowing he would take it because he won't countenance "no deal is better than a poor deal".
Corbyn's ineptitude is there for all to see on his approach to Brexit. What is unfathomable is why the Tories haven't put his nuts in a vice over this.
CCHQ, what ARE you doing? Playing candy crush all day?
How is the Bay looking - any word back from Kevin ?
Kevin was not worried when I spoke to him a couple of days ago. UKIP is dead (not seen a single poster), LibDems not in favour because of second Referendum. Number of LibDem window posters is well down, especially in the old council estates (of which there are a surprising number in Torbay). Labour a bit more visible - but not unhappy to see their posters in windows!
Corbyn surge definitely helps the Tories around the margins in the Southwest.
May went down like cold sick in Plymouth according to Cornwall live, who also have all six seats on a knifedge.
Cornwall Live do like to become the story. Last time she came down we found they didn't know that accreditation was a thing. This time they did better and got to ask 6 questions, only she gave them all robot answers. The writer asks (he thinks, rhetorically) whether this means he is a shit journalist. Um, yes.
The questions were fine. The answers were crap even by the standards of politicians' evasiveness. Will she even make it to tomorrow's Question Time?
Does anyone think she performed better in Plymouth than James Callaghan managed at Heathrow in his famous 1979 interview?
Banging on about grammar schools is a core vote strategy.
I agree; Lynton knows what he's doing.
But the Tory vote isn't the problem according to public polling, Con vote is steady, it's the Labour surge (klaxon alert) that is the issue. I don't see how grammars arrests the surge.
This feels terrible. This feels like YouGov is right, and the Tories are gonna lose seats.
This feels like Trump, this feels like Brexit.
Labour are now 5/1 to have most seats....
Wales is poorest part of the UK. Corbyn is promising to give them lots of cash, paid for by rich people and corporations. It would be staggering if it wasn't going down well there....
Labour already run devolved Wales, the poorest part of the UK.
If Labour run the UK then they will stop Wales being the poorest region - by bringing England, Scotland and NI down to the level of Wales.
To be fair, their powers are pretty limited. Which is not to say they would do a good job with more power....
Christ on a bike. The level of bedwetting on the basis of basically no evidence except for some highly suspect YouGov polling, which was highly suspect and mostly just plain wrong in the last election, is absurd and frankly painful to read. People really need to grow a pair and wait until the gold standard shows us there is a problem. If Tessie romps in with a majority of 80 or so, a lot of people here are going to look more than faintly ridiculous.
It's *still* campaigning on the wrong issues (the right issues are Brexit, the economy and security).
But not in that order. The right issues are:
the economy, the economy, the economy.
And then acknowledge, as Tezza began to today, that we can't let health and education fall back, funding-wise. Dear god compared with Jezza's spending Tezza could promise a free taxi for everyone going to their GP for a year and still come out up vs Lab's plans.
The overarching theme should have been Trust.
Who do you trust to deliver a growing economy while keeping the nation's finances under control? Who do you trust to negotiate with the European Union to deliver the best deal for Britain? Who do you trust to keep you and your family safe?
Those are the questions that the context of May vs Corbyn should have been set within. Frankly, we've had enough public service reform these last seven years. promising not to bugger about with structures would of itself be a vote winner as well as easily deliverable.
If mum and dad flip there home to my spouse, does that mean the state pays for all there social care under the tory social care policy?
Only if it were done a long time in advance. Otherwise it'd be "deliberate deprivation". At best the transaction would be reversed by a court, at worst they'd be prosecuted for fraud.
A woman in my great uncle's old care home did try doing it a long way in advance, and transferred her home to her daughter in law. Then her daughter in law evicted her.
We won't evict mum and dad.
But I'm told that this is very common practice in the leafy tory shires. So again the tax will fall on the middle class.
If they are still living there then under present rules the state will not pay a penny, and it won't matter how long ago they made the gift. They will be treated as if they still own it. I've no idea what would happen under the new proposals but I can't see why that would change.
Aged 60 transfer ownership of the house but retain a 20 year leasehold interest with 4 options to extend by 5 years.
You'd have to pay market rent though wouldn't you?
Only have to pay ground rent on the freehold - not full rent.
Unless there's a premium the two are going to be the same.
Leave aside kiddies, momentumers and ideological austerity types and low taxers, Joe and Polly Bloggs want a steady economy and know that getting Brexit right is the big issue of the next five years alongside security and what happens to immigration. Over those five years I expect a conversation to start more generally about social policy change of direction and a change election in 2022. You can do the maths on the result from that. Good campaign, bad campaign, surge etc are all irrelevant, this one is done.
Christ on a bike. The level of bedwetting on the basis of basically no evidence except for some highly suspect YouGov polling, which was highly suspect and mostly just plain wrong in the last election, is absurd and frankly painful to read. People really need to grow a pair and wait until the gold standard shows us there is a problem. If Tessie romps in with a majority of 80 or so, a lot of people here are going to look more than faintly ridiculous.
It's *still* campaigning on the wrong issues (the right issues are Brexit, the economy and security).
But not in that order. The right issues are:
the economy, the economy, the economy.
And then acknowledge, as Tezza began to today, that we can't let health and education fall back, funding-wise. Dear god compared with Jezza's spending Tezza could promise a free taxi for everyone going to their GP for a year and still come out up vs Lab's plans.
The overarching theme should have been Trust.
Who do you trust to deliver a growing economy while keeping the nation's finances under control? Who do you trust to negotiate with the European Union to deliver the best deal for Britain? Who do you trust to keep you and your family safe?
Those are the questions that the context of May vs Corbyn should have been set within. Frankly, we've had enough public service reform these last seven years. promising not to bugger about with structures would of itself be a vote winner as well as easily deliverable.
How can she go on trust on an election she promised she would never call or to deliver a Brexit she still clearly doesn't believe in? Or for that matter her latest promise to reduce immigration.
Jesus. I was hoping for double digits. The polls are beginning to herd around a 5-8 point lead? Somewhere between Hung Parliament and 50 seat majority.
The pain is going to last until next Thursday evening at 10pm.
The polls are beginning to be consistent around a Tory share of 44%. That is enough for a comfortable majority.
Christ on a bike. The level of bedwetting on the basis of basically no evidence except for some highly suspect YouGov polling, which was highly suspect and mostly just plain wrong in the last election, is absurd and frankly painful to read. People really need to grow a pair and wait until the gold standard shows us there is a problem. If Tessie romps in with a majority of 80 or so, a lot of people here are going to look more than faintly ridiculous.
It's *still* campaigning on the wrong issues (the right issues are Brexit, the economy and security).
But not in that order. The right issues are:
the economy, the economy, the economy.
And then acknowledge, as Tezza began to today, that we can't let health and education fall back, funding-wise. Dear god compared with Jezza's spending Tezza could promise a free taxi for everyone going to their GP for a year and still come out up vs Lab's plans.
The overarching theme should have been Trust.
Who do you trust to deliver a growing economy while keeping the nation's finances under control? Who do you trust to negotiate with the European Union to deliver the best deal for Britain? Who do you trust to keep you and your family safe?
Those are the questions that the context of May vs Corbyn should have been set within. Frankly, we've had enough public service reform these last seven years. promising not to bugger about with structures would of itself be a vote winner as well as easily deliverable.
@bobajobPB Yes, people are certainly going off May (rightly so). But she is still more liked than Corbyn, despite his surge. It's London (and probably other safe Labour areas too) where Corbyn is more popular than May, and has been for a very long time.
On the tax, I need assurances that my parents council tax (or whatever it is that replaces it) isn't going to Sky rocket up. We have the garden at the back in terms of 'land', that's it. The house was worth around 172k when we moved in in 2007. House prices have gone up since then, I don't know whether that is relevant to the LVT.
You have no such assurances with the existing system, as homes could be revalued at any time (although it's political dynamite to do so). For example, my council tax is stupidly cheap considering the value of my house compared to an equivalent up north. That said, the garden tax is a red herring precisely because gardens themselves are of very low value under an LVT (unless they have planning permission and can be turned into a house – in which case, get on and build the bloody thing!).
Jesus. I was hoping for double digits. The polls are beginning to herd around a 5-8 point lead? Somewhere between Hung Parliament and 50 seat majority.
The pain is going to last until next Thursday evening at 10pm.
The polls are beginning to be consistent around a Tory share of 44%. That is enough for a comfortable majority.
I agree if Corbyn gets in, the pressure to 'cancel' Brexit will be huge.
How many people voting Labour are still very much for Brexit? The idea that Corbyn would can Brexit would be toxic to Labour north of the Severn-Wash line. And by giving away all his trading chips up front (as he has done), the EU could give a truly shit take-it-or-leave-it deal, knowing he would take it because he won't countenance "no deal is better than a poor deal".
Corbyn's ineptitude is there for all to see on his approach to Brexit. What is unfathomable is why the Tories haven't put his nuts in a vice over this.
CCHQ, what ARE you doing? Playing candy crush all day?
How is the Bay looking - any word back from Kevin ?
Kevin was not worried when I spoke to him a couple of days ago. UKIP is dead (not seen a single poster), LibDems not in favour because of second Referendum. Number of LibDem window posters is well down, especially in the old council estates (of which there are a surprising number in Torbay). Labour a bit more visible - but not unhappy to see their posters in windows!
Corbyn surge definitely helps the Tories around the margins in the Southwest.
May went down like cold sick in Plymouth according to Cornwall live, who also have all six seats on a knifedge.
Cornwall Live do like to become the story. Last time she came down we found they didn't know that accreditation was a thing. This time they did better and got to ask 6 questions, only she gave them all robot answers. The writer asks (he thinks, rhetorically) whether this means he is a shit journalist. Um, yes.
The questions were fine. The answers were crap even by the standards of politicians' evasiveness. Will she even make it to tomorrow's Question Time?
Does anyone think she performed better in Plymouth than James Callaghan managed at Heathrow in his famous 1979 interview?
The transcript of that interview which has been doing the rounds has been edited down so it's incredibly misleading. Watch the accompanying video and her answers are actually much lengthier.
Well, someone's going to be very wrong. There will be temptation now for the +4/+5 pollsters to tweak things up a bit, and on the +12 types the other way.
Wouldn't be surprised if we ended up with all the pollsters clustered on exactly the same by polling day, around the midpoint of current polls. Same thing happened last time.
If mum and dad flip there home to my spouse, does that mean the state pays for all there social care under the tory social care policy?
Only if it were done a long time in advance. Otherwise it'd be "deliberate deprivation". At best the transaction would be reversed by a court, at worst they'd be prosecuted for fraud.
A woman in my great uncle's old care home did try doing it a long way in advance, and transferred her home to her daughter in law. Then her daughter in law evicted her.
We won't evict mum and dad.
But I'm told that this is very common practice in the leafy tory shires. So again the tax will fall on the middle class.
If they are still living there then under present rules the state will not pay a penny, and it won't matter how long ago they made the gift. They will be treated as if they still own it. I've no idea what would happen under the new proposals but I can't see why that would change.
Aged 60 transfer ownership of the house but retain a 20 year leasehold interest with 4 options to extend by 5 years.
That works if you pay something close to a market rent. And better not let anyone catch you receiving the rent back from the kids!
Leaseholds are peppercorn - effectively the rent is in the purchase price. You are transferring less value to your children but leaving yourself with a wasting asset (and their side of the equation accreting with each passing year)
The vast majority of people that vote are not exercised by politics generally. They want something for the next five years. Work out what they want and you have your result. It's blindingly obvious what the country wants for the next five years.
Not blindingly obvious to me. They want a Tory government, but not a comfortable one?
They want lots of free things and they want someone else to pay for them.
Why do you want a Hung Parliament? Soft Brexit? or No Brexit? Or just to hurt the Brexiteering Tories?
Genuine question.
I will answer this but I am tied up for 30 minutes or so, so bear with me.
Banging on about grammar schools is a core vote strategy.
I agree; Lynton knows what he's doing.
But the Tory vote isn't the problem according to public polling, Con vote is steady, it's the Labour surge (klaxon alert) that is the issue. I don't see how grammars arrests the surge.
Perhaps private polling or canvassing returns are telling them that the Labour surge is bollocks ?
Depends what you mean by surge.
If anyone who was on the doorstep a month ago and are there now is telling you the mood is the same. That would be Bollocks.
For me its gone from Lab losing votes directly to Tories for locals to a position better than 2015 locally (except NE Derbys where local issues abound).
Do i think the "surge" is enough to deny TMICIPM no.
Will she get an increased majority? 75% likely compared to 99.99% a month ago.
To some extent. Although how does it favour Labour if a Labour PV lead gives the Tories a large seat lead (as we read below)?
Why has it changed?
It depends on exactly where the votes shift. If the Tories started to pick up loads of ex-UKIP votes in Labour seats in those areas where constituency sizes are small, the seat-size disparity could favour the Tories. That looked possible three weeks ago, but probably not now.
Don't forget also that, as well as the disparity of seat size, there's the separate question of votes distribution independent of seat size. That's fair enough, it's not a distortion caused by the seats being unfairly concentrated in some areas. In the past it's tended to favour Labour, but it might not this time if Corbyn piles up votes in particular demographics. It's also a bigger effect than the first, or at least has been in recent elections.
Clear as mud. It seems to me that the much vaunted contention on here that the 650 seat system unduly favours Labour was rubbish, as I suggested at the time, much to the chagrin of the PB Tories. FPP is inherently unfair – which party it favours blows in the psephological wind, as your post above illustrates perfectly.
Jesus. I was hoping for double digits. The polls are beginning to herd around a 5-8 point lead? Somewhere between Hung Parliament and 50 seat majority.
The pain is going to last until next Thursday evening at 10pm.
Looks to me like Labour are being corralled into inner London, the Valleys and the large city centres. The Tories clearly plan to bank the rest of the country then start dissolving the city fascination with Labour. 10 year extermination programme. Or something.
Vote Tory to vaporise England's cities!
Thats more popular than vote Tory and while your at it give them your deeds in case you require Social Care
The vast majority of people that vote are not exercised by politics generally. They want something for the next five years. Work out what they want and you have your result. It's blindingly obvious what the country wants for the next five years.
Not blindingly obvious to me. They want a Tory government, but not a comfortable one?
They want lots of free things and they want someone else to pay for them.
Twas ever thus. Like admiring someone merrly for being principled rather than caring what their principles are, I don't see the appeal, in mass terms, of a positive message positive only through unbelievability. If they believe it, in fairness, that's a different matter.
Jesus. I was hoping for double digits. The polls are beginning to herd around a 5-8 point lead? Somewhere between Hung Parliament and 50 seat majority.
The pain is going to last until next Thursday evening at 10pm.
You believe exit polls?
And to think there was talk of the BBC/ITV etc not commissioning one.
If mum and dad flip there home to my spouse, does that mean the state pays for all there social care under the tory social care policy?
Only if it were done a long time in advance. Otherwise it'd be "deliberate deprivation". At best the transaction would be reversed by a court, at worst they'd be prosecuted for fraud.
A woman in my great uncle's old care home did try doing it a long way in advance, and transferred her home to her daughter in law. Then her daughter in law evicted her.
We won't evict mum and dad.
But I'm told that this is very common practice in the leafy tory shires. So again the tax will fall on the middle class.
If they are still living there then under present rules the state will not pay a penny, and it won't matter how long ago they made the gift. They will be treated as if they still own it. I've no idea what would happen under the new proposals but I can't see why that would change.
Aged 60 transfer ownership of the house but retain a 20 year leasehold interest with 4 options to extend by 5 years.
You'd have to pay market rent though wouldn't you?
Not with a leasehold. Ground rent is a few hundred pounds a year.
Jesus. I was hoping for double digits. The polls are beginning to herd around a 5-8 point lead? Somewhere between Hung Parliament and 50 seat majority.
The pain is going to last until next Thursday evening at 10pm.
The polls are beginning to be consistent around a Tory share of 44%. That is enough for a comfortable majority.
Absolutely. I think if the Tories get 44% or 45% they'll win a majority of 100 seats or thereabouts regardless of what the other parties get (within reason, assuming the LDs get at least 7%, UKIP 3%, Greens 2%).
Jesus. I was hoping for double digits. The polls are beginning to herd around a 5-8 point lead? Somewhere between Hung Parliament and 50 seat majority.
The pain is going to last until next Thursday evening at 10pm.
The polls are beginning to be consistent around a Tory share of 44%. That is enough for a comfortable majority.
They really aren't. The Tory lead is collapsing, and the collapse is ongoing. If the trend continues, and it has continued now for two weeks, TMay will lose her majority.
If mum and dad flip there home to my spouse, does that mean the state pays for all there social care under the tory social care policy?
Only if it were done a long time in advance. Otherwise it'd be "deliberate deprivation". At best the transaction would be reversed by a court, at worst they'd be prosecuted for fraud.
A woman in my great uncle's old care home did try doing it a long way in advance, and transferred her home to her daughter in law. Then her daughter in law evicted her.
We won't evict mum and dad.
But I'm told that this is very common practice in the leafy tory shires. So again the tax will fall on the middle class.
If they are still living there then under present rules the state will not pay a penny, and it won't matter how long ago they made the gift. They will be treated as if they still own it. I've no idea what would happen under the new proposals but I can't see why that would change.
Aged 60 transfer ownership of the house but retain a 20 year leasehold interest with 4 options to extend by 5 years.
The 2014 Care Act extended council powers to recover assets in this way, including allowing them to charge care costs directly to the heirs.
Google 'deprivation of assets'
Clearly this assumes a reasonable passage of time between the transfer (at age 60) and moving into care.
Jesus. I was hoping for double digits. The polls are beginning to herd around a 5-8 point lead? Somewhere between Hung Parliament and 50 seat majority.
The pain is going to last until next Thursday evening at 10pm.
Jesus. I was hoping for double digits. The polls are beginning to herd around a 5-8 point lead? Somewhere between Hung Parliament and 50 seat majority.
The pain is going to last until next Thursday evening at 10pm.
You believe exit polls?
They are normally quite accurate.
Let's put it this way, we'll know immediately if YouGov are right.
Jesus. I was hoping for double digits. The polls are beginning to herd around a 5-8 point lead? Somewhere between Hung Parliament and 50 seat majority.
The pain is going to last until next Thursday evening at 10pm.
You believe exit polls?
The exit polls have been very accurate since 1997. It's the opinion polls that haven't been.
If mum and dad flip there home to my spouse, does that mean the state pays for all there social care under the tory social care policy?
Only if it were done a long time in advance. Otherwise it'd be "deliberate deprivation". At best the transaction would be reversed by a court, at worst they'd be prosecuted for fraud.
A woman in my great uncle's old care home did try doing it a long way in advance, and transferred her home to her daughter in law. Then her daughter in law evicted her.
We won't evict mum and dad.
But I'm told that this is very common practice in the leafy tory shires. So again the tax will fall on the middle class.
If they are still living there then under present rules the state will not pay a penny, and it won't matter how long ago they made the gift. They will be treated as if they still own it. I've no idea what would happen under the new proposals but I can't see why that would change.
Aged 60 transfer ownership of the house but retain a 20 year leasehold interest with 4 options to extend by 5 years.
You'd have to pay market rent though wouldn't you?
Not with a leasehold. Ground rent is a few hundred pounds a year.
That assumes a substantial premium though. The kids may as well buy the freehold outright in that case.
A low ball surge (one that gets say 35% against 45% from a start point of 25 to 45) is quite likely to be horribly inefficient. Surges are general, and only lead to swathes of seats if in the lead. Witness the seat projections under Cleggasm.
Could Big Jezza actually win this sucker? Surely not??
It's London LOL
Why London is being read into as a test of the national mood is beyond me. Labour always polls well in London, a good London poll for Labour is standard, it's not news.
Seeing signs of trouble in things which are the norm.
I'm not sure you should dismiss it that easily. The swing in London to Labour is pretty sharp. People just don't like Theresa May. Re: where people are campaigning, that, too, can be instructive and was in 2015 when EdM was campaigning in his easiest target.
P.S. I have been looking into the garden tax. It appears to be a land value tax, which is not actually a bad idea. Under the system, land with planning permission which is not being developed would attract a larger tax penalty – which is a useful tool to get developers to build stuff rather than land banking shovel-ready land as a rising asset. The idea that gardens would attract a large tax is completely misleading – unless you have planning permission on them they are very low value!
Just goes to show that you shouldn't believe anything you read in the Tory press – even the once great Telegraph.
+1. It would be better if they were looking at replacing or reducing some existing taxation at the same time, which of course they won't. But it's more sensible than ramping up tax for high earners, since land cannot leave the country whereas income can. It also has the potential advantage of collecting a contribution from lots of foreign landlords and property owners who currently pay next to nothing.
Jesus. I was hoping for double digits. The polls are beginning to herd around a 5-8 point lead? Somewhere between Hung Parliament and 50 seat majority.
The pain is going to last until next Thursday evening at 10pm.
The polls are beginning to be consistent around a Tory share of 44%. That is enough for a comfortable majority.
Absolutely. I think if the Tories get 44% or 45% they'll win a majority of 100 seats or thereabouts regardless of what the other parties get (within reason, assuming the LDs get at least 7%, UKIP 3%, Greens 2%).
Look at the trend! I know everyone says trends don't mean much, but they certainly did in Brexit. The movement went all one way, for weeks, and the previously unthinkable happened
If you ignore the bump when the election was called, the Tory share really hasn't change that much. Labour's surge has come from the smaller parties, and there is only so much they can squeeze.
Jesus. I was hoping for double digits. The polls are beginning to herd around a 5-8 point lead? Somewhere between Hung Parliament and 50 seat majority.
The pain is going to last until next Thursday evening at 10pm.
You believe exit polls?
They are normally quite accurate.
The question as to who turns out and who doesn't is at least finally resolved!
They do however ignore the postal vote. The model used for the BBC poll simply assumes PVs fall in proportion to the polling station votes - which to be fair nowadays isn't as poor an assumption as once it would have been, back in the day when they were mostly oldies.
But it's a potential source of error nevertheless.
The vast majority of people that vote are not exercised by politics generally. They want something for the next five years. Work out what they want and you have your result. It's blindingly obvious what the country wants for the next five years.
Labour genuinely had some rougher days at the beginning of this week, but no sign of any effect.
The trend is set now. Snowball effect. Would take a real gamechanger for the trend to reverse with just 7 days until polling day. The Tories will be relieved that there's only a week to go, not more. But it has felt like an awfully long 'snap' election for them.
Jesus. I was hoping for double digits. The polls are beginning to herd around a 5-8 point lead? Somewhere between Hung Parliament and 50 seat majority.
The pain is going to last until next Thursday evening at 10pm.
All those IRA attack vids only increase his popularity. The punters like Jezza more as they see more of him.
Perhaps the Tories should do something more positive.
If mum and dad flip there home to my spouse, does that mean the state pays for all there social care under the tory social care policy?
Only if it were done a long time in advance. Otherwise it'd be "deliberate deprivation". At best the transaction would be reversed by a court, at worst they'd be prosecuted for fraud.
A woman in my great uncle's old care home did try doing it a long way in advance, and transferred her home to her daughter in law. Then her daughter in law evicted her.
We won't evict mum and dad.
But I'm told that this is very common practice in the leafy tory shires. So again the tax will fall on the middle class.
If they are still living there then under present rules the state will not pay a penny, and it won't matter how long ago they made the gift. They will be treated as if they still own it. I've no idea what would happen under the new proposals but I can't see why that would change.
Aged 60 transfer ownership of the house but retain a 20 year leasehold interest with 4 options to extend by 5 years.
Whatever the wording is, you must have no association with that asset therefrom.
Not true. That's only if it is a "gift with reservation".
If you gift someone a freehold but retain a leasehold interest then you have set up a contractual relationship on arms length terms. Part of the value has been transferred and you are excercising your rights over the assets you retain
Many thanks for the heads-up on this - I actually succeeded in getting on with Marathon Bet at even better odds of 11/4, following which they immediately chopped the odds back to 6/4!
To some extent. Although how does it favour Labour if a Labour PV lead gives the Tories a large seat lead (as we read below)?
Why has it changed?
It depends on exactly where the votes shift. If the Tories started to pick up loads of ex-UKIP votes in Labour seats in those areas where constituency sizes are small, the seat-size disparity could favour the Tories. That looked possible three weeks ago, but probably not now.
Don't forget also that, as well as the disparity of seat size, there's the separate question of votes distribution independent of seat size. That's fair enough, it's not a distortion caused by the seats being unfairly concentrated in some areas. In the past it's tended to favour Labour, but it might not this time if Corbyn piles up votes in particular demographics. It's also a bigger effect than the first, or at least has been in recent elections.
Clear as mud. It seems to me that the much vaunted contention on here that the 650 seat system unduly favours Labour was rubbish, as I suggested at the time, much to the chagrin of the PB Tories. FPP is inherently unfair – which party it favours blows in the psephological wind, as your post above illustrates perfectly.
The assertion was that the current boundaries unduly favour Labour, not that 650 seats does. The reduction in seats was a bit of Cameron showboating to show he was trying to save money. Personally I would be completely happy with 650 seats based on new rebalanced boundaries with approximately uniform constituency sizes.
Jesus. I was hoping for double digits. The polls are beginning to herd around a 5-8 point lead? Somewhere between Hung Parliament and 50 seat majority.
The pain is going to last until next Thursday evening at 10pm.
You believe exit polls?
They are normally quite accurate.
I have disbelieved the last two on the Beeb at 22:01. I might as well have gone to bed because the exit polls called it well enough.
The last one in 2015 stated 316 Tory seats as I recall with Labour about 240 when everyone was expecting a far, far closer result, perhaps even a Labour minority govt.
CON 44 (-4) LAB 36 (+3) LD 7 (=) UKIP 5 (+1) GRN 3 (+1) SNP 5 (=)
26th May-1st Jun N=1,224 panelbase.com/media/polls/W1… #GE2017
The MOE is obviously significant for the minor parties, but it is interesting that the shifts hint at a broader anti-Tory shift rather than Labour continuing to mop up all the non-Tories. That may bode better for the prospect of some tactical voting where Labour aren't in contention?
Jesus. I was hoping for double digits. The polls are beginning to herd around a 5-8 point lead? Somewhere between Hung Parliament and 50 seat majority.
The pain is going to last until next Thursday evening at 10pm.
The polls are beginning to be consistent around a Tory share of 44%. That is enough for a comfortable majority.
Absolutely. I think if the Tories get 44% or 45% they'll win a majority of 100 seats or thereabouts regardless of what the other parties get (within reason, assuming the LDs get at least 7%, UKIP 3%, Greens 2%).
Look at the trend! I know everyone says trends don't mean much, but they certainly did in Brexit. The movement went all one way, for weeks, and the previously unthinkable happened
48% was already too high a poll score for the Tories - in that sense, Panelbase is moving into line with other pollsters who show the Tory vote share to be about 42% - 44%. The 36% Labour share also reflects the polling average of Labour in mid-thirties.
Because the previous poll was oddly quite old, it's seen some dramatic movements - but ones which basically reflect the overall trend of a declining Tory lead but the Tories still on course for a majority.
8% lead = reflects the average Tory lead in the polls of about 8% - 9%.
@bobajobPB So would a LVT tax just look at the value of a garden or the property as a whole? I am pretty worried about this.
If mum and dad flip there home to my spouse, does that mean the state pays for all there social care under the tory social care policy?
Only if it were done a long time in advance. Otherwise it'd be "deliberate deprivation". At best the transaction would be reversed by a court, at worst they'd be prosecuted for fraud.
A woman in my great uncle's old care home did try doing it a long way in advance, and transferred her home to her daughter in law. Then her daughter in law evicted her.
We won't evict mum and dad.
But I'm told that this is very common practice in the leafy tory shires. So again the tax will fall on the middle class.
If they are still living there then under present rules the state will not pay a penny, and it won't matter how long ago they made the gift. They will be treated as if they still own it. I've no idea what would happen under the new proposals but I can't see why that would change.
Aged 60 transfer ownership of the house but retain a 20 year leasehold interest with 4 options to extend by 5 years.
You'd have to pay market rent though wouldn't you?
Charles' idea is a good one. You are making the house leasehold, and then the freehold is being gifted to you. Sure, there will be some charges (because a house with a 20 year lease on it has value), but it will be massively less than it would be previously.
Charles is wasted in corporate finance, and should be a tax accountant
Trying to work with YouGov's last Scotland poll from the 18th of May. It's weird, the topline has a Con figure of 29% but when I calculate via the switching Matrix then the SNP figure is spot on, LAb and LD are a couple of % points under but Cons are 6 percentage points over their headline figure at 35%.
To some extent. Although how does it favour Labour if a Labour PV lead gives the Tories a large seat lead (as we read below)?
Why has it changed?
It depends on exactly where the votes shift. If the Tories started to pick up loads of ex-UKIP votes in Labour seats in those areas where constituency sizes are small, the seat-size disparity could favour the Tories. That looked possible three weeks ago, but probably not now.
Don't forget also that, as well as the disparity of seat size, there's the separate question of votes distribution independent of seat size. That's fair enough, it's not a distortion caused by the seats being unfairly concentrated in some areas. In the past it's tended to favour Labour, but it might not this time if Corbyn piles up votes in particular demographics. It's also a bigger effect than the first, or at least has been in recent elections.
Clear as mud. It seems to me that the much vaunted contention on here that the 650 seat system unduly favours Labour was rubbish, as I suggested at the time, much to the chagrin of the PB Tories. FPP is inherently unfair – which party it favours blows in the psephological wind, as your post above illustrates perfectly.
The assertion was that the current boundaries unduly favour Labour, not that 650 seats does. The reduction in seats was a bit of Cameron showboating to show he was trying to save money. Personally I would be completely happy with 650 seats based on new rebalanced boundaries with approximately uniform constituency sizes.
Jesus. I was hoping for double digits. The polls are beginning to herd around a 5-8 point lead? Somewhere between Hung Parliament and 50 seat majority.
The pain is going to last until next Thursday evening at 10pm.
All those IRA attack vids only increase his popularity. The punters like Jezza more as they see more of him.
Perhaps the Tories should do something more positive.
But Corbyn does deserve attacking for some things, as indeed does may - are we at a stage where any attacking is pointless as people just bloody mindely reject all attacks as without merit?
Comments
From my experience, registration for a postal vote is quite unusual, partly due to laziness and partly due to possibility of voting at home instead.
All of which just underlines how tragic the manifesto launch was. If people understood how the current system works it wouldn't have done the damage it has. It was up to May/Timothy/Lynton/whoever's fuck up it was to explain all this but they didn't.
I get the feeling that a lot of Tories are really, really against Corbyn .... regardless of their attitude towards May.
WillS.
Charles is wasted in corporate finance, and should be a tax accountant.
Labour already run devolved Wales, the poorest part of the UK.
If Labour run the UK then they will stop Wales being the poorest region - by bringing England, Scotland and NI down to the level of Wales.
Og and it would then push businesses offshore, and combined with the increase in Corporation Tax. Brilliant.
Then you have to ask if you include those sectors of the economy that take up large amounts of land - farming etc. If you do then you risk driving them out of business or at the very least increasing food prices dramatically. If you don't then you have removed the vast majority of land from the tax.
A well administered LVT would be a good thing (and I say that as someone with 3 acres of smallholding who would almost certainly end up paying more no matter what).
A poorly administered LVT would be a very bad thing.
Now which do you think is the more likely under any of the prospective governments we are faced with in the foreseeable future?
+1
The surge continues.
CON: 44% (-4)
LAB: 36% (+3)
LDEM: 7% (-)
UKIP: 5% (+1)
GRN: 3% (+1)
Fieldwork 26 May - 01 Jun
Does anyone think she performed better in Plymouth than James Callaghan managed at Heathrow in his famous 1979 interview?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX06xqN6710
Blair held it every year he was prime minister. 97-13k majority, 01- 7.7k, 05 - 3k. Labour even won in Castle Point.
Which is not to say they would do a good job with more power....
Who do you trust to deliver a growing economy while keeping the nation's finances under control?
Who do you trust to negotiate with the European Union to deliver the best deal for Britain?
Who do you trust to keep you and your family safe?
Those are the questions that the context of May vs Corbyn should have been set within. Frankly, we've had enough public service reform these last seven years. promising not to bugger about with structures would of itself be a vote winner as well as easily deliverable.
What a complete twat.
Big movement.
Labour better pray the young and non voters do turn out on the day.
Wouldn't be surprised if we ended up with all the pollsters clustered on exactly the same by polling day, around the midpoint of current polls. Same thing happened last time.
If anyone who was on the doorstep a month ago and are there now is telling you the mood is the same. That would be Bollocks.
For me its gone from Lab losing votes directly to Tories for locals to a position better than 2015 locally (except NE Derbys where local issues abound).
Do i think the "surge" is enough to deny TMICIPM no.
Will she get an increased majority? 75% likely compared to 99.99% a month ago.
You believe exit polls?
The Tories are still going to win and probably win big.
They got the same intern to write that as did 'Brexit means Brexit'.
Next week, 'Brexit only means Brexit if you believe that Brexit means Brexit'.
A sure fire vote winner.
Labour genuinely had some rougher days at the beginning of this week, but no sign of any effect.
CON 44 (-4)
LAB 36 (+3)
LD 7 (=)
UKIP 5 (+1)
GRN 3 (+1)
SNP 5 (=)
26th May-1st Jun
N=1,224
panelbase.com/media/polls/W1…
#GE2017
They do however ignore the postal vote. The model used for the BBC poll simply assumes PVs fall in proportion to the polling station votes - which to be fair nowadays isn't as poor an assumption as once it would have been, back in the day when they were mostly oldies.
But it's a potential source of error nevertheless.
Perhaps the Tories should do something more positive.
If you gift someone a freehold but retain a leasehold interest then you have set up a contractual relationship on arms length terms. Part of the value has been transferred and you are excercising your rights over the assets you retain
TMICIPM by a landslide at this rate
The last one in 2015 stated 316 Tory seats as I recall with Labour about 240 when everyone was expecting a far, far closer result, perhaps even a Labour minority govt.
48% was already too high a poll score for the Tories - in that sense, Panelbase is moving into line with other pollsters who show the Tory vote share to be about 42% - 44%. The 36% Labour share also reflects the polling average of Labour in mid-thirties.
Because the previous poll was oddly quite old, it's seen some dramatic movements - but ones which basically reflect the overall trend of a declining Tory lead but the Tories still on course for a majority.
8% lead = reflects the average Tory lead in the polls of about 8% - 9%.
@bobajobPB So would a LVT tax just look at the value of a garden or the property as a whole? I am pretty worried about this.