The Brexit vote was for reclaimed sovereignty and controlled immigration, the Remain vote to keep as close economic ties to the EU as now with a tiny Federalist vote, the UK voted Leave and so sovereignty and controlled immigration come first and if May wins on that platform that is how Brexit will be for the next 5 years. The government's other economic policies to make Britain more prosperous than Labour are not linked to Brexit beyond a corporation tax cut
The Government have produced a Clear Plan for Brexit, which isn't actually a plan but rather a wishlist. Two of the wishes (End ECJ jurisdiction and control over EU immigration) can only be achieved through leaving the EU; the remainder are better served by remaining in the EU: strengthen the UK Union; keep the Irish Common Travel Area; worker protection, secure cross-border rights for UK and EU citizens; free trade with European markets; trade agreements with third-party countries; European co-operation for science and innovation; European co-operation on security.
It doesn't say how those somewhat incompatible objectives will be resolved. A reasonable interpretation is that they will try to get as much as possible of the first two objectives wihile conceding no more than is necessary on the remaining eight. But it is all up for negotiations.
We cannot have trade agreements with third party countries if we stay in the EU. Nor do we lose co-operation in science and innovation by leaving the EU.
We have a raft of agreements with third party countries built up over the decades via the EU that we will lose (but may be renegotiated) at the point when we leave. Co-operation with Europe on science and innovation is mainly carried out via EU structures. We might retain some of it without renegotiation, but it will be less.
I think Theresa May is trying to lose an unlosable election.
I think everyone in the country knows the Tories aren't going to raise income tax, any budget which tried to do so would not make it through Parliamentary scrutiny. So just come out and say it, no income tax rises for the next five years.
Next question: are you going to raise NICs?
Yes but isn't that the point? The Conservatives dropped the tax lock because they intend to raise taxes. It's just a few weeks since they tried to raise NICs. The rest is just discussing the best way to obfuscate this.
It becomes counter-productive as voters become cynical and look for the small print in even the true stuff -- for instance, the VAT pledge only covers the level and not the range of goods taxed.
As soon as the voters have reassured themselves there will be no tax increases, then they turn around and start to have a go about the appalling state of their local hospital, police station, school etc etc.
The Brexit vote was for reclaimed sovereignty and controlled immigration, the Remain vote to keep as close economic ties to the EU as now with a tiny Federalist vote, the UK voted Leave and so sovereignty and controlled immigration come first and if May wins on that platform that is how Brexit will be for the next 5 years. The government's other economic policies to make Britain more prosperous than Labour are not linked to Brexit beyond a corporation tax cut
The Government have produced a Clear Plan for Brexit, which isn't actually a plan but rather a wishlist. Two of the wishes (End ECJ jurisdiction and control over EU immigration) can only be achieved through leaving the EU; the remainder are better served by remaining in the EU: strengthen the UK Union; keep the Irish Common Travel Area; worker protection, secure cross-border rights for UK and EU citizens; free trade with European markets; trade agreements with third-party countries; European co-operation for science and innovation; European co-operation on security.
It doesn't say how those somewhat incompatible objectives will be resolved. A reasonable interpretation is that they will try to get as much as possible of the first two objectives wihile conceding no more than is necessary on the remaining eight. But it is all up for negotiations.
We cannot have trade agreements with third party countries if we stay in the EU. Nor do we lose co-operation in science and innovation by leaving the EU.
We have a raft of agreements with third party countries built up over the decades via the EU that we will lose (but may be renegotiated) at the point when we leave. Co-operation with Europe on science and innovation is mainly carried out via EU structures. We might retain some of it without renegotiation, but it will be less.
Funny how almost all those science and innovation co-operations include non EU countries. Indeed some of them even include non European countries.
The EU limits our ability to do trade deals massively. One reason why Norway has far more deals with third party countries than the EU countries do and why they had deals with countries like Canada years before the EU did.
I think Theresa May is trying to lose an unlosable election.
I think everyone in the country knows the Tories aren't going to raise income tax, any budget which tried to do so would not make it through Parliamentary scrutiny. So just come out and say it, no income tax rises for the next five years.
Next question: are you going to raise NICs?
Yes but isn't that the point? The Conservatives dropped the tax lock because they intend to raise taxes. It's just a few weeks since they tried to raise NICs. The rest is just discussing the best way to obfuscate this.
It becomes counter-productive as voters become cynical and look for the small print in even the true stuff -- for instance, the VAT pledge only covers the level and not the range of goods taxed.
As soon as the voters have reassured themselves there will be no tax increases, then they turn around and start to have a go about the appalling state of their local hospital, police station, school etc etc.
Very likely. Of course they only want to tax rises for themselves (and anyone they like), taxing "other" people, especially "the rich" is just fine. Taxing the rich being rather like trying to pick up a bar of soap in the bath, is slips between your fingers for while until you get serious then flys out of your hands and ends up on the floor in the Caymens.
1) If in a hole stop digging. 2) A message of 'flip-flopping' can be highly damaging - as seen during the John Kerry's presidential campaign.
We already had: TM the 'Remainer' organising 'Brexit'; TM the PM saying 'no election' then calling an election; and, deviation from the brand new manifesto with the social care U-turn and on social housing.
But today: 'No increase on income tax" .... Labour supporter will be searching for their flip-flops to start waving about!
Hold, have I missed something? Fallon said "high earners" will not face tax rises. Nothing about, for example, Class 4 NICS for self-employed.
I'd be far more concerned about dividends. As a self employed person your best bet is to set up your own company and pay yourself in dividends - taxed at 7.5%. I don't have the figures to hand but for someone on 40k you can easily halve your tax liability.
It irritates me when people claim either that by having a company you only get taxed at corporation tax rates, or like this, that you only pay 7.5% on dividends. First the profit gets corporation tax taken away - so thats 20% gone. Then you pay tax on dividends. Effective tax rate is now higher than income tax if the same amount was taken as salary (20% + 80% * 38.1% = 50.48%). Rant over:-)
The first £5000 of dividends this year are tax free, and by splitting shares with a spouse, it is possible to split the dividend income. It works best for higher tax payers of course. That is how my modest private paractice works.
True - but corporation tax of 19% has already been paid - so its not really tax free. And anything beyond that is effectively taxed at 25% for basic rate tax payer, 45% for higher rate and 49.9% for additional rate tax payer. I don't abject to the tax - someone has to pay tax - but you get comments on the news that some BBC exec has a personal services company and so only pays tax at 19% when in reality its 50%. But I really do need to stop ranting about this...
My parents live in Michael Fallon's constituency. My father was worried/angered by the dementia tax stuff to the extent that he emailed Fallon's office to get him to clarify the issue. Got back the usual 'strong and stable' bollocks and is really not happy. He's not politically minded or been proactive in contacting an MP before, but the dementia tax had real cut-through. He will vote Tory as usual but it makes me question if this is going to surpress Tory turnout - fine in a safe Con seat like this one but elsewhere?
Also, has Fallon been rattled by the feedback - its volume and its tone - from this policy and the subsequent u-turn? It's such a safe Tory seat, never get anything from him during elections but this time there's been leaflets through the door on two separate occasions and some big ads in the Sevenoaks Chronicle. Perhaps it's to compensate for being away campaigning elsewhere as he's a Cabinet member, but there is definitely discontent in Tory England.
This contrasts with 2015, when I overheard on a number of occasions how awful Sturgeon was and how a Labout-SNP coaltition did not bear thinking about. The Tory vote then felt motivated for polling day.
Even more anecdotal -- Foxinsox or Charles might have the numbers -- but I get the impression from reading obituaries that the charities named at the end in the "no flowers by request; donations to" section are increasingly concerned with dementia whereas it used to be mainly cancer. If more families are affected then so are more voters by some multiplicative factor.
The Brexit vote was for reclaimed sovereignty and controlled immigration, the Remain vote to keep as close economic ties to the EU as now with a tiny Federalist vote, the UK voted Leave and so sovereignty and controlled immigration come first and if May wins on that platform that is how Brexit will be for the next 5 years. The government's other economic policies to make Britain more prosperous than Labour are not linked to Brexit beyond a corporation tax cut
The Government have produced a Clear Plan for Brexit, which isn't actually a plan but rather a wishlist. Two of the wishes (End ECJ jurisdiction and control over EU immigration) can only be achieved through leaving the EU; the remainder are better served by remaining in the EU: strengthen the UK Union; keep the Irish Common Travel Area; worker protection, secure cross-border rights for UK and EU citizens; free trade with European markets; trade agreements with third-party countries; European co-operation for science and innovation; European co-operation on security.
It doesn't say how those somewhat incompatible objectives will be resolved. A reasonable interpretation is that they will try to get as much as possible of the first two objectives wihile conceding no more than is necessary on the remaining eight. But it is all up for negotiations.
This is why no deal is seen as better than a bad deal, incidentally: no deal is guaranteed to achieve two of the objectives.
but if you are politically engaged you would know about corbyn and his politics before hand, the election campaign wouldn't change your mind because you have no new information.Why are we seeing a 10% surge in Labour support amongst the politically engaged.
I think there is something in what you are saying however.
The EU limits our ability to do trade deals massively. One reason why Norway has far more deals with third party countries than the EU countries do and why they had deals with countries like Canada years before the EU did.
Not all deals are equal and CETA is much deeper than the trade deal between EFTA and Canada.
"Jeremy Corbyn Could See Late Surge In Support From Ex-UKIP Voters"
Not after yesterday.
Indeed. It is over.
You don't think this Fallon gaffe will make a difference?
No. The big story is still Corbyn not retaliating against a nuclear strike against the UK. Loads of my friends are really confused by the stance of wanting to renew Trident and spending £100bn on it but not using it if the worst were to happen. It's a real curve ball for those people who aren't politically engaged and don't know what Corbyn stands for other than more public spending and putting up taxes for other people.
Remember though this is census data, not electorate data. The actual difference is likely to be far greater given the data Jayanetti has which shows registration not much changed in marginals, in fact in lots of places it is down.
Child poverty ? Seriously ? A statistical approximation to zero in the UK.
Moron
I think I am slightly more qualified to talk on this subject than you are, but flame away if it makes you happy.
Explain then , how there are no poor people in UK. Hopefully your are not going to trot out that people in Africa are really poor, try to contain yourself to the UK.
Of course there are poor people living in the UK and probably rather more if they live in a country ran by the SNP . That does not mean they are living in poverty . If you want to see what living in poverty really means you have to go to Asian and South American and African cities .
No. The big story is still Corbyn not retaliating against a nuclear strike against the UK. Loads of my friends are really confused by the stance of wanting to renew Trident and spending £100bn on it but not using it if the worst were to happen. It's a real curve ball for those people who aren't politically engaged and don't know what Corbyn stands for other than more public spending and putting up taxes for other people.
He doesn't want to renew it.
If, on his first day as PM, he wrote the letter to the sub commanders that says "return to base, permanently" he could then cancel the renewal.
but if you are politically engaged you would know about corbyn and his politics before hand, the election campaign wouldn't change your mind because you have no new information.Why are we seeing a 10% surge in Labour support amongst the politically engaged.
I think there is something in what you are saying however.
My guess is a combo of lefty infiltration of the polls and people giving the answer they think suits the narrative rather than their actual intention
I assume if the Defence Secretary is sent to the media outlets to talk about tax plans, that Hammond has already been sacked?
More likely the Chancellor is being hidden from unhelpful questions about which taxes will rise and will he put up NICs like he tried to in March. Fallon can more plausibly deny knowledge of any plans.
The EU limits our ability to do trade deals massively. One reason why Norway has far more deals with third party countries than the EU countries do and why they had deals with countries like Canada years before the EU did.
Not all deals are equal and CETA is much deeper than the trade deal between EFTA and Canada.
More precisely, at the point we leave we won't have CETA or the 700 other third country agreements, nor will we have any substitutes unless we agree them.
The EU limits our ability to do trade deals massively. One reason why Norway has far more deals with third party countries than the EU countries do and why they had deals with countries like Canada years before the EU did.
Not all deals are equal and CETA is much deeper than the trade deal between EFTA and Canada.
You say that like it is a good thing. Many of these wide deals which go beyond trade in goods and services are actually bad for us - the TTIP deal being a perfect example.
I am still very confused by the lack of attacks from the Tories. Either messina is telling them you are getting 50-100 majority come what may (and no more) and getting nuclear on corbyn could cause Gordon type sympthy vote OR corbgasm is real and they haven't got a clue how to tackle it with focus group / polling telling them attack lines aren't working.
Child poverty ? Seriously ? A statistical approximation to zero in the UK.
Moron
I think I am slightly more qualified to talk on this subject than you are, but flame away if it makes you happy.
Explain then , how there are no poor people in UK. Hopefully your are not going to trot out that people in Africa are really poor, try to contain yourself to the UK.
Of course there are poor people living in the UK and probably rather more if they live in a country ran by the SNP . That does not mean they are living in poverty . If you want to see what living in poverty really means you have to go to Asian and South American and African cities .
Precisely. There are clearly poor people in the UK, but poster said poverty which is basically Fake News. Living everyday with the real poor, I have no time for idiots claiming that if they can't afford a Xbox they live in poverty.
The Brexit vote was for reclaimed sovereignty and controlled immigration, the Remain vote to keep as close economic ties to the EU as now with a tiny Federalist vote, the UK voted Leave and so sovereignty and controlled immigration come first and if May wins on that platform that is how Brexit will be for the next 5 years. The government's other economic policies to make Britain more prosperous than Labour are not linked to Brexit beyond a corporation tax cut
The Government have produced a Clear Plan for Brexit, which isn't actually a plan but rather a wishlist. Two of the wishes (End ECJ jurisdiction and control over EU immigration) can only be achieved through leaving the EU; the remainder are better served by remaining in the EU: strengthen the UK Union; keep the Irish Common Travel Area; worker protection, secure cross-border rights for UK and EU citizens; free trade with European markets; trade agreements with third-party countries; European co-operation for science and innovation; European co-operation on security.
It doesn't say how those somewhat incompatible objectives will be resolved. A reasonable interpretation is that they will try to get as much as possible of the first two objectives wihile conceding no more than is necessary on the remaining eight. But it is all up for negotiations.
This is why no deal is seen as better than a bad deal, incidentally: no deal is guaranteed to achieve two of the objectives.
Correct on your second point. It's scorched earth however. Why would the Conservatives include the other eight points in their Brexit "plan" if negotiations on them don't affect the outcome?
but if you are politically engaged you would know about corbyn and his politics before hand, the election campaign wouldn't change your mind because you have no new information.Why are we seeing a 10% surge in Labour support amongst the politically engaged.
I think there is something in what you are saying however.
My guess is a combo of lefty infiltration of the polls and people giving the answer they think suits the narrative rather than their actual intention
and unimpressed Tories telling people they are going to vote Labour to give their representatives a kick up the arse.
I am still very confused by the lack of attacks from the Tories. Either messina is telling them you are getting 50-100 majority come what may (and no more) and getting nuclear on corbyn could cause Gordon type sympthy vote OR corbgasm is real and they haven't got a clue how to tackle it with focus group / polling telling them attack lines aren't working.
The EU limits our ability to do trade deals massively. One reason why Norway has far more deals with third party countries than the EU countries do and why they had deals with countries like Canada years before the EU did.
Not all deals are equal and CETA is much deeper than the trade deal between EFTA and Canada.
You say that like it is a good thing. Many of these wide deals which go beyond trade in goods and services are actually bad for us - the TTIP deal being a perfect example.
The EEA goes well beyond CETA or TTIP yet you support it.
Child poverty ? Seriously ? A statistical approximation to zero in the UK.
Moron
I think I am slightly more qualified to talk on this subject than you are, but flame away if it makes you happy.
Explain then , how there are no poor people in UK. Hopefully your are not going to trot out that people in Africa are really poor, try to contain yourself to the UK.
Of course there are poor people living in the UK and probably rather more if they live in a country ran by the SNP . That does not mean they are living in poverty . If you want to see what living in poverty really means you have to go to Asian and South American and African cities .
That was not the question though, it was about Tories and poor in UK and he said there was no poverty in the UK. Poverty is relative and so those scratching a living at the arse end of UK social scales are indeed living in poverty.
PS: I am sure you are penning that from your comfortable large house after having scoffed a large breakfast.
Disappointing rating for BBC1 QT Leaders Special - 3.8m - only 0.3m higher than the BBC Debate on Wed.
Though it did peak at 4.2m in the final 15 mins when Corbyn asked about Trident.
18:00: BBC News at Six - 4.18m (31.3%) 18:30: BBC Regional News - 4.33m (29.6%) 19:00: The One Show - 2.73m (16.6%) 20:00: EastEnders - 4.32m (21.4%) 20:30: Question Time: Leaders Special - 3.80m (18.2%) * 15 minute peak - 4.20m (20.0%) from 21:45 22:00: BBC News at Ten - 3.99m (22.4%)
I am still very confused by the lack of attacks from the Tories. Either messina is telling them you are getting 50-100 majority come what may (and no more) and getting nuclear on corbyn could cause Gordon type sympthy vote OR corbgasm is real and they haven't got a clue how to tackle it with focus group / polling telling them attack lines aren't working.
If it's the latter, surely they would have started to break rank in an effort to save their own skin?
Perhaps they're doing better than we expect with quieter C1/C2s rather than the noisier ABs?
Yep ...... a pretty stressful night for all concerned. I doubt whether opinion is going to change that much over the final few days, especially since about 20% of those intending to vote at this GE have already done so by post.
but if you are politically engaged you would know about corbyn and his politics before hand, the election campaign wouldn't change your mind because you have no new information.Why are we seeing a 10% surge in Labour support amongst the politically engaged.
I think there is something in what you are saying however.
My guess is a combo of lefty infiltration of the polls and people giving the answer they think suits the narrative rather than their actual intention
and unimpressed Tories telling people they are going to vote Labour to give their representatives a kick up the arse.
If you look at the posts of people on here who are on polling panels they say they are registered in more than one place, might vote Labour in one or Lib Dem in the other, despite being a Tory. Or Mike himself saying last time he was voting Labour in a vote swap with someone in Twickenham etc despite being a Lib Dem
If these are the kind of people whose answers produce the polls results it is no wonder the are always wrong.
Child poverty ? Seriously ? A statistical approximation to zero in the UK.
Moron
I think I am slightly more qualified to talk on this subject than you are, but flame away if it makes you happy.
Explain then , how there are no poor people in UK. Hopefully your are not going to trot out that people in Africa are really poor, try to contain yourself to the UK.
Of course there are poor people living in the UK and probably rather more if they live in a country ran by the SNP . That does not mean they are living in poverty . If you want to see what living in poverty really means you have to go to Asian and South American and African cities .
That was not the question though, it was about Tories and poor in UK and he said there was no poverty in the UK. Poverty is relative and so those scratching a living at the arse end of UK social scales are indeed living in poverty.
Relative poverty is bollocks. If Corbyn wins and a bunch of the richest people leave the country, the level of relative poverty will drop, whilst not putting a single bit of bread in a child's mouth, and leaving the country with a smaller tax base to help the poor. Even the people that invented relative poverty say it being misused in thise sort of statements.
Corbyn took Cameron's mum's advice on smartening himself up; perhaps on EU negotiations as well. What the fun and games miss is that walking away without a deal from the EU negotiations is quite different from not buying that second hand car we like. "No deal" is really choosing the default deal, which may be even worse.
Remember though this is census data, not electorate data. The actual difference is likely to be far greater given the data Jayanetti has which shows registration not much changed in marginals, in fact in lots of places it is down.
I assume if the Defence Secretary is sent to the media outlets to talk about tax plans, that Hammond has already been sacked?
More likely the Chancellor is being hidden from unhelpful questions about which taxes will rise and will he put up NICs like he tried to in March. Fallon can more plausibly deny knowledge of any plans.
It's already happened. Theresa May contradicted Fallon within minutes. Interesting tactic, though, to deliberately put up people who know nothing so he can say anything and the others can deny everything.
All the e-mail YouGov links I got contained a random-looking string that's probably some kind of unique user/campaign ID; he might get to submit twice but, if they're tracking this stuff properly, then the extra submissions should be filtered out.
but if you are politically engaged you would know about corbyn and his politics before hand, the election campaign wouldn't change your mind because you have no new information.Why are we seeing a 10% surge in Labour support amongst the politically engaged.
I think there is something in what you are saying however.
My guess is a combo of lefty infiltration of the polls and people giving the answer they think suits the narrative rather than their actual intention
and unimpressed Tories telling people they are going to vote Labour to give their representatives a kick up the arse.
If you look at the posts of people on here who are on polling panels they say they are registered in more than one place, might vote Labour in one or Lib Dem in the other, despite being a Tory. Or Mike himself saying last time he was voting Labour in a vote swap with someone in Twickenham etc despite being a Lib Dem
If these are the kind of people whose answers produce the polls results it is no wonder the are always wrong.
I haven't been in the country for a decade and I am on YouGov's panel. I dont answer VI questions on principle since I am not a registered voter, but I bet plenty of others do.
Disappointing rating for BBC1 QT Leaders Special - 3.8m - only 0.3m higher than the BBC Debate on Wed.
Though it did peak at 4.2m in the final 15 mins when Corbyn asked about Trident.
18:00: BBC News at Six - 4.18m (31.3%) 18:30: BBC Regional News - 4.33m (29.6%) 19:00: The One Show - 2.73m (16.6%) 20:00: EastEnders - 4.32m (21.4%) 20:30: Question Time: Leaders Special - 3.80m (18.2%) * 15 minute peak - 4.20m (20.0%) from 21:45 22:00: BBC News at Ten - 3.99m (22.4%)
1) If in a hole stop digging. 2) A message of 'flip-flopping' can be highly damaging - as seen during the John Kerry's presidential campaign.
We already had: TM the 'Remainer' organising 'Brexit'; TM the PM saying 'no election' then calling an election; and, deviation from the brand new manifesto with the social care U-turn and on social housing.
But today: 'No increase on income tax" .... Labour supporter will be searching for their flip-flops to start waving about!
Hold, have I missed something? Fallon said "high earners" will not face tax rises. Nothing about, for example, Class 4 NICS for self-employed.
I'd be far more concerned about dividends. As a self employed person your best bet is to set up your own company and pay yourself in dividends - taxed at 7.5%. I don't have the figures to hand but for someone on 40k you can easily halve your tax liability.
It irritates me when people claim either that by having a company you only get taxed at corporation tax rates, or like this, that you only pay 7.5% on dividends. First the profit gets corporation tax taken away - so thats 20% gone. Then you pay tax on dividends. Effective tax rate is now higher than income tax if the same amount was taken as salary (20% + 80% * 38.1% = 50.48%). Rant over:-)
The first £5000 of dividends this year are tax free, and by splitting shares with a spouse, it is possible to split the dividend income. It works best for higher tax payers of course. That is how my modest private paractice works.
True - but corporation tax of 19% has already been paid - so its not really tax free. And anything beyond that is effectively taxed at 25% for basic rate tax payer, 45% for higher rate and 49.9% for additional rate tax payer. I don't abject to the tax - someone has to pay tax - but you get comments on the news that some BBC exec has a personal services company and so only pays tax at 19% when in reality its 50%. But I really do need to stop ranting about this...
I seem to recall that in the heady days of New Labour, when I was setting up a business, we paid 10% corporation tax on first few grand of profits.
I am still very confused by the lack of attacks from the Tories. Either messina is telling them you are getting 50-100 majority come what may and getting nuclear on corbyn could cause Gordon type sympthy vote OR corbgasm is real and they haven't got a clue how to tackle it with focus group / polling telling them attack lobes aren't working.
The "Corbyn can't be trusted on Brexit/migration" line ought to do have some influence on Kippers, you'd have thought, but the Tories could do with a grassroots black green/yellow ops team that find attacks resonating with Corbyn from the Left, to be distributed via unofficial means apparently unaffiliated with the Conservative Party...
E.g. Compare his lack of effort in the Brexit campaign to his energy now. If you want a soft Brexit/second referendum, vote Green or LibDem. His support for old-fashioned British industry means more pollution. Go Green.
I don't think the Tories' current attack lines have much cut-through with non-voters, LibDems, Greens etc that Labour have been hoovering up, and nothing clearly marked "Paid For By The Conservative Party" is going to have any credibility with those voters.
Child poverty ? Seriously ? A statistical approximation to zero in the UK.
Moron
I think I am slightly more qualified to talk on this subject than you are, but flame away if it makes you happy.
Explain then , how there are no poor people in UK. Hopefully your are not going to trot out that people in Africa are really poor, try to contain yourself to the UK.
Of course there are poor people living in the UK and probably rather more if they live in a country ran by the SNP . That does not mean they are living in poverty . If you want to see what living in poverty really means you have to go to Asian and South American and African cities .
That was not the question though, it was about Tories and poor in UK and he said there was no poverty in the UK. Poverty is relative and so those scratching a living at the arse end of UK social scales are indeed living in poverty.
PS: I am sure you are penning that from your comfortable large house after having scoffed a large breakfast.
Nope I am penning it from my decent relatively modern 1 bedroom ground floor flat , no breakfast but about to have lunch .
All the e-mail YouGov links I got contained a random-looking string that's probably some kind of unique user/campaign ID; he might get to submit twice but, if they're tracking this stuff properly, then the extra submissions should be filtered out.
This would also be useful in combatting general link sharing.
Disappointing rating for BBC1 QT Leaders Special - 3.8m - only 0.3m higher than the BBC Debate on Wed.
Though it did peak at 4.2m in the final 15 mins when Corbyn asked about Trident.
18:00: BBC News at Six - 4.18m (31.3%) 18:30: BBC Regional News - 4.33m (29.6%) 19:00: The One Show - 2.73m (16.6%) 20:00: EastEnders - 4.32m (21.4%) 20:30: Question Time: Leaders Special - 3.80m (18.2%) * 15 minute peak - 4.20m (20.0%) from 21:45 22:00: BBC News at Ten - 3.99m (22.4%)
The main thing I have deduced from this is how badly Eastenders now rates. Let's save some licence payers money!
Cutting Eastenders won't save much unless they replace it with the test card. I used to know one of the big names in the early days and while she was on a good middle class salary, it was less than the Prime Minister earns, which is the scale on which these things are judged.
Looking at the constituency betting,there are currently still 40 seats where the Tories are favourite to take a Labour seat in England and Wales,4 Tory gains from the LDs and 1 from ukip, so this method produces a Tory total of 375-without taking into account Scotland or NI-and an overall Tory majority of 120. Either the polls are wrong or else there is still value in backing Labour in these seats where the Tories are favourite.If the bookies' prices are right,it is pretty much still landslide territory.
Yes, the election will be a biased sample of what the country actually thinks. That was the excuse I used in 2015 - Tories can have it this time if they need it.
Ipsos' post-2015 GE poll reckoned the split then was CON 27, LAB 43, LD 5, UKIP 8, GRN 8, OTH 9. So the ICM poll shows an 18-point swing to Labour in this age group. But how many are registered and will vote? That seems one of the most important questions of this election.
Intriguingly the LDs are actually up 3 points. Surprised how poorly they supposedly did among the young last time - tuition fees perhaps a major factor.
It's the free tuition fees bribe vs lib dems jacked them up what done it.
Is there any estimate of how much that bung is likely to cost the exchequer ? The student loan book up until 2012 (when the fees increased to £9000) seems to be valued at 12bn, and since loans are being valued at 10bn per year, which means a total value of approximately 62bn ?
It's the free tuition fees bribe vs lib dems jacked them up what done it.
Is there any estimate of how much that bung is likely to cost the exchequer ? The student loan book up until 2012 (when the fees increased to £9000) seems to be valued at 12bn, and since loans are being valued at 10bn per year, which means a total value of approximately 62bn ?
Yes, the election will be a biased sample of what the country actually thinks. That was the excuse I used in 2015 - Tories can have it this time if they need it.
Lol, biased toward those that can be bothered to get off the sofa.
These young people need reminding who introduced tuition fees in the first place
My age group aren't really interested in history very much, when it comes to elections. That's why they think what Corbyn is offering is 'new', and a 'different kind of politics.' They also have a messiannic level of trust in Corbyn, and are shocked as to why anyone else wouldn't. As if it's healthy to make gods of politicians.
I think Theresa May is trying to lose an unlosable election.
I think everyone in the country knows the Tories aren't going to raise income tax, any budget which tried to do so would not make it through Parliamentary scrutiny. So just come out and say it, no income tax rises for the next five years.
Brexit isn't going to leave the economy unscathed and the national debt hasn't gone away. The bond market vigilantes have been in hibernation for a long time but 5 years is plenty of time for them to wake up. She's best not to rule anything out if she can avoid it.
The other political problem with this is that if you rule out all the taxes that you don't intend to raise, journalists will get to the ones that you are going to raise by process of elimination.
I didn't watch last night's "debate" but the reactions on here and elsewhere seem entirely predictable which suggests neither May nor Corbyn did anything too much right or wrong.
I do see a lot of talk about Corbyn's stance on nuclear weapons. The point about nuclear weapons is not that they should ever be used - they are a weapon of deterrence not of any practical value. If we ever get to the point when their use is being contemplated, the deterrence will have failed and there will be many other reasons for that.
As I've said before, as a Londoner, I'm under no illusions as to my inevitable incineration in the event of a nuclear attack and I suspect I'll find little comfort in my final minutes knowing the citizens of Omsk, Irkutsk or Novosibirsk will be following me into oblivion.
So why have nuclear weapons ? I know why we got them in the first place but the likes of Germany, Italy, Spain and a host of other countries don't have them. Oddly enough, Trump's pre-election rantings about the possibility of ditching NATO provided a degree of rationale - our security is underpinned by the American nuclear guarantee as part of the NATO fundamental of collective defense. If the principle of collective defense collapses, then the whole security and defence of western Europe needs to be put on a different footing.
Yet in office Trump, for all his justifiable comments about NATO members paying their share, has maintained Washington's commitment to NATO so if Putin were ever to attempt to invade Latvia or Estonia, he would find himself facing the might of the US.
I can understand (just about) an argument we should have them in case NATO ever collapses or changes but otherwise I don't. Our deterrent may be "independent" in theory but we all know it isn't. So why have them ?
Being opposed to the retention of nuclear weapons doesn't make me or anyone who thinks like me a pacifist - it's perfectly credible to believe in a strong flexible defense which doesn't include nuclear weapons.
As with much else (including Brexit), it comes back to the question of identity - what kind of country and society do we want to be in the 21st Century ? What is our place and role in the world and what do we want it to be ?
These young people need reminding who introduced tuition fees in the first place
My age group aren't really interested in history very much, when it comes to elections. That's why they think what Corbyn is offering is 'new', and a 'different kind of politics.' They also have a messiannic level of trust in Corbyn, and are shocked as to why anyone else wouldn't. As if it's healthy to make gods of politicians.
People don't learn from other people's mistakes, that's why history repeats.
It's the free tuition fees bribe vs lib dems jacked them up what done it.
Truly terrible for Greens. Their core constituency: kids who will live to see wide scale climate change damage.
There has been no increase in world atmospheric temeratures in nearly 20 years. Several different sateklite based observations show this. Our climate is driven by that big yellow thing in the sky. There is nothing you can do about that. Polution is different but that is not climate.
54% of 18-24 believe the NHS is the most important issue. Hah.
You can see this in the Yougov tracker, before the election this question is as you would expect largely a concern of the older voters. Then in the campaign suddenly young people are even more concerned about it than the elderly.
From a betting perspective, with the exception of yougov, haven't these companies produced better results for the Tories? If we assume Labour may have peaked (DYOR) then I presume there might be money to be made on a shift in the market tonight. Right now, 8% leads across the board would almost look like "shoring up".
but if you are politically engaged you would know about corbyn and his politics before hand, the election campaign wouldn't change your mind because you have no new information.Why are we seeing a 10% surge in Labour support amongst the politically engaged.
I think there is something in what you are saying however.
The real smart move by Momentum (and they are very savvy) would be to sign up to voting panels as Don't Knows, Greens, LibDems or hell, even Kippers. Then during the campaign, be won over by Jeremy's brilliant oratory, giving him, er, momentum towards the end of the campaign.
These young people need reminding who introduced tuition fees in the first place
My age group aren't really interested in history very much, when it comes to elections. That's why they think what Corbyn is offering is 'new', and a 'different kind of politics.' They also have a messiannic level of trust in Corbyn, and are shocked as to why anyone else wouldn't. As if it's healthy to make gods of politicians.
And the Corbynites see the man who did introduce tuition fees, one Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, as the lowest of the low evil Tory scumbags anyway.
It's definitely not healthy to make gods of politicians, many people are going to be enormously disappointed six days from now.
Another vox pop from yesterday, a complete political novice friend of mine asked me about the deficit and debt and we got into taxation. She was under the impression that parties paid professionals to make sure their figures added up, when I explained that they hired professionals to make sure that no one would realise that their figures didn't add up she seemed genuinely surprised. I then pointed her in the direction of the IFS and her support for Corbyn became much less fervent.
I think this is what the Tories are completely underestimating. The campaign has completely failed to make an economic case for our party and they've let Corbyn set the agenda, part of that is because we've legitimised Labour's statist position but overall they haven't challenged Labour's dodgy figures or put forwards a vision for Britain's economy in a positive sense.
Ipsos' post-2015 GE poll reckoned the split then was CON 27, LAB 43, LD 5, UKIP 8, GRN 8, OTH 9. So the ICM poll shows an 18-point swing to Labour in this age group. But how many are registered and will vote? That seems one of the most important questions of this election.
Intriguingly the LDs are actually up 3 points. Surprised how poorly they supposedly did among the young last time - tuition fees perhaps a major factor.
It's only been seven years but the tuition fees issue still resonates with a lot of people. It seems to be the experience among LD canvassers that tuition fees are still being raised as a stick with which to beat the party.
To be fair, on some issues people's memories are very long.
Even more anecdotal -- Foxinsox or Charles might have the numbers -- but I get the impression from reading obituaries that the charities named at the end in the "no flowers by request; donations to" section are increasingly concerned with dementia whereas it used to be mainly cancer. If more families are affected then so are more voters by some multiplicative factor.
Having been through this, quite recently, living and caring with a relative with Dementia, it is very debilitating on the carers. They can remember the patient, with the memories alive with laughter, fun, intelligence - and now there is just the living shell, needing to be fed, cleaned, with a catheter going where you wouldn't want one, large nappy pads. The patient, in really extreme cases, hasn't a clue of where they are, who they are with, what they are eating and have no control of their bodily functions.
With cancer, the control of pain and distress can be maintained until, normally, close to the end. With Dementia, it can be years of being kept alive.
A Care Nurse told be of a word - "Grelief", a made up one admittedly, but when it is at last over, the sense of grief at the loss is mixed with the relief that it has ended. But the pain, is knowing that until recently, dementia itself was not recognised as fatal, it was always something else which caused the death, cancer, pneumonia, failure of body parts, etc....
Dementia is increasing, as our medical advances means that life expectancy extends it longer and longer. Quite honestly, from my own experiences, life without any quality, self awareness or even recognition that you are alive is not worth living.
The question should be, not whether care to extend life to the longest possible without thought of the quality of the life that religious beliefs demand, but if, if it is the wish of the patient, and that tests have confirmed, then should the patient be allowed to be euthanised.
Keeping a dog, cat or any animal alive in such circumstances, would probably mean an automatic prison sentence if not an extended period in an institution for the insane.
Coming back to politics, too many people nowadays have been through the pain of watching their loved ones pass, so slowly. The thought of the government charging/taxing the shell of a person to keep them alive as long as possible, is not pleasant.
These young people need reminding who introduced tuition fees in the first place
My age group aren't really interested in history very much, when it comes to elections. That's why they think what Corbyn is offering is 'new', and a 'different kind of politics.' They also have a messiannic level of trust in Corbyn, and are shocked as to why anyone else wouldn't. As if it's healthy to make gods of politicians.
People don't learn from other people's mistakes, that's why history repeats.
We almost need a Corbynite to have a go somewhere they can't do much harm (city mayor?) to wake people up and show why the extremes are bad.
"Jeremy Corbyn Could See Late Surge In Support From Ex-UKIP Voters"
Not after yesterday.
Indeed. It is over.
You don't think this Fallon gaffe will make a difference?
No. The big story is still Corbyn not retaliating against a nuclear strike against the UK. Loads of my friends are really confused by the stance of wanting to renew Trident and spending £100bn on it but not using it if the worst were to happen. It's a real curve ball for those people who aren't politically engaged and don't know what Corbyn stands for other than more public spending and putting up taxes for other people.
Instinctively I agree this probably does play badly for Corbyn, by raising vague but perhaps real questions about his commitment to the country's security. OTOH the issue of use isn't a straightforward one. That's why are not seeing simple headline assertions in the news that people would go, "My God!" to..
The correct answer to the question, "Would you use nuclear weapons" isn't, "Can't wait! Next time Merkel sounds off about how unreliable we are, Berlin will be hit by so many megatons it will be wiped off the planet." So a normal response might be, "No-one would ever want to use nuclear weapons, but the threat to use them as a last resort has to be real for them to be effective". It's a subtle difference from Corbyn's "I can't envisage ever using them" .
Ipsos' post-2015 GE poll reckoned the split then was CON 27, LAB 43, LD 5, UKIP 8, GRN 8, OTH 9. So the ICM poll shows an 18-point swing to Labour in this age group. But how many are registered and will vote? That seems one of the most important questions of this election.
Intriguingly the LDs are actually up 3 points. Surprised how poorly they supposedly did among the young last time - tuition fees perhaps a major factor.
It's only been seven years but the tuition fees issue still resonates with a lot of people. It seems to be the experience among LD canvassers that tuition fees are still being raised as a stick with which to beat the party.
To be fair, on some issues people's memories are very long.
How long has Fatcha!!!! been dead? How long since Prime Minister? Yesterday, to those on the Left....
I think this is what the Tories are completely underestimating. The campaign has completely failed to make an economic case for our party and they've let Corbyn set the agenda, part of that is because we've legitimised Labour's statist position but overall they haven't challenged Labour's dodgy figures or put forwards a vision for Britain's economy in a positive sense.
If the Tories weren't committed to one of the key planks of Michael Foot's programme, perhaps they'd be able to make that case, but trying to play the reckless card while in the middle of Brexit was never going to work.
Brexit was always inevitably going to lead to British politics heading seriously left.
These young people need reminding who introduced tuition fees in the first place
My age group aren't really interested in history very much, when it comes to elections. That's why they think what Corbyn is offering is 'new', and a 'different kind of politics.' They also have a messiannic level of trust in Corbyn, and are shocked as to why anyone else wouldn't. As if it's healthy to make gods of politicians.
People don't learn from other people's mistakes, that's why history repeats.
We almost need a Corbynite to have a go somewhere they can't do much harm (city mayor?) to wake people up and show why the extremes are bad.
Except anywhere they can't do too much harm by definition won't show why the extremes are bad. Besides it's be someone else's fault - the mayor isn't getting enough resources from central government etc
From a betting perspective, with the exception of yougov, haven't these companies produced better results for the Tories? If we assume Labour may have peaked (DYOR) then I presume there might be money to be made on a shift in the market tonight. Right now, 8% leads across the board would almost look like "shoring up".
Polls published about a week ago by these companies:
ComRes (GB): 24-26 May - Con lead of 12 ICM (GB): 24-26 May - Con lead of 14 (Sun on Sunday) Opinium (GB): 23-24 May - Con lead of 10 ORB (GB): 24-25 May - Con lead of 6 Survation (GB): 26-27 May - Con lead of 6 YouGov (GB): 25-26 May - Con lead of 7
And the Scottish poll: Survation (Scotland): 18-21 Apr - SNP 43, Con 28, Lab 18, LD 9
Comments
The EU limits our ability to do trade deals massively. One reason why Norway has far more deals with third party countries than the EU countries do and why they had deals with countries like Canada years before the EU did.
Where as I can see why young remainers might go for corbyn over tiny tim.
I think there is something in what you are saying however.
"this is 2017- knocking on doors is like having a Betamax."
Of course he is also a PlasticNat. Fighting desperately for a separate Scotland, from his house in Windsor...
If, on his first day as PM, he wrote the letter to the sub commanders that says "return to base, permanently" he could then cancel the renewal.
https://twitter.com/election_data/status/870969332825825280
PS: I am sure you are penning that from your comfortable large house after having scoffed a large breakfast.
Perhaps they're doing better than we expect with quieter C1/C2s rather than the noisier ABs?
If these are the kind of people whose answers produce the polls results it is no wonder the are always wrong.
E.g. Compare his lack of effort in the Brexit campaign to his energy now. If you want a soft Brexit/second referendum, vote Green or LibDem. His support for old-fashioned British industry means more pollution. Go Green.
I don't think the Tories' current attack lines have much cut-through with non-voters, LibDems, Greens etc that Labour have been hoovering up, and nothing clearly marked "Paid For By The Conservative Party" is going to have any credibility with those voters.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/870972949674774529
Either the polls are wrong or else there is still value in backing Labour in these seats where the Tories are favourite.If the bookies' prices are right,it is pretty much still landslide territory.
Intriguingly the LDs are actually up 3 points. Surprised how poorly they supposedly did among the young last time - tuition fees perhaps a major factor.
The other political problem with this is that if you rule out all the taxes that you don't intend to raise, journalists will get to the ones that you are going to raise by process of elimination.
I didn't watch last night's "debate" but the reactions on here and elsewhere seem entirely predictable which suggests neither May nor Corbyn did anything too much right or wrong.
I do see a lot of talk about Corbyn's stance on nuclear weapons. The point about nuclear weapons is not that they should ever be used - they are a weapon of deterrence not of any practical value. If we ever get to the point when their use is being contemplated, the deterrence will have failed and there will be many other reasons for that.
As I've said before, as a Londoner, I'm under no illusions as to my inevitable incineration in the event of a nuclear attack and I suspect I'll find little comfort in my final minutes knowing the citizens of Omsk, Irkutsk or Novosibirsk will be following me into oblivion.
So why have nuclear weapons ? I know why we got them in the first place but the likes of Germany, Italy, Spain and a host of other countries don't have them. Oddly enough, Trump's pre-election rantings about the possibility of ditching NATO provided a degree of rationale - our security is underpinned by the American nuclear guarantee as part of the NATO fundamental of collective defense. If the principle of collective defense collapses, then the whole security and defence of western Europe needs to be put on a different footing.
Yet in office Trump, for all his justifiable comments about NATO members paying their share, has maintained Washington's commitment to NATO so if Putin were ever to attempt to invade Latvia or Estonia, he would find himself facing the might of the US.
I can understand (just about) an argument we should have them in case NATO ever collapses or changes but otherwise I don't. Our deterrent may be "independent" in theory but we all know it isn't. So why have them ?
Being opposed to the retention of nuclear weapons doesn't make me or anyone who thinks like me a pacifist - it's perfectly credible to believe in a strong flexible defense which doesn't include nuclear weapons.
As with much else (including Brexit), it comes back to the question of identity - what kind of country and society do we want to be in the 21st Century ? What is our place and role in the world and what do we want it to be ?
Our climate is driven by that big yellow thing in the sky. There is nothing you can do about that.
Polution is different but that is not climate.
You can see this in the Yougov tracker, before the election this question is as you would expect largely a concern of the older voters. Then in the campaign suddenly young people are even more concerned about it than the elderly.
Yeah whatever.
And what have we seen?
It's definitely not healthy to make gods of politicians, many people are going to be enormously disappointed six days from now.
Either he is keeping himself out of the limelight so he isn't tainted by this campaign, or Mrs M has rumbled him.
He is available at 290 on Betfair to be the Prime Minister after the General Election and at 13 to be PM after Mrs M.
I think this is what the Tories are completely underestimating. The campaign has completely failed to make an economic case for our party and they've let Corbyn set the agenda, part of that is because we've legitimised Labour's statist position but overall they haven't challenged Labour's dodgy figures or put forwards a vision for Britain's economy in a positive sense.
To be fair, on some issues people's memories are very long.
The correct answer to the question, "Would you use nuclear weapons" isn't, "Can't wait! Next time Merkel sounds off about how unreliable we are, Berlin will be hit by so many megatons it will be wiped off the planet." So a normal response might be, "No-one would ever want to use nuclear weapons, but the threat to use them as a last resort has to be real for them to be effective". It's a subtle difference from Corbyn's "I can't envisage ever using them" .
Brexit was always inevitably going to lead to British politics heading seriously left.
ComRes (GB): 24-26 May - Con lead of 12
ICM (GB): 24-26 May - Con lead of 14 (Sun on Sunday)
Opinium (GB): 23-24 May - Con lead of 10
ORB (GB): 24-25 May - Con lead of 6
Survation (GB): 26-27 May - Con lead of 6
YouGov (GB): 25-26 May - Con lead of 7
And the Scottish poll:
Survation (Scotland): 18-21 Apr - SNP 43, Con 28, Lab 18, LD 9