politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Ipsos MORI guide to what happened segment by segment at GE

Sean_F said:

rkrkrk said:

IanB2 said:

MikeSmithson said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pong said:

fpt;

Pong said:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-mays-plans-to-axe-free-school-meals-ditched-from-queens-speech-a3568931.html

"Areas considered safe for the Prime Minister to legislate on tomorrow are security and defence. Backbenchers have been pushing hard for an enhanced Investigatory Powers Bill in the wake of the recent terror attacks."

It must be Jeremy Corbyn's birthday or something.

A pile of new tools for state repression that he can use against the enemies of the left once he becomes PM.

The irony is that the policies she is now unable to do due to the arithmetic would probably have led to the ability to carry them out if she'd never pledged them in the first place.

That's why the first Corbyn honours list should include a knighthood to Nick Timothy

Although seeing our most senior politicians and some of their senior staff trying to blame two SpAds for everything is surely a pitiful sight? However poor their behaviour and misjudgement, ultimately they have no authority without the backing of their politicians. If, as it seems, May gave the two of them carte blanche to behave how they like and to impose their own views on our most senior ministers, it reflects extremely badly on her and pretty badly on them.

+1.
Seems amazing to me that Tory MPs are buying the idea that it was all down to the SpADs.

The SpADs were obnoxious, as well as incompetent, so they make easy targets.

Of course, Theresa May deserves lots of criticism for keeping them in place and following their advice.

She lost because she was found out. The voters deemed her arrogant, discovered her leadership skills wanting, and worked out she wanted to play them for her political career.

To be honest, I can't say I blame them.

ThreeQuidder said:

Nemtynakht said:

Casino_Royale said:

OblitusSumMe said:

tlg86 said:

These figures should scare the shit out of the Tories:

Tenure (change in brackets):

Social renters - Conservatives 26% (+8 pp), Labour 57% (+8 pp)
Private renters - Conservatives 31% (+3 pp), Labour 54% (+15 pp)

Edit: Though I suspect London accounts for a lot of the swing in the private renters vote.

I'm renting privately and its shit.

Apart from anything else I'm scared to complain too much because I don't have security of tenure. I know that they can just give notice and we'll have to find somewhere else to rent. And another deposit. And moving costs.

What are you after? An assured "medium" term tenancy policy, that might, say, give you security of tenure for up to 3 years, with a good defined reason required for a landlord to evict you, and requiring to give you at least 3-6 months notice, with better protection for deposits?

I wouldn't mind signing up to that, as a landlord. But I'd probably want better references and guarantees, and a higher rent.

That sounds like a great idea to me. I think there should be a range of medium term lengths linked to personal circumstances. That is the type of policy the Tories need to come up with to show that the market can work for social good, they could encourage take up with a period of assistance for landlords I.e. A guarantee, a bit like help to buy but for private renters.

I'd still like to see rent payment history taken into account for mortgage lending. If you've consistently paid £1600 a month for two years and never missed a payment, why isn't that taken as evidence that you could afford a mortgage at maybe not £1600 but certainly £1200?

When you pay rent, to a landlord, you feel as if you are paying another tax - a tax on living, a tax on the roof over your head.

But when you make mortgage payments, to the bank, and see equity building, you feel as if you are making an investment in something that is yours (or will one day belong to you).

The broken housing market is why young people are so bloody furious. People are locked out of the housing market and have to pay ever increasing rents for sub-standard accommodation to landlords who they feel are getting fat on the profits.

When you see the world through that lens, you see yourself as a worker, paying all your money to a greedy capitalist who does nothing but sit on his arse collecting rent, because he owns something you will never be able to afford, it's little wonder that Corbyn and socialism look appealing.

ThreeQuidder said:

Nemtynakht said:

Casino_Royale said:

OblitusSumMe said:

tlg86 said:

These figures should scare the shit out of the Tories:

Tenure (change in brackets):

Social renters - Conservatives 26% (+8 pp), Labour 57% (+8 pp)
Private renters - Conservatives 31% (+3 pp), Labour 54% (+15 pp)

Edit: Though I suspect London accounts for a lot of the swing in the private renters vote.

I'm renting privately and its shit.

Apart from anything else I'm scared to complain too much because I don't have security of tenure. I know that they can just give notice and we'll have to find somewhere else to rent. And another deposit. And moving costs.

What are you after? An assured "medium" term tenancy policy, that might, say, give you security of tenure for up to 3 years, with a good defined reason required for a landlord to evict you, and requiring to give you at least 3-6 months notice, with better protection for deposits?

I wouldn't mind signing up to that, as a landlord. But I'd probably want better references and guarantees, and a higher rent.

That sounds like a great idea to me. I think there should be a range of medium term lengths linked to personal circumstances. That is the type of policy the Tories need to come up with to show that the market can work for social good, they could encourage take up with a period of assistance for landlords I.e. A guarantee, a bit like help to buy but for private renters.

I'd still like to see rent payment history taken into account for mortgage lending. If you've consistently paid £1600 a month for two years and never missed a payment, why isn't that taken as evidence that you could afford a mortgage at maybe not £1600 but certainly £1200?

It is to an extent. Lenders all use credit searches which show the history of meeting committments. Basing it on rent alone is not in itself useful - if I meet my rent for 3 years but in that time increase my borrowing by 25,000 am I a good risk?

JonCisBack said:

For example a properly explained policy around taking winter fuel payments off richer pensioners could have been sold just fine. But they messed the presentation of it all up SOOO badly it beggars belief :-(

My thinking is that not having a specific figure in the manifesto at which point it would be removed was a mistake. People who would have been willing to support the policy with a £50k threshold (as with child benefit), had no way of knowing whether the threshold was going to be £30k, or £20k, or anyone not claiming Pension Credit.

kyf_100 said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Nemtynakht said:

Casino_Royale said:

OblitusSumMe said:

tlg86 said:

These figures should scare the shit out of the Tories:

Tenure (change in brackets):

Social renters - Conservatives 26% (+8 pp), Labour 57% (+8 pp)
Private renters - Conservatives 31% (+3 pp), Labour 54% (+15 pp)

Edit: Though I suspect London accounts for a lot of the swing in the private renters vote.

I'm renting privately and its shit.


I wouldn't mind signing up to that, as a landlord. But I'd probably want better references and guarantees, and a higher rent.

That sounds like a great idea to me. I think there should be a range of medium term lengths linked to personal circumstances. That is the type of policy the Tories need to come up with to show that the market can work for social good, they could encourage take up with a period of assistance for landlords I.e. A guarantee, a bit like help to buy but for private renters.

I'd still like to see rent payment history taken into account for mortgage lending. If you've consistently paid £1600 a month for two years and never missed a payment, why isn't that taken as evidence that you could afford a mortgage at maybe not £1600 but certainly £1200?

When you pay rent, to a landlord, you feel as if you are paying another tax - a tax on living, a tax on the roof over your head.

But when you make mortgage payments, to the bank, and see equity building, you feel as if you are making an investment in something that is yours (or will one day belong to you).

The broken housing market is why young people are so bloody furious. People are locked out of the housing market and have to pay ever increasing rents for sub-standard accommodation to landlords who they feel are getting fat on the profits.

When you see the world through that lens, you see yourself as a worker, paying all your money to a greedy capitalist who does nothing but sit on his arse collecting rent, because he owns something you will never be able to afford, it's little wonder that Corbyn and socialism look appealing.

Indeed. I can understand this.

Ironically one of the country's biggest private landlords is (or was at least) Robbie Fowler ex-Liverpool striker - the one who took his shirt off after scoring a goal one day to support the striking dock workers...

Champagne socialism anyone?

MarkHopkins said:

I know why young people are angry with their situation, but asking Corbyn to solve this would be like a hospital being overrun with flu victims and asking for assistance from the Grim Reaper.

To be fair, that would free up some beds.

dyedwoolie said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Nemtynakht said:

Casino_Royale said:

OblitusSumMe said:

tlg86 said:

These figures should scare the shit out of the Tories:

Tenure (change in brackets):

Social renters - Conservatives 26% (+8 pp), Labour 57% (+8 pp)
Private renters - Conservatives 31% (+3 pp), Labour 54% (+15 pp)

Edit: Though I suspect London accounts for a lot of the swing in the private renters vote.

I'm renting privately and its shit.

Apart from anything else I'm scared to complain too much because I don't have security of tenure. I know that they can just give notice and we'll have to find somewhere else to rent. And another deposit. And moving costs.

What are you after? An assured "medium" term tenancy policy, that might, say, give you security of tenure for up to 3 years, with a good defined reason required for a landlord to evict you, and requiring to give you at least 3-6 months notice, with better protection for deposits?

I wouldn't mind signing up to that, as a landlord. But I'd probably want better references and guarantees, and a higher rent.

That sounds like a great idea to me. I think there should be a range of medium term lengths linked to personal circumstances. That is the type of policy the Tories need to come up with to show that the market can work for social good, they could encourage take up with a period of assistance for landlords I.e. A guarantee, a bit like help to buy but for private renters.

I'd still like to see rent payment history taken into account for mortgage lending. If you've consistently paid £1600 a month for two years and never missed a payment, why isn't that taken as evidence that you could afford a mortgage at maybe not £1600 but certainly £1200?

It is to an extent. Lenders all use credit searches which show the history of meeting committments. Basing it on rent alone is not in itself useful - if I meet my rent for 3 years but in that time increase my borrowing by 25,000 am I a good risk?

On the deposits issue - there is a national deposit protection scheme now:

https://www.gov.uk/tenancy-deposit-protection/overview

Stark_Dawning said:

GIN1138 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/samcoatestimes/status/877131980919513088

Does Hammond really believe what he is saying though (he claimed he would be a LEAVER if a referendum was held in 2013 - Interestingly around the time Cameron was in a bit of trouble with UKIP) ?

Or is he just a disingenuous schemer who is plotting to take Theresa May's job and "bends" his view to fit the prevailing mood.

One thing though the HMG has got to get a grip. We need agreement within the government about what our Brexit aims are and where we are going.

At the moment it does appear to be a bit of a shambles.

Do we know yet what ministers Theresa was going to chop had she got her landslide? Presumably Hammond himself and I'm guessing Boris.

I think she was going to get rid of Hammond but not sure about Boris.

GIN1138 said:

One thing though HMG has got to get a grip. We need agreement within the government about what our Brexit aims are and where we are going.

At the moment it does appear to be a bit of a shambles.

I'm not sure it is a shambles in this respect (it is in other ways, of course). The key figures are Hammond and DD, and they seem to be saying very similar things. DD in particular seems to be quite pragmatic, in contrast to some of the other prominent Brexiteers.

Actually, the big surprise for me from that IPSOS-MORI analysis is how (relatively) little difference there was between Remain and Leave voters:

Labour had a lead among 2016 Remain voters, the Conservatives had a lead among 2016 Leave voters. Labour led the Conservatives by 47% to 33% among Remainers; the Conservatives beat Labour by 46% to 39% among Leavers.

Can anyone confirm Hezza's assertion that Tory voters are dying out at the rate of 70% of 2% a year ie by 1.4% at the same time as new 18 year olds are registering boosting Labour's support by 1.4%,a total of the age demographic 2.8 % per year?
This could mean the Tories are favoured by an early election because of the high mortality rates of their supporters and Labour would be better served in securing an overall majority in 3 years time when more Tory voters will have died off.
Mortality rates could be another key factor in predicting election outcomes.

Lib dem targets for the next general election:

http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/liberal-democrat

JonCisBack said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

logical_song said:

The triple lock, winter fuel payment and dementia tax can't have been accidental. Maybe the advisers thought that they should be in the manifesto because they needed to be tackled and the Tories were going to get 100+ majority anyway.
The thing is that they do need to be tackled, especially the triple lock. How can that be done when giveaways to the electorate seem to work?

I think this is spot on.

I do think the Tories were confident (arrogant?) enough to think that they were going to win no matter what so putting in things that needed to be addressed but would not necessarily be popular was a good way of ensuring they could not be attacked for them afterwards.

In principle this was a good idea and I did wonder about whether this was what they were doing at the time. In practice it relied upon having both a good handle on what the polls were really saying at the start of the election and a good handle on what the effect would be of introducing so many potentially unpopular issues. Clearly the Tories were way out on one or both of these.

The logic from tory high command made sense in theory

1) Labour is led by Corbyn, who is off-the-scale batshit lefty toxic
2) So we are going to win big
3) But for numerous reasons in the next 5 years we will be in a tough place financially
4) So let's put some "hard choices" in the manifesto
5) We will still win comfortably

It all rather fell down because (1) turned out not to be true and (2) the campaign was off-the-scale crap

Even with Corbynmania and maintaining the unpopular policies it could still have ended up with a Tory majority of 50-odd, if only the campaign (and Theresa) has not been so calamitously piss poor.

For example a properly explained policy around taking winter fuel payments off richer pensioners could have been sold just fine. But they messed the presentation of it all up SOOO badly it beggars belief :-(

Taking WFA off richer pensioners would have been fine but when asked even my Conservative MP could not categorically tell a not so well off pensioner that their WFA would not be taken away .

volcanopete said:

Can anyone confirm Hezza's assertion that Tory voters are dying out at the rate of 70% of 2% a year ie by 1.4% at the same time as new 18 year olds are registering boosting Labour's support by 1.4%,a total of the age demographic 2.8 % per year?
This could mean the Tories are favoured by an early election because of the high mortality rates of their supporters and Labour would be better served in securing an overall majority in 3 years time when more Tory voters will have died off.
Mortality rates could be another key factor in predicting election outcomes.

Well opinion isn't a consistent thing and for every pensioner that dies more will replace them.

That said clearly opinion is moving back to Labour at the moment but it's daft to think that will be the case forever.

Hezza very rarely mentions that he helped preside over the Tories 1997 meltdown as well of course....

kyf_100 said:

MarkHopkins said:

High immigration and not building enough houses, together with a price bubble are the problems stemming from the last Labour gov. It's an on-going problem, with no easy answers.

I know why young people are angry with their situation, but asking Corbyn to solve this would be like a hospital being overrun with flu victims and asking for assistance from the Grim Reaper.

I don't disagree, but that's not the lens that today's young see things through.

The housing market as it stands is a recruiting sergeant for socialism, because it fits so perfectly the centuries old Marxist trope of all the wealth being concentrated in the hands of a capitalist class who do nothing but exploit the labour of the working poor.

Mr Bright Young Grad from a nice middle class family, aged 27, wonders why, even with a half decent job 50% of his pay packet is going to a landlord from whom he rents sub-standard accommodation, which he is afraid to complain about for fear of being turfed out.

Even living within his means and putting £100 or £200 aside every month, it would take him at least a decade to save for a deposit. And how much have house prices risen in the last decade? To him, ownership is an impossible dream.

Yet Mr Nasty Landlord, by virtue of having bought two or three properties ten years ago, is now sitting on a fat income he can use at the bank for leverage to buy more properties and grow his empire. To Mr Bright Young Grad he is the definition of a parasite, he contributes nothing to the economy, he makes nothing, he builds nothing.

Having had many conversations with Corbynistas my own age or younger (I'm in my mid thirties), this is the lens through which they see the housing market and that acts as a gateway drug to a socialist analysis of the wider economy and society.

A society of homeowners creates a society of capitalists, a society of renters creates a society of socialists.

This month's election was the beginning, the first tremor of the earthquake that is to come.

When wealth is concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people, sooner or later the marginalised become a minority and in a democracy where everybody has one vote, they will vote for redistribution. And we will be completely in their hands when they decide how much is 'fair'.

Is this another post about Tyson?

Brom said:

One MP who probably won't be heading for great things anytime soon. Wonder if the people of High Peak have any regrets.

"A newly-elected Labour MP has distanced herself from a Twitter account apparently in her name in which the home secretary was compared to Hitler.
High Peak MP Ruth George said the tweets from the now deleted account were posted without her knowledge.
One of the tweets from October said: "I enjoyed Theresa May's LABOUR party speech at #CPC16 today. So much better than Mein Fuhrer Amber Rudd yesterday."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-40338402

High Peak is the sort of seat the Conservatives absolutely shouldn't have lost. The swing to Labour there was enormous; they've bounced back to 1997 style voteshares.

I don't know what happened.

TGOHF said:

Taxes on buy to letting haven't changed behaviour yet -which suggests that more could be derived from increasing taxes.

If it means less landlords and more properties go on the market - even if prices drop - then that would be a good thing.

The full tax affects have yet to be felt, as they are being phased in. Serious investors are just avoiding by creating limited companies for property. That's a loophole which needs to be fixed imho.

There's more here [paywall]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/mortgages/property-slump-tax-still-plan-retire-50-buy-to-lets/

logical_song said:

Verulamius said:

Lib dem targets for the next general election:

http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/liberal-democrat

I like target 150

Newton Abbot, which the Lib Dems only lost narrowly in 2010, is now almost as safe a seat as Witney. The Lib Dems have a heck of a long way to go.

Brom said:

One MP who probably won't be heading for great things anytime soon. Wonder if the people of High Peak have any regrets.

"A newly-elected Labour MP has distanced herself from a Twitter account apparently in her name in which the home secretary was compared to Hitler.
High Peak MP Ruth George said the tweets from the now deleted account were posted without her knowledge.
One of the tweets from October said: "I enjoyed Theresa May's LABOUR party speech at #CPC16 today. So much better than Mein Fuhrer Amber Rudd yesterday."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-40338402

High Peak looks an oddment to me, should be Tory next time round I think...

kyf_100 said:

MarkHopkins said:

High immigration and not building enough houses, together with a price bubble are the problems stemming from the last Labour gov. It's an on-going problem, with no easy answers.

I know why young people are angry with their situation, but asking Corbyn to solve this would be like a hospital being overrun with flu victims and asking for assistance from the Grim Reaper.

I don't disagree, but that's not the lens that today's young see things through.

The housing market as it stands is a recruiting sergeant for socialism, because it fits so perfectly the centuries old Marxist trope of all the wealth being concentrated in the hands of a capitalist class who do nothing but exploit the labour of the working poor.

Mr Bright Young Grad from a nice middle class family, aged 27, wonders why, even with a half decent job 50% of his pay packet is going to a landlord from whom he rents sub-standard accommodation, which he is afraid to complain about for fear of being turfed out.

Even living within his means and putting £100 or £200 aside every month, it would take him at least a decade to save for a deposit. And how much have house prices risen in the last decade? To him, ownership is an impossible dream.

Yet Mr Nasty Landlord, by virtue of having bought two or three properties ten years ago, is now sitting on a fat income he can use at the bank for leverage to buy more properties and grow his empire. To Mr Bright Young Grad he is the definition of a parasite, he contributes nothing to the economy, he makes nothing, he builds nothing.

Having had many conversations with Corbynistas my own age or younger (I'm in my mid thirties), this is the lens through which they see the housing market and that acts as a gateway drug to a socialist analysis of the wider economy and society.

A society of homeowners creates a society of capitalists, a society of renters creates a society of socialists.

This month's election was the beginning, the first tremor of the earthquake that is to come.

When wealth is concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people, sooner or later the marginalised become a minority and in a democracy where everybody has one vote, they will vote for redistribution. And we will be completely in their hands when they decide how much is 'fair'.

Yes, that's a scary but fair analysis.

I wonder if some form of private-sector right-to-buy could be crafted with Government help, but I'm not sure how.

I want to let out my property at the moment, for now, because I can't sell it. I'd be happy if a future tenant wanted to buy it in 2-4 years time, with a government equity loan/discount stepping in to knock 10-20% off its market price, so long as I got most of that money.

Pulpstar said:

Brom said:

One MP who probably won't be heading for great things anytime soon. Wonder if the people of High Peak have any regrets.

"A newly-elected Labour MP has distanced herself from a Twitter account apparently in her name in which the home secretary was compared to Hitler.
High Peak MP Ruth George said the tweets from the now deleted account were posted without her knowledge.
One of the tweets from October said: "I enjoyed Theresa May's LABOUR party speech at #CPC16 today. So much better than Mein Fuhrer Amber Rudd yesterday."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-40338402

High Peak looks an oddment to me, should be Tory next time round I think...

Dunno, High Peak wasn't that out of line with the pro-Labour swings in Colne Valley and Calder Valley (all 3 seats are sort of Northern commuter belt territory, fairly affluent middle-aged people who work in the big cities but want to live somewhere quieter).

Charles said:

mwadams said:

Charles said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Nemtynakht said:

Casino_Royale said:

OblitusSumMe said:

tlg86 said:

These figures should scare the shit out of the Tories:

Tenure (change in brackets):

Social renters - Conservatives 26% (+8 pp), Labour 57% (+8 pp)
Private renters - Conservatives 31% (+3 pp), Labour 54% (+15 pp)

Edit: Though I suspect London accounts for a lot of the swing in the private renters vote.

I'm renting privately and its shit.

Apart from anything else I'm scared to complain too much because I don't have security of tenure. I know that they can just give notice and we'll have to find somewhere else to rent. And another deposit. And moving costs.

What are you after? An assured "medium" term tenancy policy, that might, say, give you security of tenure for up to 3 years, with a good defined reason required for a landlord to evict you, and requiring to give you at least 3-6 months notice, with better protection for deposits?

I wouldn't mind signing up to that, as a landlord. But I'd probably want better references and guarantees, and a higher rent.

That sounds like a great idea to me. I think there should be a range of medium term lengths linked to personal circumstances. That is the type of policy the Tories need to come up with to show that the market can work for social good, they could encourage take up with a period of assistance for landlords I.e. A guarantee, a bit like help to buy but for private renters.

I'd still like to see rent payment history taken into account for mortgage lending. If you've consistently paid £1600 a month for two years and never missed a payment, why isn't that taken as evidence that you could afford a mortgage at maybe not £1600 but certainly £1200?

Because the risk between giving someone temporary use of your physical property and lending them a six figure sum are quite different

How is/was the risk in buy-to-let calculated?

Charging a premium (usually around 1% or so) on the mortgage rate.

But the key difference is it's easy to abscond with money / fritter it away and declare yourself bankrupt. It's pretty hard to destroy a house.

But isn't it secured against the bricks and mortar? Who cares if you abscond if the bricks and mortar are still there, aside from the costs of reselling - shouldn't be beyond the wit of actuaries to calculate the risk and provide a similar premium in this rent-as-evidence scenario?

kyf_100 said:

MarkHopkins said:

High immigration and not building enough houses, together with a price bubble are the problems stemming from the last Labour gov. It's an on-going problem, with no easy answers.

I know why young people are angry with their situation, but asking Corbyn to solve this would be like a hospital being overrun with flu victims and asking for assistance from the Grim Reaper.

I don't disagree, but that's not the lens that today's young see things through.

The housing market as it stands is a recruiting sergeant for socialism, because it fits so perfectly the centuries old Marxist trope of all the wealth being concentrated in the hands of a capitalist class who do nothing but exploit the labour of the working poor.

Mr Bright Young Grad from a nice middle class family, aged 27, wonders why, even with a half decent job 50% of his pay packet is going to a landlord from whom he rents sub-standard accommodation, which he is afraid to complain about for fear of being turfed out.

Even living within his means and putting £100 or £200 aside every month, it would take him at least a decade to save for a deposit. And how much have house prices risen in the last decade? To him, ownership is an impossible dream.

Yet Mr Nasty Landlord, by virtue of having bought two or three properties ten years ago, is now sitting on a fat income he can use at the bank for leverage to buy more properties and grow his empire. To Mr Bright Young Grad he is the definition of a parasite, he contributes nothing to the economy, he makes nothing, he builds nothing.

Having had many conversations with Corbynistas my own age or younger (I'm in my mid thirties), this is the lens through which they see the housing market and that acts as a gateway drug to a socialist analysis of the wider economy and society.

A society of homeowners creates a society of capitalists, a society of renters creates a society of socialists.

This month's election was the beginning, the first tremor of the earthquake that is to come.

When wealth is concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people, sooner or later the marginalised become a minority and in a democracy where everybody has one vote, they will vote for redistribution. And we will be completely in their hands when they decide how much is 'fair'.

Thanks for your posts kyf , they've given me a perspective I didn't have before. I bought my first house in 1981 so have no real memory of the long term rental sector

Danny565 said:

Pulpstar said:

Brom said:

One MP who probably won't be heading for great things anytime soon. Wonder if the people of High Peak have any regrets.

"A newly-elected Labour MP has distanced herself from a Twitter account apparently in her name in which the home secretary was compared to Hitler.
High Peak MP Ruth George said the tweets from the now deleted account were posted without her knowledge.
One of the tweets from October said: "I enjoyed Theresa May's LABOUR party speech at #CPC16 today. So much better than Mein Fuhrer Amber Rudd yesterday."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-40338402

High Peak looks an oddment to me, should be Tory next time round I think...

Dunno, High Peak wasn't that out of line with the pro-Labour swings in Colne Valley and Calder Valley (all 3 seats are sort of Northern commuter belt territory, fairly affluent middle-aged people who work in the big cities but want to live somewhere quieter).

The utterly middle class nature of the Lab gains is something to pinch oneself over !

The other standout for me is that CON actually did twice as well with men 18-24 then women. 36% of all 18-24 would be a result they would be ecstatic with. Wonder what is was about Corbyn that got the young ladies' juices flowing much more than their male counterparts?

SouthamObserver said:

Nope - it's two party politics in a first past the post system.

But that doesn't explain why it was so much more two-party politics in 2017 than in 2015 (other than the UKIP effect, of course). Most of us, including me, and I think you, expected the exact opposite at the start of the campaign; given how toxic Corbyn should be by any objective standard, you would think people would have been pushed to other parties, notably the Greens and LibDems.

I guess voters must have just thought Tim Farron was even worse.

MarkSenior said:

Jason said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

rkrkrk said:

IanB2 said:

MikeSmithson said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pong said:

fpt;

Pong said:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-mays-plans-to-axe-free-school-meals-ditched-from-queens-speech-a3568931.html

"Areas considered safe for the Prime Minister to legislate on tomorrow are security and defence. Backbenchers have been pushing hard for an enhanced Investigatory Powers Bill in the wake of the recent terror attacks."

It must be Jeremy Corbyn's birthday or something.

A pile of new tools for state repression that he can use against the enemies of the left once he becomes PM.

The irony is that the policies she is now unable to do due to the arithmetic would probably have led to the ability to carry them out if she'd never pledged them in the first place.

That's why the first Corbyn honours list should include a knighthood to Nick Timothy

Although seeing our most senior politicians and some of their senior staff trying to blame two SpAds for everything is surely a pitiful sight? However poor their behaviour and misjudgement, ultimately they have no authority without the backing of their politicians. If, as it seems, May gave the two of them carte blanche to behave how they like and to impose their own views on our most senior ministers, it reflects extremely badly on her and pretty badly on them.

+1.
Seems amazing to me that Tory MPs are buying the idea that it was all down to the SpADs.

The SpADs were obnoxious, as well as incompetent, so they make easy targets.

Of course, Theresa May deserves lots of criticism for keeping them in place and following their advice.

She lost because she was found out. The voters deemed her arrogant, discovered her leadership skills wanting, and worked out she wanted to play them for her political career.

To be honest, I can't say I blame them.

It still doesn't explain how 40% of the voters were seduced by the far left. On paper, Corbyn should be the most toxic leader of a party at a general election in British democratic history.

Let me put it this way - if a far left extremist can do that, then a far right one can too.

As I kept saying when you were banging away slating Corbyn in every other post during the election campaign , most voters did not believe you .

Well you've become quite the Corbynista, haven't you?

kyf_100 said:

I don't disagree, but that's not the lens that today's young see things through.

The housing market as it stands is a recruiting sergeant for socialism, because it fits so perfectly the centuries old Marxist trope of all the wealth being concentrated in the hands of a capitalist class who do nothing but exploit the labour of the working poor.

Mr Bright Young Grad from a nice middle class family, aged 27, wonders why, even with a half decent job 50% of his pay packet is going to a landlord from whom he rents sub-standard accommodation, which he is afraid to complain about for fear of being turfed out.

Even living within his means and putting £100 or £200 aside every month, it would take him at least a decade to save for a deposit. And how much have house prices risen in the last decade? To him, ownership is an impossible dream.

Yet Mr Nasty Landlord, by virtue of having bought two or three properties ten years ago, is now sitting on a fat income he can use at the bank for leverage to buy more properties and grow his empire. To Mr Bright Young Grad he is the definition of a parasite, he contributes nothing to the economy, he makes nothing, he builds nothing.

Having had many conversations with Corbynistas my own age or younger (I'm in my mid thirties), this is the lens through which they see the housing market and that acts as a gateway drug to a socialist analysis of the wider economy and society.

A society of homeowners creates a society of capitalists, a society of renters creates a society of socialists.

This month's election was the beginning, the first tremor of the earthquake that is to come.

When wealth is concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people, sooner or later the marginalised become a minority and in a democracy where everybody has one vote, they will vote for redistribution. And we will be completely in their hands when they decide how much is 'fair'.

Yep that's basically me.

I don't see landlords as nasty - my personal experiences have been pretty positive actually.
I'm also not sure how far this is down to a london/south thing or whether it holds across the country.

ThreeQuidder said:

dyedwoolie said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Nemtynakht said:

Casino_Royale said:

OblitusSumMe said:

tlg86 said:

These figures should scare the shit out of the Tories:

Tenure (change in brackets):

Social renters - Conservatives 26% (+8 pp), Labour 57% (+8 pp)
Private renters - Conservatives 31% (+3 pp), Labour 54% (+15 pp)

Edit: Though I suspect London accounts for a lot of the swing in the private renters vote.

I'm renting privately and its shit.

Apart from anything else I'm scared to complain too much because I don't have security of tenure. I know that they can just give notice and we'll have to find somewhere else to rent. And another deposit. And moving costs.

What are you after? An assured "medium" term tenancy policy, that might, say, give you security of tenure for up to 3 years, with a good defined reason required for a landlord to evict you, and requiring to give you at least 3-6 months notice, with better protection for deposits?

I wouldn't mind signing up to that, as a landlord. But I'd probably want better references and guarantees, and a higher rent.

That sounds like a great idea to me. I think there should be a range of medium term lengths linked to personal circumstances. That is the type of policy the Tories need to come up with to show that the market can work for social good, they could encourage take up with a period of assistance for landlords I.e. A guarantee, a bit like help to buy but for private renters.

I'd still like to see rent payment history taken into account for mortgage lending. If you've consistently paid £1600 a month for two years and never missed a payment, why isn't that taken as evidence that you could afford a mortgage at maybe not £1600 but certainly £1200?

It is to an extent. Lenders all use credit searches which show the history of meeting committments. Basing it on rent alone is not in itself useful - if I meet my rent for 3 years but in that time increase my borrowing by 25,000 am I a good risk?

Credit searches don't show rent, though, do they?

No, but it's more useful to get an overall flavour of ability to meet committments and not ramp up borrowing and tie in with a landlords referral letter confirming rent paid for a two year period etc.

GIN1138 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

GIN1138 said:

One thing though HMG has got to get a grip. We need agreement within the government about what our Brexit aims are and where we are going.

At the moment it does appear to be a bit of a shambles.

I'm not sure it is a shambles in this respect (it is in other ways, of course). The key figures are Hammond and DD, and they seem to be saying very similar things. DD in particular seems to be quite pragmatic, in contrast to some of the other prominent Brexiteers.

Are we leaving the single market and customs union? Are we leaving the single market and customs union but with transitional arrangements? Or are we staying in one or both?

I think it's time we was told exactly what our central aims are for Brexit because it seems various cabinet ministers have a different view.

We need one agreed position with one agreed outcome and then to just get the hell on with it.

There's considerable danger with that approach though. If the Tory euro-sceptic Right sniffs betrayal they'll be up in arms, vowing to wreak havoc at every turn. Better for the government to keep things under wraps, then announce a well-spun version when the deal's a fait accompli. This is what would have been behind Theresa's 'no running commentary' edict - the grisly memory of Gentleman John at the hands of the Maastricht rebels.

Jason said:

MarkSenior said:

Jason said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

rkrkrk said:

IanB2 said:

MikeSmithson said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pong said:

fpt;

Pong said:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-mays-plans-to-axe-free-school-meals-ditched-from-queens-speech-a3568931.html

"Areas considered safe for the Prime Minister to legislate on tomorrow are security and defence. Backbenchers have been pushing hard for an enhanced Investigatory Powers Bill in the wake of the recent terror attacks."

It must be Jeremy Corbyn's birthday or something.

A pile of new tools for state repression that he can use against the enemies of the left once he becomes PM.

The irony is that the policies she is now unable to do due to the arithmetic would probably have led to the ability to carry them out if she'd never pledged them in the first place.

That's why the first Corbyn honours list should include a knighthood to Nick Timothy

.

+1.
Seems amazing to me that Tory MPs are buying the idea that it was all down to the SpADs.

The SpADs were obnoxious, as well as incompetent, so they make easy targets.

Of course, Theresa May deserves lots of criticism for keeping them in place and following their advice.

She lost because she was found out. The voters deemed her arrogant, discovered her leadership skills wanting, and worked out she wanted to play them for her political career.

To be honest, I can't say I blame them.

It still doesn't explain how 40% of the voters were seduced by the far left. On paper, Corbyn should be the most toxic leader of a party at a general election in British democratic history.

Let me put it this way - if a far left extremist can do that, then a far right one can too.

As I kept saying when you were banging away slating Corbyn in every other post during the election campaign , most voters did not believe you .

Well you've become quite the Corbynista, haven't you?

Not at all , I repeatedly pointed out to you that a negative campaign against Corbyn would backfire , you had to give positive reasons to vote Conservative and these were few if not actually none .

And David Herdson thought he had it tough in West Yorkshire...

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/06/jon_ossoff_s_campaign_to_take_georgia_s_6th_district_for_democrats_comes.html

“Those were the angriest people,” said Zeigler. “When you are targeting their child, or heaven forbid their child might not think the same way as them, it becomes ugly.” Several times, she says, Republican parents called the police on Ossoff volunteers just for ringing their doorbells...

Pulpstar said:

Danny565 said:

Pulpstar said:

Brom said:

One MP who probably won't be heading for great things anytime soon. Wonder if the people of High Peak have any regrets.

"A newly-elected Labour MP has distanced herself from a Twitter account apparently in her name in which the home secretary was compared to Hitler.
High Peak MP Ruth George said the tweets from the now deleted account were posted without her knowledge.
One of the tweets from October said: "I enjoyed Theresa May's LABOUR party speech at #CPC16 today. So much better than Mein Fuhrer Amber Rudd yesterday."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-40338402

High Peak looks an oddment to me, should be Tory next time round I think...

Dunno, High Peak wasn't that out of line with the pro-Labour swings in Colne Valley and Calder Valley (all 3 seats are sort of Northern commuter belt territory, fairly affluent middle-aged people who work in the big cities but want to live somewhere quieter).

The utterly middle class nature of the Lab gains is something to pinch oneself over !

Telling, though. If Corbyn crashes middle-class wealth (and I think he will) he'll be out with his tail between his legs before you can say Bolshevik.

Pong said:

kyf_100 said:

I don't disagree, but that's not the lens that today's young see things through.

The housing market as it stands is a recruiting sergeant for socialism, because it fits so perfectly the centuries old Marxist trope of all the wealth being concentrated in the hands of a capitalist class who do nothing but exploit the labour of the working poor.

Mr Bright Young Grad from a nice middle class family, aged 27, wonders why, even with a half decent job 50% of his pay packet is going to a landlord from whom he rents sub-standard accommodation, which he is afraid to complain about for fear of being turfed out.

Even living within his means and putting £100 or £200 aside every month, it would take him at least a decade to save for a deposit. And how much have house prices risen in the last decade? To him, ownership is an impossible dream.

Yet Mr Nasty Landlord, by virtue of having bought two or three properties ten years ago, is now sitting on a fat income he can use at the bank for leverage to buy more properties and grow his empire. To Mr Bright Young Grad he is the definition of a parasite, he contributes nothing to the economy, he makes nothing, he builds nothing.

Having had many conversations with Corbynistas my own age or younger (I'm in my mid thirties), this is the lens through which they see the housing market and that acts as a gateway drug to a socialist analysis of the wider economy and society.

A society of homeowners creates a society of capitalists, a society of renters creates a society of socialists.

This month's election was the beginning, the first tremor of the earthquake that is to come.

When wealth is concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people, sooner or later the marginalised become a minority and in a democracy where everybody has one vote, they will vote for redistribution. And we will be completely in their hands when they decide how much is 'fair'.

Yes.

The using-property-to-fund-social-care *u-turn* is hugely toxic for the conservative brand going forward.

I don't know how the tories get themselves out of this mess after skewing the economy so heavily in favour of their wealthy property owning client vote at the expense of non-property owners without wealthy parents.

Electorally, I don't think they can.

May tried and failed, despite Corbyn. Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill got shot for tory treason.

As a first instance, they have to row back on the medical lottery element.

People don't like inheritance tax, of course they don't, but faced with a choice between (say) a 10% social care levy on all estates over £100k, or a 50% social care levy on the 1 in 5 estates unlucky enough to have a legator with long-term dementia or similar, how many people really believe the burden should fall solely on those who have already been through that?

Pulpstar said:

Danny565 said:

Pulpstar said:

Brom said:

One MP who probably won't be heading for great things anytime soon. Wonder if the people of High Peak have any regrets.

"A newly-elected Labour MP has distanced herself from a Twitter account apparently in her name in which the home secretary was compared to Hitler.
High Peak MP Ruth George said the tweets from the now deleted account were posted without her knowledge.
One of the tweets from October said: "I enjoyed Theresa May's LABOUR party speech at #CPC16 today. So much better than Mein Fuhrer Amber Rudd yesterday."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-40338402

High Peak looks an oddment to me, should be Tory next time round I think...

Dunno, High Peak wasn't that out of line with the pro-Labour swings in Colne Valley and Calder Valley (all 3 seats are sort of Northern commuter belt territory, fairly affluent middle-aged people who work in the big cities but want to live somewhere quieter).

The utterly middle class nature of the Lab gains is something to pinch oneself over !

There's plenty of votes to be bought with a £11b bung.

Corbynism is just the left-wing form of Trump and UKIP. It'll bep opular, but turning rhetoric into action is another thing.

Richard_Nabavi said:

GIN1138 said:

Are we leaving the single market and customs union? Are we leaving the single market and customs union but with transitional arrangements? Or are we staying in one or both?

I think it's time we was told exactly what our central aims are for Brexit because it seems various cabinet ministers have a different view.

We need one agreed position with one agreed outcome and then to just get the hell on with it.

We have one agreed position. The answers are: Yes, we are leaving the single market and customs union, and Yes, we hope to negotiate transitional arrangements. I don't think any cabinet minister has suggested anything else, although for some reason Theresa May seems to have an irrational dislike of the phrase 'transitional arrangement' and prefers the euphemism 'implementation phase.'

However, you mustn't make the mistake of assuming that we in the UK can 'agree an outcome'. It's a negotiation, there's no guarantees of getting what we want.

We will agree a deal on Northern Ireland. We will agree a citizens rights deal with joint UK Supreme Court and ECJ supervision. We will agree to pay £40-£50 bn over 3-4 years transition period. We will agree to pay £2-£3bn per year in payments to the EU for ongoing membership of Horizon, Erasmus and other programmes.

Where it gets interesting is in the permanent trade deal on goods, people and services.

oldpolitics said:

As a first instance, they have to row back on the medical lottery element.

People don't like inheritance tax, of course they don't, but faced with a choice between (say) a 10% social care levy on all estates over £100k, or a 50% social care levy on the 1 in 5 estates unlucky enough to have a legator with long-term dementia or similar, how many people really believe the burden should fall solely on those who have already been through that?

Ok but then aren't you basically where Labour policy was before they got hit by 'death tax' claims?

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

Danny565 said:

Pulpstar said:

Brom said:

One MP who probably won't be heading for great things anytime soon. Wonder if the people of High Peak have any regrets.

"A newly-elected Labour MP has distanced herself from a Twitter account apparently in her name in which the home secretary was compared to Hitler.
High Peak MP Ruth George said the tweets from the now deleted account were posted without her knowledge.
One of the tweets from October said: "I enjoyed Theresa May's LABOUR party speech at #CPC16 today. So much better than Mein Fuhrer Amber Rudd yesterday."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-40338402

High Peak looks an oddment to me, should be Tory next time round I think...

Dunno, High Peak wasn't that out of line with the pro-Labour swings in Colne Valley and Calder Valley (all 3 seats are sort of Northern commuter belt territory, fairly affluent middle-aged people who work in the big cities but want to live somewhere quieter).

The utterly middle class nature of the Lab gains is something to pinch oneself over !

Telling, though. If Corbyn crashes middle-class wealth (and I think he will) he'll be out with his tail between his legs before you can say Bolshevik.

He'll have 5 years. What's Middle Class Britain going to do to remove him? Moaning in the check out queue at Waitrose won't remove him from office.

SouthamObserver said:

He was not exactly spell-binding. I think it's all pretty simple: a lot of voters did not want the Tories to win, did not expect Labour to win and found the relentless attacks on Corbyn a turn-off. Now that Labour can win, things might change - depending on who the Tories choose to replace May and how Brexit goes.

Yes, you might be right. It might have been the Italian Job election: "You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off the majority, not destroy it altogether'"

rkrkrk said:

oldpolitics said:

As a first instance, they have to row back on the medical lottery element.

People don't like inheritance tax, of course they don't, but faced with a choice between (say) a 10% social care levy on all estates over £100k, or a 50% social care levy on the 1 in 5 estates unlucky enough to have a legator with long-term dementia or similar, how many people really believe the burden should fall solely on those who have already been through that?

Ok but then aren't you basically where Labour policy was before they got hit by 'death tax' claims?

Yep. Lansley not only made a mess of the NHS reorganization but was iirc responsible for doing the dirty on an emerging cross-party agreement on social care.

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

volcanopete said:

Can anyone confirm Hezza's assertion that Tory voters are dying out at the rate of 70% of 2% a year ie by 1.4% at the same time as new 18 year olds are registering boosting Labour's support by 1.4%,a total of the age demographic 2.8 % per year?
This could mean the Tories are favoured by an early election because of the high mortality rates of their supporters and Labour would be better served in securing an overall majority in 3 years time when more Tory voters will have died off.
Mortality rates could be another key factor in predicting election outcomes.

It overlooks the fact that there are voters who have switched over to the Tories, to replace those who are dying off.

In 1997, today's 45-54 year old age cohort were 25-34 years old. Back then, they voted 48% to 28% for Labour. This time, they voted 43% to 40% for the Conservatives.

Plato being one of them, for example.

Plato voted for Paddy Ashdown.

My understanding is that she was a fan of Blair in his first term.

ThreeQuidder said:

Charles said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Nemtynakht said:

Casino_Royale said:

OblitusSumMe said:

tlg86 said:

These figures should scare the shit out of the Tories:

Tenure (change in brackets):

Social renters - Conservatives 26% (+8 pp), Labour 57% (+8 pp)
Private renters - Conservatives 31% (+3 pp), Labour 54% (+15 pp)

Edit: Though I suspect London accounts for a lot of the swing in the private renters vote.

I'm renting privately and its shit.

Apart from anything else I'm scared to complain too much because I don't have security of tenure. I know that they can just give notice and we'll have to find somewhere else to rent. And another deposit. And moving costs.

What are you after? An assured "medium" term tenancy policy, that might, say, give you security of tenure for up to 3 years, with a good defined reason required for a landlord to evict you, and requiring to give you at least 3-6 months notice, with better protection for deposits?

I wouldn't mind signing up to that, as a landlord. But I'd probably want better references and guarantees, and a higher rent.

That sounds like a great idea to me. I think there should be a range of medium term lengths linked to personal circumstances. That is the type of policy the Tories need to come up with to show that the market can work for social good, they could encourage take up with a period of assistance for landlords I.e. A guarantee, a bit like help to buy but for private renters.

I'd still like to see rent payment history taken into account for mortgage lending. If you've consistently paid £1600 a month for two years and never missed a payment, why isn't that taken as evidence that you could afford a mortgage at maybe not £1600 but certainly £1200?

Because the risk between giving someone temporary use of your physical property and lending them a six figure sum are quite different

I guarantee you that people who have to rent don't see the difference. Housing costs are housing costs, thne only question is whose mortgage you're paying off.

I agree with you.

But I also have decent insight into how banks think about things.

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

volcanopete said:

Can anyone confirm Hezza's assertion that Tory voters are dying out at the rate of 70% of 2% a year ie by 1.4% at the same time as new 18 year olds are registering boosting Labour's support by 1.4%,a total of the age demographic 2.8 % per year?
This could mean the Tories are favoured by an early election because of the high mortality rates of their supporters and Labour would be better served in securing an overall majority in 3 years time when more Tory voters will have died off.
Mortality rates could be another key factor in predicting election outcomes.

It overlooks the fact that there are voters who have switched over to the Tories, to replace those who are dying off.

In 1997, today's 45-54 year old age cohort were 25-34 years old. Back then, they voted 48% to 28% for Labour. This time, they voted 43% to 40% for the Conservatives.

Plato being one of them, for example.

Even the 35-44 age cohort are 5% more Conservative than they were in 1997, although the Conservatives should still have done much better with them (and were probably leading with them at the start of the campaign).

Housing and the housing market is going to play a very big role over the next 5 years. It is getting to a crisis in so many different ways, all of which play into public policy.

We have a chronic overall shortage of housing caused by decades of NIMBYism and a planning system nowhere near fit for purpose. Can the changes made and to be made free the building of sufficient new houses? I doubt it which means we need to look at more public housing on that land to fill the gap.

We also have a serious dislocation of housing. In many areas there is plenty cheap housing but no jobs. In areas where there are jobs the cost of housing is a serious drag on growth.

We have an appalling backlog of defective housing in the public sector of which Grenfell Tower is just a horrible example. The cost of making this housing fit and safe to live in is truly frightening.

We have a horribly distorted housing market which is not just a bubble built on BTL and excessively generous Housing Benefit but also the backrock of security for hundreds of thousands of small businesses. Osborne sought to deflate this slowly by restrictions on HB, making BTL less commercially attractive through taxation, funding deposits and other measures but none of these have had the breakthrough that is required. What else can the government do?

The reduced profitability and incredible increase in regulation of the privately let market is going to cause the next phase of the problem when private tenancies are simply not maintained adequately. Hopefully some of these will come on the market for sale to first time buyers but many won't.

We also have a problem of constrained demand. Domestic borrowing remains at dangerously high levels and savings are non existent for most of the younger market. The regulations about deposits etc which were put in to stop excesses such as Northern Rock's 110% mortgages may be doing a lot more harm than good.

Sorting this all out would be a major task for any government, let alone one that has Brexit to deal with and no majority. But home ownership is a key aspiration and a winning Tory party is the party of aspiration. They need to remember that and get back on track.

Just looking at the battleground for 2022, astonishing that now realistically UKIP and the Greens have zero realistic targets to focus on. Maybe just about IOW and Thurrock respectively. The LDs have maybe 10 realistic targets and the SNP maybe a dozen but could lose 18 on less than 3% swing. Really is back to 2 party politics.

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

GIN1138 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

However, you mustn't make the mistake of assuming that we in the UK can 'agree an outcome'. It's a negotiation, there's no guarantees of getting what we want.

That's true. I still think it'll be a crash out personally because I think the EU want to make sure nobody else dares to follow us out the door.

When is Theresa May next due in the European Parliament? A ritual haranguing from Guy Verhofstadt must be on the agenda.

VerTWATstadt.

He's the biggest dickhead in the European Parliament, by some way, and that's some achievement.

Farage has resigned?

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jonathan said:

The risk of May's Tories with a blank cheque on Brexit was greater than the risk of Corbyn.

The irony is that failure to give May a blank cheque (or a 'mandate' as we used to call it) to negotiate has dramatically increased the risk of a chaotic Brexit. It's easily the most dangerous election result of my lifetime.

And the Tories are entirely responsible for it. They chose to call this election for party reasons.

BTW It only becomes a mandate when you explain what the mandate is for. She was after a blank cheque.

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

volcanopete said:

Can anyone confirm Hezza's assertion that Tory voters are dying out at the rate of 70% of 2% a year ie by 1.4% at the same time as new 18 year olds are registering boosting Labour's support by 1.4%,a total of the age demographic 2.8 % per year?
This could mean the Tories are favoured by an early election because of the high mortality rates of their supporters and Labour would be better served in securing an overall majority in 3 years time when more Tory voters will have died off.
Mortality rates could be another key factor in predicting election outcomes.

It overlooks the fact that there are voters who have switched over to the Tories, to replace those who are dying off.

In 1997, today's 45-54 year old age cohort were 25-34 years old. Back then, they voted 48% to 28% for Labour. This time, they voted 43% to 40% for the Conservatives.

Plato being one of them, for example.

Plato voted for Paddy Ashdown.

My understanding is that she was a fan of Blair in his first term.

She said she voted for Ashdown in 97. She may have voted Labour once after that. The idea that Plato was ever representative of a Labour voter was a fiction that existed in her mind alone.

Thanks for ruining my example, you big cheese.

The working class are not a monolith!!