What Number Cruncher Politics had to say before the results:
What would “bad” mean? So far there have been two YouGov/QMUL London polls, both putting Labour about 25 points ahead on council voting intention. That would equate to a swing to Labour of about 6 per cent from 2014. The national polls have shifted slightly since these polls were done, so that might imply that the swing has fallen to 4-5 per cent.
That would be smaller than the London swing between the 2015 and 2017 general elections, which was 6.3 per cent. But crucially (as far as the narrative is concerned) it would mean – if the swing were even across the capital – that Labour would fall short in all but one of its target boroughs
So a minor tick down for Labour. 22% lead compared to the 13% lead they had in 2014.
I'll say it again: Why are Labour's odds slipping in Barnet? If they hit 20%+ lead across the capital they are very likely indeed to take the two seats they need there.
What Number Cruncher Politics had to say before the results:
What would “bad” mean? So far there have been two YouGov/QMUL London polls, both putting Labour about 25 points ahead on council voting intention. That would equate to a swing to Labour of about 6 per cent from 2014. The national polls have shifted slightly since these polls were done, so that might imply that the swing has fallen to 4-5 per cent.
That would be smaller than the London swing between the 2015 and 2017 general elections, which was 6.3 per cent. But crucially (as far as the narrative is concerned) it would mean – if the swing were even across the capital – that Labour would fall short in all but one of its target boroughs
I make the QMUL poll a 5% a swing whereas February was a 7% swing.
I'm fairly sure that Owen Jones doesn't really know much about polling. As a rule of thumb opinions about "significant" polls are only worth a toss if they come from psephologists or political correspondents, the typical newspaper scribbler doesn't know enough to make such judgements.
This micro-analysis is all very well, but outside the scope of the potential accuracy of modern day polling in my opinion. Either Westminter and Wandsworth always were going to go red, or always were going to stay blue. I doubt there has been such a swing in inner London since February, more the polls tracking the VI aren't perfect judges of the actual situation on the ground. The inner London swing will probably be somewhere between 6.5 and 13% but could still be more or less.
Mr. Pulpstar, well, yes. It's a benefit, just not a state benefit.
Mr. rkrkrk, right. So if a man is hiring someone to do work X, he can pick between a self-employed person charging more, or an employed person charging less, for the same work. That doesn't harm the self-employed at all, does it?
As for the IFS, they're overrated. They criticised an early Osborne budget for not being progressive because it would reduce spending on benefits. The reduction was due to happen because of falling unemployment, decreasing the sum spent on unemployment benefit.
I agree that we shouldn't regard the IFS as gospel - in particular they aren't particularly specialised in macroeconomics.
But on this they are right. Your example doesn't make sense.
When I hire a company - I am paying for all of those benefits like holiday and sick leave. When I hire a self-employed person I pay a rate which effectively includes any holiday or sick leave the self-employed person takes. But at the moment - the self-employed person will appear artifically cheaper because the employer gets stung with more national insurance.
This change would have hurt the self-employed certainly. But only by reducing the significant tax advantage that they currently receive.
I still haven’t put a bob or four on Esther McVey. She should be up there...stands an excellent chance with the MPs and nothing attracts the members like a vicious attack from John McDonnell.
I think Esther could be in with a chance as well.
"On Monday, Esther McVey, the work and pensions secretary, caused controversy by calling the government’s “rape clause” for child tax credits “an opportunity” for rape victims to gain emotional support. She suggested that demanding rape victims disclose details of their attack to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) would offer “double support” – both emotional and financial."
That was a pretty f****** stupid thing to say
It was stupid to fall into the trap of having such a clause in the first place, it was only put their because of opposition demands. No other benefit is more generous or increases eligibility if the child is from a rape.
Comments
What would “bad” mean? So far there have been two YouGov/QMUL London polls, both putting Labour about 25 points ahead on council voting intention. That would equate to a swing to Labour of about 6 per cent from 2014. The national polls have shifted slightly since these polls were done, so that might imply that the swing has fallen to 4-5 per cent.
That would be smaller than the London swing between the 2015 and 2017 general elections, which was 6.3 per cent. But crucially (as far as the narrative is concerned) it would mean – if the swing were even across the capital – that Labour would fall short in all but one of its target boroughs
I'll say it again: Why are Labour's odds slipping in Barnet? If they hit 20%+ lead across the capital they are very likely indeed to take the two seats they need there.
51 +13.5
29 +3
Disappointing.
The inner London swing will probably be somewhere between 6.5 and 13% but could still be more or less.
There is a mutual interest in the PM and Home Sec protecting each other.
But on this they are right. Your example doesn't make sense.
When I hire a company - I am paying for all of those benefits like holiday and sick leave.
When I hire a self-employed person I pay a rate which effectively includes any holiday or sick leave the self-employed person takes.
But at the moment - the self-employed person will appear artifically cheaper because the employer gets stung with more national insurance.
This change would have hurt the self-employed certainly. But only by reducing the significant tax advantage that they currently receive.
Brexit, over 1/3 councillors standing down, Grenfell tower anger, Labour recently won the Kensington seat etc.
No idea what will happen really but anything from a very modest labour night in London to massive gains wouldn't surprise me.