politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ready for President Chuck Grassley?

kle4 said:

Time_to_Leave said:

In amongst everything else this was interesting from YouGov. Those who have said the monarchy dies with Her Majesty may need to revise their opinions.

I've never thought he was that bad, albeit with some kooky opinions, and figured having prepared for the role his whole life he'd probably be better at adjusting to the new role (for instance keeping quieter on some subjects) better than many people thought, but I am curious why there would have been such a shift over the last few years.

That said, I do think it will be a challenge to retain the monarchy in several places once he becomes king, through no fault of his - it just feels like it holds on in several places through apathy or there being more important things to worry about, but a once in a 70 or so year change might as well be seized.

I'm currently watching The Crown Season 3 and the republican sentiment in the country and the Cabinet during the mid-late 1960s surprised me. The monarchy isn't invincible but I do think it would take a super majority in opinion polls of around 60% against the institution for one of the major parties to even consider reform/abolition.

Gabs3 said:

BluerBlue said:

kle4 said:

Hmm, I wonder why this pledge made it into the manifesto:

The Conservatives have vowed to ban councils from boycotting products from Israel.

A pledge in their election manifesto, to be launched on Sunday, says: “We will ban public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries. These undermine community cohesion

https://www.thejc.com/conservative-manifesto-pledges-ban-on-council-israel-boycotts-1.493504

Because it's bloody good politics

It is completely undemocratic and anti-free speech. Councils should be able to boycott whoever they want to.

If central government wishes to centralise the power to impose sanctions/boycotts then it is entitled to do so, but I would have thought that in general power is too centralised.

It does make sense when central government is going to be seeking to implement trade policy changes. You wouldn't want a new trade deal with country x undermined by council y imposing a boycott.

nico67 said:

kle4 said:

In all seriousness though, if Boris is freezing income tax, VAT and NI for 5 years, then even with reckless borrowing and not quite as much spending as Labour, how is he paying for things?

Personally a pledge not to raise any of those three things for five years is one of those 'too good to be true, or if true actually a bad idea' kind of arguments, it just sounds implausible to me.

They’re putting it in so Bozo can challenge Corbyn to meet the same pledge .

Well yes, but they will have to suggest some way of raising money otherwise they cannot attack Corbyn for borrowing way to much, not as effectively.

Gabs3 said:

BluerBlue said:

kle4 said:

Hmm, I wonder why this pledge made it into the manifesto:

The Conservatives have vowed to ban councils from boycotting products from Israel.

A pledge in their election manifesto, to be launched on Sunday, says: “We will ban public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries. These undermine community cohesion

https://www.thejc.com/conservative-manifesto-pledges-ban-on-council-israel-boycotts-1.493504

Because it's bloody good politics

It is completely undemocratic and anti-free speech. Councils should be able to boycott whoever they want to.

Councils really should focus on things a bit closer to home - a lot of council motions have to be(or should be) rejected in many councils as they relate to national or international matters of politics which the authority has no role in, but even if there was no relevance to a local authority's role (and this one it will be said there are some aspects that are) I'd be wary of outright banning them from taking such actions, even if I disagree. I'd be open to persuasion, but it feels like it has a risk of being disproportionate.

NoSpaceName said:

Black_Rook said:

another_richard said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1198371760061779968

Can we have a map of the distribution of those involved against marginals?

The 'historic wrong' is apparently them getting the state pension at the same age as mend get it.

The claim is that equalisation was introduced too rapidly, and the affected women were left with insufficient time to prepare. My mother was one of them and she certainly wasn't best pleased. I don't know enough about the situation to advance a definite opinion one way or another as to whether it was brought in too fast.

However, the difference in pension ages was sexist and could not be justified. Equalisation had to come, and some age cohort would have to work longer as a result. All those of us who had hoped to claim the state pension at 65 and are now having to wait one, two or three extra years (and, personally, I doubt if I'll get mine before 70 by the time future Governments have finished) are in the same boat. It's just tough luck.

Equalisation was announced a long, long time in advance. But then the Coalition government sped up the timetable. It's possible that Brown had also cranked up the timetable earlier too (as doing so is worth a lot of money to the Treasury).

I don't think the WASPI's have a leg to stand on when it comes to the equalisation principle, but I think that the way in which the timetable for equalisation was changed was suboptimal, at best. I think that gave people a lot less time to prepare for a change to the change.

I've never understood this argument. What did they need to prepare for. They'd not retired yet so were still working now they just need to continue working.

What preparations are necessary for that?

Boy, people just cannot get over the Camilla hate can they?

And from what I can glance at the tabloids I gather Meghan's wokeness may be an issue of likability, but as a very beautiful woman I'd have expected higher positive ratings!

https://twitter.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1198369592357408768

Philip_Thompson said:

NoSpaceName said:

Black_Rook said:

another_richard said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1198371760061779968

Can we have a map of the distribution of those involved against marginals?

The 'historic wrong' is apparently them getting the state pension at the same age as mend get it.

The claim is that equalisation was introduced too rapidly, and the affected women were left with insufficient time to prepare. My mother was one of them and she certainly wasn't best pleased. I don't know enough about the situation to advance a definite opinion one way or another as to whether it was brought in too fast.

However, the difference in pension ages was sexist and could not be justified. Equalisation had to come, and some age cohort would have to work longer as a result. All those of us who had hoped to claim the state pension at 65 and are now having to wait one, two or three extra years (and, personally, I doubt if I'll get mine before 70 by the time future Governments have finished) are in the same boat. It's just tough luck.

Equalisation was announced a long, long time in advance. But then the Coalition government sped up the timetable. It's possible that Brown had also cranked up the timetable earlier too (as doing so is worth a lot of money to the Treasury).

I don't think the WASPI's have a leg to stand on when it comes to the equalisation principle, but I think that the way in which the timetable for equalisation was changed was suboptimal, at best. I think that gave people a lot less time to prepare for a change to the change.

I've never understood this argument. What did they need to prepare for. They'd not retired yet so were still working now they just need to continue working.

What preparations are necessary for that?

Why work when you can demand money for nothing.

kle4 said:

Boy, people just cannot get over the Camilla hate can they?

And from what I can glance at the tabloids I gather Meghan's wokeness may be an issue of likability, but as a very beautiful woman I'd have expected higher positive ratings!

https://twitter.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1198369592357408768

It's not the wokeness, if it was then the Princes would be affected too. She's the only member with a major partisan divide, +40 with Lab and LDs but -10 with Tories. Regrettably I think what marks her out in some of their eyes is far more superficial.

another_richard said:

Philip_Thompson said:

NoSpaceName said:

Black_Rook said:

another_richard said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1198371760061779968

Can we have a map of the distribution of those involved against marginals?

The 'historic wrong' is apparently them getting the state pension at the same age as mend get it.

The claim is that equalisation was introduced too rapidly, and the affected women were left with insufficient time to prepare. My mother was one of them and she certainly wasn't best pleased. I don't know enough about the situation to advance a definite opinion one way or another as to whether it was brought in too fast.

However, the difference in pension ages was sexist and could not be justified. Equalisation had to come, and some age cohort would have to work longer as a result. All those of us who had hoped to claim the state pension at 65 and are now having to wait one, two or three extra years (and, personally, I doubt if I'll get mine before 70 by the time future Governments have finished) are in the same boat. It's just tough luck.

Equalisation was announced a long, long time in advance. But then the Coalition government sped up the timetable. It's possible that Brown had also cranked up the timetable earlier too (as doing so is worth a lot of money to the Treasury).

I don't think the WASPI's have a leg to stand on when it comes to the equalisation principle, but I think that the way in which the timetable for equalisation was changed was suboptimal, at best. I think that gave people a lot less time to prepare for a change to the change.

I've never understood this argument. What did they need to prepare for. They'd not retired yet so were still working now they just need to continue working.

What preparations are necessary for that?

Why work when you can demand money for nothing.

Equality sucks when you’ve hit the iceberg and there’s a limited number of lifeboats.

Foxy said:

Black_Rook said:

kle4 said:

In all seriousness though, if Boris is freezing income tax, VAT and NI for 5 years, then even with reckless borrowing and not quite as much spending as Labour, how is he paying for things?

Personally a pledge not to raise any of those three things for five years is one of those 'too good to be true, or if true actually a bad idea' kind of arguments, it just sounds implausible to me.

Javid is going to allow himself some extra borrowing for investment. Beyond that, tax rises in some areas not yet mentioned (we already know that one has been floated, the extra stamp duty on foreign property buyers,) and spending cuts in lower priority areas?

Or it could all just be bollocks and none of it adds up.

But the manifesto still hasn't launched, we're only going off advance reports. So we don't know yet.

Any plans do have to acknowledge the deteriorating state of public finances and warning signs of an economic turndown:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50501801

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy-pmi/uk-manufacturing-decline-slows-after-new-brexit-stockpiling-rush-pmi-idUKKBN1XB3R3

The idea that there is lots of money for spending or tax cuts is nonsense.

I would have thought Trump will stoke a boom next year, and Europe will get a bit of a tail wind from that in the short term. Agree in the medium term though.

Black_Rook said:

NoSpaceName said:

Gabs3 said:

kle4 said:

Time_to_Leave said:

In amongst everything else this was interesting from YouGov. Those who have said the monarchy dies with Her Majesty may need to revise their opinions.

I've never thought he was that bad, albeit with some kooky opinions, and figured having prepared for the role his whole life he'd probably be better at adjusting to the new role (for instance keeping quieter on some subjects) better than many people thought, but I am curious why there would have been such a shift over the last few years.

That said, I do think it will be a challenge to retain the monarchy in several places once he becomes king, through no fault of his - it just feels like it holds on in several places through apathy or there being more important things to worry about, but a once in a 70 or so year change might as well be seized.

I can't see it lasting in Australia or Canada if he reigns for 15 years or more.

HMQ is 93. An average female subject of the same age could expect to live another 3.64 years. The Prince of Wales is 71. An average male subject of the same age could expect to live another 14.14 years.

So we would expect the reign of Charles III to last ten-and-a-half years. A bit longer than I had assumed.

If the Queen does as well as her mother then she could be around for some years yet. On the other hand, there was a story circulating not so long ago that, if she reaches 95, she may elect to follow Prince Philip into retirement. She wouldn't abdicate, but there would be a Regency.

As some jolly sensible chap once suggested

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/04/21/the-palace-is-laying-the-groundwork-for-a-regency/

another_richard said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1198371760061779968

Can we have a map of the distribution of those involved against marginals?

The 'historic wrong' is apparently them getting the state pension at the same age as mend get it.

Surely the historic wrong is that men had to work 5 extra years.

Philip_Thompson said:

NoSpaceName said:

Philip_Thompson said:

NoSpaceName said:

Black_Rook said:

another_richard said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1198371760061779968

Can we have a map of the distribution of those involved against marginals?

The 'historic wrong' is apparently them getting the state pension at the same age as mend get it.

The claim is that equalisation was introduced too rapidly, and the affected women were left with insufficient time to prepare. My mother was one of them and she certainly wasn't best pleased. I don't know enough about the situation to advance a definite opinion one way or another as to whether it was brought in too fast.

However, the difference in pension ages was sexist and could not be justified. Equalisation had to come, and some age cohort would have to work longer as a result. All those of us who had hoped to claim the state pension at 65 and are now having to wait one, two or three extra years (and, personally, I doubt if I'll get mine before 70 by the time future Governments have finished) are in the same boat. It's just tough luck.

Equalisation was announced a long, long time in advance. But then the Coalition government sped up the timetable. It's possible that Brown had also cranked up the timetable earlier too (as doing so is worth a lot of money to the Treasury).

I don't think the WASPI's have a leg to stand on when it comes to the equalisation principle, but I think that the way in which the timetable for equalisation was changed was suboptimal, at best. I think that gave people a lot less time to prepare for a change to the change.

I've never understood this argument. What did they need to prepare for. They'd not retired yet so were still working now they just need to continue working.

What preparations are necessary for that?

Well they might have been in the happy position of being able to make preparations so that they could still afford to retire at the earlier age, but not if they then have to bridge a longer gap before their state pension started.

There's no divine right to retire many years early.

No, but there's a reason these changes have normally been announced many years in advance.

Time_to_Leave said:

In amongst everything else this was interesting from YouGov. Those who have said the monarchy dies with Her Majesty may need to revise their opinions.

The August 2017 figures were adversely effected by coverage of the 20th anniversary of Diana's death, IIRC his ratings were higher beforehand as well.

The Labour policy just announced does apparently appear in their manifesto . According to the Guardian it was under a section where they promised to look into designing a system to help compensate the women effected .

It could be around an extra £100 a week for these women upto a max payout of £31,000.

It seems many in the media missed this section of their manifesto. This is quite a curveball into the election . It effects over 3.5 million women , that’s a lot of votes and a lot of possible husbands who might also be swayed !

Looks like Labour are getting their own back on the Tories and their cynical games by dropping this bombshell on the day of the Tory manifesto launch .

IanB2 said:

Andy_JS said:

I find it difficult to believe the LDs are only going to win 14 seats.

They will be relying on a ground campaign to pull over Labour voters tactically, in those key seats. Hence all the leaflets a few lucky PB’ers have been getting. Three more weeks of leaflets to go.

I think the Libdem leaflet distribution in the weeks up to and after the GE was called UK wide was totally chaotic, and its looks as if they totally tore up their strategy grid the moment the GE was called and binned the Presidential style campaign appeal. From my own anecdotal evidence, it looks like they started out with the idea of running a Presidential campaign focussed around Jo Swinson in the month before the GE was officially called and the plan was to target some of their key old formerly safe seats, especially in Remain areas across the whole UK, and then they gave up?!

I live in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, we got three leaflets focussing on Jo Swinson in the month before the GE was called, then nothing since. But a Libdem voter in Danny Alexander's old seat has not had anything before or after the GE was called. Up here in Scotland, you would expect someone who was going to try to use their Leadership as a plus to then run a high profile campaign in key Remain target seats in the way both Nicola Sturgeon and Ruth Davidson have successfully done in the past. But Jo Swinson has been invisible in Scotland during this GE campaign, and I suspect the same is true of other key Remain target areas outside London down South. So its been no surprise to me that the Libdems have fallen back in the polls and their expectations. If you make your campaign London centric the rest of the country will ignore you.

Also like Jeremy Corbyn with his new neutral position on Brexit (I was present but not involved), Jo Swinson was ill advised to come out with the stance of Revoke Brexit without even a referendum while being left like Nicola Sturgeon looking like they would both prop up a Labour minority Gov that intends to ignore the majority in both the Indy Ref and Brexit. A brave move...

Time_to_Leave said:

In amongst everything else this was interesting from YouGov. Those who have said the monarchy dies with Her Majesty may need to revise their opinions.

Aged like a fine wine. Cheers to Charles!

Time_to_Leave said:

NoSpaceName said:

Philip_Thompson said:

NoSpaceName said:

Philip_Thompson said:

NoSpaceName said:

Black_Rook said:

another_richard said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1198371760061779968

Can we have a map of the distribution of those involved against marginals?

The 'historic wrong' is apparently them getting the state pension at the same age as mend get it.

However, the difference in pension ages was sexist and could not be justified. Equalisation had to come, and some age cohort would have to work longer as a result. All those of us who had hoped to claim the state pension at 65 and are now having to wait one, two or three extra years (and, personally, I doubt if I'll get mine before 70 by the time future Governments have finished) are in the same boat. It's just tough luck.

Equalisation was announced a long, long time in advance. But then the Coalition government sped up the timetable. It's possible that Brown had also cranked up the timetable earlier too (as doing so is worth a lot of money to the Treasury).

I don't think the WASPI's have a leg to stand on when it comes to the equalisation principle, but I think that the way in which the timetable for equalisation was changed was suboptimal, at best. I think that gave people a lot less time to prepare for a change to the change.

I've never understood this argument. What did they need to prepare for. They'd not retired yet so were still working now they just need to continue working.

What preparations are necessary for that?

Well they might have been in the happy position of being able to make preparations so that they could still afford to retire at the earlier age, but not if they then have to bridge a longer gap before their state pension started.

There's no divine right to retire many years early.

No, but there's a reason these changes have normally been announced many years in advance.

There’s a balance isn’t there? You shouldn’t change the retirement age effective tomorrow, but people should also engage brain a bit. I’m now late 30s; there’s nothing in writing but I don’t expect to retire much before I’m 75. I have some accrued rights that kick in from 60, and I’d hope they’d let me reduce hours. I’d expect most my age to think similarly.

Affordability is the issue and voters who have nothing to lose (something for nothing Labour) will excitedly clap their hands, those with something to lose (often lots and everyone else) will be horrified. Not a vote winner?

Oh giddy-eye...

Former Dutch football great Marco van Basten apologised on Saturday after he was heard using a Nazi greeting to ridicule a Dutch television journalist's German during an interview.

'Not too pretty, sieg heil, pfannkuchen (pancake),' Van Basten said, using the Nazi German greeting during World War II.

Time_to_Leave said:

NoSpaceName said:

Philip_Thompson said:

NoSpaceName said:

Philip_Thompson said:

NoSpaceName said:

Equalisation was announced a long, long time in advance. But then the Coalition government sped up the timetable. It's possible that Brown had also cranked up the timetable earlier too (as doing so is worth a lot of money to the Treasury).

I don't think the WASPI's have a leg to stand on when it comes to the equalisation principle, but I think that the way in which the timetable for equalisation was changed was suboptimal, at best. I think that gave people a lot less time to prepare for a change to the change.

I've never understood this argument. What did they need to prepare for. They'd not retired yet so were still working now they just need to continue working.

What preparations are necessary for that?

Well they might have been in the happy position of being able to make preparations so that they could still afford to retire at the earlier age, but not if they then have to bridge a longer gap before their state pension started.

There's no divine right to retire many years early.

No, but there's a reason these changes have normally been announced many years in advance.

There’s a balance isn’t there? You shouldn’t change the retirement age effective tomorrow, but people should also engage brain a bit. I’m now late 30s; there’s nothing in writing but I don’t expect to retire much before I’m 75. I have some accrued rights that kick in from 60, and I’d hope they’d let me reduce hours. I’d expect most my age to think similarly.

Yes, that's basically what I said. There was a plan to equalise the ages, which was announced well in advance. Where I think they have some grounds for complaint is that the original timetable was sped-up, much later in the process, by the Coalition.

I don't think it is desirable for a timetable to be announced, and then for it to be compressed at a later stage.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Oh giddy-eye...

Former Dutch football great Marco van Basten apologised on Saturday after he was heard using a Nazi greeting to ridicule a Dutch television journalist's German during an interview.

'Not too pretty, sieg heil, pfannkuchen (pancake),' Van Basten said, using the Nazi German greeting during World War II.

No love lost between Dutch and Germans. Not at all like England/ Scotland.

RobD said:

Time_to_Leave said:

In amongst everything else this was interesting from YouGov. Those who have said the monarchy dies with Her Majesty may need to revise their opinions.

Aged like a fine wine. Cheers to Charles!

It becomes harder to be nasty to the aged in decent society. I'm not decent, Charles is a wanker.

BigRich said:

I think theses changes where announced in the John Magear years, giving everybody affected at least 20 years to prepare.

This is an article from the time. It says that there was a plan to equalise the pension age at 65 by April 2020, but then the Coalition government brought that forward to November 2018.

I am not disputing the policy of equalisation, but I think the changing of the dates at which it was to be achieved was bad governance.

ReggieCide said:

nico67 said:

The Labour policy just announced does apparently appear in their manifesto . According to the Guardian it was under a section where they promised to look into designing a system to help compensate the women effected .

It could be around an extra £100 a week for these women upto a max payout of £31,000.

It seems many in the media missed this section of their manifesto. This is quite a curveball into the election . It effects over 3.5 million women , that’s a lot of votes and a lot of possible husbands who might also be swayed !

Looks like Labour are getting their own back on the Tories and their cynical games by dropping this bombshell on the day of the Tory manifesto launch .

Why don't you restrict yourself to posts saying Corbynism is wonderful and Tories are crap? There, now you can productively be lazy.

I’d rather have Keir Starmer to be honest but you seem a bit cheesed off because the Tories are getting a taste of their own medicine .

The Tories manifesto highlight seems to be plugging some potholes whilst Labour are helping out 3.5 million women who are seriously pissed off.

Apols if posted before:

https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1198399096853278721?s=20

nico67 said:

ReggieCide said:

nico67 said:

The Labour policy just announced does apparently appear in their manifesto . According to the Guardian it was under a section where they promised to look into designing a system to help compensate the women effected .

It could be around an extra £100 a week for these women upto a max payout of £31,000.

It seems many in the media missed this section of their manifesto. This is quite a curveball into the election . It effects over 3.5 million women , that’s a lot of votes and a lot of possible husbands who might also be swayed !

Looks like Labour are getting their own back on the Tories and their cynical games by dropping this bombshell on the day of the Tory manifesto launch .

Why don't you restrict yourself to posts saying Corbynism is wonderful and Tories are crap? There, now you can productively be lazy.

I’d rather have Keir Starmer to be honest but you seem a bit cheesed off because the Tories are getting a taste of their own medicine .

The Tories manifesto highlight seems to be plugging some potholes whilst Labour are helping out 3.5 million women who are seriously pissed off.

I'm not cheesed off at all. I was trying to be helpful.

NoSpaceName said:

BigRich said:

I think theses changes where announced in the John Magear years, giving everybody affected at least 20 years to prepare.

This is an article from the time. It says that there was a plan to equalise the pension age at 65 by April 2020, but then the Coalition government brought that forward to November 2018.

I am not disputing the policy of equalisation, but I think the changing of the dates at which it was to be achieved was bad governance.

It seems the original change was in 1995, with the 1995 Pension act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pensions_Act_1995

In order to enable all pension ages to be razed, changes were again implemented in 2011 to come in to force 2018 some people where affected twice, I do have some sympathy for that, but:

They had 20 years to prepare for the big increase and 7 years to prepare for the extra year (s) on top of that.

I would hate it if it was me, but having seen a few interviews with the WASBI Lady's I'm a lot les sympathetic.

BigRich said:

NoSpaceName said:

BigRich said:

I think theses changes where announced in the John Magear years, giving everybody affected at least 20 years to prepare.

This is an article from the time. It says that there was a plan to equalise the pension age at 65 by April 2020, but then the Coalition government brought that forward to November 2018.

I am not disputing the policy of equalisation, but I think the changing of the dates at which it was to be achieved was bad governance.

It seems the original change was in 1995, with the 1995 Pension act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pensions_Act_1995

In order to enable all pension ages to be razed, changes were again implemented in 2011 to come in to force 2018 some people where affected twice, I do have some sympathy for that, but:

They had 20 years to prepare for the big increase and 7 years to prepare for the extra year (s) on top of that.

I would hate it if it was me, but having seen a few interviews with the WASBI Lady's I'm a lot les sympathetic.

90% of the population (my guess) is only too happy to blame someone else if they're caught with their trousers down.

FrancisUrquhart said:

It seems England have about as much chance of winning this test match as the Lib Dems do the general election.

I've said it before but Swansong really does have the demeanour of an overly serious but silly teenager. The LibDems are pathetic.

RobD said:

ReggieCide said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Apols if posted before:

https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1198399096853278721?s=20

Dare I touch the Klaxon?

Touch it if you want to. Not sure why though. Is there a fire somewhere?

I feel like Dougal when he was tempted to push the big red button on the plane...

I'm sure that's apposite but who the fuck's Dougal (I do actually know but whisper it softly)

RobD said:

ReggieCide said:

RobD said:

ReggieCide said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Apols if posted before:

https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1198399096853278721?s=20

Dare I touch the Klaxon?

Touch it if you want to. Not sure why though. Is there a fire somewhere?

I feel like Dougal when he was tempted to push the big red button on the plane...

I'm sure that's apposite but who the fuck's Dougal (I do actually know but whisper it softly)

He's either really small, or really far away.

You're really getting outside my comfort zone.

BigRich said:

NoSpaceName said:

BigRich said:

I think theses changes where announced in the John Magear years, giving everybody affected at least 20 years to prepare.

This is an article from the time. It says that there was a plan to equalise the pension age at 65 by April 2020, but then the Coalition government brought that forward to November 2018.

I am not disputing the policy of equalisation, but I think the changing of the dates at which it was to be achieved was bad governance.

It seems the original change was in 1995, with the 1995 Pension act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pensions_Act_1995

In order to enable all pension ages to be razed, changes were again implemented in 2011 to come in to force 2018 some people where affected twice, I do have some sympathy for that, but:

They had 20 years to prepare for the big increase and 7 years to prepare for the extra year (s) on top of that.

I would hate it if it was me, but having seen a few interviews with the WASBI Lady's I'm a lot les sympathetic.

Coppola's comment:

http://www.coppolacomment.com/2016/07/the-waspi-campaigns-unreasonable-demand.html

So this group of women is demanding special treatment. Effectively, they want the 1995 Pensions Act to apply to everyone except them.They are even happy for it to apply to some older women, since they specifically exclude those born April 1950-March 1951 from their campaign.

Foxy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Quiet night in Nechells.....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-50533609

Frozen 2 is driving movie fans wild it seems. It must be even better than The Last Jedi.

All I know is that as parents of three boys I thought I was on a winner when I did a Frozen movie night with our niece, but fitaloon being left in charge the next night and choosing Warhorse saw him came out the winner by a mile!!

CorrectHorseBattery said:

The Tories will have to put some more stuff in there - otherwise they'll just enhance the stereotype of "more of the same" which seems an open goal for Labour

Labour & open goals!

BigRich said:

CarlottaVance said:

Apols if posted before:

https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1198399096853278721?s=20

If we compare that to last GE:

SNP +3%
Con -1%
Lab -7%
Lib Dem +4%

That is honestly a very good poll for the SCons.

Should be able to keep most their seats when it comes to actual votes. (Especially in the middle of winter, in the North East of Scotland).

Pulpstar said:

BigRich said:

CarlottaVance said:

Apols if posted before:

https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1198399096853278721?s=20

If we compare that to last GE:

SNP +3%
Con -1%
Lab -7%
Lib Dem +4%

Amazing

Come on unionists, you know who you have to vote for!

Add 10 seats to the Tory total seeing those Scottish numbers.

I too shall attempt a prediction. I predict that Southee and Boult will make this pitch look rather less flat.

rcs1000 said:

Pulpstar said:

BigRich said:

CarlottaVance said:

Apols if posted before:

https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1198399096853278721?s=20

If we compare that to last GE:

SNP +3%
Con -1%
Lab -7%
Lib Dem +4%

Amazing

That suggests to me that the only likely changes in Scotland are Labout down, and the SNP up. The LDs might gain Fife NE. The Conservatives might lose a seat or two. But that's about it.

The Tories may hardly be down at all in Scotland because they got 28.6% in 2017 and this poll puts them at the rounded figure of 28%.

I think the SNP will probably pick up the 6 marginal Labour seats in Scotland without any trouble at all. The most difficult of those requires a swing of just 2.76%. Labour should hold Edinburgh South.

http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/snp

fitalass said:

IanB2 said:

They will be relying on a ground campaign to pull over Labour voters tactically, in those key seats. Hence all the leaflets a few lucky PB’ers have been getting. Three more weeks of leaflets to go.

I think the Libdem leaflet distribution in the weeks up to and after the GE was called UK wide was totally chaotic, and its looks as if they totally tore up their strategy grid the moment the GE was called and binned the Presidential style campaign appeal. From my own anecdotal evidence, it looks like they started out with the idea of running a Presidential campaign focussed around Jo Swinson in the month before the GE was officially called and the plan was to target some of their key old formerly safe seats, especially in Remain areas across the whole UK, and then they gave up?!

I live in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, we got three leaflets focussing on Jo Swinson in the month before the GE was called, then nothing since. But a Libdem voter in Danny Alexander's old seat has not had anything before or after the GE was called. Up here in Scotland, you would expect someone who was going to try to use their Leadership as a plus to then run a high profile campaign in key Remain target seats in the way both Nicola Sturgeon and Ruth Davidson have successfully done in the past. But Jo Swinson has been invisible in Scotland during this GE campaign, and I suspect the same is true of other key Remain target areas outside London down South. So its been no surprise to me that the Libdems have fallen back in the polls and their expectations. If you make your campaign London centric the rest of the country will ignore you.

Hello, Fitalass, nice to see you back here posting again.

I think you are underestimating the Lib Dem campaign, and assuming that what was in the past still continues to be. It seems to me that their targeting in this election is far more sophisticated than you think.

NoSpaceName said:

BigRich said:

I think theses changes where announced in the John Magear years, giving everybody affected at least 20 years to prepare.

This is an article from the time. It says that there was a plan to equalise the pension age at 65 by April 2020, but then the Coalition government brought that forward to November 2018.

I am not disputing the policy of equalisation, but I think the changing of the dates at which it was to be achieved was bad governance.

Its loads of notice. The implication is government shouldnt have been allowed to bring it forward since nothing they could do would be enough. Its nonsense.