Re: GPS - the issue of mass dependence on a system owned by the US government was noted many years ago and the EU and others (China, Russia) sensibly developed their own systems. Unfortunately...
Carlotta I am delighted you seem to be seeing sense this morning. Earlier, you praised Justine Greening for pointing out that negotiating Brexit is impossible, and now you are correctly pointing out that the government is split on Brexit.
Which is all that matters. What you, I, the opposition, or the RAC think about it couldn't matter less, right now.
Something else we evidently agree upon.
Labour are not remotely the 'government in waiting'.....
You need to look at the detail of the BES survey to appreciate just how striking the rise in turnout was amongst the 25-40 year old age range - something north of 10%, while the average turnout amongst those 65+ was unchanged. The Labour share of the vote also increased fairly uniformly by in excess of 10% across all age groups up to around 65, slightly more than that amongst under 25 year olds.
If anything has been disproved, it is a myth that no-one engaged in practical work in elections believed in anyway. The 18-24 year old electorate is too small to have more than a marginal bearing on the outcome of elections - only a tenth of the electorate and an even smaller proportion of the voting electorate. It was always plain to see that they could not have been the primary driver of the shift in voting at the 2017 election.
Labour made an extraordinary strides amongst the 25-40 age group, thanks to both turnout and vote share, and a much smaller if still above average strides amongst the under 25s due only to vote share. Together that's the youngest third of the electorate. So the BES study supports the view that the younger part of the electorate was the reason Labour made up ground in 2017, but reminds us not to focus only on the very youngest electors.
A promise to stop university fees worked for the Lib Dems in 2010 and for Labour in 2017.
However, Labour's failure to follow up on their promise will impact them in due course but not as much as it did the Lib Dems because Labour duplicity on this has not been hit with as much publicity.
Every year another cohort of voters graduating with £40k + student debts joins the electoral rolls. Eventually there will be enough of these voters for the system to be overturned and the debts slashed or cancelled. My guess is the mid 2020s.
Incidentally, these voters are likely to favour rejoining the EU as well...
The negotiation appears to be based on Spice Girls lyrics.
Except that May won't tell Merkel what she wants, what she really, really wants.
Very good.However the spice girls had a certain swagger , even though I thought they were overrated.There is no swagger and confidence in this leader .To me a hard working decent lady struggling with the enormity of the task.Nevertheless she took it on, so she has to lead or if not make way for someone else , who believes they can lead with courage of their conviction.
It sounds like the situation with the pension fund had been a lot worse in previous years.
Interesting
"As an example of the downside of increased transparency, Ellison cites skyrocketing executive salaries. The fact that CEOs get paid 400 or 500 times the median salary does not feel right, he says, when in the past the ratio was about twenty to one. “Why did that happen? There are several reasons, but one was the requirement to disclose salaries in company accounts. That meant that everyone was looking at everybody else, and if you were getting more money, I wanted more money. "
An example of the law of unintended consequences.
But nonsense - because transparency is completely innocent here. It is the spread of American style 'executive remuneration consultants' - who collect senior pay data and then sell it to other companies in a market where their vested interest is in providing data that supports an increase in remuneration for the incumbent executives - and a culture where every board is fooled into aiming for 'upper quartile pay for (supposed) upper quartile performance' - when mathematics dictates that everyone cannot be upper quartile - that are to blame for the explosion in senior pay. Transparency is a good thing and the guy who says not is an idiot.
You are actually just affirming what you think you are contradicting: the feedback loop is created by transparency, and the fact that a new class of broker springs up and inserts itself into the loop to see if it can get a percentage for itself is neither here nor there.
F1: currently planning to put up a pre-season ramble before testing, and another after. Then it'll be back into the regular weekend articles. Testing starts 26 February.
So far the Tory opinion poll rating has remained relatively steady but Labour is gradually edging to the same Brexit end-point as most reasonable UK capitalists, and come March,council tax bills will be landing on the front mat,most will be at least 6% higher than last year,over £100 p.a more,for far less services like libraries and childrens centres.Add to this,the continual drip,drip of falling real incomes and increased prices in the shops,notably for food,and the crass insensitivity of Universal Credit. and it is impossible to see Tory polling going anywhere but down,unlike the number of homeless people living on our streets.The problems within the NHS and social care can only get worse as well. April could be the cruellest month for May but May to go in May is the co-incidence bet and then the poor woman can be released as Tory MP hostage in No 10.Only then, can she run through fields of corn for the remainder of her days.
Carlotta I am delighted you seem to be seeing sense this morning. Earlier, you praised Justine Greening for pointing out that negotiating Brexit is impossible, and now you are correctly pointing out that the government is split on Brexit.
Which is all that matters. What you, I, the opposition, or the RAC think about it couldn't matter less, right now.
Something else we evidently agree upon.
Labour are not remotely the 'government in waiting'.....
No indeed they are not. Thank goodness. Although as we all know it is not a stretch of the imagination for events to throw Starmer or Thornberry into LotO. And then....
I see there's some talk this morning about a minister labelling Leavers as 'swivel eyed'. They won't like that and will need to be assuaged. I suggest Theresa does the following to guard her right flank.
1) Sack the minister who made this utterance. 2) Make another offer of a state visit to President Trump. 3) Tell the EU we'll abolish corporation tax and workers' rights if they don't bow to our every demand. 4) Give Toby Young a peerage and put him in charge of education.
Re: GPS - the issue of mass dependence on a system owned by the US government was noted many years ago and the EU and others (China, Russia) sensibly developed their own systems. Unfortunately...
In normal times we can freeload off Galileo. If things get to the stage when all the players are degrading the signal for everybody except their own respective armed forces, we will have more to worry about than knowing precisely where we are. Plus there's always differential correction of the degraded signal.
You need to look at the detail of the BES survey to appreciate just how striking the rise in turnout was amongst the 25-40 year old age range - something north of 10%, while the average turnout amongst those 65+ was unchanged. The Labour share of the vote also increased fairly uniformly by in excess of 10% across all age groups up to around 65, slightly more than that amongst under 25 year olds.
If anything has been disproved, it is a myth that no-one engaged in practical work in elections believed in anyway. The 18-24 year old electorate is too small to have more than a marginal bearing on the outcome of elections - only a tenth of the electorate and an even smaller proportion of the voting electorate. It was always plain to see that they could not have been the primary driver of the shift in voting at the 2017 election.
Labour made an extraordinary strides amongst the 25-40 age group, thanks to both turnout and vote share, and a much smaller if still above average strides amongst the under 25s due only to vote share. Together that's the youngest third of the electorate. So the BES study supports the view that the younger part of the electorate was the reason Labour made up ground in 2017, but reminds us not to focus only on the very youngest electors.
A promise to stop university fees worked for the Lib Dems in 2010 and for Labour in 2017.
However, Labour's failure to follow up on their promise will impact them in due course but not as much as it did the Lib Dems because Labour duplicity on this has not been hit with as much publicity.
Every year another cohort of voters graduating with £40k + student debts joins the electoral rolls. Eventually there will be enough of these voters for the system to be overturned and the debts slashed or cancelled. My guess is the mid 2020s.
Incidentally, these voters are likely to favour rejoining the EU as well...
"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."
You need to look at the detail of the BES survey to appreciate just how striking the rise in turnout was amongst the 25-40 year old age range - something north of 10%, while the average turnout amongst those 65+ was unchanged. The Labour share of the vote also increased fairly uniformly by in excess of 10% across all age groups up to around 65, slightly more than that amongst under 25 year olds.
If anything has been disproved, it is a myth that no-one engaged in practical work in elections believed in anyway. The 18-24 year old electorate is too small to have more than a marginal bearing on the outcome of elections - only a tenth of the electorate and an even smaller proportion of the voting electorate. It was always plain to see that they could not have been the primary driver of the shift in voting at the 2017 election.
A promise to stop university fees worked for the Lib Dems in 2010 and for Labour in 2017.
However, Labour's failure to follow up on their promise will impact them in due course but not as much as it did the Lib Dems because Labour duplicity on this has not been hit with as much publicity.
Every year another cohort of voters graduating with £40k + student debts joins the electoral rolls. Eventually there will be enough of these voters for the system to be overturned and the debts slashed or cancelled. My guess is the mid 2020s.
Incidentally, these voters are likely to favour rejoining the EU as well...
"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."
We’ve already reached that point with pensioners not paying NI and getting bus passes, WFA, etc.
Re: GPS - the issue of mass dependence on a system owned by the US government was noted many years ago and the EU and others (China, Russia) sensibly developed their own systems. Unfortunately...
In normal times we can freeload off Galileo. If things get to the stage when all the players are degrading the signal for everybody except their own respective armed forces, we will have more to worry about than knowing precisely where we are. Plus there's always differential correction of the degraded signal.
Galileo CS has an encrypted ranging signal. You can't freeload without the keys.
Galileo Open would be an option for consumer devices but you wouldn't want to do anything too serious with it.
Trump is reportedly considering nationalising the US 5G Network... It feels to me that if we are going to get these driverless cars and all that futuristic stuff then it will need to be extremely secure...
At least America has one to nationalise, or at least Verizon has in a few cities. Where is ours? We talk a good game but almost every innovation is American or otherwise foreign.
If May loses a confidence vote, I'm assuming she will stay on as a Zombie PM until the Tories have decided on her replacement.
That should be factored in when considering her potential date of departure - if she was voted out next week, she might still hang on in No. 10 until after Easter.
You need to look at the detail of the BES survey to appreciate just how striking the rise in turnout was amongst the 25-40 year old age range - something north of 10%, while the average turnout amongst those 65+ was unchanged. The Labour share of the vote also increased fairly uniformly by in excess of 10% across all age groups up to around 65, slightly more than that amongst under 25 year olds.
If anything has been disproved, it is a myth that no-one engaged in practical work in elections believed in anyway. The 18-24 year old electorate is too small to have more than a marginal bearing on the outcome of elections - only a tenth of the electorate and an even smaller proportion of the voting electorate. It was always plain to see that they could not have been the primary driver of the shift in voting at the 2017 election.
Labour made an extraordinary strides amongst the 25-40 age group, thanks to both turnout and vote share, and a much smaller if still above average strides amongst the under 25s due only to vote share. Together that's the youngest third of the electorate. So the BES study supports the view that the younger part of the electorate was the reason Labour made up ground in 2017, but reminds us not to focus only on the very youngest electors.
A promise to stop university fees worked for the Lib Dems in 2010 and for Labour in 2017.
However, Labour's failure to follow up on their promise will impact them in due course but not as much as it did the Lib Dems because Labour duplicity on this has not been hit with as much publicity.
Every year another cohort of voters graduating with £40k + student debts joins the electoral rolls. Eventually there will be enough of these voters for the system to be overturned and the debts slashed or cancelled. My guess is the mid 2020s.
Incidentally, these voters are likely to favour rejoining the EU as well...
"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."
So the greedy, auld buggers have sucked the exchequer dry AND shafted our democracy?
You need to look at the detail of the BES survey to appreciate just how striking the rise in turnout was amongst the 25-40 year old age range - something north of 10%, while the average turnout amongst those 65+ was unchanged. The Labour share of the vote also increased fairly uniformly by in excess of 10% across all age groups up to around 65, slightly more than that amongst under 25 year olds.
If anything has been disproved, it is a myth that no-one engaged in practical work in elections believed in anyway. The 18-24 year old electorate is too small to have more than a marginal bearing on the outcome of elections - only a tenth of the electorate and an even smaller proportion of the voting electorate. It was always plain to see that they could not have been the primary driver of the shift in voting at the 2017 election.
Labour made an extraordinary strides amongst the 25-40 age group, thanks to both turnout and vote share, and a much smaller if still above average strides amongst the under 25s due only to vote share. Together that's the youngest third of the electorate. So the BES study supports the view that the younger part of the electorate was the reason Labour made up ground in 2017, but reminds us not to focus only on the very youngest electors.
A promise to stop university fees worked for the Lib Dems in 2010 and for Labour in 2017.
However, Labour's failure to follow up on their promise will impact them in due course but not as much as it did the Lib Dems because Labour duplicity on this has not been hit with as much publicity.
Every year another cohort of voters graduating with £40k + student debts joins the electoral rolls. Eventually there will be enough of these voters for the system to be overturned and the debts slashed or cancelled. My guess is the mid 2020s.
Incidentally, these voters are likely to favour rejoining the EU as well...
So how will that work? The less than 50% of the population who go to University will force the greater than 50% of the population who don't go to University to pay more tax to bail them out?
You need to look at the detail of the BES survey to appreciate just how striking the rise in turnout was amongst the 25-40 year old age range - something north of 10%, while the average turnout amongst those 65+ was unchanged. The Labour share of the vote also increased fairly uniformly by in excess of 10% across all age groups up to around 65, slightly more than that amongst under 25 year olds.
If anything has been disproved, it is a myth that no-one engaged in practical work in elections believed in anyway. The 18-24 year old electorate is too small to have more than a marginal bearing on the outcome of elections - only a tenth of the electorate and an even smaller proportion of the voting electorate. It was always plain to see that they could not have been the primary driver of the shift in voting at the 2017 election.
Labour made an extraordinary strides amongst the 25-40 age group, thanks to both turnout and vote share, and a much smaller if still above average strides amongst the under 25s due only to vote share. Together that's the youngest third of the electorate. So the BES study supports the view that the younger part of the electorate was the reason Labour made up ground in 2017, but reminds us not to focus only on the very youngest electors.
A promise to stop university fees worked for the Lib Dems in 2010 and for Labour in 2017.
However, Labour's failure to follow up on their promise will impact them in due course but not as much as it did the Lib Dems because Labour duplicity on this has not been hit with as much publicity.
Every year another cohort of voters graduating with £40k + student debts joins the electoral rolls. Eventually there will be enough of these voters for the system to be overturned and the debts slashed or cancelled. My guess is the mid 2020s.
Incidentally, these voters are likely to favour rejoining the EU as well...
"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."
So the greedy, old buggers have sucked the exchequer dry AND shafted our democracy?
You need to look at the detail of the BES survey to appreciate just how striking the rise in turnout was amongst the 25-40 year old age range - something north of 10%, while the average turnout amongst those 65+ was unchanged. The Labour share of the vote also increased fairly uniformly by in excess of 10% across all age groups up to around 65, slightly more than that amongst under 25 year olds.
If anything has been disproved, it is a myth that no-one engaged in practical work in elections believed in anyway. The 18-24 year old electorate is too small to have more than a marginal bearing on the outcome of elections - only a tenth of the electorate and an even smaller proportion of the voting electorate. It was always plain to see that they could not have been the primary driver of the shift in voting at the 2017 election.
Labour made an extraordinary strides amongst the 25-40 age group, thanks to both turnout and vote share, and a much smaller if still above average strides amongst the under 25s due only to vote share. Together that's the youngest third of the electorate. So the BES study supports the view that the younger part of the electorate was the reason Labour made up ground in 2017, but reminds us not to focus only on the very youngest electors.
A promise to stop university fees worked for the Lib Dems in 2010 and for Labour in 2017.
However, Labour's failure to follow up on their promise will impact them in due course but not as much as it did the Lib Dems because Labour duplicity on this has not been hit with as much publicity.
Every year another cohort of voters graduating with £40k + student debts joins the electoral rolls. Eventually there will be enough of these voters for the system to be overturned and the debts slashed or cancelled. My guess is the mid 2020s.
Incidentally, these voters are likely to favour rejoining the EU as well...
So how will that work? The less than 50% of the population who go to University will force the greater than 50% of the population who don't go to University to pay more tax to bail them out?
Because just over 50% of the voters imposing their will on the other half never happens, does it?
Yes, mostly likely student loan repayment rates will decrease and other taxes will rose to compensate leaving graduates better off overall. Non graduates are much less likely to vote.
Re: GPS - the issue of mass dependence on a system owned by the US government was noted many years ago and the EU and others (China, Russia) sensibly developed their own systems. Unfortunately...
In normal times we can freeload off Galileo. If things get to the stage when all the players are degrading the signal for everybody except their own respective armed forces, we will have more to worry about than knowing precisely where we are. Plus there's always differential correction of the degraded signal.
Galileo CS has an encrypted ranging signal. You can't freeload without the keys.
Galileo Open would be an option for consumer devices but you wouldn't want to do anything too serious with it.
It's interesting to see what happens in the next 5-10 years re: the affordability of a GPS microsatellite array. I suspect we may see a proliferation of networks with increased redundancy as launch cost / payload size reduces.
You need to look at the detail of the BES survey to appreciate just how striking the rise in turnout was amongst the 25-40 year old age range - something north of 10%, while the average turnout amongst those 65+ was unchanged. The Labour share of the vote also increased fairly uniformly by in excess of 10% across all age groups up to around 65, slightly more than that amongst under 25 year olds.
If anything has been disproved, it is a myth that no-one engaged in practical work in elections believed in anyway. The 18-24 year old electorate is too small to have more than a marginal bearing on the outcome of elections - only a tenth of the electorate and an even smaller proportion of the voting electorate. It was always plain to see that they could not have been the primary driver of the shift in voting at the 2017 election.
Labour made an extraordinary strides amongst the 25-40 age group, thanks to both turnout and vote share, and a much smaller if still above average strides amongst the under 25s due only to vote share. Together that's the youngest third of the electorate. So the BES study supports the view that the younger part of the electorate was the reason Labour made up ground in 2017, but reminds us not to focus only on the very youngest electors.
A promise to stop university fees worked for the Lib Dems in 2010 and for Labour in 2017.
However, Labour's failure to follow up on their promise will impact them in due course but not as much as it did the Lib Dems because Labour duplicity on this has not been hit with as much publicity.
I disagree with pretty well all of that.
Labour's student fee promise was largely irrelevant to the 25-40 age group already saddled by university debt, amongst whom Labour made up by far the most ground. Besides, it came too late for the print deadlines for the ground campaign so didn't feature at all in the one I was responsible for.
And to be held accountable for promises you have to get into government first. Contrast the LDs in 2010 with Labour in 2017.
If May loses a confidence vote, I'm assuming she will stay on as a Zombie PM until the Tories have decided on her replacement.
That should be factored in when considering her potential date of departure - if she was voted out next week, she might still hang on in No. 10 until after Easter.
The alternative to a zombie PM would presumably be an acting PMship by the First Secretary of State. There may be a conspiracy theory in the fact that we haven't had one since December.
If May loses a confidence vote, I'm assuming she will stay on as a Zombie PM until the Tories have decided on her replacement.
That should be factored in when considering her potential date of departure - if she was voted out next week, she might still hang on in No. 10 until after Easter.
The alternative to a zombie PM would presumably be an acting PMship by the First Secretary of State. There may be a conspiracy theory in the fact that we haven't had one since December.
If May loses a confidence vote, I'm assuming she will stay on as a Zombie PM until the Tories have decided on her replacement.
That should be factored in when considering her potential date of departure - if she was voted out next week, she might still hang on in No. 10 until after Easter.
The alternative to a zombie PM would presumably be an acting PMship by the First Secretary of State. There may be a conspiracy theory in the fact that we haven't had one since December.
The dementia tax affects younger people actually - they are the ones getting the inheritances. An elderly person with dementia probably isn't overly concerned about finances or houses - their relatives or the state worry about that for them.
As for the general policy - didn't the proposal actually mean people whose relatives were going into residential care would actually be able to keep £77k more of their inheritance given the change in the cap from £23k to £100k. When it comes to home care many if not most people with any savings or even modest pensions pay full cost anyway! My dad had to pay the full cost of his home care and he was living on £15k a year but had modest savings.
It would also have addressed the idiocy whereby someone who owns a £3m house on a state pension but with only £20k in savings (even if they have wealthy kids too who could help out) gets free home care but an equivalent person whose only income is also a state pension who rents a council flat but got left £40k by a friend has to pay 100 per cent of their home care. If that isn't a wicked evil system that needs reform I don't know what is - worth £3m it's free worth £40k you must pay for your home care in full just because an asset is a house (which could have a charge placed on it) rather than cash.
Shows how rubbish the Tory campaign was - their plan was actually more socialist than Labour's policy to keep the status quo and let the very rich keep their £3m homes while the poor pay through the nose.
Anyone with £20k in savings receiving homecare will not be paying the full cost of Carers. Should be paying no more than £41 per week.
If your Dads savings are under £50k he should not be paying in full no matter the value of his house.
Trump and Piers did a modest 3 million viewers. Clearly the British public are nowhere near as interested in the man as the media would like to think we are
Not even Jeremy Corbyn could magic up enough money to induce me to watch that pair.....
You need to look at the detail of the BES survey to appreciate just how striking the rise in turnout was amongst the 25-40 year old age range - something north of 10%, while the average turnout amongst those 65+ was unchanged. The Labour share of the vote also increased fairly uniformly by in excess of 10% across all age groups up to around 65, slightly more than that amongst under 25 year olds.
If anything has been disproved, it is a myth that no-one engaged in practical work in elections believed in anyway. The 18-24 year old electorate is too small to have more than a marginal bearing on the outcome of elections - only a tenth of the electorate and an even smaller proportion of the voting electorate. It was always plain to see that they could not have been the primary driver of the shift in voting at the 2017 election.
Labour made an extraordinary strides amongst the 25-40 age group, thanks to both turnout and vote share, and a much smaller if still above average strides amongst the under 25s due only to vote share. Together that's the youngest third of the electorate. So the BES study supports the view that the younger part of the electorate was the reason Labour made up ground in 2017, but reminds us not to focus only on the very youngest electors.
A promise to stop university fees worked for the Lib Dems in 2010 and for Labour in 2017.
However, Labour's failure to follow up on their promise will impact them in due course but not as much as it did the Lib Dems because Labour duplicity on this has not been hit with as much publicity.
I disagree with pretty well all of that.
Labour's student fee promise was largely irrelevant to the 25-40 age group already saddled by university debt, amongst whom Labour made up by far the most ground. Besides, it came too late for the print deadlines for the ground campaign so didn't feature at all in the one I was responsible for.
And to be held accountable for promises you have to get into government first. Contrast the LDs in 2010 with Labour in 2017.
Bear in mind, a lot of people in their 30's will have paid a lof of their student loan off already, if not all of it.
Also just on student loans. the 'actual' fee is only a general small proportion of the debt. For me, who was in the first year of paying fees (thanks Tony), it was only £1k a year, but my loan was £3k a year.
Removing student fees would only go some of the way to avoid large amounts of student debt.
May's strategy is absolutely correct, when you suspect the guy on the other side of the table hasn't got a clue what they need to get to keep the remaining members happy.....
At some point the rest of the EU will start spelling out their red lines. It's not sensible to offer more than they might be prepared to accept.
And if the journos want a laugh, then ask Mrs Merkel how her other negotiations are going - those for a German government....
You need to look at the detail of the BES survey to appreciate just how striking the rise in turnout was amongst the 25-40 year old age range - something north of 10%, while the average turnout amongst those 65+ was unchanged. The Labour share of the vote also increased fairly uniformly by in excess of 10% across all age groups up to around 65, slightly more than that amongst under 25 year olds.
If anything has been disproved, it is a myth that no-one engaged in practical work in elections believed in anyway. The 18-24 year old electorate is too small to have more than a marginal bearing on the outcome of elections - only a tenth of the electorate and an even smaller proportion of the voting electorate. It was always plain to see that they could not have been the primary driver of the shift in voting at the 2017 election.
Labour made an extraordinary strides amongst the 25-40 age group, thanks to both turnout and vote share, and a much smaller if still above average strides amongst the under 25s due only to vote share. Together that's the youngest third of the electorate. So the BES study supports the view that the younger part of the electorate was the reason Labour made up ground in 2017, but reminds us not to focus only on the very youngest electors.
A promise to stop university fees worked for the Lib Dems in 2010 and for Labour in 2017.
However, Labour's failure to follow up on their promise will impact them in due course but not as much as it did the Lib Dems because Labour duplicity on this has not been hit with as much publicity.
I disagree with pretty well all of that.
Labour's student fee promise was largely irrelevant to the 25-40 age group already saddled by university debt, amongst whom Labour made up by far the most ground. Besides, it came too late for the print deadlines for the ground campaign so didn't feature at all in the one I was responsible for.
And to be held accountable for promises you have to get into government first. Contrast the LDs in 2010 with Labour in 2017.
Bear in mind, a lot of people in their 30's will have paid a lof of their student loan off already, if not all of it.
Repayments will typically take about 25 years at minimum repayment rates, (and you'd be crackers to repay more), so I would expect that most people in their 30s to have significant student "loans" still to repay. [Don't get me started on the fact that the loans are actually just a really inefficient way of levying a graduate tax.]
You need to look at the detail of the BES survey to appreciate just how striking the rise in turnout was amongst the 25-40 year old age range - something north of 10%, while the average turnout amongst those 65+ was unchanged. The Labour share of the vote also increased fairly uniformly by in excess of 10% across all age groups up to around 65, slightly more than that amongst under 25 year olds.
If anything has been disproved, it is a myth that no-one engaged in practical work in elections believed in anyway. The 18-24 year old electorate is too small to have more than a marginal bearing on the outcome of elections - only a tenth of the electorate and an even smaller proportion of the voting electorate. It was always plain to see that they could not have been the primary driver of the shift in voting at the 2017 election.
Labour made an extraordinary strides amongst the 25-40 age group, thanks to both turnout and vote share, and a much smaller if still above average strides amongst the under 25s due only to vote share. Together that's the youngest third of the electorate. So the BES study supports the view that the younger part of the electorate was the reason Labour made up ground in 2017, but reminds us not to focus only on the very youngest electors.
A promise to stop university fees worked for the Lib Dems in 2010 and for Labour in 2017.
However, Labour's failure to follow up on their promise will impact them in due course but not as much as it did the Lib Dems because Labour duplicity on this has not been hit with as much publicity.
I disagree with pretty well all of that.
Labour's student fee promise was largely irrelevant to the 25-40 age group already saddled by university debt, amongst whom Labour made up by far the most ground. Besides, it came too late for the print deadlines for the ground campaign so didn't feature at all in the one I was responsible for.
And to be held accountable for promises you have to get into government first. Contrast the LDs in 2010 with Labour in 2017.
Bear in mind, a lot of people in their 30's will have paid a lof of their student loan off already, if not all of it.
The problem is that an increasing number of people will not have paid it off. They do not earn enough so the debt just hangs over them each time they walk to the ballot box.
Also just on student loans. the 'actual' fee is only a general small proportion of the debt. For me, who was in the first year of paying fees (thanks Tony), it was only £1k a year, but my loan was £3k a year.
Removing student fees would only go some of the way to avoid large amounts of student debt.
Yes. The corollary of this is students can live quite well on their loans and there is an increasing market for student flats and so on.
In that case the opinion pollsters who have changed their methodology since the election to allow for younger voters (under 25s) to actually come out and vote are now overestimating the Labour vote. Given Labour's failure to achieve more than a tiny lead in the opinion polls since June -much less than Miliband and Kinnock -it might well be that the 10pm election night exit poll in 2022 will be a very traumatic shock for Corbynistas.
You need to look at the detail of the BES survey to appreciate just how striking the rise in turnout was amongst the 25-40 year old age range - something north of 10%, while the average turnout amongst those 65+ was unchanged. The Labour share of the vote also increased fairly uniformly by in excess of 10% across all age groups up to around 65, slightly more than that amongst under 25 year olds.
If anything has been disproved, it is a myth that no-m Labour made an extraordinary strides amongst the 25-40 age group, thanks to both turnout and vote share, and a much smaller if still above average strides amongst the under 25s due only to vote share. Together that's the youngest third of the electorate. So the BES study supports the view that the younger part of the electorate was the reason Labour made up ground in 2017, but reminds us not to focus only on the very youngest electors.
A promise to stop university fees worked for the Lib Dems in 2010 and for Labour in 2017.
However, Labour's failure to follow up on their promise will impact them in due course but not as much as it did the Lib Dems because Labour duplicity on this has not been hit with as much publicity.
I disagree with pretty well all of that.
Labour's student fee promise was largely irrelevant to the 25-40 age group already saddled by university debt, amongst whom Labour made up by far the most ground. Besides, it came too late for the print deadlines for the ground campaign so didn't feature at all in the one I was responsible for.
And to be held accountable for promises you have to get into government first. Contrast the LDs in 2010 with Labour in 2017.
Bear in mind, a lot of people in their 30's will have paid a lof of their student loan off already, if not all of it.
Wrong. Interest on a debt £40k at the current rate of 6.1% is currently £2400 a year. Students pay at the rate of 9% above £25k so just to break even you’d need to be making north of £50k. To have a shot at paying off the principal you’d need to be close to £75k. Hardly anyone will have these loans off in their 30s
May's strategy is absolutely correct, when you suspect the guy on the other side of the table hasn't got a clue what they need to get to keep the remaining members happy.....
At some point the rest of the EU will start spelling out their red lines. It's not sensible to offer more than they might be prepared to accept.
And if the journos want a laugh, then ask Mrs Merkel how her other negotiations are going - those for a German government....
Exactly. I am all for pointing at TMay and laughing when it is appropriate to do so, but the whole anecdote dissolves into nothing when you realise that there is no logic to Merkel's "you're leaving so we don't have to make you an offer". If the journalists laughed uproariously, it must have been the way she said it. So, a pointless and dishonourable breach by Pesto of the convention that secret briefings are what they say they are.
You need to look at the detail of the BES survey to appreciate just how striking the rise in turnout was amongst the 25-40 year old age range - something north of 10%, while the average turnout amongst those 65+ was unchanged. The Labour share of the vote also increased fairly uniformly by in excess of 10% across all age groups up to around 65, slightly more than that amongst under 25 year olds.
If anything has been disproved, it is a myth that no-m Labour made an extraordinary strides amongst the 25-40 age group, thanks to both turnout and vote share, and a much smaller if still above average strides amongst the under 25s due only to vote share. Together that's the youngest third of the electorate. So the BES study supports the view that the younger part of the electorate was the reason Labour made up ground in 2017, but reminds us not to focus only on the very youngest electors.
A promise to stop university fees worked for the Lib Dems in 2010 and for Labour in 2017.
However, Labour's failure to follow up on their promise will impact them in due course but not as much as it did the Lib Dems because Labour duplicity on this has not been hit with as much publicity.
I disagree with pretty well all of that.
Labour's student fee promise was largely irrelevant to the 25-40 age group already saddled by university debt, amongst whom Labour made up by far the most ground. Besides, it came too late for the print deadlines for the ground campaign so didn't feature at all in the one I was responsible for.
And to be held accountable for promises you have to get into government first. Contrast the LDs in 2010 with Labour in 2017.
Bear in mind, a lot of people in their 30's will have paid a lof of their student loan off already, if not all of it.
Wrong. Interest on a debt £40k at the current rate of 6.1% is currently £2400 a year. Students pay at the rate of 9% above £25k so just to break even you’d need to be making north of £50k. To have a shot at paying off the principal you’d need to be close to £75k. Hardly anyone will have these loans off in their 30s
There is real scope for a Chancellor to reduce that rate of interest. At the moment 6.1% does look like they are milking it, relative to what the Govt. can borrow at.
Also just on student loans. the 'actual' fee is only a general small proportion of the debt. For me, who was in the first year of paying fees (thanks Tony), it was only £1k a year, but my loan was £3k a year.
Removing student fees would only go some of the way to avoid large amounts of student debt.
This was true in the past, but now tuition fees are £9k they make up well over half of the total debt, which of course is much bigger in absolute terms as well. You (and me) were on the “cheap” system that ended in 2004 with introduction of £3k fees.
You need to look at the detail of the BES survey to appreciate just how striking the rise in turnout was amongst the 25-40 year old age range - something north of 10%, while the average turnout amongst those 65+ was unchanged. The Labour share of the vote also increased fairly uniformly by in excess of 10% across all age groups up to around 65, slightly more than that amongst under 25 year olds.
If anything has been disproved, it is a myth that no-m Labour made an extraordinary strides amongst the 25-40 age group, thanks to both turnout and vote share, and a much smaller if still above average strides amongst the under 25s due only to vote share. Together that's the youngest third of the electorate. So the BES study supports the view that the younger part of the electorate was the reason Labour made up ground in 2017, but reminds us not to focus only on the very youngest electors.
A promise to stop university fees worked for the Lib Dems in 2010 and for Labour in 2017.
However, Labour's failure to follow up on their promise will impact them in due course but not as much as it did the Lib Dems because Labour duplicity on this has not been hit with as much publicity.
I disagree with pretty well all of that.
Labour's student fee promise was largely irrelevant to the 25-40 age group already saddled by university debt, amongst whom Labour made up by far the most ground. Besides, it came too late for the print deadlines for the ground campaign so didn't feature at all in the one I was responsible for.
And to be held accountable for promises you have to get into government first. Contrast the LDs in 2010 with Labour in 2017.
Bear in mind, a lot of people in their 30's will have paid a lof of their student loan off already, if not all of it.
Wrong. Interest on a debt £40k at the current rate of 6.1% is currently £2400 a year. Students pay at the rate of 9% above £25k so just to break even you’d need to be making north of £50k. To have a shot at paying off the principal you’d need to be close to £75k. Hardly anyone will have these loans off in their 30s
£40k? when i was a student in the late 90s it was only about 10k (about £3.3k pa). Granted the younger you are the higher it will be, but we are talking about those in the 30s now, not current students or those in their early 20s/
The SPD have seen their vote share fall to 17%, yet they're haggling for more immigration. Is Shulz actually trying to destroy his own party?
Their point is that having their families with them will moderate the behaviour of the young men, and promote integration. It makes sense, but politically it's a hard sell.
Will it?
Has that happened here? If anything the practice of marrying cousins from back "home" has made integration harder and reinforced, if anything, the misogynistic culture.
There is real scope for a Chancellor to reduce that rate of interest. At the moment 6.1% does look like they are milking it, relative to what the Govt. can borrow at.
It's very largely meaningless anyway. Its main effect is to increase the nominal amount which in the majority of cases gets written off at the end.
So how will that work? The less than 50% of the population who go to University will force the greater than 50% of the population who don't go to University to pay more tax to bail them out?
The issue is the intergenerational difference:
Marginal rate of deductions from income in 2018 of 35 year old university graduate with median UK income: Income tax 20% NI 12% Student loan 9% Contribution to pension 3% minimum (rising to 5% minimum in 2019) - and most will pay more Deduct rent and you're looking at 25% left to pay all the bills and everything else (young children?) if you're lucky. Zero assets.
Marginal rate of deductions from income in 2018 of 70 year old with median UK income who also went to university: 20% income tax NI - nothing Student loan - nothing - in fact they paid you to go to university Pension contribution - nothing Deduct nothing - a tiny mortgage was paid off years ago and you've a huge housing asset available for equity release if you need even more. Leaving 80%.
If JRM's sppeech was all in Latin then only Boris would understand what he said.
That’s ancient Babylonian isn’t jit?
I think it is largely gibberish. IIRC "tekel" = shekel (which like pound is a measure of weight as well as currency), which is where the weighed bit comes from.
In that case the opinion pollsters who have changed their methodology since the election to allow for younger voters (under 25s) to actually come out and vote are now overestimating the Labour vote. Given Labour's failure to achieve more than a tiny lead in the opinion polls since June -much less than Miliband and Kinnock -it might well be that the 10pm election night exit poll in 2022 will be a very traumatic shock for Corbynistas.
How many times have you underestimated Jeremy so far??
Not as many times as you have made your point about poll leads or refused to say how you voted at GE 2017 admittedly
So how will that work? The less than 50% of the population who go to University will force the greater than 50% of the population who don't go to University to pay more tax to bail them out?
The issue is the intergenerational difference:
Marginal rate of deductions from income in 2018 of 35 year old university graduate with median UK income: Income tax 20% NI 12% Student loan 9% Contribution to pension 3% minimum (rising to 5% minimum in 2019) - and most will pay more Deduct rent and you're looking at 25% left to pay all the bills and everything else (young children?) if you're lucky. Zero assets.
Marginal rate of deductions from income in 2018 of 70 year old with median UK income who also went to university: 20% income tax NI - nothing Student loan - nothing - in fact they paid you to go to university Pension contribution - nothing Deduct nothing - a tiny mortgage was paid off years ago and you've a huge housing asset available for equity release if you need even more. Leaving 80%.
Which is why it makes sense to use the assets owned by that older generation to pay for what they need i.e. social care etc. But when that was proposed the young voted for the party which promised to do the opposite.......
The dementia tax affects younger people actually - they are the ones getting the inheritances. An elderly person with dementia probably isn't overly concerned about finances or houses - their relatives or the state worry about that for them.
As for the general policy - didn't the proposal actually mean people whose relatives were going into residential care would actually be able to keep £77k more of their inheritance given the change in the cap from £23k to £100k. When it comes to home care many if not most people with any savings or even modest pensions pay full cost anyway! My dad had to pay the full cost of his home care and he was living on £15k a year but had modest savings.
It would also have addressed the idiocy whereby someone who owns a £3m house on a state pension but with only £20k in savings (even if they have wealthy kids too who could help out) gets free home care but an equivalent person whose only income is also a state pension who rents a council flat but got left £40k by a friend has to pay 100 per cent of their home care. If that isn't a wicked evil system that needs reform I don't know what is - worth £3m it's free worth £40k you must pay for your home care in full just because an asset is a house (which could have a charge placed on it) rather than cash.
Shows how rubbish the Tory campaign was - their plan was actually more socialist than Labour's policy to keep the status quo and let the very rich keep their £3m homes while the poor pay through the nose.
Anyone with £20k in savings receiving homecare will not be paying the full cost of Carers. Should be paying no more than £41 per week.
If your Dads savings are under £50k he should not be paying in full no matter the value of his house.
My dad had £40k in savings - not enough to buy you nine months in most care homes. So he had to pay 100 per cent of his £600 a month home care costs.
If instead of saving in cash he had spent £40k on a bigger house - so still had the same total assets - he would have probably have got it for free as his pension also had to support my mother as she only had a modest partial state pension.
I don't have any issue paying for social care when it's a fair and equitable system - but knowing my dad had to cough up using cash savings he had saved so my mother could live in some comfort after he died when others who were far wealthier than him (potentially worth millions more in asset terms) got if for free rather sticks in the throat.
In that case the opinion pollsters who have changed their methodology since the election to allow for younger voters (under 25s) to actually come out and vote are now overestimating the Labour vote. Given Labour's failure to achieve more than a tiny lead in the opinion polls since June -much less than Miliband and Kinnock -it might well be that the 10pm election night exit poll in 2022 will be a very traumatic shock for Corbynistas.
Not sure that's right. If they are over-polling the youngest demographic it surely follows they are under-polling the ones above that - which is where Labour's vote actually did go up. So swings and roundabouts perhaps. Local elections - where the young are very unlikely to vote - seem to indicate the polls are broadly correct in seeing it as very tight.
The dementia tax affects younger people actually - they are the ones getting the inheritances. An elderly person with dementia probably isn't overly concerned about finances or houses - their relatives or the state worry about that for them.
As for the general policy - didn't the proposal actually mean people whose relatives were going into residential care would actually be able to keep £77k more of their inheritance given the change in the cap from £23k to £100k. When it comes to home care many if not most people with any savings or even modest pensions pay full cost anyway! My dad had to pay the full cost of his home care and he was living on £15k a year but had modest savings.
snip
Shows how rubbish the Tory campaign was - their plan was actually more socialist than Labour's policy to keep the status quo and let the very rich keep their £3m homes while the poor pay through the nose.
Anyone with £20k in savings receiving homecare will not be paying the full cost of Carers. Should be paying no more than £41 per week.
If your Dads savings are under £50k he should not be paying in full no matter the value of his house.
My dad had £40k in savings - not enough to buy you nine months in most care homes. So he had to pay 100 per cent of his £600 a month home care costs.
If instead of saving in cash he had spent £40k on a bigger house - so still had the same total assets - he would have probably have got it for free as his pension also had to support my mother as she only had a modest partial state pension.
I don't have any issue paying for social care when it's a fair and equitable system - but knowing my dad had to cough up using cash savings he had saved so my mother could live in some comfort after he died when others who were far wealthier than him (potentially worth millions more in asset terms) got if for free rather sticks in the throat.
I doubt anyone thinks the current system is right or works.
The question is how to get it fixed. Let's hope Hunt has some good ideas and will push this. He's taken ownership and he needs to deliver.
The dementia tax affects younger people actually - they are the ones getting the inheritances. An elderly person with dementia probably isn't overly concerned about finances or houses - their relatives or the state worry about that for them.
As for the general policy - didn't the proposal actually mean people whose relatives were going into residential care would actually be able to keep £77k more of their inheritance given the change in the cap from £23k to £100k. When it comes to home care many if not most people with any savings or even modest pensions pay full cost anyway! My dad had to pay the full cost of his home care and he was living on £15k a year but had modest savings.
It would also have addressed the idiocy whereby someone who owns are in full just because an asset is a house (which could have a charge placed on it) rather than cash.
Shows how rubbish the Tory campaign was - their plan was actually more socialist than Labour's policy to keep the status quo and let the very rich keep their £3m homes while the poor pay through the nose.
Anyone with £20k in savings receiving homecare will not be paying the full cost of Carers. Should be paying no more than £41 per week.
If your Dads savings are under £50k he should not be paying in full no matter the value of his house.
My dad had £40k in savings - not enough to buy you nine months in most care homes. So he had to pay 100 per cent of his £600 a month home care costs.
If instead of saving in cash he had spent £40k on a bigger house - so still had the same total assets - he would have probably have got it for free as his pension also had to support my mother as she only had a modest partial state pension.
I don't have any issue paying for social care when it's a fair and equitable system - but knowing my dad had to cough up using cash savings he had saved so my mother could live in some comfort after he died when others who were far wealthier than him (potentially worth millions more in asset terms) got if for free rather sticks in the throat.
It is only in terms of personal at home care the home is excluded in assessment for costs, in residential care cost terms it is not
Carlotta I am delighted you seem to be seeing sense this morning. Earlier, you praised Justine Greening for pointing out that negotiating Brexit is impossible, and now you are correctly pointing out that the government is split on Brexit.
Which is all that matters. What you, I, the opposition, or the RAC think about it couldn't matter less, right now.
Something else we evidently agree upon.
Labour are not remotely the 'government in waiting'.....
While the Tories are in Government, but not remotely in power.....
So how will that work? The less than 50% of the population who go to University will force the greater than 50% of the population who don't go to University to pay more tax to bail them out?
The issue is the intergenerational difference:
Marginal rate of deductions from income in 2018 of 35 year old university graduate with median UK income: Income tax 20% NI 12% Student loan 9% Contribution to pension 3% minimum (rising to 5% minimum in 2019) - and most will pay more Deduct rent and you're looking at 25% left to pay all the bills and everything else (young children?) if you're lucky. Zero assets.
Marginal rate of deductions from income in 2018 of 70 year old with median UK income who also went to university: 20% income tax NI - nothing Student loan - nothing - in fact they paid you to go to university Pension contribution - nothing Deduct nothing - a tiny mortgage was paid off years ago and you've a huge housing asset available for equity release if you need even more. Leaving 80%.
Though the 70 year old would have made NI contributions throughout their working life
So far the Tory opinion poll rating has remained relatively steady but Labour is gradually edging to the same Brexit end-point as most reasonable UK capitalists, and come March,council tax bills will be landing on the front mat,most will be at least 6% higher than last year,over £100 p.a more,for far less services like libraries and childrens centres.Add to this,the continual drip,drip of falling real incomes and increased prices in the shops,notably for food,and the crass insensitivity of Universal Credit. and it is impossible to see Tory polling going anywhere but down,unlike the number of homeless people living on our streets.The problems within the NHS and social care can only get worse as well. April could be the cruellest month for May but May to go in May is the co-incidence bet and then the poor woman can be released as Tory MP hostage in No 10.Only then, can she run through fields of corn for the remainder of her days.
Given Labour won the 2014 local elections up again this year and UKIP polled well the Tories may even make gains in May
So how will that work? The less than 50% of the population who go to University will force the greater than 50% of the population who don't go to University to pay more tax to bail them out?
The issue is the intergenerational difference:
Marginal rate of deductions from income in 2018 of 35 year old university graduate with median UK income: Income tax 20% NI 12% Student loan 9% Contribution to pension 3% minimum (rising to 5% minimum in 2019) - and most will pay more Deduct rent and you're looking at 25% left to pay all the bills and everything else (young children?) if you're lucky. Zero assets.
Marginal rate of deductions from income in 2018 of 70 year old with median UK income who also went to university: 20% income tax NI - nothing Student loan - nothing - in fact they paid you to go to university Pension contribution - nothing Deduct nothing - a tiny mortgage was paid off years ago and you've a huge housing asset available for equity release if you need even more. Leaving 80%.
Though the 70 year old would have made NI contributions throughout their working life
Don't forget to add employers NI to the 35 yr old uni graduate...
Interesting that for that journalist ruthless saving could get her a deposit but only because she is on a well above average salary, for everyone else on an average wage it is the bank of Mum and Dad if that is an option for them
So how will that work? The less than 50% of the population who go to University will force the greater than 50% of the population who don't go to University to pay more tax to bail them out?
The issue is the intergenerational difference:
Marginal rate of deductions from income in 2018 of 35 year old university graduate with median UK income: Income tax 20% NI 12% Student loan 9% Contribution to pension 3% minimum (rising to 5% minimum in 2019) - and most will pay more Deduct rent and you're looking at 25% left to pay all the bills and everything else (young children?) if you're lucky. Zero assets.
Marginal rate of deductions from income in 2018 of 70 year old with median UK income who also went to university: 20% income tax NI - nothing Student loan - nothing - in fact they paid you to go to university Pension contribution - nothing Deduct nothing - a tiny mortgage was paid off years ago and you've a huge housing asset available for equity release if you need even more. Leaving 80%.
Though the 70 year old would have made NI contributions throughout their working life
Don't forget to add employers NI to the 35 yr old uni graduate...
You need to look at the detail of the BES survey to appreciate just how striking the rise in turnout was amongst the 25-40 year old age range - something north of 10%, while the average turnout amongst those 65+ was unchanged. The Labour share of the vote also increased fairly uniformly by in excess of 10% across all age groups up to around 65, slightly more than that amongst under 25 year olds.
If anything has been disproved, it is a myth that no-one engaged in practical work in elections believed in anyway. The 18-24 year old electorate is too small to have more than a marginal bearing on the outcome of elections - only a tenth of the electorate and an even smaller proportion of the voting electorate. It was always plain to see that they could not have been the primary driver of the shift in voting at the 2017 election.
Labour made an extraordinary strides amongst the 25-40 age group, thanks to both turnout and vote share, and a much smaller if still above average strides amongst the under 25s due only to vote share. Together that's the youngest third of the electorate. So the BES study supports the view that the younger part of the electorate was the reason Labour made up ground in 2017, but reminds us not to focus only on the very youngest electors.
A promise to stop university fees worked for the Lib Dems in 2010 and for Labour in 2017.
However, Labour's failure to follow up on their promise will impact them in due course but not as much as it did the Lib Dems because Labour duplicity on this has not been hit with as much publicity.
Every year another cohort of voters graduating with £40k + student debts joins the electoral rolls. Eventually there will be enough of these voters for the system to be overturned and the debts slashed or cancelled. My guess is the mid 2020s.
Incidentally, these voters are likely to favour rejoining the EU as well...
So how will that work? The less than 50% of the population who go to University will force the greater than 50% of the population who don't go to University to pay more tax to bail them out?
Maybe they'll start by making student fees retroactive.
If JRM's sppeech was all in Latin then only Boris would understand what he said.
That’s ancient Babylonian isn’t jit?
I think it is largely gibberish. IIRC "tekel" = shekel (which like pound is a measure of weight as well as currency), which is where the weighed bit comes from.
I believe that is the original writing on the wall. Daniel 5:25, King James version.
But I don't disagree with the shithouse rat interpretation.
There is real scope for a Chancellor to reduce that rate of interest. At the moment 6.1% does look like they are milking it, relative to what the Govt. can borrow at.
It's very largely meaningless anyway. Its main effect is to increase the nominal amount which in the majority of cases gets written off at the end.
As most of the debt will be written off (paid by the taxpayer), why not write it off now, while the sums are merely large rather than later when they will be huge?
There is real scope for a Chancellor to reduce that rate of interest. At the moment 6.1% does look like they are milking it, relative to what the Govt. can borrow at.
It's very largely meaningless anyway. Its main effect is to increase the nominal amount which in the majority of cases gets written off at the end.
As most of the debt will be written off (paid by the taxpayer), why not write it off now, while the sums are merely large rather than later when they will be huge?
A problem ignored doesn't go away, it worsens.
It's not a problem, it's a feature. It means that those who end up earning a lot pay a lot, those who don't don't. The mistake was not calling it what it is: a (very progressive) Graduate Tax.
Why a Brexiteer obsessed with sovereignty would quote with approval a text suggesting that the Empire be divided up between the Medes and the Persians is something of a puzzle.
Rooting for Scottish independence, perhaps ? And abandoning Northern Ireland...
There is real scope for a Chancellor to reduce that rate of interest. At the moment 6.1% does look like they are milking it, relative to what the Govt. can borrow at.
It's very largely meaningless anyway. Its main effect is to increase the nominal amount which in the majority of cases gets written off at the end.
As most of the debt will be written off (paid by the taxpayer), why not write it off now, while the sums are merely large rather than later when they will be huge?
A problem ignored doesn't go away, it worsens.
It's not a problem, it's a feature. It means that those who end up earning a lot pay a lot, those who don't don't. The mistake was not calling it what it is: a (very progressive) Graduate Tax.
Progressive only up to a certain point, then regressive, due to the interest.
You need to look at the detail of the BES survey to appreciate just how striking the rise in turnout was amongst the 25-40 year old age range - something north of 10%, while the average turnout amongst those 65+ was unchanged. The Labour share of the vote also increased fairly uniformly by in excess of 10% across all age groups up to around 65, slightly more than that amongst under 25 year olds.
If anything has been disproved, it is a myth that no-one engaged in practical work in elections believed in anyway. The 18-24 year old electorate is too small to have more than a marginal bearing on the outcome of elections - only a tenth of the electorate and an even smaller proportion of the voting electorate. It was always plain to see that they could not have been the primary driver of the shift in voting at the 2017 election.
Labour made an extraordinary strides amongst the 25-40 age group, thanks to both turnout and vote share, and a much smaller if still above average strides amongst the under 25s due only to vote share. Together that's the youngest third of the electorate. So the BES study supports the view that the younger part of the electorate was the reason Labour made up ground in 2017, but reminds us not to focus only on the very youngest electors.
A promise to stop university fees worked for the Lib Dems in 2010 and for Labour in 2017.
However, Labour's failure to follow up on their promise will impact them in due course but not as much as it did the Lib Dems because Labour duplicity on this has not been hit with as much publicity.
Every year another cohort of voters graduating with £40k + student debts joins the electoral rolls. Eventually there will be enough of these voters for the system to be overturned and the debts slashed or cancelled. My guess is the mid 2020s.
Incidentally, these voters are likely to favour rejoining the EU as well...
So how will that work? The less than 50% of the population who go to University will force the greater than 50% of the population who don't go to University to pay more tax to bail them out?
Maybe they'll start by making student fees retroactive.
There is nothing wrong with fees in principle provided those at the Russell Group doing courses with the highest graduate earnings premium pay the most and it is not £9000 for every course at every university as now
You need to look at the detail of the BES survey to appreciate just how striking the rise in turnout was amongst the 25-40 year old age range - something north of 10%, while the average turnout amongst those 65+ was unchanged. The Labour share of the vote also increased fairly uniformly by in excess of 10% across all age groups up to around 65, slightly more than that amongst under 25 year olds.
If anything has been disproved, it is a myth that no-one engaged in practical work in elections believed in anyway. The 18-24 year old electorate is too small to have more than a marginal bearing on the outcome of elections - only a tenth of the electorate and an even smaller proportion of the voting electorate. It was always plain to see that they could not have been the primary driver of the shift in voting at the 2017 election.
Labour made an extraordinary strides amongst the 25-40 age group, thanks to both turnout and vote share, and a much smaller if still above average strides amongst the under 25s due only to vote share. Together that's the youngest third of the electorate. So the BES study supports the view that the younger part of the electorate was the reason Labour made up ground in 2017, but reminds us not to focus only on the very youngest electors.
A promise to stop university fees worked for the Lib Dems in 2010 and for Labour in 2017.
However, Labour's failure to follow up on their promise will impact them in due course but not as much as it did the Lib Dems because Labour duplicity on this has not been hit with as much publicity.
Every year another cohort of voters graduating with £40k + student debts joins the electoral rolls. Eventually there will be enough of these voters for the system to be overturned and the debts slashed or cancelled. My guess is the mid 2020s.
Incidentally, these voters are likely to favour rejoining the EU as well...
So how will that work? The less than 50% of the population who go to University will force the greater than 50% of the population who don't go to University to pay more tax to bail them out?
Maybe they'll start by making student fees retroactive.
There is nothing wrong with fees in principle provided those at the Russell Group doing courses with the highest graduate earnings premium pay the most and it is not £9000 for every course at every university as now
Of course we're all shocked- shocked!- that the free market didn't make that happen automatically.
There is real scope for a Chancellor to reduce that rate of interest. At the moment 6.1% does look like they are milking it, relative to what the Govt. can borrow at.
It's very largely meaningless anyway. Its main effect is to increase the nominal amount which in the majority of cases gets written off at the end.
As most of the debt will be written off (paid by the taxpayer), why not write it off now, while the sums are merely large rather than later when they will be huge?
A problem ignored doesn't go away, it worsens.
It's not a problem, it's a feature. It means that those who end up earning a lot pay a lot, those who don't don't. The mistake was not calling it what it is: a (very progressive) Graduate Tax.
Progressive only up to a certain point, then regressive, due to the interest.
Why a Brexiteer obsessed with sovereignty would quote with approval a text suggesting that the Empire be divided up between the Medes and the Persians is something of a puzzle.
Rooting for Scottish independence, perhaps ? And abandoning Northern Ireland...
Mogg has always said Scottish independence is up to the Scots, he would be happy with England and Wales as pre 1707 provided they were outside the EU
Why a Brexiteer obsessed with sovereignty would quote with approval a text suggesting that the Empire be divided up between the Medes and the Persians is something of a puzzle.
Rooting for Scottish independence, perhaps ? And abandoning Northern Ireland...
Mogg has always said Scottish independence is up to the Scots, he would be happy with England and Wales as pre 1707 provided they were outside the EU
"...he would be happy with England and Wales as pre 1707..." Yes, that sounds about right for the nutter.
Hardly a surprise a libertarian like the author dislikes May, however given the Tories are almost level with Labour in the polls a change could make things worse, as well as being self indulgent with Brexit talks ongoing
May's strategy is absolutely correct, when you suspect the guy on the other side of the table hasn't got a clue what they need to get to keep the remaining members happy.....
At some point the rest of the EU will start spelling out their red lines. It's not sensible to offer more than they might be prepared to accept.
And if the journos want a laugh, then ask Mrs Merkel how her other negotiations are going - those for a German government....
Mrs May's "strategy" is to say nothing and do nothing until 29th March 2019 and so hope she gets across the line without the whole thing going tits up. It may be the correct strategy for her but it has nothing to do with negotiating a relationship with the EU.
A far as the "other negotiations" are concerned, I think Mrs Merkel is in a good a position as she can be in the circumstances. The one guaranteed outcome is that her party, the CDU, will lead whatever government transpires. Unless the CDU ditches her, she will be the Federal Chancellor. Mrs Consensus has qualities that are in demand right now.
Edit. The EU aren't going to save us from ourselves. If we go for a crappy deal, they'll give it us.
You need to look at the detail of the BES survey to appreciate just how striking the 2017 election.
Labour made an extraordinary strides amongst the 25-40 age group, thanks to both turnout and vote share, and a much smaller if still above average strides amongst the under 25s due only to vote share. Together that's the youngest third of the electorate. So the BES study supports the view that the younger part of the electorate was the reason Labour made up ground in 2017, but reminds us not to focus only on the very youngest electors.
A promise to stop university fees worked for the Lib Dems in 2010 and for Labour in 2017.
However, Labour's failure to follow up on their promise will impact them in due course but not as much as it did the Lib Dems because Labour duplicity on this has not been hit with as much publicity.
Every year another cohort of voters graduating with £40k + student debts joins the electoral rolls. Eventually there will be enough of these voters for the system to be overturned and the debts slashed or cancelled. My guess is the mid 2020s.
Incidentally, these voters are likely to favour rejoining the EU as well...
So how will that work? The less than 50% of the population who go to University will force the greater than 50% of the population who don't go to University to pay more tax to bail them out?
Maybe they'll start by making student fees retroactive.
There is nothing wrong with fees in principle provided those at the Russell Group doing courses with the highest graduate earnings premium pay the most and it is not £9000 for every course at every university as now
Of course we're all shocked- shocked!- that the free market didn't make that happen automatically.
If students are willing to pay then fine but if courses cannot fill their rolls they should be cancelled or fees cut
There is real scope for a Chancellor to reduce that rate of interest. At the moment 6.1% does look like they are milking it, relative to what the Govt. can borrow at.
It's very largely meaningless anyway. Its main effect is to increase the nominal amount which in the majority of cases gets written off at the end.
As most of the debt will be written off (paid by the taxpayer), why not write it off now, while the sums are merely large rather than later when they will be huge?
A problem ignored doesn't go away, it worsens.
It's not a problem, it's a feature. It means that those who end up earning a lot pay a lot, those who don't don't. The mistake was not calling it what it is: a (very progressive) Graduate Tax.
Progressive only up to a certain point, then regressive, due to the interest.
True, it's a rather odd profile.
Just did a back of the envelope calculation- at current interest rates, it becomes regressive for salaries over £45kish for a loan of £30k. Obviously very rough calculation, since normally people's salaries change, etc., but it shows that we're not really talking about sky-high numbers.
There is real scope for a Chancellor to reduce that rate of interest. At the moment 6.1% does look like they are milking it, relative to what the Govt. can borrow at.
It's very largely meaningless anyway. Its main effect is to increase the nominal amount which in the majority of cases gets written off at the end.
As most of the debt will be written off (paid by the taxpayer), why not write it off now, while the sums are merely large rather than later when they will be huge?
A problem ignored doesn't go away, it worsens.
It's not a problem, it's a feature. It means that those who end up earning a lot pay a lot, those who don't don't. The mistake was not calling it what it is: a (very progressive) Graduate Tax.
Progressive only up to a certain point, then regressive, due to the interest.
There is real scope for a Chancellor to reduce that rate of interest. At the moment 6.1% does look like they are milking it, relative to what the Govt. can borrow at.
It's very largely meaningless anyway. Its main effect is to increase the nominal amount which in the majority of cases gets written off at the end.
As most of the debt will be written off (paid by the taxpayer), why not write it off now, while the sums are merely large rather than later when they will be huge?
A problem ignored doesn't go away, it worsens.
It's not a problem, it's a feature. It means that those who end up earning a lot pay a lot, those who don't don't. The mistake was not calling it what it is: a (very progressive) Graduate Tax.
Progressive only up to a certain point, then regressive, due to the interest.
True, it's a rather odd profile.
Just did a back of the envelope calculation- at current interest rates, it becomes regressive for salaries over £45kish for a loan of £30k. Obviously very rough calculation, since normally people's salaries change, etc., but it shows that we're not really talking about sky-high numbers.
Are you sure? I thought it was only at really quite high salaries that it stopped being progressive. Of course it's a bit difficult to generalise because it depends on when an individual ends up earning a lot.
There is real scope for a Chancellor to reduce that rate of interest. At the moment 6.1% does look like they are milking it, relative to what the Govt. can borrow at.
It's very largely meaningless anyway. Its main effect is to increase the nominal amount which in the majority of cases gets written off at the end.
As most of the debt will be written off (paid by the taxpayer), why not write it off now, while the sums are merely large rather than later when they will be huge?
A problem ignored doesn't go away, it worsens.
It's not a problem, it's a feature. It means that those who end up earning a lot pay a lot, those who don't don't. The mistake was not calling it what it is: a (very progressive) Graduate Tax.
Progressive only up to a certain point, then regressive, due to the interest.
True, it's a rather odd profile.
Just did a back of the envelope calculation- at current interest rates, it becomes regressive for salaries over £45kish for a loan of £30k. Obviously very rough calculation, since normally people's salaries change, etc., but it shows that we're not really talking about sky-high numbers.
Are you sure? I thought it was only at really quite high salaries that it stopped being progressive. Of course it's a bit difficult to generalise because it depends on when an individual ends up earning a lot.
I'm not sure. I'm also surprised it's that low actually, feel free to double-check in case I screwed something up.
There is real scope for a Chancellor to reduce that rate of interest. At the moment 6.1% does look like they are milking it, relative to what the Govt. can borrow at.
It's very largely meaningless anyway. Its main effect is to increase the nominal amount which in the majority of cases gets written off at the end.
As most of the debt will be written off (paid by the taxpayer), why not write it off now, while the sums are merely large rather than later when they will be huge?
A problem ignored doesn't go away, it worsens.
It's not a problem, it's a feature. It means that those who end up earning a lot pay a lot, those who don't don't. The mistake was not calling it what it is: a (very progressive) Graduate Tax.
Progressive only up to a certain point, then regressive, due to the interest.
True, it's a rather odd profile.
Just did a back of the envelope calculation- at current interest rates, it becomes regressive for salaries over £45kish for a loan of £30k. Obviously very rough calculation, since normally people's salaries change, etc., but it shows that we're not really talking about sky-high numbers.
Are you sure? I thought it was only at really quite high salaries that it stopped being progressive. Of course it's a bit difficult to generalise because it depends on when an individual ends up earning a lot.
It'll definitely be higher than 45k, particularly with the threshold raise to £25k.
(45-25)*0.09 = 1.8k/yr. = 30 * 0.06.
So for a 30k debt you pay off precisely the interest at 45k/yr if the interest rate is 6%...
Why a Brexiteer obsessed with sovereignty would quote with approval a text suggesting that the Empire be divided up between the Medes and the Persians is something of a puzzle.
Rooting for Scottish independence, perhaps ? And abandoning Northern Ireland...
Mogg has always said Scottish independence is up to the Scots, he would be happy with England and Wales as pre 1707 provided they were outside the EU
As the Hon Member for the 18th century, it is no surprise he’s happy to revert to the pre-1707 constitutional status.
Of course, as a Roman Catholic he should rightly be barred from public office in the event we repeal the 1829 Roman Catholic Relief Act.
Comments
Labour are not remotely the 'government in waiting'.....
Incidentally, these voters are likely to favour rejoining the EU as well...
How will I get to sleep on the weekends when the race is not shown live?
April could be the cruellest month for May but May to go in May is the co-incidence bet and then the poor woman can be released as Tory MP hostage in No 10.Only then, can she run through fields of corn for the remainder of her days.
1) Sack the minister who made this utterance.
2) Make another offer of a state visit to President Trump.
3) Tell the EU we'll abolish corporation tax and workers' rights if they don't bow to our every demand.
4) Give Toby Young a peerage and put him in charge of education.
Galileo Open would be an option for consumer devices but you wouldn't want to do anything too serious with it.
https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/editor-s-corner-1-gbps-speeds-verizon-s-5g-residential-fixed-wireless-broadband-service
That should be factored in when considering her potential date of departure - if she was voted out next week, she might still hang on in No. 10 until after Easter.
Yes, mostly likely student loan repayment rates will decrease and other taxes will rose to compensate leaving graduates better off overall. Non graduates are much less likely to vote.
Labour's student fee promise was largely irrelevant to the 25-40 age group already saddled by university debt, amongst whom Labour made up by far the most ground. Besides, it came too late for the print deadlines for the ground campaign so didn't feature at all in the one I was responsible for.
And to be held accountable for promises you have to get into government first. Contrast the LDs in 2010 with Labour in 2017.
If your Dads savings are under £50k he should not be paying in full no matter the value of his house.
Removing student fees would only go some of the way to avoid large amounts of student debt.
At some point the rest of the EU will start spelling out their red lines. It's not sensible to offer more than they might be prepared to accept.
And if the journos want a laugh, then ask Mrs Merkel how her other negotiations are going - those for a German government....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42747342
In that case the opinion pollsters who have changed their methodology since the election to allow for younger voters (under 25s) to actually come out and vote are now overestimating the Labour vote. Given Labour's failure to achieve more than a tiny lead in the opinion polls since June -much less than Miliband and Kinnock -it might well be that the 10pm election night exit poll in 2022 will be a very traumatic shock for Corbynistas.
2010 polls underestimated Labour vote.
2015 polls underestimated Tory vote.
2017 polls underestimated Labour vote.
2022.....
Get the pattern??
Has that happened here? If anything the practice of marrying cousins from back "home" has made integration harder and reinforced, if anything, the misogynistic culture.
Marginal rate of deductions from income in 2018 of 35 year old university graduate with median UK income:
Income tax 20%
NI 12%
Student loan 9%
Contribution to pension 3% minimum (rising to 5% minimum in 2019) - and most will pay more
Deduct rent and you're looking at 25% left to pay all the bills and everything else (young children?) if you're lucky. Zero assets.
Marginal rate of deductions from income in 2018 of 70 year old with median UK income who also went to university:
20% income tax
NI - nothing
Student loan - nothing - in fact they paid you to go to university
Pension contribution - nothing
Deduct nothing - a tiny mortgage was paid off years ago and you've a huge housing asset available for equity release if you need even more.
Leaving 80%.
Not as many times as you have made your point about poll leads or refused to say how you voted at GE 2017 admittedly
If instead of saving in cash he had spent £40k on a bigger house - so still had the same total assets - he would have probably have got it for free as his pension also had to support my mother as she only had a modest partial state pension.
I don't have any issue paying for social care when it's a fair and equitable system - but knowing my dad had to cough up using cash savings he had saved so my mother could live in some comfort after he died when others who were far wealthier than him (potentially worth millions more in asset terms) got if for free rather sticks in the throat.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jan/29/can-you-really-save-for-a-deposit-by-ditching-coffee-and-avocado-toast-i-tried-to-find-out
The question is how to get it fixed. Let's hope Hunt has some good ideas and will push this. He's taken ownership and he needs to deliver.
It seems Daniel waas the only one able to interpret it and used some word play to do so.
However, whatever the words say it is generally taken to mean the writings on the wall.
Daniel 5:25, King James version.
But I don't disagree with the shithouse rat interpretation.
A problem ignored doesn't go away, it worsens.
Rooting for Scottish independence, perhaps ?
And abandoning Northern Ireland...
Yes, that sounds about right for the nutter.
A far as the "other negotiations" are concerned, I think Mrs Merkel is in a good a position as she can be in the circumstances. The one guaranteed outcome is that her party, the CDU, will lead whatever government transpires. Unless the CDU ditches her, she will be the Federal Chancellor. Mrs Consensus has qualities that are in demand right now.
Edit. The EU aren't going to save us from ourselves. If we go for a crappy deal, they'll give it us.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/28/trump-infrastructure-cities-states-373775?lo=ap_b1
Which way would the cabinet pull?
(45-25)*0.09 = 1.8k/yr. = 30 * 0.06.
So for a 30k debt you pay off precisely the interest at 45k/yr if the interest rate is 6%...
Of course, as a Roman Catholic he should rightly be barred from public office in the event we repeal the 1829 Roman Catholic Relief Act.
https://twitter.com/ncpoliticsuk/status/957964527785652224