Certainly it is credible that the sort of person who will sign up to an online panel and spend time filling in surveys on this, that and the other several times every week is less likely to be the sort of person for whom voting in an election once every five years is too much hassle.
The format of the debates will almost certainly have to change next time, on the reasonable assumption that UKIP will have no seats and far fewer votes than in 2015. If UKIP's participation becomes almost impossible to justify, the Greens and the Lib Dems will look vulnerable to the axe too.
The SNP and Plaid Cymru might still creep through on the basis that the SNP is a national party in Scotland (and Plaid Cymru might well slipstream in their wake). But next time a pure head-to-head between the main two party leaders will be much easier to argue for.
Of course, that would bring us back to the format wars of 2015.
The format wars of 2015 were solely Cameron trying to dilute the impact of Farage, there is no need for the farce to continue any longer
The Labour policy on abolitionist tuition fees last night is not only popular with young voters, but with middle class parents, who don't want their kids saddled with huge debts by the time they are 21.
Just them saddled with huge taxes instead! I mean, are these middle class parents all buying into shaking the Free Money Tree?
Put that down as a "hmmmmm......."
Student fees are currently paid by the government to universities. This is funded by borrowing. It doesn't show as part of the deficit because of the accounting convention that you can offset the borrowing against student debt in the balance sheet - the student debt to be possibly paid back over 30 years.
This government is the biggest ever user of the magic money tree, known more technically as quantitative easing. This has created about £350 billion to buy bonds including government bonds. The Bank of England holds over 50% of government debt, receives interest on it and passes it back to the Treasury.
QE is however am internal monentary construct. Non of the 'spending' goes into the real world.
The follow-on point from this is that if QE or equivalent is seen as the way to square the revenue to promises circle, BoE independence is over.
I have a 14 year old daughter & 12 year old son who could in theory benefit.
But I think it's a stupid policy. Because there will be others of their age who will not go to University who will have to pay more tax to fund it. It's fundamentally unfair. The system already allows very generous terms and a long time for you to pay back your fees - decades! It's a bargain if you get a good degree
The country cannot afford to pay more middle class & rich kids to go to University for nothing. We. cannot. afford. it. Maybe some more grants for poor kids - there's a case. Same argument for winter fuel, and for free school meals - keep it for the most needy, not everyone.
Tories are right, and Labour is wrong on all this. But the electorate wants free stuff, and wants "the rich" to pay.
And so more generally the Corbyn approach to spending money he hasn't got even more than the Tories will f*ck the economy royally.
How depressing
How is this any different from the ranting about the social care policy ? It's just another group of people who don't want to pay and expect the Government to pick up the tab.
Yes of course we must help those and especially those struggling with dementia but to what extent should the care of the elderly be a family responsibility? Instead, we have the absurdity of the Government interfering to provide a guaranteed inheritance - why should anyone be guaranteed an inheritance and especially when most of that will be as a result of the ludicrous "housing market" which operates in this country ?
I note by the way not much has been said about housing apart from vague commitments to build a lot of houses.
I think the problem is that people (rightly or wrongly) see dementia as an illness which falls under the remit of free at the point of use care. This is why so many people are surprised to find out about the current situation where you already pay for care if your assets are worth more than £23,000.
There is a legitimate question to ask as to why someone with terminal cancer should get free palliative care but someone with dementia should not. Both are diseases which are linked to longer life (although obviously there are exceptions in both cases) and both are thought to have elements of both genetic predisposition and lifestyle causes. It would be very difficult to define a water tight logical argument as to why each should be treated differently in terms of care provision and payment.
Certainly it is credible that the sort of person who will sign up to an online panel and spend time filling in surveys on this, that and the other several times every week is less likely to be the sort of person for whom voting in an election once every five years is too much hassle.
Both of them made the same point, their focus groups aren't interested in politics in the way we are, so this is their first proper look at Mrs May.
They were expecting The Iron Lady Mark II and well they've been left disappointed
That's quite funny - May fell for the hubris of her own campaign and how much better than the posh boys she was. This is someone who doesn't consult widely, which suggests she really doesn't understand how complicated Brexit is going to be.
Certainly it is credible that the sort of person who will sign up to an online panel and spend time filling in surveys on this, that and the other several times every week is less likely to be the sort of person for whom voting in an election once every five years is too much hassle.
Nail. Hit. Head.
"If the polls called it incorrectly in the last two national elections, why should take seriously what they tell us now? Why did they indicate one thing, pretty strongly, only for the public to say something different? I believe it’s because they are not recording the opinion of the public as a whole but extrapolating the opinion of the type who like answering opinion polls - the politically engaged. The resultant swings make good copy for the hacks, and fuel suppertime conversations of the chattering classes... but are they all nonsense?"
The Labour policy on abolitionist tuition fees last night is not only popular with young voters, but with middle class parents, who don't want their kids saddled with huge debts by the time they are 21.
Just them saddled with huge taxes instead! I mean, are these middle class parents all buying into shaking the Free Money Tree?
Put that down as a "hmmmmm......."
Student fees are currently paid by the government to universities. This is funded by borrowing. It doesn't show as part of the deficit because of the accounting convention that you can offset the borrowing against student debt in the balance sheet - the student debt to be possibly paid back over 30 years.
This government is the biggest ever user of the magic money tree, known more technically as quantitative easing. This has created about £350 billion to buy bonds including government bonds. The Bank of England holds over 50% of government debt, receives interest on it and passes it back to the Treasury.
QE is however am internal monentary construct. Non of the 'spending' goes into the real world.
The follow-on point from this is that if QE or equivalent is seen as the way to square the revenue to promises circle, BoE independence is over.
I thought Labour were thinking of doing that anyway, I seem to rember some rumblings about it when Richard Murphy was talking about Peoples QE.
I have a 14 year old daughter & 12 year old son who could in theory benefit.
But I think it's a stupid policy. Because there will be others of their age who will not go to University who will have to pay more tax to fund it. It's fundamentally unfair. The system already allows very generous terms and a long time for you to pay back your fees - decades! It's a bargain if you get a good degree
The country cannot afford to pay more middle class & rich kids to go to University for nothing. We. cannot. afford. it. Maybe some more grants for poor kids - there's a case. Same argument for winter fuel, and for free school meals - keep it for the most needy, not everyone.
Tories are right, and Labour is wrong on all this. But the electorate wants free stuff, and wants "the rich" to pay.
And so more generally the Corbyn approach to spending money he hasn't got even more than the Tories will f*ck the economy royally.
How depressing
How is this any different from the ranting about the social care policy ? It's just another group of people who don't want to pay and expect the Government to pick up the tab.
Yes of course we must help those and especially those struggling with dementia but to what extent should the care of the elderly be a family responsibility? Instead, we have the absurdity of the Government interfering to provide a guaranteed inheritance - why should anyone be guaranteed an inheritance and especially when most of that will be as a result of the ludicrous "housing market" which operates in this country ?
I note by the way not much has been said about housing apart from vague commitments to build a lot of houses.
I think the problem is that people (rightly or wrongly) see dementia as an illness which falls under the remit of free at the point of use care. This is why so many people are surprised to find out about the current situation where you already pay for care if your assets are worth more than £23,000.
There is a legitimate question to ask as to why someone with terminal cancer should get free palliative care but someone with dementia should not. Both are diseases which are linked to longer life (although obviously there are exceptions in both cases) and both are thought to have elements of both genetic predisposition and lifestyle causes. It would be very difficult to define a water tight logical argument as to why each should be treated differently in terms of care provision and payment.
We 'could' provide free care for it. The question is what the cost of that would be.
This is essentially a variation on the discussion we were having last night about the Yougov with too many Remainians. Sure you can weight til your hearts content but it doesn't fundamentally stop the sample being unrepresentative, and done incorrectly will exacerbate it.
On Mrs May herself, I would acknowledge she is not a natural, charismatic campaigner. Yet that isn't her pitch is it? She pitches as serious, experienced, competent. I don't believe that the social care policy is enough to undo 7 years plus of Government experience in voters eyes. Does it mean she doesn't fight another GE, I don't know. Certainly you would expect more of the team to come forward in future campaigns, but Angela Merkel seems to keep fighting elections with the same reputation doesn't she?
We are in a wierd and unfair situation to Mrs May that seemingly if May wins a majority of say 100 (best Tory performance since the 1980's) she will gain no credit because it will be down to Corbyn, yet if she doesn't increase her majority it will be all her fault - she can't win!
Fairness implies some connection between contribution and outcome.
Unfairness can just as equally mean the lucky being rewarded as the virtuous going unrecognised.
Three children and one toy flute. Who should get the flute?
Alice is the only one who can play the flute. She should get it as the others can't make use of it.
Bob has no toys. The other two have plenty of toys. Bob should get the flute because it would give him more happiness.
Colin was lucky enough to find the flute. He should get. Finders keepers.
Certainly it is credible that the sort of person who will sign up to an online panel and spend time filling in surveys on this, that and the other several times every week is less likely to be the sort of person for whom voting in an election once every five years is too much hassle.
Nail. Hit. Head.
"If the polls called it incorrectly in the last two national elections, why should take seriously what they tell us now? Why did they indicate one thing, pretty strongly, only for the public to say something different? I believe it’s because they are not recording the opinion of the public as a whole but extrapolating the opinion of the type who like answering opinion polls - the politically engaged. The resultant swings make good copy for the hacks, and fuel suppertime conversations of the chattering classes... but are they all nonsense?"
The Conservatives are ~ 3% ahead in the raw samples that all the pollsters are getting by the way Labour were level in a recent yougov on unweighted) - so they KNOW that the samples aren't correct.
The question is then how much extra you give to the Tories.
The Labour policy on abolitionist tuition fees last night is not only popular with young voters, but with middle class parents, who don't want their kids saddled with huge debts by the time they are 21.
Just them saddled with huge taxes instead! I mean, are these middle class parents all buying into shaking the Free Money Tree?
Put that down as a "hmmmmm......."
Student fees are currently paid by the government to universities. This is funded by borrowing. It doesn't show as part of the deficit because of the accounting convention that you can offset the borrowing against student debt in the balance sheet - the student debt to be possibly paid back over 30 years.
This government is the biggest ever user of the magic money tree, known more technically as quantitative easing. This has created about £350 billion to buy bonds including government bonds. The Bank of England holds over 50% of government debt, receives interest on it and passes it back to the Treasury.
QE is however am internal monentary construct. Non of the 'spending' goes into the real world.
The follow-on point from this is that if QE or equivalent is seen as the way to square the revenue to promises circle, BoE independence is over.
The much bigger follow on point is that QE ultimately debases a currency. It leads to inflation. We may be enjoying a 'weak' pound (actually a reversion to true value) from a current trade perspective but I don't think we are mentally prepared for a return to proper inflation and interest rates. At some point the era of free money and central bank balance sheet explosion is going to have to unwind. Some point in the not too distant future, as this bull market is getting very long in the tooth. A hard unwinding through default or a soft one via inflation are both going to cause huge grief.
As I read it, from the previous comments, the Pollsters are relying on a very small set of self selected people, to answer sets of questions, written, probably using NLP or similar techniques, to get accurate answers, which are then fed into computer programs with advanced algorithms to provide correctly perceived results. What could possibly go wrong?
Plus I think people might look back on the coalition with some fondness.
I'm really surprised the Lib Dems haven't used this to counterpunch, but I suppose they still have the scars from 2015.
Farron could have had hit back against the 'coalition of chaos' line by saying something like:
"There's only been one coalition in recent history and it was between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. Yes, we had to make some tough decisions but we provided strong and stable government. On your own, you're not so strong or stable: reckless with the economy, reckless with the constitution, reckless with our place in the world. Regardless of who occupies Downing Street, we need a strong Liberal voice in parliament."
yep - I have never understood why the LDs got so much stick. Of course as you say they made some difficult decisions but they were the junior partner in a coalition. A political party is designed to be in power and they got themselves into power. And have never been forgiven for it.
I think the problem is that people (rightly or wrongly) see dementia as an illness which falls under the remit of free at the point of use care. This is why so many people are surprised to find out about the current situation where you already pay for care if your assets are worth more than £23,000.
There is a legitimate question to ask as to why someone with terminal cancer should get free palliative care but someone with dementia should not. Both are diseases which are linked to longer life (although obviously there are exceptions in both cases) and both are thought to have elements of both genetic predisposition and lifestyle causes. It would be very difficult to define a water tight logical argument as to why each should be treated differently in terms of care provision and payment.
I think its the length of time care is required. My mum has dementia, all the family are looking after her so she does not receive any state care. She is physically reasonably well and is likely to require this high level of care and support for a number of years. If you have cancer and are receiving a similar level of care in terms of cost that my mum would require if she did not have her family to support her, then unfortunately it is unlikely that this care would be required for very long.
The Labour policy on abolitionist tuition fees last night is not only popular with young voters, but with middle class parents, who don't want their kids saddled with huge debts by the time they are 21.
I have changed my mind about tuition fees after having seen how the policies have panned out in England and Scotland. I was very opposed to them before because I believe strongly in giving people as many chances as possible to educate themselves. Tuition fees were applied in England but the payback regime was relatively benign and there were also grants given to those that probably would have ruled themselves out on affordability grounds. I guess we can thank the Lib Dems for that regime. In Scotland a similar amount saw free provision a more limited number who mostly could afford it anyway. So tuition fees can be for the good providing they free up money that can go more effectively towards expanding the provision The Conservatives now on their own are tightening up.
I also think universities need to up their productivity at the undergraduate level and provide a more affordable education. Not just on tuition fees but on living expenses. For example making courses shorter by working through the long vacations or providing more genuine part time courses.
I have a 14 year old daughter & 12 year old son who could in theory benefit.
But I think it's a stupid policy. Because there will be others of their age who will not go to University who will have to pay more tax to fund it. It's fundamentally unfair. The system already allows very generous terms and a long time for you to pay back your fees - decades! It's a bargain if you get a good degree
The country cannot afford to pay more middle class & rich kids to go to University for nothing. We. cannot. afford. it. Maybe some more grants for poor kids - there's a case. Same argument for winter fuel, and for free school meals - keep it for the most needy, not everyone.
Tories are right, and Labour is wrong on all this. But the electorate wants free stuff, and wants "the rich" to pay.
And so more generally the Corbyn approach to spending money he hasn't got even more than the Tories will f*ck the economy royally.
How depressing
How is this any different from the ranting about the social care policy ? It's just another group of people who don't want to pay and expect the Government to pick up the tab.
Yes of course we must help those and especially those struggling with dementia but to what extent should the care of the elderly be a family responsibility? Instead, we have the absurdity of the Government interfering to provide a guaranteed inheritance - why should anyone be guaranteed an inheritance and especially when most of that will be as a result of the ludicrous "housing market" which operates in this country ?
I note by the way not much has been said about housing apart from vague commitments to build a lot of houses.
I think the problem is that people (rightly or wrongly) see dementia as an illness which falls under the remit of free at the point of use care. This is why so many people are surprised to find out about the current situation where you already pay for care if your assets are worth more than £23,000.
There is a legitimate question to ask as to why someone with terminal cancer should get free palliative care but someone with dementia should not. Both are diseases which are linked to longer life (although obviously there are exceptions in both cases) and both are thought to have elements of both genetic predisposition and lifestyle causes. It would be very difficult to define a water tight logical argument as to why each should be treated differently in terms of care provision and payment.
Because dementia is a slow degradation of natural brain function as a result of the aging process. It's basically old age.
Cancer is something going wrong with the cell messaging systems results in continuous cell division.
Hamlet without the prince was never going to get a high audience rating. The open question is how many people who didn't watch it will remember that the prince refused to turn up for the play.
Without that the economy would be booming, Corbyn and his thugs would be an irrelevance, and we would welcome our European friends as allies against the insanity of Trump
Hey ho...
It is exceedingly difficult not to agree. And now erstwhile Leavers are cacking themselves.
We have to take our pleasures where we find them.
@Indigo is already abroad, Max has left, and now @Casino is thinking of fucking off.
At this rate there won't be any PB Leavers left living in the UK.
Just Tyndall in his fortress in Lincolnshire having to pop out and pick the sprouts from time to time before they rot on the stem.
I'll be here.
Thank goodness. You, who will largely be untouched by Brexit, and the people who will be badly affected by it but can't afford to leave.
Sums it up perfectly.
I won't be largely untouched if it is a disaster. My biggest single asset is London prime property. I've built my career in financial services. Neither of those segments are safe from a bad Brexit.
I just have more confidence in the ability of the British people to cope with adversity than you.
Of course we'll cope. That wasn't my point. Well of course those who are leaving won't cope, they will have left.
My point was how it will affect the various segments in society. You will be largely untouched (were my exact words). Those at the lower end of the socio-economic scale will be affected much more harshly.
On Mrs May herself, I would acknowledge she is not a natural, charismatic campaigner. Yet that isn't her pitch is it? She pitches as serious, experienced, competent. I don't believe that the social care policy is enough to undo 7 years plus of Government experience in voters eyes. Does it mean she doesn't fight another GE, I don't know. Certainly you would expect more of the team to come forward in future campaigns, but Angela Merkel seems to keep fighting elections with the same reputation doesn't she?
We are in a wierd and unfair situation to Mrs May that seemingly if May wins a majority of say 100 (best Tory performance since the 1980's) she will gain no credit because it will be down to Corbyn, yet if she doesn't increase her majority it will be all her fault - she can't win!
Fairness implies some connection between contribution and outcome.
Unfairness can just as equally mean the lucky being rewarded as the virtuous going unrecognised.
Three children and one toy flute. Who should get the flute?
Alice is the only one who can play the flute. She should get it as the others can't make use of it.
Bob has no toys. The other two have plenty of toys. Bob should get the flute because it would give him more happiness.
Colin was lucky enough to find the flute. He should get. Finders keepers.
We 'could' provide free care for it. The question is what the cost of that would be.
I am not suggesting we necessarily should or could. Just that it seems a strange way to run things to designate one disease of the elderly as fit for support and funding and another as not.
Personally I think the Tory proposals are reasonable although as with everything they probably need tinkering with. But that doesn't mean we don't need to have a proper debate about what the taxpayer should and should not be funding regarding later life illnesses.
As always I think the first thing to do would be to look at how Europe and the rest of the first world handle it.
On Mrs May herself, I would acknowledge she is not a natural, charismatic campaigner. Yet that isn't her pitch is it? She pitches as serious, experienced, competent. I don't believe that the social care policy is enough to undo 7 years plus of Government experience in voters eyes. Does it mean she doesn't fight another GE, I don't know. Certainly you would expect more of the team to come forward in future campaigns, but Angela Merkel seems to keep fighting elections with the same reputation doesn't she?
We are in a wierd and unfair situation to Mrs May that seemingly if May wins a majority of say 100 (best Tory performance since the 1980's) she will gain no credit because it will be down to Corbyn, yet if she doesn't increase her majority it will be all her fault - she can't win!
Fairness implies some connection between contribution and outcome.
Unfairness can just as equally mean the lucky being rewarded as the virtuous going unrecognised.
Three children and one toy flute. Who should get the flute?
Alice is the only one who can play the flute. She should get it as the others can't make use of it.
Bob has no toys. The other two have plenty of toys. Bob should get the flute because it would give him more happiness.
Colin was lucky enough to find the flute. He should get. Finders keepers.
What is fair and just?
Selling the flute and investing the proceeds to pay for their education?
Why wouldn't all of that have been sorted out by YouGov post 2015?
YouGov can only balance the demographics between the various people in its panel, all of whom are voluntarily (given modest incentive) willing to spend time filling in online surveys. They are unable to correct for any bias arising from differences between this population and those who are unwilling
(without inventing some sort of hybrid online/telephone/in person poll - which may be where things head next?)
Viewing figures last night for the debate around 4.7 million. Not too bad but unlikely to change many views.
I suppose the main influence of events like these is usually indirect - how they are reported, rather than how they are perceived directly by the public.
The main message of the reporting is that May was criticised for not attending.
The Labour policy on abolitionist tuition fees last night is not only popular with young voters, but with middle class parents, who don't want their kids saddled with huge debts by the time they are 21.
I have changed my mind about tuition fees after having seen how the policies have panned out in England and Scotland. I was very opposed to them before because I believe strongly in giving people as many chances as possible to educate themselves. Tuition fees were applied in England but the payback regime was relatively benign and there were also grants given to those that probably would have ruled themselves out on affordability grounds. I guess we can thank the Lib Dems for that regime. In Scotland a similar amount saw free provision a more limited number who mostly could afford it anyway. So tuition fees can be for the good providing they free up money that can go more effectively towards expanding the provision The Conservatives now on their own are tightening up.
I also think universities need to up their productivity at the undergraduate level and provide a more affordable education. Not just on tuition fees but on living expenses. For example making courses shorter by working through the long vacations or providing more genuine part time courses.
I'd give free degrees to students who do proper degrees*, at red brick Unis.
Snobbish and elitist I knoow, but it's for the greater good.
*Medical degrees, maths, the real sciences, like physics and chemistry, engineering, legal degrees, and history.
The French seemed able to get accurate opinion polls without much trouble. I wonder if we've got a unique problem/difficulty in our system. The raw polls have the Tories only ~ 3% in front. No other country has such deviation from what the pollsters are told and what will actually happen.
The French seemed able to get accurate opinion polls without much trouble. I wonder if we've got a unique problem/difficulty in our system. The raw polls have the Tories only ~ 3% in front. No other country has such deviation from what the pollsters are told and what will actually happen.
On Mrs May herself, I would acknowledge she is not a natural, charismatic campaigner. Yet that isn't her pitch is it? She pitches as serious, experienced, competent. I don't believe that the social care policy is enough to undo 7 years plus of Government experience in voters eyes. Does it mean she doesn't fight another GE, I don't know. Certainly you would expect more of the team to come forward in future campaigns, but Angela Merkel seems to keep fighting elections with the same reputation doesn't she?
We are in a wierd and unfair situation to Mrs May that seemingly if May wins a majority of say 100 (best Tory performance since the 1980's) she will gain no credit because it will be down to Corbyn, yet if she doesn't increase her majority it will be all her fault - she can't win!
Fairness implies some connection between contribution and outcome.
Unfairness can just as equally mean the lucky being rewarded as the virtuous going unrecognised.
Three children and one toy flute. Who should get the flute?
Alice is the only one who can play the flute. She should get it as the others can't make use of it.
Bob has no toys. The other two have plenty of toys. Bob should get the flute because it would give him more happiness.
Colin was lucky enough to find the flute. He should get. Finders keepers.
What is fair and just?
Selling the flute and investing the proceeds to pay for their education?
Send Alice out busking and use the proceeds to buy toys for them all
Without that the economy would be booming, Corbyn and his thugs would be an irrelevance, and we would welcome our European friends as allies against the insanity of Trump
Hey ho...
It is exceedingly difficult not to agree. And now erstwhile Leavers are cacking themselves.
We have to take our pleasures where we find them.
@Indigo is already abroad, Max has left, and now @Casino is thinking of fucking off.
At this rate there won't be any PB Leavers left living in the UK.
Just Tyndall in his fortress in Lincolnshire having to pop out and pick the sprouts from time to time before they rot on the stem.
I'll be here.
Thank goodness. You, who will largely be untouched by Brexit, and the people who will be badly affected by it but can't afford to leave.
Sums it up perfectly.
I won't be largely untouched if it is a disaster. My biggest single asset is London prime property. I've built my career in financial services. Neither of those segments are safe from a bad Brexit.
I just have more confidence in the ability of the British people to cope with adversity than you.
Of course we'll cope. That wasn't my point. Well of course those who are leaving won't cope, they will have left.
My point was how it will affect the various segments in society. You will be largely untouched (were my exact words). Those at the lower end of the socio-economic scale will be affected much more harshly.
And my point is that I won't be "largely untouched".
I wonder whether the Tories are starting to wonder whether May is a "bloody difficult leader" to campaign under?
Sadly being difficult is considered a good negotiating position. It isn't. It usually has the opposite effect and you don't necessarily negotiate a logical solution where you maximise the win win scenario.
Sometime ago I was negotiating taking over another business. The position of the other side was so irrational I eventually just walked away. Prior to walking away we were at the point of agreeing stuff that was to both our disadvantage, but I was reluctantly doing so just to get the deal. Eventually enough was enough.
I'm rather afraid this will happen.
No Tory leader will survive 5 minutes and agree to leaving free movement uncontrolled and paying 100 billion euros to the EU so if that is the price the EU demand for a deal with no compromise as I said the only way we get a deal is a Labour PM
That is assuming that the EU will be 'difficult' which they might well be. TM has already announced she will be. I'd rather they went in both trying to minimise damage and maximises benefit.
A good deal is one where everyone comes out feeling satisfied. If you agree a deal that screws the other side you need to know you are never going to deal with them again. If you want an ongoing relationship you look for a deal that maximises the benefit to both or at least minimises the damage.
The Labour policy on abolitionist tuition fees last night is not only popular with young voters, but with middle class parents, who don't want their kids saddled with huge debts by the time they are 21.
I have changed my mind about tuition fees after having seen how the policies have panned out in England and Scotland. I was very opposed to them before because I believe strongly in giving people as many chances as possible to educate themselves. Tuition fees were applied in England but the payback regime was relatively benign and there were also grants given to those that probably would have ruled themselves out on affordability grounds. I guess we can thank the Lib Dems for that regime. In Scotland a similar amount saw free provision a more limited number who mostly could afford it anyway. So tuition fees can be for the good providing they free up money that can go more effectively towards expanding the provision The Conservatives now on their own are tightening up.
I also think universities need to up their productivity at the undergraduate level and provide a more affordable education. Not just on tuition fees but on living expenses. For example making courses shorter by working through the long vacations or providing more genuine part time courses.
I'd give free degrees to students who go to proper degrees*, at red brick Unis.
Snobbish and elitist I knoow, but it's for the greater good.
*Medical degrees, maths, the real sciences, like physics and chemistry, engineering, legal degrees, and history.
Or at least a huge reduction in fees, I think it would also encourage more people to do traditional subjects instead of pointless management or gender studies degrees.
The Labour policy on abolitionist tuition fees last night is not only popular with young voters, but with middle class parents, who don't want their kids saddled with huge debts by the time they are 21.
Just them saddled with huge taxes instead! I mean, are these middle class parents all buying into shaking the Free Money Tree?
Put that down as a "hmmmmm......."
Student fees are currently paid by the government to universities. This is funded by borrowing. It doesn't show as part of the deficit because of the accounting convention that you can offset the borrowing against student debt in the balance sheet - the student debt to be possibly paid back over 30 years.
This government is the biggest ever user of the magic money tree, known more technically as quantitative easing. This has created about £350 billion to buy bonds including government bonds. The Bank of England holds over 50% of government debt, receives interest on it and passes it back to the Treasury.
QE is however am internal monentary construct. Non of the 'spending' goes into the real world.
The result of the borrowing does, and it is enabled by the BOE buying the debt by a monetary construct known as the magic money tree.
The French seemed able to get accurate opinion polls without much trouble. I wonder if we've got a unique problem/difficulty in our system. The raw polls have the Tories only ~ 3% in front. No other country has such deviation from what the pollsters are told and what will actually happen.
Israel?
As Neil put it who wouldn't be shy about voting for Benjamin Netanyahu...
The French seemed able to get accurate opinion polls without much trouble. I wonder if we've got a unique problem/difficulty in our system. The raw polls have the Tories only ~ 3% in front. No other country has such deviation from what the pollsters are told and what will actually happen.
Our pollsters are like the beginner trying to steer a boat by always correcting for their previous mistake.
I too would like to know why in France they were spot on. With four leading candidates, rapidly shifting allegiances and complex geographical and demographic voting patterns, the French situation was hardly straightforward for any pollster to sample.
Without that the economy would be booming, Corbyn and his thugs would be an irrelevance, and we would welcome our European friends as allies against the insanity of Trump
Hey ho...
It is exceedingly difficult not to agree. And now erstwhile Leavers are cacking themselves.
We have to take our pleasures where we find them.
@Indigo is already abroad, Max has left, and now @Casino is thinking of fucking off.
At this rate there won't be any PB Leavers left living in the UK.
Just Tyndall in his fortress in Lincolnshire having to pop out and pick the sprouts from time to time before they rot on the stem.
I'll be here.
Thank goodness. You, who will largely be untouched by Brexit, and the people who will be badly affected by it but can't afford to leave.
Sums it up perfectly.
I won't be largely untouched if it is a disaster. My biggest single asset is London prime property. I've built my career in financial services. Neither of those segments are safe from a bad Brexit.
I just have more confidence in the ability of the British people to cope with adversity than you.
Of course we'll cope. That wasn't my point. Well of course those who are leaving won't cope, they will have left.
My point was how it will affect the various segments in society. You will be largely untouched (were my exact words). Those at the lower end of the socio-economic scale will be affected much more harshly.
And my point is that I won't be "largely untouched".
I am very exposed to a bad Brexit outcome
I am going to have to work very hard to be concerned for your well-being, Charles, given any set of circumstances, but if you say you are shoulder-to-shoulder with Lincolnshire hop-pickers, then who am I to argue.
Why has he appointed Seamus Milne and Andrew Murray - two avowed Stalinists - to his leadership team? Those were decisions taken in the here and now.
For the same reason as he appointed McDonnell and Thornberry. He's very influenced by the Blair/Brown saga, during which we spent years chewing over every leak and counter-leak, and he attaches a lot of importance to having a core team that is personally loyal. I don't know much about Murray apart from his communist past (which I share, but we all move on) and his StopTheWar leadership (not a big minus in current perspective). Milne has been an intelligent left-wing commentator for years and while he probably doesn't agree with Corbyn on quie a few issues he's apparently not leaked a single word since he was appointed. A lot of the old issues - what do we think of Eurocommunism vs the Soviet Union and all that - are mainly of interest to historians now.
It's clearly a weakness that the PLP insurgency has limited Corbyn's scope to appoint a wider range of intimates from outside the personal loyal circle, and he'd like to - hence e.g. Starmer and Rayner, who aren't notably Corbynistas. If he wins I expect to see the circle widen as the PLP won't renew the insurrection against a winner. A key decision which I expect would be to bring Hillary Benn back into the Cabinet.
Incidentally, I opposed appointing McDonnell as I thought Corbyn should take a centrist shadow Chancllor. He's pleasantly surprised me by his hard-headed approach - he's more rigorous than EdB was, someone whom he in some ways otherwise resembles (in joviality combined with a tough streak).
Why wouldn't all of that have been sorted out by YouGov post 2015?
I am not hearing any pollsters excitedly saying Hey look at the accuracy of our 4 May results, our post-2015 tweaks are clearly bang on the money.
The root of the problem is very simple. All valid recipes for polling start with the words "Take a random sample" and if you can't do that, you lose. A sample is not random if it is a necessary and sufficient condition for being in it, that you want to be in it. That is the root cause of the problem, and the tweaks designed to overcome it are like epicycles invented by geocentric astronomers trying to preserve a rubbish theory in light of a fundamental flaw.
The French seemed able to get accurate opinion polls without much trouble. I wonder if we've got a unique problem/difficulty in our system. The raw polls have the Tories only ~ 3% in front. No other country has such deviation from what the pollsters are told and what will actually happen.
Our pollsters are like the beginner trying to steer a boat by always correcting for their previous mistake.
I too would like to know why in France they were spot on. With four leading candidates, rapidly shifting allegiances and complex geographical and demographic voting patterns, the French situation was hardly straightforward for any pollster to sample.
Nowhere near the same age and age-turnout differentials that we have.
On Mrs May herself, I would acknowledge she is not a natural, charismatic campaigner. Yet that isn't her pitch is it? She pitches as serious, experienced, competent. I don't believe that the social care policy is enough to undo 7 years plus of Government experience in voters eyes. Does it mean she doesn't fight another GE, I don't know. Certainly you would expect more of the team to come forward in future campaigns, but Angela Merkel seems to keep fighting elections with the same reputation doesn't she?
We are in a wierd and unfair situation to Mrs May that seemingly if May wins a majority of say 100 (best Tory performance since the 1980's) she will gain no credit because it will be down to Corbyn, yet if she doesn't increase her majority it will be all her fault - she can't win!
Fairness implies some connection between contribution and outcome.
Unfairness can just as equally mean the lucky being rewarded as the virtuous going unrecognised.
Three children and one toy flute. Who should get the flute?
Alice is the only one who can play the flute. She should get it as the others can't make use of it.
Bob has no toys. The other two have plenty of toys. Bob should get the flute because it would give him more happiness.
Colin was lucky enough to find the flute. He should get. Finders keepers.
What is fair and just?
None of them should have the flute. A flute is a symbol of the patriarchal hegemony and as such should be shunned. The three children should be safe-spaced and it gently explained to them that such items are not socially friendly.
On Mrs May herself, I would acknowledge she is not a natural, charismatic campaigner. Yet that isn't her pitch is it? She pitches as serious, experienced, competent. I don't believe that the social care policy is enough to undo 7 years plus of Government experience in voters eyes. Does it mean she doesn't fight another GE, I don't know. Certainly you would expect more of the team to come forward in future campaigns, but Angela Merkel seems to keep fighting elections with the same reputation doesn't she?
We are in a wierd and unfair situation to Mrs May that seemingly if May wins a majority of say 100 (best Tory performance since the 1980's) she will gain no credit because it will be down to Corbyn, yet if she doesn't increase her majority it will be all her fault - she can't win!
Fairness implies some connection between contribution and outcome.
Unfairness can just as equally mean the lucky being rewarded as the virtuous going unrecognised.
Three children and one toy flute. Who should get the flute?
Alice is the only one who can play the flute. She should get it as the others can't make use of it.
Bob has no toys. The other two have plenty of toys. Bob should get the flute because it would give him more happiness.
Colin was lucky enough to find the flute. He should get. Finders keepers.
What is fair and just?
Conservative: Sell the flute to the highest bidder but use a small percentage of the proceeds to compensate the losers.
Labour: Keep the flute at the local library and allow the children to borrow it for short periods.
Lib Dem: All flute playing to be closely supervised by a Sunday School teacher. If the flute is pink, it must be repainted.
The Labour policy on abolitionist tuition fees last night is not only popular with young voters, but with middle class parents, who don't want their kids saddled with huge debts by the time they are 21.
I have changed my mind about tuition fees after having seen how the policies have panned out in England and Scotland. I was very opposed to them before because I believe strongly in giving people as many chances as possible to educate themselves. Tuition fees were applied in England but the payback regime was relatively benign and there were also grants given to those that probably would have ruled themselves out on affordability grounds. I guess we can thank the Lib Dems for that regime. In Scotland a similar amount saw free provision a more limited number who mostly could afford it anyway. So tuition fees can be for the good providing they free up money that can go more effectively towards expanding the provision The Conservatives now on their own are tightening up.
I also think universities need to up their productivity at the undergraduate level and provide a more affordable education. Not just on tuition fees but on living expenses. For example making courses shorter by working through the long vacations or providing more genuine part time courses.
I'd give free degrees to students who do proper degrees*, at red brick Unis.
Snobbish and elitist I knoow, but it's for the greater good.
*Medical degrees, maths, the real sciences, like physics and chemistry, engineering, legal degrees, and history.
As someone who did THE proper degree, philosophy, at a red brick. I Agree!
Without that the economy would be booming, Corbyn and his thugs would be an irrelevance, and we would welcome our European friends as allies against the insanity of Trump
Hey ho...
It is exceedingly difficult not to agree. And now erstwhile Leavers are cacking themselves.
We have to take our pleasures where we find them.
@Indigo is already abroad, Max has left, and now @Casino is thinking of fucking off.
At this rate there won't be any PB Leavers left living in the UK.
Just Tyndall in his fortress in Lincolnshire having to pop out and pick the sprouts from time to time before they rot on the stem.
Mr Casino is going??? I am shocked!
It's the election of a dogmatically Marxist Corbyn/McDonnell led Government that would lead me to seek to work and live overseas, not Brexit.
As a working full-time professional earning £70k-£80k, and about to start a family and buying a family home, it's precisely my money he'd be after.
I don't see Brexit and Conservative Government until (hopefully) GE2027 as any threat to my livelihood at all, although I know that disappoints some Remainers.
On the Welsh polls, the earlier Conservative lead was Historic...and just didnt feel right. Since then TM has just wibbled and wobbled ...and she just doesnt appeal to many in Wales. The fact that her own team in Wales are now falling out with each other is also telling. Dont expect another Tory lead.
More likley is that Carwyn Jones has managed to smother the anti-Corbyn feeling - even before Corbyn started to become cuddly as well. Labour seem to be recovering very well and I expect a Historic High for Labour in the poll.
LDs and UKIP seem to have sunk without a trace and the only question mark is over Plaid support. They are being squeezed where there is a WLab-Con fight - but seem to be holding up elsewhere...I am still predicting 5 Plaid seats - but my choice of 5th seat has moved from Rhondda back to Llanelli and now on to Ceredigion.....
On Mrs May herself, I would acknowledge she is not a natural, charismatic campaigner. Yet that isn't her pitch is it? She pitches as serious, experienced, competent. I don't believe that the social care policy is enough to undo 7 years plus of Government experience in voters eyes. Does it mean she doesn't fight another GE, I don't know. Certainly you would expect more of the team to come forward in future campaigns, but Angela Merkel seems to keep fighting elections with the same reputation doesn't she?
We are in a wierd and unfair situation to Mrs May that seemingly if May wins a majority of say 100 (best Tory performance since the 1980's) she will gain no credit because it will be down to Corbyn, yet if she doesn't increase her majority it will be all her fault - she can't win!
Fairness implies some connection between contribution and outcome.
Unfairness can just as equally mean the lucky being rewarded as the virtuous going unrecognised.
Three children and one toy flute. Who should get the flute?
Alice is the only one who can play the flute. She should get it as the others can't make use of it.
Bob has no toys. The other two have plenty of toys. Bob should get the flute because it would give him more happiness.
Colin was lucky enough to find the flute. He should get. Finders keepers.
What is fair and just?
Alice should teach the other two to play the flute. That way all three get to use it.
On Mrs May herself, I would acknowledge she is not a natural, charismatic campaigner. Yet that isn't her pitch is it? She pitches as serious, experienced, competent. I don't believe that the social care policy is enough to undo 7 years plus of Government experience in voters eyes. Does it mean she doesn't fight another GE, I don't know. Certainly you would expect more of the team to come forward in future campaigns, but Angela Merkel seems to keep fighting elections with the same reputation doesn't she?
We are in a wierd and unfair situation to Mrs May that seemingly if May wins a majority of say 100 (best Tory performance since the 1980's) she will gain no credit because it will be down to Corbyn, yet if she doesn't increase her majority it will be all her fault - she can't win!
Fairness implies some connection between contribution and outcome.
Unfairness can just as equally mean the lucky being rewarded as the virtuous going unrecognised.
Three children and one toy flute. Who should get the flute?
Alice is the only one who can play the flute. She should get it as the others can't make use of it.
Bob has no toys. The other two have plenty of toys. Bob should get the flute because it would give him more happiness.
Colin was lucky enough to find the flute. He should get. Finders keepers.
Why has he appointed Seamus Milne and Andrew Murray - two avowed Stalinists - to his leadership team? Those were decisions taken in the here and now.
For the same reason as he appointed McDonnell and Thornberry. He's very influenced by the Blair/Brown saga, during which we spent years chewing over every leak and counter-leak, and he attaches a lot of importance to having a core team that is personally loyal. I don't know much about Murray apart from his communist past (which I share, but we all move on) and his StopTheWar leadership (not a big minus in current perspective). Milne has been an intelligent left-wing commentator for years and while he probably doesn't agree with Corbyn on quie a few issues he's apparently not leaked a single word since he was appointed. A lot of the old issues - what do we think of Eurocommunism vs the Soviet Union and all that - are mainly of interest to historians now.
It's clearly a weakness that the PLP insurgency has limited Corbyn's scope to appoint a wider range of intimates from outside the personal loyal circle, and he'd like to - hence e.g. Starmer and Rayner, who aren't notably Corbynistas. If he wins I expect to see the circle widen as the PLP won't renew the insurrection against a winner. A key decision which I expect would be to bring Hillary Benn back into the Cabinet.
Incidentally, I opposed appointing McDonnell as I thought Corbyn should take a centrist shadow Chancllor. He's pleasantly surprised me by his hard-headed approach - he's more rigorous than EdB was, someone whom he in some ways otherwise resembles (in joviality combined with a tough streak).
Without that the economy would be booming, Corbyn and his thugs would be an irrelevance, and we would welcome our European friends as allies against the insanity of Trump
Hey ho...
It is exceedingly difficult not to agree. And now erstwhile Leavers are cacking themselves.
We have to take our pleasures where we find them.
@Indigo is already abroad, Max has left, and now @Casino is thinking of fucking off.
At this rate there won't be any PB Leavers left living in the UK.
Just Tyndall in his fortress in Lincolnshire having to pop out and pick the sprouts from time to time before they rot on the stem.
I'll be here.
Thank goodness. You, who will largely be untouched by Brexit, and the people who will be badly affected by it but can't afford to leave.
Sums it up perfectly.
I won't be largely untouched if it is a disaster. My biggest single asset is London prime property. I've built my career in financial services. Neither of those segments are safe from a bad Brexit.
I just have more confidence in the ability of the British people to cope with adversity than you.
Of course we'll cope. That wasn't my point. Well of course those who are leaving won't cope, they will have left.
My point was how it will affect the various segments in society. You will be largely untouched (were my exact words). Those at the lower end of the socio-economic scale will be affected much more harshly.
And my point is that I won't be "largely untouched".
I am very exposed to a bad Brexit outcome
I am going to have to work very hard to be concerned for your well-being, Charles, given any set of circumstances, but if you say you are shoulder-to-shoulder with Lincolnshire hop-pickers, then who am I to argue.
Watching people cope with adversity is a kind of spectator sport I suppose. The British equivalent of watching a matador get gored by a bull.
Because dementia is a slow degradation of natural brain function as a result of the aging process. It's basically old age.
Cancer is something going wrong with the cell messaging systems results in continuous cell division.
Which is also associated with the aging process. As is osteoarthritis, osteoporosis and a whole host of other diseases.
And it can be caused through TBI hypoxia after stroke, heart failure and asphyxiation. Excessive alcohol and drug abuse can also be a cause the problem is the sufferers live to long to ignore the cost
Why has he appointed Seamus Milne and Andrew Murray - two avowed Stalinists - to his leadership team? Those were decisions taken in the here and now.
For the same reason as he appointed McDonnell and Thornberry. He's very influenced by the Blair/Brown saga, during which we spent years chewing over every leak and counter-leak, and he attaches a lot of importance to having a core team that is personally loyal. I don't know much about Murray apart from his communist past (which I share, but we all move on) and his StopTheWar leadership (not a big minus in current perspective). Milne has been an intelligent left-wing commentator for years and while he probably doesn't agree with Corbyn on quie a few issues he's apparently not leaked a single word since he was appointed. A lot of the old issues - what do we think of Eurocommunism vs the Soviet Union and all that - are mainly of interest to historians now.
It's clearly a weakness that the PLP insurgency has limited Corbyn's scope to appoint a wider range of intimates from outside the personal loyal circle, and he'd like to - hence e.g. Starmer and Rayner, who aren't notably Corbynistas. If he wins I expect to see the circle widen as the PLP won't renew the insurrection against a winner. A key decision which I expect would be to bring Hillary Benn back into the Cabinet.
Incidentally, I opposed appointing McDonnell as I thought Corbyn should take a centrist shadow Chancllor. He's pleasantly surprised me by his hard-headed approach - he's more rigorous than EdB was, someone whom he in some ways otherwise resembles (in joviality combined with a tough streak).
Why has he appointed Seamus Milne and Andrew Murray - two avowed Stalinists - to his leadership team? Those were decisions taken in the here and now.
For the same reason as he appointed McDonnell and Thornberry. He's very influenced by the Blair/Brown saga, during which we spent years chewing over every leak and counter-leak, and he attaches a lot of importance to having a core team that is personally loyal. I don't know much about Murray apart from his communist past (which I share, but we all move on) and his StopTheWar leadership (not a big minus in current perspective). Milne has been an intelligent left-wing commentator for years and while he probably doesn't agree with Corbyn on quie a few issues he's apparently not leaked a single word since he was appointed. A lot of the old issues - what do we think of Eurocommunism vs the Soviet Union and all that - are mainly of interest to historians now.
It's clearly a weakness that the PLP insurgency has limited Corbyn's scope to appoint a wider range of intimates from outside the personal loyal circle, and he'd like to - hence e.g. Starmer and Rayner, who aren't notably Corbynistas. If he wins I expect to see the circle widen as the PLP won't renew the insurrection against a winner. A key decision which I expect would be to bring Hillary Benn back into the Cabinet.
Incidentally, I opposed appointing McDonnell as I thought Corbyn should take a centrist shadow Chancllor. He's pleasantly surprised me by his hard-headed approach - he's more rigorous than EdB was, someone whom he in some ways otherwise resembles (in joviality combined with a tough streak).
Do you really believe this crap?
Nick suffers a little from Emily Thornberry's any port in a storm syndrome
Without that the economy would be booming, Corbyn and his thugs would be an irrelevance, and we would welcome our European friends as allies against the insanity of Trump
Hey ho...
It is exceedingly difficult not to agree. And now erstwhile Leavers are cacking themselves.
We have to take our pleasures where we find them.
@Indigo is already abroad, Max has left, and now @Casino is thinking of fucking off.
At this rate there won't be any PB Leavers left living in the UK.
Just Tyndall in his fortress in Lincolnshire having to pop out and pick the sprouts from time to time before they rot on the stem.
Mr Casino is going??? I am shocked!
It's the election of a dogmatically Marxist Corbyn/McDonnell led Government that would lead me to seek to work and live overseas, not Brexit.
As a working full-time professional earning £70k-£80k, and about to start a family and buying a family home, it's precisely my money he'd be after.
I don't see Brexit and Conservative Government until (hopefully) GE2027 as any threat to my livelihood at all, although I know that disappoints some Remainers.
As has been pointed out by @Scott_P, it is precisely the vote for Brexit that has brought this about. You thought you would be untouched by Brexit but you didn't realise what you have opened the door to.
People want to tell someone to fuck off and Brexit allowed them to do that. They now like the feeling and now they are telling you to fuck off. And it seems that you will do as they say.
On Mrs May herself, I would acknowledge she is not a natural, charismatic campaigner. Yet that isn't her pitch is it? She pitches as serious, experienced, competent. I don't believe that the social care policy is enough to undo 7 years plus of Government experience in voters eyes. Does it mean she doesn't fight another GE, I don't know. Certainly you would expect more of the team to come forward in future campaigns, but Angela Merkel seems to keep fighting elections with the same reputation doesn't she?
We are in a wierd and unfair situation to Mrs May that seemingly if May wins a majority of say 100 (best Tory performance since the 1980's) she will gain no credit because it will be down to Corbyn, yet if she doesn't increase her majority it will be all her fault - she can't win!
Fairness implies some connection between contribution and outcome.
Unfairness can just as equally mean the lucky being rewarded as the virtuous going unrecognised.
Three children and one toy flute. Who should get the flute?
Alice is the only one who can play the flute. She should get it as the others can't make use of it.
Bob has no toys. The other two have plenty of toys. Bob should get the flute because it would give him more happiness.
Colin was lucky enough to find the flute. He should get. Finders keepers.
What is fair and just?
Alice should teach the other two to play the flute. That way all three get to use it.
Very Aristotelian.
Alice (Aristotle) is in the political centre. Bob (Bentham) is to the left. Colin (Ayn Rand) is to the right.
Edit: Cutting it into 3 pieces is Solomon. Selling it to invest is Charles.
The French seemed able to get accurate opinion polls without much trouble. I wonder if we've got a unique problem/difficulty in our system. The raw polls have the Tories only ~ 3% in front. No other country has such deviation from what the pollsters are told and what will actually happen.
Our pollsters are like the beginner trying to steer a boat by always correcting for their previous mistake.
I too would like to know why in France they were spot on. With four leading candidates, rapidly shifting allegiances and complex geographical and demographic voting patterns, the French situation was hardly straightforward for any pollster to sample.
Nowhere near the same age and age-turnout differentials that we have.
Yes, you may very well be right that it all comes down to turnout. Perhaps the answer to my question earlier is that the British are particularly, and unpredictably, bad at turning out to vote.
We 'could' provide free care for it. The question is what the cost of that would be.
I am not suggesting we necessarily should or could. Just that it seems a strange way to run things to designate one disease of the elderly as fit for support and funding and another as not.
Personally I think the Tory proposals are reasonable although as with everything they probably need tinkering with. But that doesn't mean we don't need to have a proper debate about what the taxpayer should and should not be funding regarding later life illnesses.
As always I think the first thing to do would be to look at how Europe and the rest of the first world handle it.
The intention of the policy is sound.
Either the family (i.e. the one with Dementia and those who expect to inherit) contribute towards the care with time and finance or the state provides a larger percentage of the care and recoups some of the costs. You can't viably have free childcare and free education for the first 23 years of life, a pension for the last 30 years of life, free medical care, income support and social security back up in hard times without making some personal contributions.
If you want to have a cap to protect a residual amount of the estate, then I would suggest that it is done as a % of the estate. If you live in an area where property prices are highly inflated with high living expenses then the amount you can buy with your larger inheritance is theoretically similar to the purchasing power of a smaller inheritance in a less affluent region.
But it's YouGov. They are either going to get this very right and be very lonely in the polling community. Or be very wrong - and be very lonely in the polling community.
The French seemed able to get accurate opinion polls without much trouble. I wonder if we've got a unique problem/difficulty in our system. The raw polls have the Tories only ~ 3% in front. No other country has such deviation from what the pollsters are told and what will actually happen.
Our pollsters are like the beginner trying to steer a boat by always correcting for their previous mistake.
I too would like to know why in France they were spot on. With four leading candidates, rapidly shifting allegiances and complex geographical and demographic voting patterns, the French situation was hardly straightforward for any pollster to sample.
Nowhere near the same age and age-turnout differentials that we have.
Yes, you may very well be right that it all comes down to turnout. Perhaps the answer to my question earlier is that the British are particularly, and unpredictably, bad at turning out to vote.
They came out in huge numbers in 1992 when Prime Minister Kinnock was one option.... Same when it is Prime Minister Corbyn? Those that love him REALLY love him; those that don't REALLY don't. They came out in record numbers for John Major. John FUCKING MAJOR!!!! My experience is they will come out for Theresa May too.
Only issue with the Wales polls has been the lack of pollsters. We have nothing to compare you gov with. If they are perceived to be overstating Labour at a UK wide level this is probably the case in Wales also.
That said, my gut feeling for the election is probably not much net gains or losses in seats now. Labour will be up, but so will the Tories. If Labour are up loads, Plaid might be in trouble in 2 of their 3 seats.
YouGov are estimating, for each seat, a mean and an (asymmetrical) standard deviation for each party. So the number of parameters they are fitting are 650 * 4.5 *3 = 8775 (where I have taken an average of 4.5 parties standing in each seat).
Number of pieces of data = 50000 (the sample size)
Number of datapoints / Number of parameters to be estimated is approx 6
Conclusion: They will not be able to find any meaningful parameter estimation. Their model will give flat, broad posterior distributions for the parameters.
It wasn’t quite as unwatchable as it threatened to be. It was good to be reminded that Tim Farron existed. He was quite good. His opening statement was the most straightforward. His pitch was a penny on income tax for the NHS and social care, and giving the people the final say on Brexit. His folksy relating of every question to his personal experience is easy to mock but an effective way of getting his message across.
But there were only two people in this debate, Jeremy Corbyn and Amber Rudd. Neither of them was very good. The Labour leader thought he had made his point by turning up. He made no reference to Theresa May’s absence in his opening statement. That seemed quite statesmanlike, but I assumed he was saving it up for later. He wasn’t. His was an underpowered performance in front of an audience that seemed ready to support him.
YouGov's tracker has an implied four point lead for the Conservatives (42:38) and the central points for seat numbers have moved from 310:257 to 319:252.
There is a legitimate question to ask as to why someone with terminal cancer should get free palliative care but someone with dementia should not.
Having observed two cases of cancer and one of dementia close at hand, cancer sufferers need little round the clock care until the last few days / weeks of their lives.
Dementia sufferers who can't look after themselves may be in all other respects than their dementia quite healthy, but they can survive 10 years or more like that.
Three cases aren't data. But it may be that the reason the cancer sufferer gets the care is because they get it for 10 days rather than 10 years.
Of course this raises the question* as to whether it is legitimate, when considering what is and isn't affordable, to exclude the cost of the cancer sufferer's treatment and to focus only on the care. With cancer the main cost is the attempted cure, not the care. The cure sometimes works and if it does the need for care abates. With dementia there is no cure, so the treatment is the care.
Within the next few years a government will withdraw cancer treatment from the "rich".
The Labour policy on abolitionist tuition fees last night is not only popular with young voters, but with middle class parents, who don't want their kids saddled with huge debts by the time they are 21.
I have changed my mind about tuition fees after having seen how the policies have panned out in England and Scotland. I was very opposed to them before because I believe strongly in giving people as many chances as possible to educate themselves. Tuition fees were applied in England but the payback regime was relatively benign and there were also grants given to those that probably would have ruled themselves out on affordability grounds. I guess we can thank the Lib Dems for that regime. In Scotland a similar amount saw free provision a more limited number who mostly could afford it anyway. So tuition fees can be for the good providing they free up money that can go more effectively towards expanding the provision The Conservatives now on their own are tightening up.
I also think universities need to up their productivity at the undergraduate level and provide a more affordable education. Not just on tuition fees but on living expenses. For example making courses shorter by working through the long vacations or providing more genuine part time courses.
I'd give free degrees to students who do proper degrees*, at red brick Unis.
Snobbish and elitist I knoow, but it's for the greater good.
*Medical degrees, maths, the real sciences, like physics and chemistry, engineering, legal degrees, and history.
There is nothing wrong with education factories. To the extent undergraduates are funding research it should be efficiently applied and limited.
In Scotland at the Reformation the much maligned Calvinists, who believed in education as a necessary part of the Godly Society, set up universities in Edinburgh and Glasgow through the respective town councils (Glasgow University existed before but was reincorporated). The aim was that any poor but bright boy would not be denied a university education purely on grounds of cost. As long as you could turn up to classes and exams and had a way of supporting yourself (and there were sponsors to help you with that), no other money was demanded of you. David Livingstone, one of seven children of a millworker, was able to get a medical degree at Glasgow University on that basis. We need some of that thinking now, I believe.
A glorious morning in London Town and I hope for similar next week. Democracy only really works if as many participate as possible. The more who absent themselves from the process the easier it is for the extremes on both sides to gain a foothold.
Irrespective of political perspective (or lack of it), the one message ALL activists and campaigners should be shouting is for people to get out and vote. I can't honestly say from limited discussions with my contemporaries and acquaintances I detect huge enthusiasm for anyone in this election.
I don't claim that from speaking to a few people I have any kind of insight into the mood of the country any more than knocking on a few doors in one part of England, Scotland, Wales or Ulster immediately provides insight into all other areas.
I didn't watch the debate last night - I understand the rationale behind Theresa May's non-attendance and it always looks good to be above the ferrets. The only problem is the voters are in the sack as well. More heat than light from what I've read and inevitable with seven runners as the farcical GOP debates last year illustrated. Two or three is probably the optimum number for these to work well.
I think that's got to be the way forward.
Put in a requirement to have candidates in 300+ seats and, say, averaging over 20% in the last 20 polls or something (i.e. all candidates with a reasonable prospect of becoming PM).
If it was a head of head it might have added something to the sum of human knowledge
How about: "The leaders of parties who are standing in the majority of constituencies [ie 326+] with representation in the HoC prior to dissolution"...
(I'm biased; I wrote a couple of books based on that )
But it's YouGov. They are either going to get this very right and be very lonely in the polling community. Or be very wrong - and be very lonely in the polling community.
Yes and even Yougov has best leader lead at 13 points for May, which is landslide territory and that's with all yougov's pro Lab anti Tory potential weightings!
The policy polling is meaningless, the party (4 point lead) and leadership (13 point lead) are the only yougov polls of interest.
Because dementia is a slow degradation of natural brain function as a result of the aging process. It's basically old age.
Cancer is something going wrong with the cell messaging systems results in continuous cell division.
Which is also associated with the aging process. As is osteoarthritis, osteoporosis and a whole host of other diseases.
The inmprovement in general health means life expectancy has increased and the degenerative disorders become more prevelant. Degenerative disorders are not immediately life threatening but treatment is long term and costly. This goes for some forms of cancer as well.
The NHS is mainly for acute conditions - treat and get well or die.
For longer term conditions we need to establish a method of paying/providing this. The ageing population will only make the problem bigger.
The only party to have put forward any form of realistic approach without impoverishing the families of those impacted is the Tories, and I disagree with the cap on social care fees.
I have said many times before that the social care issue needs to be addressed urgently. A lot of older patients with degenerative disorders cannot be discharged to the community as there is no provision. They then 'bed block' and increase the pressure on the acute tratment the NHS can offer.
Unfortunately, rational discussion on this issue is impossible during the fevered GE campaign but at least the Tories have put something forward and it will be looked at seriously during the course of the next parliament being a part of the manifesto.
This is assuming that the inmates don't get put in charge of the asylum.
It wasn’t quite as unwatchable as it threatened to be. It was good to be reminded that Tim Farron existed. He was quite good. His opening statement was the most straightforward. His pitch was a penny on income tax for the NHS and social care, and giving the people the final say on Brexit. His folksy relating of every question to his personal experience is easy to mock but an effective way of getting his message across.
But there were only two people in this debate, Jeremy Corbyn and Amber Rudd. Neither of them was very good. The Labour leader thought he had made his point by turning up. He made no reference to Theresa May’s absence in his opening statement. That seemed quite statesmanlike, but I assumed he was saving it up for later. He wasn’t. His was an underpowered performance in front of an audience that seemed ready to support him.
Comments
There is a legitimate question to ask as to why someone with terminal cancer should get free palliative care but someone with dementia should not. Both are diseases which are linked to longer life (although obviously there are exceptions in both cases) and both are thought to have elements of both genetic predisposition and lifestyle causes. It would be very difficult to define a water tight logical argument as to why each should be treated differently in terms of care provision and payment.
That isn't good for Labour.
http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.co.uk/
Alice is the only one who can play the flute. She should get it as the others can't make use of it.
Bob has no toys. The other two have plenty of toys. Bob should get the flute because it would give him more happiness.
Colin was lucky enough to find the flute. He should get. Finders keepers.
What is fair and just?
The question is then how much extra you give to the Tories.
How many watched clips of Tim on news asking to open your curtains to make sure May isnt sizing up your house etc etc
If I wasnt a Corbynite i think i would say Tim did best last night compared to expectations
As I was going up the stair
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish he'd go away
I think the problem is that people (rightly or wrongly) see dementia as an illness which falls under the remit of free at the point of use care. This is why so many people are surprised to find out about the current situation where you already pay for care if your assets are worth more than £23,000.
There is a legitimate question to ask as to why someone with terminal cancer should get free palliative care but someone with dementia should not. Both are diseases which are linked to longer life (although obviously there are exceptions in both cases) and both are thought to have elements of both genetic predisposition and lifestyle causes. It would be very difficult to define a water tight logical argument as to why each should be treated differently in terms of care provision and payment.
I think its the length of time care is required. My mum has dementia, all the family are looking after her so she does not receive any state care. She is physically reasonably well and is likely to require this high level of care and support for a number of years. If you have cancer and are receiving a similar level of care in terms of cost that my mum would require if she did not have her family to support her, then unfortunately it is unlikely that this care would be required for very long.
I also think universities need to up their productivity at the undergraduate level and provide a more affordable education. Not just on tuition fees but on living expenses. For example making courses shorter by working through the long vacations or providing more genuine part time courses.
Cancer is something going wrong with the cell messaging systems results in continuous cell division.
Guess that means a resumption of the Tory lead, although it would be out of step with YouGov's UK-wide results.
My point was how it will affect the various segments in society. You will be largely untouched (were my exact words). Those at the lower end of the socio-economic scale will be affected much more harshly.
Personally I think the Tory proposals are reasonable although as with everything they probably need tinkering with. But that doesn't mean we don't need to have a proper debate about what the taxpayer should and should not be funding regarding later life illnesses.
As always I think the first thing to do would be to look at how Europe and the rest of the first world handle it.
(without inventing some sort of hybrid online/telephone/in person poll - which may be where things head next?)
The main message of the reporting is that May was criticised for not attending.
Snobbish and elitist I knoow, but it's for the greater good.
*Medical degrees, maths, the real sciences, like physics and chemistry, engineering, legal degrees, and history.
I am very exposed to a bad Brexit outcome
A good deal is one where everyone comes out feeling satisfied. If you agree a deal that screws the other side you need to know you are never going to deal with them again. If you want an ongoing relationship you look for a deal that maximises the benefit to both or at least minimises the damage.
I too would like to know why in France they were spot on. With four leading candidates, rapidly shifting allegiances and complex geographical and demographic voting patterns, the French situation was hardly straightforward for any pollster to sample.
It's clearly a weakness that the PLP insurgency has limited Corbyn's scope to appoint a wider range of intimates from outside the personal loyal circle, and he'd like to - hence e.g. Starmer and Rayner, who aren't notably Corbynistas. If he wins I expect to see the circle widen as the PLP won't renew the insurrection against a winner. A key decision which I expect would be to bring Hillary Benn back into the Cabinet.
Incidentally, I opposed appointing McDonnell as I thought Corbyn should take a centrist shadow Chancllor. He's pleasantly surprised me by his hard-headed approach - he's more rigorous than EdB was, someone whom he in some ways otherwise resembles (in joviality combined with a tough streak).
The root of the problem is very simple. All valid recipes for polling start with the words "Take a random sample" and if you can't do that, you lose. A sample is not random if it is a necessary and sufficient condition for being in it, that you want to be in it. That is the root cause of the problem, and the tweaks designed to overcome it are like epicycles invented by geocentric astronomers trying to preserve a rubbish theory in light of a fundamental flaw.
Labour: Keep the flute at the local library and allow the children to borrow it for short periods.
Lib Dem: All flute playing to be closely supervised by a Sunday School teacher. If the flute is pink, it must be repainted.
UKIP: Are any of these children foreign?
As a working full-time professional earning £70k-£80k, and about to start a family and buying a family home, it's precisely my money he'd be after.
I don't see Brexit and Conservative Government until (hopefully) GE2027 as any threat to my livelihood at all, although I know that disappoints some Remainers.
More likley is that Carwyn Jones has managed to smother the anti-Corbyn feeling - even before Corbyn started to become cuddly as well. Labour seem to be recovering very well and I expect a Historic High for Labour in the poll.
LDs and UKIP seem to have sunk without a trace and the only question mark is over Plaid support. They are being squeezed where there is a WLab-Con fight - but seem to be holding up elsewhere...I am still predicting 5 Plaid seats - but my choice of 5th seat has moved from Rhondda back to Llanelli and now on to Ceredigion.....
Colin's rent and Alice's fees should be taxed at 25%, which then goes to buy a toy for Bob.
https://twitter.com/valaafshar/status/869662358511255552
People want to tell someone to fuck off and Brexit allowed them to do that. They now like the feeling and now they are telling you to fuck off. And it seems that you will do as they say.
https://twitter.com/bellacaledonia/status/870206357730885633
Alice (Aristotle) is in the political centre.
Bob (Bentham) is to the left.
Colin (Ayn Rand) is to the right.
Edit: Cutting it into 3 pieces is Solomon.
Selling it to invest is Charles.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/870039936245927938
On which party has the best policies for you and your family:
LAB: 35%
CON: 29%
LDEM: 6%
UKIP: 4%
[DK]: 26%
Either the family (i.e. the one with Dementia and those who expect to inherit) contribute towards the care with time and finance or the state provides a larger percentage of the care and recoups some of the costs. You can't viably have free childcare and free education for the first 23 years of life, a pension for the last 30 years of life, free medical care, income support and social security back up in hard times without making some personal contributions.
If you want to have a cap to protect a residual amount of the estate, then I would suggest that it is done as a % of the estate. If you live in an area where property prices are highly inflated with high living expenses then the amount you can buy with your larger inheritance is theoretically similar to the purchasing power of a smaller inheritance in a less affluent region.
That said, my gut feeling for the election is probably not much net gains or losses in seats now. Labour will be up, but so will the Tories. If Labour are up loads, Plaid might be in trouble in 2 of their 3 seats.
YouGov are estimating, for each seat, a mean and an (asymmetrical) standard deviation for each party. So the number of parameters they are fitting are 650 * 4.5 *3 = 8775 (where I have taken an average of 4.5 parties standing in each seat).
Number of pieces of data = 50000 (the sample size)
Number of datapoints / Number of parameters to be estimated is approx 6
Conclusion: They will not be able to find any meaningful parameter estimation. Their model will give flat, broad posterior distributions for the parameters.
But there were only two people in this debate, Jeremy Corbyn and Amber Rudd. Neither of them was very good. The Labour leader thought he had made his point by turning up. He made no reference to Theresa May’s absence in his opening statement. That seemed quite statesmanlike, but I assumed he was saving it up for later. He wasn’t. His was an underpowered performance in front of an audience that seemed ready to support him.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-seven-way-tv-debate-the-verdict-a7765981.html
YouGov 2017 election model results (1 June)
CON 42%, 285-353 seats
LAB 38%, 219-285 seats
Dementia sufferers who can't look after themselves may be in all other respects than their dementia quite healthy, but they can survive 10 years or more like that.
Three cases aren't data. But it may be that the reason the cancer sufferer gets the care is because they get it for 10 days rather than 10 years.
Of course this raises the question* as to whether it is legitimate, when considering what is and isn't affordable, to exclude the cost of the cancer sufferer's treatment and to focus only on the care. With cancer the main cost is the attempted cure, not the care. The cure sometimes works and if it does the need for care abates. With dementia there is no cure, so the treatment is the care.
Within the next few years a government will withdraw cancer treatment from the "rich".
* Although I don't think you're allowed to
In Scotland at the Reformation the much maligned Calvinists, who believed in education as a necessary part of the Godly Society, set up universities in Edinburgh and Glasgow through the respective town councils (Glasgow University existed before but was reincorporated). The aim was that any poor but bright boy would not be denied a university education purely on grounds of cost. As long as you could turn up to classes and exams and had a way of supporting yourself (and there were sponsors to help you with that), no other money was demanded of you. David Livingstone, one of seven children of a millworker, was able to get a medical degree at Glasgow University on that basis. We need some of that thinking now, I believe.
(I'm biased; I wrote a couple of books based on that
The policy polling is meaningless, the party (4 point lead) and leadership (13 point lead) are the only yougov polls of interest.
The NHS is mainly for acute conditions - treat and get well or die.
For longer term conditions we need to establish a method of paying/providing this. The ageing population will only make the problem bigger.
The only party to have put forward any form of realistic approach without impoverishing the families of those impacted is the Tories, and I disagree with the cap on social care fees.
I have said many times before that the social care issue needs to be addressed urgently. A lot of older patients with degenerative disorders cannot be discharged to the community as there is no provision. They then 'bed block' and increase the pressure on the acute tratment the NHS can offer.
Unfortunately, rational discussion on this issue is impossible during the fevered GE campaign but at least the Tories have put something forward and it will be looked at seriously during the course of the next parliament being a part of the manifesto.
This is assuming that the inmates don't get put in charge of the asylum.