Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The London election polling test finds that LAB was overstated

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited May 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The London election polling test finds that LAB was overstated by 4 points in the final polls

It is not often we get a real election against which we can compare final polls and this month’s London elections provided one such opportunity.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • judgejudge Posts: 2
    Graphic says 2014
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    judge said:

    Graphic says 2014

    However, it would also be interesting what the equivalent 2014 figures were [ actual ]
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    That May's on course for a 1924 when she next goes to the country?

    ....

    I'll get my coat.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    My mistake. Chart updated to make clear that it is about latest election
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Con & LD results MOE territory, but Labour clearly adrift - polling "error" or Labour's youthful enthusiasm not translating into votes on the day, or a fall in support immediately before polls....
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,612

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Bit foolish to sign up to that Irish border backstop. Dilemma now is whether to break own agreement, rendering further promises useless, or to dance to an Irish jig.

    With May in charge, what could possibly go wrong?
    This just proved Gove and Johnson right - that any attempt to compromise on the backstop text (eg by extending the date of leaving the CU to allow for new technologies to be introduced) would just be taken by the EU as a further reason to insist on permanent CU and SM membership.

    May is a fool. No wonder the Remainers on this place suddenly support her...
    The article does not actually say the Irish demand the UK stay in the single market if you read it, just that the UK follow 'many of its rules' which will largely be happening with regulatory alignment to avoid a hard border anyway.

    The UK can still technically leave the single market and end free movement even if it does do that, indeed according to the article the 'backstop' would still enable the UK to agree its own trade deals
    Funny when I was saying exactly this - that staying in the CU was not going to be enough and we would be forced to stay in the SM - you were saying I was wrong. It was blindingly obvious that this would be the next move by the EU.
    Yeah, but HYUFD is being a good Tory and pretending that whatever happens is actually in line with what May promised. He has completely backtracked as it became obvious that CU membership will mean SM by another name. Now we are just 'technically' leaving.

    I asked him about four times what his definition is of the end of FOM but he won't answer, because whatever fudge May does is going to be OK.

    No wonder we are screwed.
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,612
    rcs1000 said:

    Barnesian said:

    surby said:

    He [Varadkar] said: “Any move on customs with the UK would be welcome but I need to be very clear that avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland is about more than customs. The single market and aspects related to regulation are important as well.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/17/theresa-may-tries-to-rally-support-for-customs-plan-from-eu-leaders

    That's what we have been saying on here. Single market here we come (dressed up in other words).

    "Varadkar later told reporters that, during 45 minutes of talks, May had sketched out her hopes for what he described as a “deep customs arrangement”" That will please the Brexiteers.

    I think May will continue to repeat "We are leaving the Customs Union and we are leaving the Single Market" as we stay in the Customs Union and stay in the Single Market. She'll keep saying it until she retires.
    Yes, this is totally correct. But of course, this is the same as Cameron's plan at the 're-negotiation' - lie through your teeth so much that you start to believe it is true. Didn't work then. Won't work now. The assumption that 'the people' are stupid and will believe what you tell them was exactly what lost Remain the referendum.

    Will just result in a Tory wipeout at the next GE.
    How much of a wipeout do you reckon?

    Fewer than 200 seats?

    I'll offer you 10-1 on the double of a customs "partnership" and Tories sub 200 seats.
    You are on PM me!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Bit foolish to sign up to that Irish border backstop. Dilemma now is whether to break own agreement, rendering further promises useless, or to dance to an Irish jig.

    With May in charge, what could possibly go wrong?
    This just proved Gove and Johnson right - that any attempt to compromise on the backstop text (eg by extending the date of leaving the CU to allow for new technologies to be introduced) would just be taken by the EU as a further reason to insist on permanent CU and SM membership.

    May is a fool. No wonder the Remainers on this place suddenly support her...
    The article does not actually say the Irish demand the UK stay in the single market if you read it, just that the UK follow 'many of its rules' which will largely be happening with regulatory alignment to avoid a hard border anyway.

    The UK can still technically leave the single market and end free movement even if it does do that, indeed according to the article the 'backstop' would still enable the UK to agree its own trade deals
    Funny when I was saying exactly this - that staying in the CU was not going to be enough and we would be forced to stay in the SM - you were saying I was wrong. It was blindingly obvious that this would be the next move by the EU.
    Yeah, but HYUFD is being a good Tory and pretending that whatever happens is actually in line with what May promised. He has completely backtracked as it became obvious that CU membership will mean SM by another name. Now we are just 'technically' leaving.

    I asked him about four times what his definition is of the end of FOM but he won't answer, because whatever fudge May does is going to be OK.

    No wonder we are screwed.
    Utter rubbish.

    Richard Tyndall was wrong. As I said the article never says anywhere we will be required to stay in the single market or keep free movement.

    In fact the regulatory alignment mentioned in the article we will be required to have to avoid a hard border in Ireland is exactly what was agreed in December in a deal I supported and you opposed. The fact you still oppose it is nothing new at all, you are and have always been a hard Brexiteer who wants to leave the single market and the customs union, has no desire for a transition period and has little concern about the effects of ultra hard Brexit on either the economy or peace in Ireland and Northern Ireland's place in the UK.

    Unlike me both you and Richard Tyndall, himself an ex UKIP voter, have always been far closer to UKIP than you have ever been to the Tories
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited May 2018
    On topic suggests maybe a little 'shy Tories' factor from yougov and maybe both pollsters have identified the Labour vote is now not quite as motivated turnout to vote as it was at the last general election and that the LDs are more effective at getting their vote out at local elections
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,563

    rcs1000 said:

    Barnesian said:

    surby said:

    He [Varadkar] said: “Any move on customs with the UK would be welcome but I need to be very clear that avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland is about more than customs. The single market and aspects related to regulation are important as well.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/17/theresa-may-tries-to-rally-support-for-customs-plan-from-eu-leaders

    That's what we have been saying on here. Single market here we come (dressed up in other words).

    "Varadkar later told reporters that, during 45 minutes of talks, May had sketched out her hopes for what he described as a “deep customs arrangement”" That will please the Brexiteers.

    I think May will continue to repeat "We are leaving the Customs Union and we are leaving the Single Market" as we stay in the Customs Union and stay in the Single Market. She'll keep saying it until she retires.
    Yes, this is totally correct. But of course, this is the same as Cameron's plan at the 're-negotiation' - lie through your teeth so much that you start to believe it is true. Didn't work then. Won't work now. The assumption that 'the people' are stupid and will believe what you tell them was exactly what lost Remain the referendum.

    Will just result in a Tory wipeout at the next GE.
    How much of a wipeout do you reckon?

    Fewer than 200 seats?

    I'll offer you 10-1 on the double of a customs "partnership" and Tories sub 200 seats.
    You are on PM me!
    I fear this is a classic example of betting with your heart, not your head.
    Bear in mind that rcs1000 is not emoti9nally invested either way in Brexit...

  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,612
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    The article does not actually say the Irish demand the UK stay in the single market if you read it, just that the UK follow 'many of its rules' which will largely be happening with regulatory alignment to avoid a hard border anyway.

    The UK can still technically leave the single market and end free movement even if it does do that, indeed according to the article the 'backstop' would still enable the UK to agree its own trade deals

    Funny when I was saying exactly this - that staying in the CU was not going to be enough and we would be forced to stay in the SM - you were saying I was wrong. It was blindingly obvious that this would be the next move by the EU.
    Yeah, but HYUFD is being a good Tory and pretending that whatever happens is actually in line with what May promised. He has completely backtracked as it became obvious that CU membership will mean SM by another name. Now we are just 'technically' leaving.

    I asked him about four times what his definition is of the end of FOM but he won't answer, because whatever fudge May does is going to be OK.

    No wonder we are screwed.
    Utter rubbish.

    Richard Tyndall was wrong. As I said the article never says anywhere we will be required to stay in the single market or keep free movement.

    In fact the regulatory alignment mentioned in the article we will be required to have to avoid a hard border in Ireland is exactly what was agreed in December in a deal I supported and you opposed. The fact you still oppose it is nothing new at all, you are and have always been a hard Brexiteer who wants to leave the single market and the customs union, has no desire for a transition period and has little concern about the effects of ultra hard Brexit on either the economy or peace in Ireland and Northern Ireland's place in the UK.

    Unlike me both you and Richard Tyndall, himself an ex UKIP voter, have always been far closer to UKIP than you have ever been to the Tories
    May has sold out on EVERY red line so far. You know perfectly well that if you are following EU regulations, you have not taken back control, nor will you be outside the jurisdiction of the ECJ, nor will you have an independent trade policy.

    Yet you keep repeating that this is all fine because we will be rid of FOM. But when asked to define exactly what you think this means, you won't say.

    You know, deep down, that May will sell you out on this in the end. You are just trying to work out how to rationalise it.
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,612
    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Barnesian said:

    surby said:

    He [Varadkar] said: “Any move on customs with the UK would be welcome but I need to be very clear that avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland is about more than customs. The single market and aspects related to regulation are important as well.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/17/theresa-may-tries-to-rally-support-for-customs-plan-from-eu-leaders

    That's what we have been saying on here. Single market here we come (dressed up in other words).

    "Varadkar later told reporters that, during 45 minutes of talks, May had sketched out her hopes for what he described as a “deep customs arrangement”" That will please the Brexiteers.

    I think May will continue to repeat "We are leaving the Customs Union and we are leaving the Single Market" as we stay in the Customs Union and stay in the Single Market. She'll keep saying it until she retires.
    Yes, this is totally correct. But of course, this is the same as Cameron's plan at the 're-negotiation' - lie through your teeth so much that you start to believe it is true. Didn't work then. Won't work now. The assumption that 'the people' are stupid and will believe what you tell them was exactly what lost Remain the referendum.

    Will just result in a Tory wipeout at the next GE.
    How much of a wipeout do you reckon?

    Fewer than 200 seats?

    I'll offer you 10-1 on the double of a customs "partnership" and Tories sub 200 seats.
    You are on PM me!
    I fear this is a classic example of betting with your heart, not your head.
    Bear in mind that rcs1000 is not emoti9nally invested either way in Brexit...

    I live in Australia, as many people keep saying. And if you had to put up with Australian politics (or frankly, the complete lack thereof) you might consider that a bet on anything is well worth the money just to keep things interesting. Very happy with these odds!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,563
    I’m not sure that threatening a notoriously paranoid regime leader with Gaddafi’s fate is entirely the best gambit ahead of disarmament negotiation....
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/17/north-korea-trump-latest-warning-kim-jong-un-gaddafi
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,563

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Barnesian said:

    surby said:

    He [Varadkar] said: “Any move on customs with the UK would be welcome but I need to be very clear that avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland is about more than customs. The single market and aspects related to regulation are important as well.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/17/theresa-may-tries-to-rally-support-for-customs-plan-from-eu-leaders

    That's what we have been saying on here. Single market here we come (dressed up in other words).

    "Varadkar later told reporters that, during 45 minutes of talks, May had sketched out her hopes for what he described as a “deep customs arrangement”" That will please the Brexiteers.

    I think May will continue to repeat "We are leaving the Customs Union and we are leaving the Single Market" as we stay in the Customs Union and stay in the Single Market. She'll keep saying it until she retires.
    Yes, this is totally correct. But of course, this is the same as Cameron's plan at the 're-negotiation' - lie through your teeth so much that you start to believe it is true. Didn't work then. Won't work now. The assumption that 'the people' are stupid and will believe what you tell them was exactly what lost Remain the referendum.

    Will just result in a Tory wipeout at the next GE.
    How much of a wipeout do you reckon?

    Fewer than 200 seats?

    I'll offer you 10-1 on the double of a customs "partnership" and Tories sub 200 seats.
    You are on PM me!
    I fear this is a classic example of betting with your heart, not your head.
    Bear in mind that rcs1000 is not emoti9nally invested either way in Brexit...

    I live in Australia, as many people keep saying. And if you had to put up with Australian politics (or frankly, the complete lack thereof) you might consider that a bet on anything is well worth the money just to keep things interesting. Very happy with these odds!
    So you actually have no stake in Brexit other than emotion. I guess your bet makes sense in that context.

  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,612
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Barnesian said:

    surby said:

    He [Varadkar] said: “Any move on customs with the UK would be welcome but I need to be very clear that avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland is about more than customs. The single market and aspects related to regulation are important as well.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/17/theresa-may-tries-to-rally-support-for-customs-plan-from-eu-leaders

    That's what we have been saying on here. Single market here we come (dressed up in other words).

    "Varadkar later told reporters that, during 45 minutes of talks, May had sketched out her hopes for what he described as a “deep customs arrangement”" That will please the Brexiteers.

    I think May will continue to repeat "We are leaving the Customs Union and we are leaving the Single Market" as we stay in the Customs Union and stay in the Single Market. She'll keep saying it until she retires.
    Yes, this is totally correct. But of course, this is the same as Cameron's plan at the 're-negotiation' - lie through your teeth so much that you start to believe it is true. Didn't work then. Won't work now. The assumption that 'the people' are stupid and will believe what you tell them was exactly what lost Remain the referendum.

    Will just result in a Tory wipeout at the next GE.
    How much of a wipeout do you reckon?

    Fewer than 200 seats?

    I'll offer you 10-1 on the double of a customs "partnership" and Tories sub 200 seats.
    You are on PM me!
    I fear this is a classic example of betting with your heart, not your head.
    Bear in mind that rcs1000 is not emoti9nally invested either way in Brexit...

    I live in Australia, as many people keep saying. And if you had to put up with Australian politics (or frankly, the complete lack thereof) you might consider that a bet on anything is well worth the money just to keep things interesting. Very happy with these odds!
    So you actually have no stake in Brexit other than emotion. I guess your bet makes sense in that context.

    I was being told last night that I was too logical (don't think it was a compliment then either)....
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Polls used to be reported with a MoE, when did that change?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    Con & LD results MOE territory, but Labour clearly adrift - polling "error" or Labour's youthful enthusiasm not translating into votes on the day, or a fall in support immediately before polls....

    My guess is a last minute change. Corbyn seemed particularly flappy just before the vore. His USP of being his own person temporarily disappeared and he became just another vote grubber.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good morning, everyone.

    Interesting that this (Loud Labour?) isn't matched by a return of the shy Conservative phenomenon.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,761
    Actually, this seems to me a pretty credible performance by both these pollsters, especially since the locals have lower and differential turnout. Just maybe some of the mistakes at the last election (Survation apart) have been fixed and we can start taking them even remotely seriously again.

    No doubt they will research why they overstated Labour. Was it simply younger voters who didn't quite get around to it, is this a "Oh Jeremy Corbyn" factor, where his supporters are not so motivated when their hero is not on the ballot or is it more systemic? It may be that the Labour vote would have been higher had this been a Westminster election.

    We probably need another reasonable sized election to test them and ensure that they didn't just get lucky but this seems to me a return to form.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:



    With May in charge, what could possibly go wrong?
    This just proved Gove and Johnson right - that any attempt to compromise on the backstop text (eg by extending the date of leaving the CU to allow for new technologies to be introduced) would just be taken by the EU as a further reason to insist on permanent CU and SM membership.

    May is a fool. No wonder the Remainers on this place suddenly support her...
    The article does not actually say the Irish demand the UK stay in the single market if you read it, just that the UK follow 'many of its rules' which will largely be happening with regulatory alignment to avoid a hard border anyway.

    The UK can still technically leave the single market and end free movement even if it does do that, indeed according to the article the 'backstop' would still enable the UK to agree its own trade deals
    Funny when I was saying exactly this - that staying in the CU was not going to be enough and we would be forced to stay in the SM - you were saying I was wrong. It was blindingly obvious that this would be the next move by the EU.
    Yeah, but HYUFD is being a good Tory and pretending that whatever happens is actually in line with what May promised. He has completely backtracked as it became obvious that CU membership will mean SM by another name. Now we are just 'technically' leaving.

    I asked him about four times what his definition is of the end of FOM but he won't answer, because whatever fudge May does is going to be OK.

    No wonder we are screwed.
    Utter rubbish.

    Richard Tyndall was wrong. As I said the article never says anywhere we will be required to stay in the single market or keep free movement.

    In fact the regulatory alignment mentioned in the article we will be required to have to avoid a hard border in Ireland is exactly what was agreed in December in a deal I supported and you opposed. The fact you still oppose it is nothing new at all, you are and have always been a hard Brexiteer who wants to leave the single market and the customs union, has no desire for a transition period and has little concern about the effects of ultra hard Brexit on either the economy or peace in Ireland and Northern Ireland's place in the UK.

    Unlike me both you and Richard Tyndall, himself an ex UKIP voter, have always been far closer to UKIP than you have ever been to the Tories
    I think you'll find he is about 10,000 miles away from both of them ;)
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    On topic, the LibDems didn't put up three candidates in every ward across London, and in a fair few didn't stand. You would expect this to have overstated their poll rating slightly.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,761
    edited May 2018
    IanB2 said:

    On topic, the LibDems didn't put up three candidates in every ward across London, and in a fair few didn't stand. You would expect this to have overstated their poll rating slightly.

    Did we see the first signs that Labour supporters just might contemplate voting tactically for the Lib Dems where they had a chance of defeating the Tories? The Labour vote in Richmond, for example, was about 2.1% down on 2014 at a time when Labour was polling higher. This might explain some of Labour's under performance and give the Lib Dems hope that the worst of the electoral damage of the Coalition era is at last behind them.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    edited May 2018
    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    On topic, the LibDems didn't put up three candidates in every ward across London, and in a fair few didn't stand. You would expect this to have overstated their poll rating slightly.

    Did we see the first signs that Labour supporters just might contemplate voting tactically for the Lib Dems where they had a chance of defeating the Tories? The Labour vote in Richmond, for example, was about 2.5% down on 2014 at a time when Labour was polling higher. This might explain some of Labour's under performance and give the Lib Dems hope that the worst of the electoral damage of the Coalition era is at last behind them.
    Yes, you're right that people who might identify nationally as Labour, and have given a Labour response to the pollster, may have voted tactically in SW London. On a smaller scale the LDs probably picked up some Tory support in Haringey (certainly this used to be the case; I didn't campaign there this time). This is probably a bigger factor than thwarted LibDem voters in seats with no candidate, and probably 'explains' the variance in the lead, insofar as it isn't just MOE.

    With YouGov I always wonder how they overcome the bias in the internet-using population, within which pensioners must be under-represented. Yes, you can upweight those pensioners who do the online surveys, but are those users likely to be representative of pensioners who aren't online?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited May 2018
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:
    This just proved Gove and Johnson right - that any attempt to compromise on the backstop text (eg by extending the date of leaving the CU to allow for new technologies to be introduced) would be taken by the EU as a reason to insist on permanent CU and SM membership.

    May is a fool. No wonder the Remainers on this place suddenly support her...
    The article does not actually say the Irish demand the UK stay in the single market if you read it, just that the UK follow 'many of its rules' which will largely be happening with regulatory alignment to avoid a hard border anyway.

    The UK can still technically leave the single market and end free movement even if it does do that, indeed according to the article the 'backstop' would still enable the UK to agree its own trade deals
    Funny when I was saying this - that staying in the CU was not going to be enough and we would be forced to stay in the SM - you were saying I was wrong. It was blindingly obvious that this would be the next move by the EU.
    Yeah, but HYUFD is being a good Tory and pretending that whatever happens is actually in line with what May promised. He has completely backtracked as it became obvious that CU membership will mean SM by another name. Now we are just 'technically' leaving.

    I asked him about four times what his definition is of the end of FOM but he won't answer, because whatever fudge May does is going to be OK.

    No wonder we are screwed.
    Utter rubbish.

    Richard Tyndall was wrong. As I said the article never says anywhere we will be required to stay in the single market or keep free movement.

    In fact the regulatory alignment mentioned in the article we will be required to have to avoid a hard border in Ireland is exactly what was agreed in December in a deal I supported and you opposed. The fact you still oppose it is nothing new at all, you are and have always been a hard Brexiteer who wants to leave the single market and the customs union, has no desire for a transition period and has little concern about the effects of ultra hard Brexit on either the economy or peace in Ireland and Northern Ireland's place in the UK.

    Unlike me both you and Richard Tyndall, himself an ex UKIP voter, have always been far closer to UKIP than you have ever been to the Tories
    I think you'll find he is about 10,000 miles away from both of them ;)
    UKIPers come in all shapes and sizes. I'd say that was one of the few accuracies in an otherwise scattergun post!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    F1: a new Ladbrokes special: Leclerc to win a title by 2022, at 9.

    This requires him to move to a top team pretty quickly, and be top/equal driver there. He could easily take over from Raikkonen at Ferrari. But how long will Vettel be there? Could be a while. Ferrari could drop back from the sharp end. Not a fan of tying money up for so long at relatively short odds.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I’ve done no analysis but I wonder whether some broadly Labour supporters in councils with monolithic Labour blocs eventually voted for other parties to try to get a working opposition. Even party loyalists can recognise that one party states are unhealthy. Or they might just have felt able to be experimental when it obviously wouldn’t matter.

    To test this one would need to look at where exactly the underperformance was. If I get time I might do that.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    edited May 2018

    I’ve done no analysis but I wonder whether some broadly Labour supporters in councils with monolithic Labour blocs eventually voted for other parties to try to get a working opposition. Even party loyalists can recognise that one party states are unhealthy. Or they might just have felt able to be experimental when it obviously wouldn’t matter.

    To test this one would need to look at where exactly the underperformance was. If I get time I might do that.

    The subsamples will be so inaccurate as to make that analysis impossible, I would have thought.

    There may also be a slight timing effect, in that the political mood was slipping away from Labour during the campaign; there is always some delay between polling and voting.

    And, in a local election specifically, I suspect intention to vote responses are less reliable than in a GE poll, and Labour probably had disproportionately more people saying they would vote than who actually bothered. In particular postal voters always think they will vote, whereas in a local election about 25% of them don't get round to it.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    IanB2 said:

    I’ve done no analysis but I wonder whether some broadly Labour supporters in councils with monolithic Labour blocs eventually voted for other parties to try to get a working opposition. Even party loyalists can recognise that one party states are unhealthy. Or they might just have felt able to be experimental when it obviously wouldn’t matter.

    To test this one would need to look at where exactly the underperformance was. If I get time I might do that.

    The subsamples will be so inaccurate as to make that analysis impossible, I would have thought.

    There may also be a slight timing effect, in that the political mood was slipping away from Labour during the campaign; there is always some delay between polling and voting.

    And, in a local election specifically, I suspect intention to vote responses are less reliable than in a GE poll, and Labour probably had disproportionately more people saying they would vote than who actually bothered.
    I meant in the results, by reference to swing since last time, making due allowance for the B word.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,008
    IanB2 said:

    I’ve done no analysis but I wonder whether some broadly Labour supporters in councils with monolithic Labour blocs eventually voted for other parties to try to get a working opposition. Even party loyalists can recognise that one party states are unhealthy. Or they might just have felt able to be experimental when it obviously wouldn’t matter.

    To test this one would need to look at where exactly the underperformance was. If I get time I might do that.

    The subsamples will be so inaccurate as to make that analysis impossible, I would have thought.

    There may also be a slight timing effect, in that the political mood was slipping away from Labour during the campaign; there is always some delay between polling and voting.

    And, in a local election specifically, I suspect intention to vote responses are less reliable than in a GE poll, and Labour probably had disproportionately more people saying they would vote than who actually bothered.
    I think an assumption is being made there of a level of political awareness and democratic principle amongst the general electorate that simply isn’t there.

    It might have been a factor for a very small number of voters. But I doubt it’s what explains the difference.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited May 2018
    I think what our PB Brexiter blue on blue shows us is that no one has a scooby doo what any particular option really means (and our PB Brexiters are supposed to know this stuff let alone the general public) and that whoever is in power will have more or less free rein to impose any Brexit they want.

    Of course whether May is in power..
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733
    Are we all overthinking this?

    Surely one possibility is simply that Labour supporters didn't use all their votes, while the more motivated and more fearful Tories and Lib Dems made a point of voting as many times as they could.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    ydoethur said:

    Are we all overthinking this?

    Surely one possibility is simply that Labour supporters didn't use all their votes, while the more motivated and more fearful Tories and Lib Dems made a point of voting as many times as they could.

    Having seen a fair few London local counts, the number of people not using three votes is pretty small - certainly not enough to explain the variance in the lead, even if they were all Labour.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,761
    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    On topic, the LibDems didn't put up three candidates in every ward across London, and in a fair few didn't stand. You would expect this to have overstated their poll rating slightly.

    Did we see the first signs that Labour supporters just might contemplate voting tactically for the Lib Dems where they had a chance of defeating the Tories? The Labour vote in Richmond, for example, was about 2.5% down on 2014 at a time when Labour was polling higher. This might explain some of Labour's under performance and give the Lib Dems hope that the worst of the electoral damage of the Coalition era is at last behind them.
    Yes, you're right that people who might identify nationally as Labour, and have given a Labour response to the pollster, may have voted tactically in SW London. On a smaller scale the LDs probably picked up some Tory support in Haringey (certainly this used to be the case; I didn't campaign there this time). This is probably a bigger factor than thwarted LibDem voters in seats with no candidate, and probably 'explains' the variance in the lead, insofar as it isn't just MOE.

    With YouGov I always wonder how they overcome the bias in the internet-using population, within which pensioners must be under-represented. Yes, you can upweight those pensioners who do the online surveys, but are those users likely to be representative of pensioners who aren't online?
    Presumably they calibrate their results against actual votes but I agree that the underlying assumption that the internet savvy and the not so much are moving in the same direction must be a source of their errors. When the Tories go out of their way to disappoint the elderly with a dementia tax, for example, they are likely to be overstated. Hopefully that particular issue won't arise again any time soon!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    IanB2 said:

    I’ve done no analysis but I wonder whether some broadly Labour supporters in councils with monolithic Labour blocs eventually voted for other parties to try to get a working opposition. Even party loyalists can recognise that one party states are unhealthy. Or they might just have felt able to be experimental when it obviously wouldn’t matter.

    To test this one would need to look at where exactly the underperformance was. If I get time I might do that.

    The subsamples will be so inaccurate as to make that analysis impossible, I would have thought.

    There may also be a slight timing effect, in that the political mood was slipping away from Labour during the campaign; there is always some delay between polling and voting.

    And, in a local election specifically, I suspect intention to vote responses are less reliable than in a GE poll, and Labour probably had disproportionately more people saying they would vote than who actually bothered.
    I think an assumption is being made there of a level of political awareness and democratic principle amongst the general electorate that simply isn’t there.

    It might have been a factor for a very small number of voters. But I doubt it’s what explains the difference.
    Especially as FPTnP's rotten boroughs rarely see much active campaigning.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,761

    I’ve done no analysis but I wonder whether some broadly Labour supporters in councils with monolithic Labour blocs eventually voted for other parties to try to get a working opposition. Even party loyalists can recognise that one party states are unhealthy. Or they might just have felt able to be experimental when it obviously wouldn’t matter.

    To test this one would need to look at where exactly the underperformance was. If I get time I might do that.

    You think Man City fans might support United next season just to make the league more interesting? I would be very surprised if there was a phenomenon such as you describe. More likely that some Labour supporters will simply not have bothered to vote when the result is so predetermined.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263



    I live in Australia, as many people keep saying. And if you had to put up with Australian politics (or frankly, the complete lack thereof) you might consider that a bet on anything is well worth the money just to keep things interesting. Very happy with these odds!

    I don't know much about Australian politics - it only gets reported when there's an election (and then not much) or a populist like Pauline Hanson says something headline-grabbbing. It sounds more focused on individuals and indeed insults than here, but maybe that's reporting bias too. What makes it so boring?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,543
    As the PB Polling Matters podcast (couple of threads back, well worth a listen) explained, current politics is driven by antipathy. People vote AGAINST Conservative or Labour in greater numbers than for them. That means they naturally congregate in the other party but they don't have much loyalty for it.

    On Brexit, I expect most voters will go along with whatever compromised outcome the government cobbles together, through exhaustion, boredom with the topic and the lack of viable alternatives. The crisis will hit the first time the EU tells the UK to do something the government's political base is strongly opposed to.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    DavidL said:

    I’ve done no analysis but I wonder whether some broadly Labour supporters in councils with monolithic Labour blocs eventually voted for other parties to try to get a working opposition. Even party loyalists can recognise that one party states are unhealthy. Or they might just have felt able to be experimental when it obviously wouldn’t matter.

    To test this one would need to look at where exactly the underperformance was. If I get time I might do that.

    You think Man City fans might support United next season just to make the league more interesting? I would be very surprised if there was a phenomenon such as you describe. More likely that some Labour supporters will simply not have bothered to vote when the result is so predetermined.
    Except that football is pointless, whereas elections, in theory at least, do have a point. Over years on the doorstep I have heard voters offer all sorts of rationalisations for their vote (a fair few split their votes between different parties hoping to get a balanced council, the strategic thinking here of course being flawed) - but I agree with Casino that as a theory to explain Mike's London-wide variance it doesn't really seem very credible.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    The article does not actually say the Irish demand the UK stay in the single market if you read it, just that the UK follow 'many of its rules' which will largely be happening with regulatory alignment to avoid a hard border anyway.

    The UK can still technically leave the single market and end free movement even if it does do that, indeed according to the article the 'backstop' would still enable the UK to agree its own trade deals

    Funny when I was saying exactly this - that staying in the CU was not going to be enough and we would be forced to stay in the SM - you e EU.
    Yeah, but HYUFD is being a good Tory and pretending that whatever happens is screwed.
    Utter rubbish.

    Richard Tyndall was wrong. As I said the article never says anywhere we will be required to stay in the single market or keep free movement.

    In fact the regulatory alignment mentioned in the article we will be required to have to avoid a hard border in Ireland is exactly what was agreed in December in a deal I supported and you opposed. The fact you still oppose it is nothing new at all, you are and have always been a hard Brexiteer who wants to leave the single market and the customs union, has no desire for a transition period and has little concern about the effects of ultra hard Brexit on either the economy or peace in Ireland and Northern Ireland's place in the UK.

    Unlike me both you and Richard Tyndall, himself an ex UKIP voter, have always been far closer to UKIP than you have ever been to the Tories
    May has sold out on EVERY red line so far. You know perfectly well that if you are following EU regulations, you have not taken back control, nor will you be outside the jurisdiction of the ECJ, nor will you have an independent trade policy.

    Yet you keep repeating that this is all fine because we will be rid of FOM. But when asked to define exactly what you think this means, you won't say.

    You know, deep down, that May will sell you out on this in the end. You are just trying to work out how to rationalise it.
    No she hasn't, she is still ending free movement and replacing it with work permits, she is still technically leaving the single market and also the EU and the exit bill she negotiated was less than many feared and indeed we will still be able to negotiate our own trade deals.

    The fact that for you the only permissible Brexit is an ultra hard UKIP Brexit with no regulatory alignment at all, no transition period at all, no single market or customs union membership at all and little concern for either the impact on the economy or the Irish peace process of that does not change that
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:



    With May in charge, what could possibly go wrong?
    This just proved Gove and Johnson right - that any attempt to compromise on the backstop text (eg by extending the date of leaving the CU to allow for new technologies to be introduced) would just be taken by the EU as a further reason to insist on permanent CU and SM membership.

    May is a fool. No wonder the Remainers on this place suddenly support her...
    The article does not actually say the Irish demand the UK stay in the single market if you read it, just that the UK follow 'many of its rules' backstop' would still enable the UK to agree its own trade deals
    Funny when I was saying exactly this - that staying in the CU was not going to be enough and we would be forced to stay in the SM - you were saying I was wrong. It was blindingly obvious that this would be the next move by the EU.
    Yeah, but HYUFD is being a good Tory and pretending that whatever happens is actually in line with what May promised. He has completely backtracked as it became obvious that CU membership will mean SM by another name. Now we are just 'technically' leaving.

    I asked him about four times what his definition is of the end of FOM but he won't answer, because whatever fudge May does is going to be OK.

    No wonder we are screwed.
    Utter rubbish.

    Richard Tyndall was wrong. As I said the article never says anywhere we will be required to stay in the single market or keep free movement.

    In fact the regulatory alignment mentioned in the article we will be required to have to avoid a hard border in Ireland is exactly what was agreed in December in a deal I supported and you opposed. The fact you still oppose it is nothing new at all, you are and have always been a hard Brexiteer who wants to leave the single market and the customs union, has no desire for a transition period and has little concern about the effects of ultra hard Brexit on either the economy or peace in Ireland and Northern Ireland's place in the UK.

    Unlike me both you and Richard Tyndall, himself an ex UKIP voter, have always been far closer to UKIP than you have ever been to the Tories
    I think you'll find he is about 10,000 miles away from both of them ;)
    He is probably a Pauline Hanson 'One Nation' voter Down Under!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    On topic, the LibDems didn't put up three candidates in every ward across London, and in a fair few didn't stand. You would expect this to have overstated their poll rating slightly.

    Did we see the first signs that Labour supporters just might contemplate voting tactically for the Lib Dems where they had a chance of defeating the Tories? The Labour vote in Richmond, for example, was about 2.1% down on 2014 at a time when Labour was polling higher. This might explain some of Labour's under performance and give the Lib Dems hope that the worst of the electoral damage of the Coalition era is at last behind them.
    Certainly happened in the Epping Lindsey and Thornwood ward (the more Tory one I was not standing in).

    The Labour vote collapsed from 2014 and the LDs came within 30 votes of taking the seat though the Tories did hold on in the end
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,008
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    I’ve done no analysis but I wonder whether some broadly Labour supporters in councils with monolithic Labour blocs eventually voted for other parties to try to get a working opposition. Even party loyalists can recognise that one party states are unhealthy. Or they might just have felt able to be experimental when it obviously wouldn’t matter.

    To test this one would need to look at where exactly the underperformance was. If I get time I might do that.

    The subsamples will be so inaccurate as to make that analysis impossible, I would have thought.

    There may also be a slight timing effect, in that the political mood was slipping away from Labour during the campaign; there is always some delay between polling and voting.

    And, in a local election specifically, I suspect intention to vote responses are less reliable than in a GE poll, and Labour probably had disproportionately more people saying they would vote than who actually bothered.
    I think an assumption is being made there of a level of political awareness and democratic principle amongst the general electorate that simply isn’t there.

    It might have been a factor for a very small number of voters. But I doubt it’s what explains the difference.
    Especially as FPTnP's rotten boroughs rarely see much active campaigning.
    I suspect the explanation is much much boring, and the traditional one of overestimating Labour voter turnout in local elections that are a dead cert.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709



    I live in Australia, as many people keep saying. And if you had to put up with Australian politics (or frankly, the complete lack thereof) you might consider that a bet on anything is well worth the money just to keep things interesting. Very happy with these odds!

    I don't know much about Australian politics - it only gets reported when there's an election (and then not much) or a populist like Pauline Hanson says something headline-grabbbing. It sounds more focused on individuals and indeed insults than here, but maybe that's reporting bias too. What makes it so boring?
    The next general election there and last time looks like a replay of 2015 here with Turnbull a Cameron clone, Shorten a Miliband clone and Hanson a Farage clone
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    One for the lawyers

    Germans debating who owns gold fillings after a body is burned. The crematorium or the family ?

    http://www.faz.net/aktuell/finanzen/meine-finanzen/nachrichten/streit-um-das-zahngold-verstorbener-menschen-15595312.html
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715
    HYUFD said:



    I live in Australia, as many people keep saying. And if you had to put up with Australian politics (or frankly, the complete lack thereof) you might consider that a bet on anything is well worth the money just to keep things interesting. Very happy with these odds!

    I don't know much about Australian politics - it only gets reported when there's an election (and then not much) or a populist like Pauline Hanson says something headline-grabbbing. It sounds more focused on individuals and indeed insults than here, but maybe that's reporting bias too. What makes it so boring?
    The next general election there and last time looks like a replay of 2015 here with Turnbull a Cameron clone, Shorten a Miliband clone and Hanson a Farage clone
    Turnbull’s a more interesting character, with a better back-story, than Cameron, though.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,761

    One for the lawyers

    Germans debating who owns gold fillings after a body is burned. The crematorium or the family ?

    http://www.faz.net/aktuell/finanzen/meine-finanzen/nachrichten/streit-um-das-zahngold-verstorbener-menschen-15595312.html

    Weirdly one of my friends was visiting Auschwitz yesterday....
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    DavidL said:

    One for the lawyers

    Germans debating who owns gold fillings after a body is burned. The crematorium or the family ?

    http://www.faz.net/aktuell/finanzen/meine-finanzen/nachrichten/streit-um-das-zahngold-verstorbener-menschen-15595312.html

    Weirdly one of my friends was visiting Auschwitz yesterday....
    Hmm.. the crems over here don't give gold back.. Perhaps I should write and ask for the return of my late wife's gold .. or ask what they did with it...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited May 2018

    HYUFD said:



    I live in Australia, as many people keep saying. And if you had to put up with Australian politics (or frankly, the complete lack thereof) you might consider that a bet on anything is well worth the money just to keep things interesting. Very happy with these odds!

    I don't know much about Australian politics - it only gets reported when there's an election (and then not much) or a populist like Pauline Hanson says something headline-grabbbing. It sounds more focused on individuals and indeed insults than here, but maybe that's reporting bias too. What makes it so boring?
    The next general election there and last time looks like a replay of 2015 here with Turnbull a Cameron clone, Shorten a Miliband clone and Hanson a Farage clone
    Turnbull’s a more interesting character, with a better back-story, than Cameron, though.
    Turnbull is one of the richest men in Australia certainly but policy wise there is virtually no difference between him and Cameron apart from Turnbull, unlike most of his more monarchist party, is a republican but even there you could say that mirrors Cameron being pro EU in a eurosceptic party
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    Germans complaining Putin won the Italian election for anti EU 5 star and the Lega.

    Nothing to do with the way Italians were treated in the debt crisis then ........


    https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article176475863/Russlandfreundliches-Italien-Putins-italienischer-Triumph.html
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    Any Tory leadership candidate promising to take us out of the customs union will have a big advantage.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    edited May 2018

    rcs1000 said:

    Barnesian said:

    surby said:

    He [Varadkar] said: “Any move on customs with the UK would be welcome but I need to be very clear that avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland is about more than customs. The single market and aspects related to regulation are important as well.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/17/theresa-may-tries-to-rally-support-for-customs-plan-from-eu-leaders

    That's what we have been saying on here. Single market here we come (dressed up in other words).

    "Varadkar later told reporters that, during 45 minutes of talks, May had sketched out her hopes for what he described as a “deep customs arrangement”" That will please the Brexiteers.

    I think May will continue to repeat "We are leaving the Customs Union and we are leaving the Single Market" as we stay in the Customs Union and stay in the Single Market. She'll keep saying it until she retires.
    Yes, this is totally correct. But of course, this is the same as Cameron's plan at the 're-negotiation' - lie through your teeth so much that you start to believe it is true. Didn't work then. Won't work now. The assumption that 'the people' are stupid and will believe what you tell them was exactly what lost Remain the referendum.

    Will just result in a Tory wipeout at the next GE.
    How much of a wipeout do you reckon?

    Fewer than 200 seats?

    I'll offer you 10-1 on the double of a customs "partnership" and Tories sub 200 seats.
    You are on PM me!
    The Tory party better hope that the word ''betrayal" doesn't get associated with them.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    I live in Australia, as many people keep saying. And if you had to put up with Australian politics (or frankly, the complete lack thereof) you might consider that a bet on anything is well worth the money just to keep things interesting. Very happy with these odds!

    I don't know much about Australian politics - it only gets reported when there's an election (and then not much) or a populist like Pauline Hanson says something headline-grabbbing. It sounds more focused on individuals and indeed insults than here, but maybe that's reporting bias too. What makes it so boring?
    The next general election there and last time looks like a replay of 2015 here with Turnbull a Cameron clone, Shorten a Miliband clone and Hanson a Farage clone
    Turnbull’s a more interesting character, with a better back-story, than Cameron, though.
    Turnbull is one of the richest men in Australia certainly but policy wise there is virtually no difference between him and Cameron apart from Turnbull, unlike most of his more monarchist party, is a republican but even there you could say that mirrors Cameron being pro EU in a eurosceptic party
    Factoid of the day: Both studied at BNC.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516

    rcs1000 said:

    Barnesian said:

    surby said:

    He [Varadkar] said: “Any move on customs with the UK would be welcome but I need to be very clear that avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland is about more than customs. The single market and aspects related to regulation are important as well.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/17/theresa-may-tries-to-rally-support-for-customs-plan-from-eu-leaders

    That's what we have been saying on here. Single market here we come (dressed up in other words).

    "Varadkar later told reporters that, during 45 minutes of talks, May had sketched out her hopes for what he described as a “deep customs arrangement”" That will please the Brexiteers.

    I think May will continue to repeat "We are leaving the Customs Union and we are leaving the Single Market" as we stay in the Customs Union and stay in the Single Market. She'll keep saying it until she retires.
    Yes, this is totally correct. But of course, this is the same as Cameron's plan at the 're-negotiation' - lie through your teeth so much that you start to believe it is true. Didn't work then. Won't work now. The assumption that 'the people' are stupid and will believe what you tell them was exactly what lost Remain the referendum.

    Will just result in a Tory wipeout at the next GE.
    How much of a wipeout do you reckon?

    Fewer than 200 seats?

    I'll offer you 10-1 on the double of a customs "partnership" and Tories sub 200 seats.
    You are on PM me!
    The Tory party better hope that the word betrayal doesn't get associated with them.
    I think they can afford to have a customs union extension as long as it is explicitly limited to a time in the next parliamentary term. They can't afford a single market extension and a freedom of movement extension would end in wipeout for them.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,563
    ydoethur said:

    Are we all overthinking this?

    Surely one possibility is simply that Labour supporters didn't use all their votes, while the more motivated and more fearful Tories and Lib Dems made a point of voting as many times as they could.

    I had a different version of the same question - to what extent is turnout depressed by a significant lead in the polls ?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    This is good news but makes the strong employment and weak earnings numbers even more baffling:

    ' A smaller proportion of UK workers are low paid than at any time since the early 1980s, due to above-inflation increases in the government’s national living wage.

    A report by the Resolution Foundation thinktank said the share of employees who were officially classified as low paid – earning less than around £8.50 an hour – had fallen to 18%, the lowest since 1982.

    Further planned increases in the national living wage would reduce the percentage of low paid – those earning less than two-thirds of the median hourly wage – to 15% by 2020, the thinktank said.

    The number of low-paid workers is affected by the growing size of the workforce, but the Resolution Foundation said that in the year to April 2017 the total fell below five million for the first time since the early 2000s. '

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/may/18/number-of-low-paid-uk-workers-falls-to-lowest-level-in-decades
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340
    edited May 2018
    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    On topic, the LibDems didn't put up three candidates in every ward across London, and in a fair few didn't stand. You would expect this to have overstated their poll rating slightly.

    Did we see the first signs that Labour supporters just might contemplate voting tactically for the Lib Dems where they had a chance of defeating the Tories? The Labour vote in Richmond, for example, was about 2.5% down on 2014 at a time when Labour was polling higher. This might explain some of Labour's under performance and give the Lib Dems hope that the worst of the electoral damage of the Coalition era is at last behind them.
    Yes, you're right that people who might identify nationally as Labour, and have given a Labour response to the pollster, may have voted tactically in SW London. On a smaller scale the LDs probably picked up some Tory support in Haringey (certainly this used to be the case; I didn't campaign there this time). This is probably a bigger factor than thwarted LibDem voters in seats with no candidate, and probably 'explains' the variance in the lead, insofar as it isn't just MOE.

    With YouGov I always wonder how they overcome the bias in the internet-using population, within which pensioners must be under-represented. Yes, you can upweight those pensioners who do the online surveys, but are those users likely to be representative of pensioners who aren't online?
    Assuming pensioners don’t know how to use the internet is a rather patronising and increasingly false assumption. The internet has been in widespread use for about 20 years, so anyone under that age of 80 will have likely encountered it in the workplace before they retired, and thus have some experience. I would certainly expect most people under 70 to be fully proficient.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    On topic, the LibDems didn't put up three candidates in every ward across London, and in a fair few didn't stand. You would expect this to have overstated their poll rating slightly.

    Did we see the first signs that Labour supporters just might contemplate voting tactically for the Lib Dems where they had a chance of defeating the Tories? The Labour vote in Richmond, for example, was about 2.5% down on 2014 at a time when Labour was polling higher. This might explain some of Labour's under performance and give the Lib Dems hope that the worst of the electoral damage of the Coalition era is at last behind them.
    Yes, you're right that people who might identify nationally as Labour, and have given a Labour response to the pollster, may have voted tactically in SW London. On a smaller scale the LDs probably picked up some Tory support in Haringey (certainly this used to be the case; I didn't campaign there this time). This is probably a bigger factor than thwarted LibDem voters in seats with no candidate, and probably 'explains' the variance in the lead, insofar as it isn't just MOE.

    With YouGov I always wonder how they overcome the bias in the internet-using population, within which pensioners must be under-represented. Yes, you can upweight those pensioners who do the online surveys, but are those users likely to be representative of pensioners who aren't online?
    Assuming pensioners don’t know how to use the internet is a rather patronising and increasingly false assumption. The internet has been in widespread use for about 20 years, so anyone under that age of 80 will have likely encountered it in the workplace before they retired, and thus have some experience. I would certainly expect most people under 70 to be fully proficient.
    While that is increasingly going to be the case, I'd point out that not all jobs will involve Internet use. One of my 65 ish relatives works in a bed factory and has for 30 years, and the job involves, on their end, no interaction with the internet whatsoever. Now, they use it as much as anyone else at home, but they could easily have no experience with it based on job alone.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    I live in Australia, as many people keep saying. And if you had to put up with Australian politics (or frankly, the complete lack thereof) you might consider that a bet on anything is well worth the money just to keep things interesting. Very happy with these odds!

    I don't know much about Australian politics - it only gets reported when there's an election (and then not much) or a populist like Pauline Hanson says something headline-grabbbing. It sounds more focused on individuals and indeed insults than here, but maybe that's reporting bias too. What makes it so boring?
    The next general election there and last time looks like a replay of 2015 here with Turnbull a Cameron clone, Shorten a Miliband clone and Hanson a Farage clone
    Turnbull’s a more interesting character, with a better back-story, than Cameron, though.
    Turnbull is one of the richest men in Australia certainly but policy wise there is virtually no difference between him and Cameron apart from Turnbull, unlike most of his more monarchist party, is a republican but even there you could say that mirrors Cameron being pro EU in a eurosceptic party
    Factoid of the day: Both studied at BNC.
    Obviously the place to study for future liberal and centre right PMs
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Oxford Union motion 'This House believes Britain should be ashamed of Churchill' is defeated by 141 votes to 122

    https://mobile.twitter.com/OxfordUnion/status/997232135194009600
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841
    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    On topic, the LibDems didn't put up three candidates in every ward across London, and in a fair few didn't stand. You would expect this to have overstated their poll rating slightly.

    Did we see the first signs that Labour supporters just might contemplate voting tactically for the Lib Dems where they had a chance of defeating the Tories? The Labour vote in Richmond, for example, was about 2.5% down on 2014 at a time when Labour was polling higher. This might explain some of Labour's under performance and give the Lib Dems hope that the worst of the electoral damage of the Coalition era is at last behind them.
    Yes, you're right that people who might identify nationally as Labour, and have given a Labour response to the pollster, may have voted tactically in SW London. On a smaller scale the LDs probably picked up some Tory support in Haringey (certainly this used to be the case; I didn't campaign there this time). This is probably a bigger factor than thwarted LibDem voters in seats with no candidate, and probably 'explains' the variance in the lead, insofar as it isn't just MOE.

    With YouGov I always wonder how they overcome the bias in the internet-using population, within which pensioners must be under-represented. Yes, you can upweight those pensioners who do the online surveys, but are those users likely to be representative of pensioners who aren't online?
    Presumably they calibrate their results against actual votes but I agree that the underlying assumption that the internet savvy and the not so much are moving in the same direction must be a source of their errors. When the Tories go out of their way to disappoint the elderly with a dementia tax, for example, they are likely to be overstated. Hopefully that particular issue won't arise again any time soon!
    Damian Green says "Hi"

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/levy-on-over-40s-would-fund-their-old-age-care-proposes-damian-green-hb7kt2tbb

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/05/16/pensioners-properties-without-mortgages-should-draw-money-fund/
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited May 2018
    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    On topic, the LibDems didn't put up three candidates in every ward across London, and in a fair few didn't stand. You would expect this to have overstated their poll rating slightly.

    Did we see the first signs that Labour supporters just might contemplate voting tactically for the Lib Dems where they had a chance of defeating the Tories? The Labour vote in Richmond, for example, was about 2.5% down on 2014 at a time when Labour was polling higher. This might explain some of Labour's under performance and give the Lib Dems hope that the worst of the electoral damage of the Coalition era is at last behind them.
    Yes, you're right that people who might identify nationally as Labour, and have given a Labour response to the pollster, may have voted tactically in SW London. On a smaller scale the LDs probably picked up some Tory support in Haringey (certainly this used to be the case; I didn't campaign there this time). This is probably a bigger factor than thwarted LibDem voters in seats with no candidate, and probably 'explains' the variance in the lead, insofar as it isn't just MOE.

    With YouGov I always wonder how they overcome the bias in the internet-using population, within which pensioners must be under-represented. Yes, you can upweight those pensioners who do the online surveys, but are those users likely to be representative of pensioners who aren't online?
    Presumably they calibrate their results against actual votes but I agree that the underlying assumption that the internet savvy and the not so much are moving in the same direction must be a source of their errors. When the Tories go out of their way to disappoint the elderly with a dementia tax, for example, they are likely to be overstated. Hopefully that particular issue won't arise again any time soon!
    Damian Green says "Hi"

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/levy-on-over-40s-would-fund-their-old-age-care-proposes-damian-green-hb7kt2tbb

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/05/16/pensioners-properties-without-mortgages-should-draw-money-fund/
    Green's proposal is more about creating an insurance scheme for about £30 000 from the equity in your house to cover social care costs rather than a new wealth or dementia tax and in my view has more merit but he is no longer in the Cabinet and the most Hammond seems to be considering now is requiring over 65s still in work to pay National Insurance
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited May 2018
    Anyone know a BBC radio news channel that isn't preoccupied by babies pregnancies breast feeding Royal weddings and 'school-runs' (radio 5) and doesn't have John Humphrys obsessively preoccupied with the timbre of his own voice (Radio 4)?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    edited May 2018
    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    On topic, the LibDems didn't put up three candidates in every ward across London, and in a fair few didn't stand. You would expect this to have overstated their poll rating slightly.

    Did we see the first signs that Labour supporters just might contemplate voting tactically for the Lib Dems where they had a chance of defeating the Tories? The Labour vote in Richmond, for example, was about 2.5% down on 2014 at a time when Labour was polling higher. This might explain some of Labour's under performance and give the Lib Dems hope that the worst of the electoral damage of the Coalition era is at last behind them.
    snip

    With YouGov I always wonder how they overcome the bias in the internet-using population, within which pensioners must be under-represented. Yes, you can upweight those pensioners who do the online surveys, but are those users likely to be representative of pensioners who aren't online?
    Presumably they calibrate their results against actual votes but I agree that the underlying assumption that the internet savvy and the not so much are moving in the same direction must be a source of their errors. When the Tories go out of their way to disappoint the elderly with a dementia tax, for example, they are likely to be overstated. Hopefully that particular issue won't arise again any time soon!
    Damian Green says "Hi"

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/levy-on-over-40s-would-fund-their-old-age-care-proposes-damian-green-hb7kt2tbb

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/05/16/pensioners-properties-without-mortgages-should-draw-money-fund/
    Green's proposal is more about creating an insurance scheme for about £30 000 from the equity in your house to cover social care costs rather than a new wealth or dementia tax and in my view has more merit but he is no longer in the Cabinet and the most Hammond seems to be considering now is requiring over 65s still in work to pay National Insurance
    His proposal merits looking at in depth. As does anything that might get us out of this terrifying mess.

    But I would say on first glance it smacks of over complication. It would require every single homeowner over 65 to enter into some form of equity release with all the attendant paperwork and complications of stuff like, presumably, assessing value of a property. Unless I am missing something.

    Why not just reduce some of the £1m free from IHT (if a property passing to kids etc etc)?
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    Mr Roger,

    I used to listen to Radio 5 up to last year when the BBC replaced the old sports and news channel with a version of Loose Women. But emoting rather than fact-reporting is what BBC journalism has become.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    One feature is that the LDs had pacts, particularly in high turnout Richmond, with the Greens whereby the party did not field a full list of candidates in key wards. These were all very high turnout elections and this would have impacted on the overall totals.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited May 2018

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    On topic, the LibDems didn't put up three candidates in every ward across London, and in a fair few didn't stand. You would expect this to have overstated their poll rating slightly.

    Did we see the first signs that Labour supporters just might contemplate voting tactically for the Lib Dems where they had a chance of defeating the Tories? The Labour vote in Richmond, for example, was about 2.5% down on 2014 at a time when Labour was polling higher. This might explain some of Labour's under performance and give the Lib Dems hope that the worst of the electoral damage of the Coalition era is at last behind them.
    snip

    With YouGov I always wonder how they overcome the bias in the internet-using population, within which pensioners must be under-represented. Yes, you can upweight those pensioners who do the online surveys, but are those users likely to be representative of pensioners who aren't online?
    Presumably they calibrate their results against actual votes but I agree that the underlying assumption that the internet savvy and the not so much are moving in the same direction must be a source of their errors. When the Tories go out of their way to disappoint the elderly with a dementia tax, for example, they are likely to be overstated. Hopefully that particular issue won't arise again any time soon!
    Damian Green says "Hi"

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/levy-on-over-40s-would-fund-their-old-age-care-proposes-damian-green-hb7kt2tbb

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/05/16/pensioners-properties-without-mortgages-should-draw-money-fund/
    Green's proposal is more about creating an insurance scheme for about £30 000 from the equity in your house to cover social care costs rather than a new wealth or dementia tax and in my view has more merit but he is no longer in the Cabinet and the most Hammond seems to be considering now is requiring over 65s still in work to pay National Insurance
    His proposal merits looking at in depth. As does anything that might get us out of this terrifying mess.

    But I would say on first glance it smacks of over complication. It would require every single homeowner over 65 to enter into some form of equity release with all the attendant paperwork and complications of stuff like, presumably, assessing value of a property. Unless I am missing something.

    Why not just reduce some of the £1m free from IHT (if a property passing to kids etc etc)?
    It may need more detail but would certainly be more palatable to most Tory voters than reversing most of Osborne's inheritance tax cut
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    HYUFD said:

    Oxford Union motion 'This House believes Britain should be ashamed of Churchill' is defeated by 141 votes to 122

    https://mobile.twitter.com/OxfordUnion/status/997232135194009600

    Can they do Lloyd George next?

    I am reading Sean McMeekin's new book, 'The Russian Revolution' (thoroughly recommended with new material from archives on Lenin and his German connections).

    I had not realised that Lloyd George pulled Brit support from the Whites in the post-revolution civil war against the Reds at a crucial moment when it appeared they were possibly losing and doomed. It seems he just announced it, surprising Cabinet colleagues.

    He then removed a sea blockade.

  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    Notable how some of this site’s leading Brexiteer and Neobrexiteers don’t live in the UK, or anywhere near it.

    RCS1000, Carlotta, Sandpit and Archer to name a few.

    Telling.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,761

    Germans complaining Putin won the Italian election for anti EU 5 star and the Lega.

    Nothing to do with the way Italians were treated in the debt crisis then ........


    https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article176475863/Russlandfreundliches-Italien-Putins-italienischer-Triumph.html

    My Euro devil does not think that the President will allow 5 Star and the Lega to form a government. Don't know enough about the Italian constitution to determine whether he is right or not. The consensus seems to be that there is still a much reduced majority who are pro-EU and an anti-EU government would not reflect that. Of course stopping it might have its own effect.

    The idea that the ECB should simply cancel E250bn of bonds is an interesting one... Can just see the Germans loving that.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited May 2018

    HYUFD said:

    Oxford Union motion 'This House believes Britain should be ashamed of Churchill' is defeated by 141 votes to 122

    https://mobile.twitter.com/OxfordUnion/status/997232135194009600

    Can they do Lloyd George next?

    I am reading Sean McMeekin's new book, 'The Russian Revolution' (thoroughly recommended with new material from archives on Lenin and his German connections).

    I had not realised that Lloyd George pulled Brit support from the Whites in the post-revolution civil war against the Reds at a crucial moment when it appeared they were possibly losing and doomed. It seems he just announced it, surprising Cabinet colleagues.

    He then removed a sea blockade.

    Would certainly be an interesting debate 'Did Lloyd George enable Lenin and Stalin?'
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    edited May 2018
    Anazina said:

    Notable how some of this site’s leading Brexiteer and Neobrexiteers don’t live in the UK, or anywhere near it.

    RCS1000, Carlotta, Sandpit and Archer to name a few.

    Telling.

    You forgot Max who was in Switzerland, though think he’s back now.

    The funny thing that many also harangue Mr Meeks for having the effrontery to keep a holiday home in Hungary.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:
    Green's proposal is more about creating an insurance scheme for about £30 000 from the equity in your house to cover social care costs rather than a new wealth or dementia tax and in my view has more merit but he is no longer in the Cabinet and the most Hammond seems to be considering now is requiring over 65s still in work to pay National Insurance
    His proposal merits looking at in depth. As does anything that might get us out of this terrifying mess.

    But I would say on first glance it smacks of over complication. It would require every single homeowner over 65 to enter into some form of equity release with all the attendant paperwork and complications of stuff like, presumably, assessing value of a property. Unless I am missing something.

    Why not just reduce some of the £1m free from IHT (if a property passing to kids etc etc)?
    It may need more detail but would certainly be more palatable to most Tory voters than reversing most of Osborne's inheritance tax cut
    That depends on how big their financial assets are.

    £30k is a lot of money compared to the average house value in Mansfield or Copeland or Middlesbrough South.

    Whereas few people in such places will be needing the full inheritance tax threshold.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Oxford Union motion 'This House believes Britain should be ashamed of Churchill' is defeated by 141 votes to 122

    https://mobile.twitter.com/OxfordUnion/status/997232135194009600

    Can they do Lloyd George next?

    I am reading Sean McMeekin's new book, 'The Russian Revolution' (thoroughly recommended with new material from archives on Lenin and his German connections).

    I had not realised that Lloyd George pulled Brit support from the Whites in the post-revolution civil war against the Reds at a crucial moment when it appeared they were possibly losing and doomed. It seems he just announced it, surprising Cabinet colleagues.

    He then removed a sea blockade.

    Would certainly be an interesting debate 'Did Lloyd George enable Lenin and Stalin?'
    Probably not. British involvement was peripheral to the success or failure of either side. The Whites were better resourced (helped by the surplus war stocks that Britain, France and the US had after the end of WWI) but it wasn't all tha easy for the Whites to make use of them, when the decisive fighting was in the heartlands of the country. Likewise, what use was a blockade against a force which was importing precious little and wasn't intent on building trade relations with capitalist economies?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Roger said:

    Anyone know a BBC radio news channel that isn't preoccupied by babies pregnancies breast feeding Royal weddings and 'school-runs' (radio 5) and doesn't have John Humphrys obsessively preoccupied with the timbre of his own voice (Radio 4)?

    Radio Norwich?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited May 2018

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:
    Green's proposal is more about creating an insurance scheme for about £30 000 from the equity in your house to cover social care costs rather than a new wealth or dementia tax and in my view has more merit but he is no longer in the Cabinet and the most Hammond seems to be considering now is requiring over 65s still in work to pay National Insurance
    His proposal merits looking at in depth. As does anything that might get us out of this terrifying mess.

    But I would say on first glance it smacks of over complication. It would require every single homeowner over 65 to enter into some form of equity release with all the attendant paperwork and complications of stuff like, presumably, assessing value of a property. Unless I am missing something.

    Why not just reduce some of the £1m free from IHT (if a property passing to kids etc etc)?
    It may need more detail but would certainly be more palatable to most Tory voters than reversing most of Osborne's inheritance tax cut
    That depends on how big their financial assets are.

    £30k is a lot of money compared to the average house value in Mansfield or Copeland or Middlesbrough South.

    Whereas few people in such places will be needing the full inheritance tax threshold.
    Coincidentally those three seats were amongst the few Tory non Scottish gains at the general election, in London and the South where the Tories made a net loss of seats at the last general election after the dementia tax proposal, £30k is not a lot of money compared to the average house value.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    CD13 said:

    Mr Roger,

    I used to listen to Radio 5 up to last year when the BBC replaced the old sports and news channel with a version of Loose Women. But emoting rather than fact-reporting is what BBC journalism has become.

    It happened very suddenly. I've been trying to find out if they've changed producer or had some research done that they're following. Neither apparently but it's becoming difficult to get British news that keeps you up to date if you're abroad
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:
    Green's proposal is more about creating an insurance scheme for about £30 000 from the equity in your house to cover social care costs rather than a new wealth or dementia tax and in my view has more merit but he is no longer in the Cabinet and the most Hammond seems to be considering now is requiring over 65s still in work to pay National Insurance
    His proposal merits looking at in depth. As does anything that might get us out of this terrifying mess.

    But I would say on first glance it smacks of over complication. It would require every single homeowner over 65 to enter into some form of equity release with all the attendant paperwork and complications of stuff like, presumably, assessing value of a property. Unless I am missing something.

    Why not just reduce some of the £1m free from IHT (if a property passing to kids etc etc)?
    It may need more detail but would certainly be more palatable to most Tory voters than reversing most of Osborne's inheritance tax cut
    That depends on how big their financial assets are.

    £30k is a lot of money compared to the average house value in Mansfield or Copeland or Middlesbrough South.

    Whereas few people in such places will be needing the full inheritance tax threshold.
    Coincidentally those three seats were the few Tory non Scottish gains at the general election, in London and the South where the Tories made a net loss at the last general election after the dementia tax proposal, £30k is not a lot of money compared to the average house value.
    Well yes the dementia tax affects higher value properties far more than this.
    In fact I think I misread the proposal the other day, took it as 30k/yr.

    Of course taking out an interest only mortgage on your property to say 10% of the value looks an easy get out from this for the elderly.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    Anazina said:

    Notable how some of this site’s leading Brexiteer and Neobrexiteers don’t live in the UK, or anywhere near it.

    RCS1000, Carlotta, Sandpit and Archer to name a few.

    Telling.

    That is why they are called "Leavers". They have left .... :D
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Oxford Union motion 'This House believes Britain should be ashamed of Churchill' is defeated by 141 votes to 122

    https://mobile.twitter.com/OxfordUnion/status/997232135194009600

    Can they do Lloyd George next?

    I am reading Sean McMeekin's new book, 'The Russian Revolution' (thoroughly recommended with new material from archives on Lenin and his German connections).

    I had not realised that Lloyd George pulled Brit support from the Whites in the post-revolution civil war against the Reds at a crucial moment when it appeared they were possibly losing and doomed. It seems he just announced it, surprising Cabinet colleagues.

    He then removed a sea blockade.

    Would certainly be an interesting debate 'Did Lloyd George enable Lenin and Stalin?'
    Impossible to say for sure, like all these historical twists. Seems though that news of Lloyd George's speech, in which he effectively said all was lost and Brits should get out of the mess, spread widely across White Russia, shattering morale at a crucial point.

    So arguably, the answer is yes.

    But the Germans bear far more guilt, if that is the right word.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    Anazina said:

    Notable how some of this site’s leading Brexiteer and Neobrexiteers don’t live in the UK, or anywhere near it.

    RCS1000, Carlotta, Sandpit and Archer to name a few.

    Telling.

    Telling perhaps in that they might have a better handle on life outside the UK and the way the rest of the world works compared to those Remainers whose experiences are limited to the occasional holiday to Tuscany.?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:
    Green's proposal is more about creating an insurance scheme for about £30 000 from the equity in your house to cover social care costs rather than a new wealth or dementia tax and in my view has more merit but he is no longer in the Cabinet and the most Hammond seems to be considering now is requiring over 65s still in work to pay National Insurance
    His proposal merits looking at in depth. As does anything that might get us out of this terrifying mess.

    But I would say on first glance it smacks of over complication. It would require every single homeowner over 65 to enter into some form of equity release with all the attendant paperwork and complications of stuff like, presumably, assessing value of a property. Unless I am missing something.

    Why not just reduce some of the £1m free from IHT (if a property passing to kids etc etc)?
    It may need more detail but would certainly be more palatable to most Tory voters than reversing most of Osborne's inheritance tax cut
    That depends on how big their financial assets are.

    £30k is a lot of money compared to the average house value in Mansfield or Copeland or Middlesbrough South.

    Whereas few people in such places will be needing the full inheritance tax threshold.
    Coincidentally those three seats were amongst the few Tory non Scottish gains at the general election, in London and the South where the Tories made a net loss of seats at the last general election after the dementia tax proposal, £30k is not a lot of money compared to the average house value.
    £30k not a lot to levy homeowners for.
    £50k not a lot to put students in debt for.

    Many will disagree.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    Roger said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr Roger,

    I used to listen to Radio 5 up to last year when the BBC replaced the old sports and news channel with a version of Loose Women. But emoting rather than fact-reporting is what BBC journalism has become.

    It happened very suddenly. I've been trying to find out if they've changed producer or had some research done that they're following. Neither apparently but it's becoming difficult to get British news that keeps you up to date if you're abroad
    We saw the collapse of newspaper circulation figures yesterday. Radio 4 is going to go the same way unless the lose Humphreys and change editorial. Meanwhile, Netflix is eating iPlayer for lunch.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    Mr Tyndall,

    "What do they know of England who only England know?"

    The man who makes the cakes?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052

    Anazina said:

    Notable how some of this site’s leading Brexiteer and Neobrexiteers don’t live in the UK, or anywhere near it.

    RCS1000, Carlotta, Sandpit and Archer to name a few.

    Telling.

    That is why they are called "Leavers". They have left .... :D
    Doing their bit for the net immigration figures :)
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    HYUFD said:

    Oxford Union motion 'This House believes Britain should be ashamed of Churchill' is defeated by 141 votes to 122

    https://mobile.twitter.com/OxfordUnion/status/997232135194009600

    We should at least stop seeing him through rose tinted glasses. He was, in many ways, a pretty awful fellow. Of course it was some of those same character defects that probably made him so effective as a war time leader but any neutral overview of his life would have to say there were many many low points that we should not be celebrating.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited May 2018

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:
    Green's proposal is more about creating an insurance scheme for about £30 000 from the equity in your house to cover social care costs rather than a new wealth or dementia tax and in my view has more merit but he is no longer in the Cabinet and the most Hammond seems to be considering now is requiring over 65s still in work to pay National Insurance
    His proposal merits looking at in depth. As does anything that might get us out of this terrifying mess.

    But I would say on first glance it smacks of over complication. It would require every single homeowner over 65 to enter into some form of equity release with all the attendant paperwork and complications of stuff like, presumably, assessing value of a property. Unless I am missing something.

    Why not just reduce some of the £1m free from IHT (if a property passing to kids etc etc)?
    It may need more detail but would certainly be more palatable to most Tory voters than reversing most of Osborne's inheritance tax cut
    That depends on how big their financial assets are.

    £30k is a lot of money compared to the average house value in Mansfield or Copeland or Middlesbrough South.

    Whereas few people in such places will be needing the full inheritance tax threshold.
    Coincidentally those three seats were amongst the few Tory non Scottish gains at the general election, in London and the South where the Tories made a net loss of seats at the last general election after the dementia tax proposal, £30k is not a lot of money compared to the average house value.
    £30k not a lot to levy homeowners for.
    £50k not a lot to put students in debt for.

    Many will disagree.
    I agree on students but the question was on a forced choice which would be more damaging to the Tories ie another dementia tax plan or reversing Osborne's inheritance tax cut or a £30k equity release to fund an insurance scheme for social care. It would in my view unquestionably be the former as the 2017 and 2015 general election results confirm
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,880
    Anazina said:

    Notable how some of this site’s leading Brexiteer and Neobrexiteers don’t live in the UK, or anywhere near it.

    RCS1000, Carlotta, Sandpit and Archer to name a few.

    Telling.

    I don't think it's about political leanings, it's more that this site is a great source of UK politics news for politics geeks. I suspect there are plenty of remainers who live abroad also.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:
    Green's proposal is more about creating an insurance scheme for about £30 000 from the equity in your house to cover social care costs rather than a new wealth or dementia tax and in my view has more merit but he is no longer in the Cabinet and the most Hammond seems to be considering now is requiring over 65s still in work to pay National Insurance
    His proposal merits looking at in depth. As does anything that might get us out of this terrifying mess.

    But I would say on first glance it smacks of over complication. It would require every single homeowner over 65 to enter into some form of equity release with all the attendant paperwork and complications of stuff like, presumably, assessing value of a property. Unless I am missing something.

    Why not just reduce some of the £1m free from IHT (if a property passing to kids etc etc)?
    It may need more detail but would certainly be more palatable to most Tory voters than reversing most of Osborne's inheritance tax cut
    That depends on how big their financial assets are.

    £30k is a lot of money compared to the average house value in Mansfield or Copeland or Middlesbrough South.

    Whereas few people in such places will be needing the full inheritance tax threshold.
    Coincidentally those three seats were the few Tory non Scottish gains at the general election, in London and the South where the Tories made a net loss at the last general election after the dementia tax proposal, £30k is not a lot of money compared to the average house value.
    Well yes the dementia tax affects higher value properties far more than this.
    In fact I think I misread the proposal the other day, took it as 30k/yr.

    Of course taking out an interest only mortgage on your property to say 10% of the value looks an easy get out from this for the elderly.
    Agreed
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    rkrkrk said:

    I suspect there are plenty of remainers who live abroad also.

    There are some who have lived abroad, and appreciate what we are giving up
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,764

    HYUFD said:

    Oxford Union motion 'This House believes Britain should be ashamed of Churchill' is defeated by 141 votes to 122

    https://mobile.twitter.com/OxfordUnion/status/997232135194009600

    We should at least stop seeing him through rose tinted glasses. He was, in many ways, a pretty awful fellow. Of course it was some of those same character defects that probably made him so effective as a war time leader but any neutral overview of his life would have to say there were many many low points that we should not be celebrating.
    Almost invariably, great people have character defects, and may be quite horrible people. But, as you imply, that's the flip side of what makes them great.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,543
    edited May 2018
    Elliot said:

    Any Tory leadership candidate promising to take us out of the customs union will have a big advantage.
    Tory leadership candidates promising to take us out of the customs union will have a big advantage up until the point when they have to act on that promise. As Theresa May has found out.

    At some point the Brexit music will stop and whoever is in post will accept the status quo at the time the music does stop.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,741
    Morning all :)

    Three weeks on and the London results are starting to make a little more sense. Labour failed to break the 50% number forecast in some polls - complacency among its supporters or a response to the anti-Semitism meme ?

    The "spin" was about the party failing in Barnet, Wandsworth and Westminster and that's not insignificant in wider electoral terms but Labour still gained 60 Councillors and one Council (Tower Hamlets) and is now entrenched in its 21 councils with either huge majorities or 100% control. The Mayoral contests were all comfortably won (Newham by 73 to 12) as well. Labour are represented on every Council bar the ones held by the LDs as the anti-Conservative vote.

    For the Conservatives, the spin of "success" hides a more complex and mixed story. Yes, the holding of Barnet in particular (and Wandsworth and Westminster) as well was noteworthy but the party lost Kingston and Richmond to the LDs and failed to take back Sutton, Harrow or Havering. 100 Councillors were lost and its worth noting places like Redbridge, Croydon, Enfield and Merton, where the Conservatives were competitive not so long ago, they are a long way behind.

    For the Liberal Democrats, too, it was a mixed night. Holding Sutton and gaining Kingston and Richmond were the big stories (as well as a nice few gains in Merton) but the bulk of the LD Councillors in London are in the four Boroughs mentioned and elsewhere there were tiny islands of progress surrounded by vast seas of moribund wasteland. 23 of London's 32 Boroughs have no LD Councillors (the Conservatives are only absent on 6 by comparison) and that's a concern.

    For the Greens, it was disappointing apart from Lambeth where four gains makes them the official Opposition (as they are on Islington) while UKIP's existence in London (which, in comparison to other areas was weak with only 12 Councillors) was erased with the Party as a whole getting fewer votes than ASPIRE, one of the factions in Tower Hamlets.

    For the Independents, a poor night. Yes, 24 survived in Havering and two ex-Conservatives held on in Biggin Hill and three new Independents took seats from the LDs in Beddington North but that's about your lot.

    Perhaps the message from the 2018 elections wasn't about how much changed but how little.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,870
    stodge said:

    For the Liberal Democrats, too, it was a mixed night. Holding Sutton and gaining Kingston and Richmond were the big stories (as well as a nice few gains in Merton) but the bulk of the LD Councillors in London are in the four Boroughs mentioned and elsewhere there were tiny islands of progress surrounded by vast seas of moribund wasteland. 23 of London's 32 Boroughs have no LD Councillors (the Conservatives are only absent on 6 by comparison) and that's a concern.

    Inevitable, I suspect. The long slow road to LD recovery begins with targetting. The party is virtually invisible in the national and regional media, so outside of their target councils they're unlikely to pick up that many votes.

    That said, there are glimmers of an LD revival in a few places around the Home Counties which don't appear to have been particularly heavily targetted.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    His proposal merits looking at in depth. As does anything that might get us out of this terrifying mess.

    But I would say on first glance it smacks of over complication. It would require every single homeowner over 65 to enter into some form of equity release with all the attendant paperwork and complications of stuff like, presumably, assessing value of a property. Unless I am missing something.

    Why not just reduce some of the £1m free from IHT (if a property passing to kids etc etc)?
    It may need more detail but would certainly be more palatable to most Tory voters than reversing most of Osborne's inheritance tax cut
    That depends on how big their financial assets are.

    £30k is a lot of money compared to the average house value in Mansfield or Copeland or Middlesbrough South.

    Whereas few people in such places will be needing the full inheritance tax threshold.
    £30k not a lot to levy homeowners for.
    £50k not a lot to put students in debt for.

    Many will disagree.
    I agree on students but the question was on a forced choice which would be more damaging to the Tories ie another dementia tax plan or reversing Osborne's inheritance tax cut or a £30k equity release to fund an insurance scheme for social care. It would in my view unquestionably be the former as the 2017 and 2015 general election results confirm
    My solution, which is not original, is to abolish IHT altogether. "Why should we have to pay tax on our after tax savings etc".

    But the recipients of inheritances should pay income tax on their inheritances (as unearned income) which seems fair. Perhaps with an allowance of £x to take small inheritances out of the net, and a rate of 45% on trusts. This should raise more money than the current scheme and be seen as fairer and may encourage a bigger spread of inheritances.

    I'd also remove the anomaly of over-65s not paying NI. That would raise a few billion, is simple, and seems fair.

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,543
    This is the tricky bit. For a Brexit deal to work, it has to be permanent and with significant sanctions for breaking it. On the other hand Leavers, and I think the British public generally, won't wear a restrictive deal unless there is a plausible possibility of moving on from it. This can't actually be fudged. Smoke and mirrors doesn't work here.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    FF43 said:

    This is the tricky bit. For a Brexit deal to work, it has to be permanent and with significant sanctions for breaking it. On the other hand Leavers, and I think the British public generally, won't wear a restrictive deal unless there is a plausible possibility of moving on from it. This can't actually be fudged. Smoke and mirrors doesn't work here.
    May will be out by next summer if she doesn't grow a set pretty soon.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    TGOHF said:

    May will be out by next summer if she doesn't grow a set pretty soon.

    And then what?

    None of the Brexiteers actually want to grasp the thistle of leaving.

    They want someone else to make it work, or someone else to take the blame for it not working

    A classic of the genre...

    https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/997088812206567424
This discussion has been closed.