General Election 2017

[darrenm]

29 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

My final(ish - might update if anything crazy happens over the next few days) predictions for which seats will change hands:

Thoughts? Omissions? Disagreements?

 

What data are you using for this?

[HanoiVillan]

11 minutes ago, darrenm said:

What data are you using for this?

Fair question! There's a good run down of all seats at Electoral Calculus, plus for an overall you can look at the 'poll of polls' at Britain Elects, then looking at the cross-tabs on individual polls at ukpollingreport - I particularly like YouGov polls because they give a regional crosstab and votes seem to be highly correlated across regions (broad rule of thumb: Corbyn is doing better than Miliband in London, the South West, Wales and Scotland, and worse in the Midlands and the North).

[darrenm]

4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Fair question! There's a good run down of all seats at Electoral Calculus, plus for an overall you can look at the 'poll of polls' at Britain Elects, then looking at the cross-tabs on individual polls at ukpollingreport - I particularly like YouGov polls because they give a regional crosstab and votes seem to be highly correlated across regions (broad rule of thumb: Corbyn is doing better than Miliband in London, the South West, Wales and Scotland, and worse in the Midlands and the North).

Coolio. Yeah I look at those I just wondered if you were predicting yourself or using poll data.

[HanoiVillan]

8 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Coolio. Yeah I look at those I just wondered if you were predicting yourself or using poll data.

A bit of both 

[dAVe80]

Been to a pro Labour rally tonight, and feeling pretty energised for the next few days (the cider I drank will knock that out of me I'm sure). I've dug out my Jezza badge to wear all week, alongside my Durham TA badge (if you're not familiar, look it up. Those women are inspirational) which I've been rocking for a while.

 

 

[dAVe80]

Hanoi - I'm not sure Bish Vegas will go blue, like. I don't have much time for Helen Goodman, if I'm honest, but she'll be reet

[ThunderPower_14]

As a left leaning Australian who has little not no vested interest in your election, the only 100% wrong option is to not vote.

If you think one party is 51/49 ahead, vote for them.

[tom_avfc]

9 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

"Where's the money coming from?"

"Here. Everything's written down right there"

"Ah, don't believe you"

I think this is a bit of an oversimplification of the issue. Yes, Labour have provided a "costed" manifesto. However in this manifesto not everything is actually costed and what is costed is inevitably based on a large amount of guesswork.

So yes fair play to them for attempting to provide an estimated cost on some of what is in their manifesto but I think it would be naive to simply "believe" the figures provided. The IFS have already commented that they don't believe that Labour would raise as much tax as they've said they will and some policies will inevitably cost more than estimated.

This costed manifesto seems to be a huge thing for Labour and is mentioned quite often but in reality means very little if the costing is inaccurate. I do like the idea that manifestos should be costed (although a completely independent costing of all manifestos would be more ideal) and Labour have at least made an attempt (more than the Conservatives) but why on Earth would anybody suddenly start just believing politicians in an age where we seem to have some of the least capable and least believable politicians. 

[Stevo985]

1 minute ago, tom_avfc said:

I think this is a bit of an oversimplification of the issue. Yes, Labour have provided a "costed" manifesto. However in this manifesto not everything is actually costed and what is costed is inevitably based on a large amount of guesswork.

So yes fair play to them for attempting to provide an estimated cost on some of what is in their manifesto but I think it would be naive to simply "believe" the figures provided. The IFS have already commented that they don't believe that Labour would raise as much tax as they've said they will and some policies will inevitably cost more than estimated.

This costed manifesto seems to be a huge thing for Labour and is mentioned quite often but in reality means very little if the costing is inaccurate. I do like the idea that manifestos should be costed (although a completely independent costing of all manifestos would be more ideal) and Labour have at least made an attempt (more than the Conservatives) but why on Earth would anybody suddenly start just believing politicians in an age where we seem to have some of the least capable and least believable politicians. 

Valid concerns, as I mentioned before.

But the criticism Labour and Corbyn seem to be getting (not just from VT, but from the public) is "where is the money coming from?". i.e. they're being criticised for not having a plan, when they clearly do have a plan.

If the plan isn't perfect then fair enough, but at least they HAVE a plan.

 

It just seems baffling to me that labour are getting hammered on this issue when they are the ones who have the costs laid out. Tories are getting off easily despite the fact they have no costings for their policies.

[peterms]

1 minute ago, tom_avfc said:

So yes fair play to them for attempting to provide an estimated cost on some of what is in their manifesto but I think it would be naive to simply "believe" the figures provided.

It's a rough estimate, that's all.  It's like any budget, except that it's drawn up at greater distance from the control of expenditure than most budget-holders in organisations have.

The central point is that all the spin about "Does it add up" is based on the fantasy, the lie, that there is a finite amount of "money" that cannot be breached, and that if the sums don't stay within this, they are not credible.

Taking the one about police recruitment as an example, the limits on recruitment are about the availability of suitable recruits, and decisions on whether this is operationally the right thing to do.  The idea, as repeated yet again this morning on the Today programme by some no-mark junior minister called Karen Bradley, that police numbers were cut because "there was no money left", is pure ignorance and deceit.

Focussing on the detailed costings of broad policy really doesn't help.  The central questions are these: What do we want to do?  And are the physical and human resources available to do this?  The idea that there is something called "money" that has "run out" is a risible device intended to deny agency and choice to those who do not wish to be responsible for the political decisions they make, and want to pretend that things are beyond their command, and so they cannot be held responsible.  Don't be doing with it.  It's utter bollocks. 

[mjmooney]

Saying "Enough is enough" is probably the thing that will win her the election. 

[tom_avfc]

10 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Valid concerns, as I mentioned before.

But the criticism Labour and Corbyn seem to be getting (not just from VT, but from the public) is "where is the money coming from?". i.e. they're being criticised for not having a plan, when they clearly do have a plan.

If the plan isn't perfect then fair enough, but at least they HAVE a plan.

 

It just seems baffling to me that labour are getting hammered on this issue when they are the ones who have the costs laid out. Tories are getting off easily despite the fact they have no costings for their policies.

I agree with you that at least they've tried but I'd say the reason they're getting hammered on it is because they are placing a "costed manifesto" as such a large part of their campaign. In fact the manifesto was described as "the biggest star we have" by shadow Home Secretary Emily Thornberry.

If things are then identified which haven't been costed or if independent financial bodies identify weaknesses in the costings then I think its inevitable that you're going to take a bit of a hammering. Like I said, I'm glad they tried to provide a costing but I'm not sure they should ever have placed such importance on it as its left them wide open to easy attacks.

[Chindie]

2 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Saying "Enough is enough" is probably the thing that will win her the election. 

Fitting really, as it's a statement as empty as her heart.

[MakemineVanilla]

The Independent have an interesting take on where Labour is going to get its extra revenue from: http://tinyurl.com/yaszgdvb

Very much a supporter of Labour, they point out that according to the IFS Labour's taxation plans do not help the poor and if you care about the poor you should vote Lib-Dem.

Quote

What is extraordinary about the Labour manifesto is that a politician who has made so much of the gap between the rich and the poor proposes to do so little about it. Yes, John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor, wants to raise £6.4bn a year from the top 5 per cent, those earning more than £80,000 a year. This would be a stiff increase, and it would close the gap a little by bringing higher earners down.

But most of the money raised by Labour tax increases would come from putting corporation tax back up from 19 per cent to 26 per cent. It is a huge sum of money, £19bn a year, and it is not a bad way to raise it. Labour ought to be honest, however, about where the burden would fall, which is on everyone: the customers and employees of companies, and their shareholders, who are often pension and investment funds owned by the many not the few.

This seems to prove that Labour's ideologues are far more intent on being seen to attack and demonise the rich, than in actually helping the poor.

[snowychap]

22 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

This seems to prove

 

No, it doesn't. It is John Rentoul's opinion. It doesn't 'prove' anything.

[hippo]

I still think it will be a Tory majority of 50+ seats. There is the odd poll putting labour within 2 or 3 %  - but the average tory lead is about 6%.

I remember reading an article about Lynton Crosby after GE2015 - some of the things that I recall are

• The Tories do massive opinion polls themselves - much bigger than the the ones reported in the press this gives more of an idea whats going on
• Lynton Crosby doesn't run a national campaign he focuses of the marginal seats - polling and campaigning is targeting in these areas
• In these marginal seats they analyse which issues are bothering the undecided or floating voters - and campaign accordingly
• In GE 2015 the story went around that labour was winning the ground war - ie leafleting engaging with voters - this rumours was started by Tory HQ ! 
• The best result for TM maybe a majority of around 50-60 - this would give her the power to get things done - but may not be the end of Corbyn  - win/win for the Tories.
• There is no UKIP and very weak lib dems  - so actually a better labour performance, may not be as good as it first seems.

I never found the article about Lynton Crosby again - but it made me realise how amateur the labour approach is (go out , campaign - hope people vote for you) 

 

 

[hippo]

33 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

The Independent have an interesting take on where Labour is going to get its extra revenue from: http://tinyurl.com/yaszgdvb

Very much a supporter of Labour, they point out that according to the IFS Labour's taxation plans do not help the poor and if you care about the poor you should vote Lib-Dem.

This seems to prove that Labour's ideologues are far more intent on being seen to attack and demonise the rich, than in actually helping the poor.

Who have no chance of even being the 2nd largest party. 

[Davkaus]

They have no chance of being the third largest party, they're not overtaking the SNP.

[meregreen]

Putting our corporation tax back up to the same levels as the rest of the developed world, seems a pretty reasonable way of financing help for the poor to me. As for voting Lib Dem , l haven't forgotten which Party " enabled" the Tories to inflict so much pain for 5 long years. Labour will get rid of zero hours contracts, raise the minimum wage significantly, remove the crippling debt we burden our students with. And simply bring hope to the millions of ordinary people the Tories have abandoned to food banks and despair. These things alone mean they are the Party who will have my vote.

[hippo]

51 minutes ago, peterms said:

It's a rough estimate, that's all.  It's like any budget, except that it's drawn up at greater distance from the control of expenditure than most budget-holders in organisations have.

The central point is that all the spin about "Does it add up" is based on the fantasy, the lie, that there is a finite amount of "money" that cannot be breached, and that if the sums don't stay within this, they are not credible.

Taking the one about police recruitment as an example, the limits on recruitment are about the availability of suitable recruits, and decisions on whether this is operationally the right thing to do.  The idea, as repeated yet again this morning on the Today programme by some no-mark junior minister called Karen Bradley, that police numbers were cut because "there was no money left", is pure ignorance and deceit.

Focussing on the detailed costings of broad policy really doesn't help.  The central questions are these: What do we want to do?  And are the physical and human resources available to do this?  The idea that there is something called "money" that has "run out" is a risible device intended to deny agency and choice to those who do not wish to be responsible for the political decisions they make, and want to pretend that things are beyond their command, and so they cannot be held responsible.  Don't be doing with it.  It's utter bollocks. 

I always look at the willingness to fund things rather than the fine detail. Right back to the 80's the Tories have never put enough money into the NHS - the excuses and reasons why change over the years.

The last Labour govt increased NI to fund the NHS. 

It is a case of if the will to do something is there it will get done - if it isn't the excuse 'who pays' is trotted out. The money is always there IMO.