Tory lead cut in half in one week

[Imploding Turtle]

A problem is that Labour's voting intention share relies far more on younger voters. 57% of people aged 18-24 vrs 24% for the Tories in that age group and these people are ***** for getting out to vote.



A new problem for Labour is that it would seem that although they're closing the gap on the Tories in voting intention, they've leaked some of the soft support of those "don't knows" who are leaning their way.



1% more people think May is doing well vrs 4% more people thinking she is doing badly as Prime Minister. Depending on how she handles the backlash to the Tory manifesto in the next week or so this might get better or worse for May.
4% more people think corbyn is doing well compared to 3% fewer people thinking he's doing Badly as Labour leader. This will most likely narrow as we get closer to polling day, unless he called a woman a bigot or something.



Further down the poll people are asked about their view of various policies which at first glance look like there's some good and bad for all parties but below those are answers to two question that the Tories should be worried about. 49% oppose against 30 support the changes to the pension triple lock, and the "support" side is over 3:1 weighted to the weaker "tend to support" answer. Labour can make gains if their message can incluse talking about this Tory policy.

It gets a lot worse for them when you look at the age groups of those who answered each way. 68% of people over 65 who declared an intention said they'd vote Tory versus 19% for Labour. But the changes to the triple lock have large and strong opposition among that age group. 34% Support (only 6% 'strongly' support) versus 64% who oppose and a majority of those who oppose it "strongly" oppose it (27/37).

Likewise the Social care changes. 40% oppose versus 35 support and again the support is soft, 7% strongly support/28% tend to support. Opposition is split evenly between 'tend to' and 'strongly' oppose.)




Link to the poll for you stat junkies (PDF warning)

[Lancasterclaret]

two million people have registered to vote, they are almost all going to be young, so won't vote Tory.

If Lab and others can get people who are "disillusioned" with voting (again, none of those will be Tory) then they have a chance.

[taio]

So in a nutshell the Conservatives will win.

[mdd2]

Hardly surprising. There have been some barm pot policies espoused by all parties over the years but the one from the Tories to stop free school dinners and replace it with free breakfast has to take the biscuit if you pardon the pun. Tony Robinson is die hard labour so it is hard to know where this Baldrick plan originated.

[Cryssys]

Good news. The Tory campaign so far has been inept and their manifesto has bombed. Long may it continue.

[TVC15]

Still looks a massive uphill task but I do sense that there is a bit of a shift starting.

Lot for people to like in the Labour manifesto...and it is fully costed. Contrast this to Tory manifesto which is lacking one £ sign and a lot of negative policies.

It seems to me like the Tories have thought that their massive lead in the polls gave them the leeway to introduce some policies that they knew would go down badly with the public and for whatever reason they would not bother costing their manifesto even though this is the one single thing they continuously criticise Labour for.

This complacency might be backfiring.

The young peoples vote could be crucial. I hope that the generation that could not be arsed voting at the Brexit vote and then blamed the older generation for "ruining their future" have had a big wake up call that it was their apathy which cost them this result. Labour policies like getting rid of tuition fees will definitely resonate with a lot of young people.

At the same time the older generation who have sided with Tory recently are being hit with a flurry of policies which will directly impact them negatively - the social care policy, removing triple lock, and means testing winter fuel allowance.

Still think it's a long shot....just like Leicester, Brexit and Donald Trump....now that would be a nice accumulator !

[taio]

Labour's manifesto isn't fully costed and certainly not fully funded. But I hope after the election they are a credible opposition with enough seats to hold the government to account.

[claretspice]

Still looks a massive uphill task but I do sense that there is a bit of a shift starting.

Lot for people to like in the Labour manifesto...and it is fully costed. Contrast this to Tory manifesto which is lacking one £ sign and a lot of negative policies.

It seems to me like the Tories have thought that their massive lead in the polls gave them the leeway to introduce some policies that they knew would go down badly with the public and for whatever reason they would not bother costing their manifesto even though this is the one single thing they continuously criticise Labour for.

This complacency might be backfiring.

The young peoples vote could be crucial. I hope that the generation that could not be arsed voting at the Brexit vote and then blamed the older generation for "ruining their future" have had a big wake up call that it was their apathy which cost them this result. Labour policies like getting rid of tuition fees will definitely resonate with a lot of young people.

At the same time the older generation who have sided with Tory recently are being hit with a flurry of policies which will directly impact them negatively - the social care policy, removing triple lock, and means testing winter fuel allowance.

Still think it's a long shot....just like Leicester, Brexit and Donald Trump....now that would be a nice accumulator !

What everything on this thread tells me is that a sensible, competent and professional social democratic party would have a huge chance of winning this election.

Unfortunately the Labour proposition at this election isnt competently delivered, its unprofessional and its offering an aggregate policy platform more left wing and statist than Britain has ever voted for.

[Greenmile]

...I hope that the generation that could not be arsed voting at the Brexit vote and then blamed the older generation for "ruining their future" have had a big wake up call that it was their apathy which cost them this result...

The turnout for younger people was not as low as widely reported.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ce-as-high" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I fully agree with the rest of your post, though.

[Heaton's Gloves]

My god. There are some belmtards on here. No names no pack drill.

[nil_desperandum]

The turnout for younger people was not as low as widely reported.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ce-as-high" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I fully agree with the rest of your post, though.

Not entirely sure what that article proves. It claims that 64% of those registered to vote in that particular age group did so, but it fails to say what percentage of that age group were actually registered to vote - or am I missing something?
Either I've lost the plot or it's lazy journalism that tells us absolutely nothing.
What percentage of those eligible to vote in that age group did so? That's the only meaningful question surely.

[LeadBelly]

I'm not surprised the lead has narrowed, Tories have made a few gaffs this past week or two (School meals for one). It'd be good for the Tories to feel a bit of pressure and get their fingers out on one or two issues. I guess there'll be another small fluctuation or two over the next couple of weeks- especially if Diane Abbott is wheeled out into the limelight.

One of my bookies offers odds for various results, I note the following this morning:

Conservatives to win more than 374 seats (for a 100+ majority) : 4/9
Labour to win fewer than 200 seats: 1/4

[claretandy]

Before anyone starts getting giddy, reports from the doorstep from Labour activists suggest they will lose at least 90 seat. 75% of UKIP votes are going to the Tories and 25% of Labour 2015 voters won't turnout because of the Corbyn effect.

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2017/05/20/ne ... more-21610

[Damo]

Labour's manifesto is partially costed at today's economic level.
What it doesn't take into account is the drop in revenue when The £10 per hour minimum wage. 12 months maternity leave and 4 extra days bank holiday per year sends the majority of small businesses to the wall within its first couple of years

[TVC15]

I agree that this is very very likely not the right time for Labour to be elected.
The timing of the election was very deliberate - Tory party have seized on the chaos that has prevailed in the Labour Party for the last 2 years...so to a degree anything they say by way of policy is irrelevant to the result.

They know that all they have to do is avoid scandal on the scale we have never seen before and they will win (e.g. Teresa May caught dogging with Donald Trump and Tommy Robinson)

In terms of whether their policy is fully costed - I assume you are refereeing to the cost of nationalisation (given everything else is costed). The answer to this from the Labour Party is that the income from the nationalised companies will pay for the cost of nationalisation....I agree that might not constitute "fully costed" but it is logical.

The policy is the most left wing for a good while - not sure ever but probably since 1983. That should not be a surprise to anyone though given the leader. Any middle of the road Blairite / New Labour policies would have been a betrayal of the large number of Labour Party members who elected JC.

[Lancasterclaret]

One thing I'll agree with is the "Labour manifesto isn't costed" line.

Anything that relies on growth to be costed fully isn't really, though it is the best of the manifestos (probably because it promises the world)

[Greenmile]

Not entirely sure what that article proves. It claims that 64% of those registered to vote in that particular age group did so, but it fails to say what percentage of that age group were actually registered to vote - or am I missing something?
Either I've lost the plot or it's lazy journalism that tells us absolutely nothing.
What percentage of those eligible to vote in that age group did so? That's the only meaningful question surely.

Nobody knows, as far as I'm aware. My point was just that the widely reported figure of 36% is now believed to be inaccurate.

From the linked article - “While young people voted a little bit less than average, they were probably quite close to the national average (only 8% below according to our survey).”

[TVC15]

Not entirely sure what that article proves. It claims that 64% of those registered to vote in that particular age group did so, but it fails to say what percentage of that age group were actually registered to vote - or am I missing something?
Either I've lost the plot or it's lazy journalism that tells us absolutely nothing.
What percentage of those eligible to vote in that age group did so? That's the only meaningful question surely.

Spot on nil. Problem was one of registration.
To give the first time voters one excuse the registration process could have been made a lot easier. I don't think this was a deliberate policy of making it hard - just another incompetent civil service team getting things wrong again.

[taio]

I agree that this is very very likely not the right time for Labour to be elected.
The timing of the election was very deliberate - Tory party have seized on the chaos that has prevailed in the Labour Party for the last 2 years...so to a degree anything they say by way of policy is irrelevant to the result.

They know that all they have to do is avoid scandal on the scale we have never seen before and they will win (e.g. Teresa May caught dogging with Donald Trump and Tommy Robinson)

In terms of whether their policy is fully costed - I assume you are refereeing to the cost of nationalisation (given everything else is costed). The answer to this from the Labour Party is that the income from the nationalised companies will pay for the cost of nationalisation....I agree that might not constitute "fully costed" but it is logical.

The policy is the most left wing for a good while - not sure ever but probably since 1983. That should not be a surprise to anyone though given the leader. Any middle of the road Blairite / New Labour policies would have been a betrayal of the large number of Labour Party members who elected JC.

I wasn't specifically referring to nationalisation. For example I don't believe for a moment that they'd generate an additional £19b at 26% corporation tax or whatever rate they are proposing and I don't believe that £10 per hour nlw is properly costed either.

[The Enclosure]

She is ******* of the pensioners and they will not put up with it..i have voted Tory all my life but not this time.I am reluctant to vote labour with Corbyn in charge .so as yet am undecided.Probably the green party .

[claretandy]

They think by putting up taxes for the rich and companies then they will get more money, they won't, they will change there behavior and the economy will suffer.

[claretandy]

Before anyone starts getting giddy, reports from the doorstep from Labour activists suggest they will lose at least 90 seat. 75% of UKIP votes are going to the Tories and 25% of Labour 2015 voters won't turnout because of the Corbyn effect.

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2017/05/20/ne ... more-21610

Some big names listed here who will lose their seats.

[nil_desperandum]

Nobody knows, as far as I'm aware. My point was just that the widely reported figure of 36% is now believed to be inaccurate.

From the linked article - “While young people voted a little bit less than average, they were probably quite close to the national average (only 8% below according to our survey).”

What do you mean by nobody knows?. This is one point that can be very accurately verified. How many people were eligible to vote, and how many actually registered.
One of the problems for this age group is that you have to vote where you reside. The student / young workers cohort must therefore register every time they change where they are living. It's not as easy as when you are retired and living in the same place all the time.

[joey13]

They think by putting up taxes for the rich and companies then they will get more money, they won't, they will change there behavior and the economy will suffer.

And you are wrong !

[Imploding Turtle]

Labour's manifesto is partially costed at today's economic level.
What it doesn't take into account is the drop in revenue when The £10 per hour minimum wage. 12 months maternity leave and 4 extra days bank holiday per year sends the majority of small businesses to the wall within its first couple of years

Source?

[TVC15]

I wasn't specifically referring to nationalisation. For example I don't believe for a moment that they'd generate an additional £19b at 26% corporation tax or whatever rate they are proposing and I don't believe that £10 per hour nlw is properly costed either.

Not believing something is a bit different Taio to saying it's not fully costed.

What voters actually believe or perceive is actually the key here though - in any election but especially in this one.

Not surprisingly questioning the credibility of the Labour Party is the number one strategy of the Tory Party. The Labour Party manifesto could be the most accurately costed manifesto in the history of politics and it would not matter a jot as 99.9% of the population are neither Economists nor interested in the finer detail of a manifesto.

All elections are ran on headlines and sound bites. The majority of the country believe that right now the country is in "safer hands" economically and politically under Tories. That will not change in the next 3 weeks.

In fact the only thing that will probably change that view is ironically something out of the control of the Government - like a world economic downturn. History shows us that will happen at some point in the future and that's when Labour will need to be ready and probably more credible than they have been recently.

[claretandy]

And you are wrong !

If you put up corporation taxes then businesses will put up prices, employ less people and it will lead to higher inflation.

[taio]

Not believing something is a bit different Taio to saying it's not fully costed.

What voters actually believe or perceive is actually the key here though - in any election but especially in this one.

Not surprisingly questioning the credibility of the Labour Party is the number one strategy of the Tory Party. The Labour Party manifesto could be the most accurately costed manifesto in the history of politics and it would not matter a jot as 99.9% of the population are neither Economists nor interested in the finer detail of a manifesto.

All elections are ran on headlines and sound bites. The majority of the country believe that right now the country is in "safer hands" economically and politically under Tories. That will not change in the next 3 weeks.

In fact the only thing that will probably change that view is ironically something out of the control of the Government - like a world economic downturn. History shows us that will happen at some point in the future and that's when Labour will need to be ready and probably more credible than they have been recently.

It's why im using the term funded rather than costed. It's easy to cost something but less so to demonstrate a credible plan for funding it.

[TVC15]

If you put up corporation taxes then businesses will put up prices, employ less people and it will lead to higher inflation.

You are saying that like it's a fact.

Whilst Corporation Tax has been coming down every year employment was already high - so all that has happened is that directors salaries and executive pay has hit record highs. Now that's a fact.

The other fact is that small businesses are making record profits.

So 2 facts of record profits and record high directors pay make it a very logical target for increasing tax to pay for investment in less fortunate parts of the economy.

As for inflation increasing - don't worry about that. All that happens is that the government redifine the definition of inflation to suit their own purpose....like they have done for many years now.

The public think that inflation is low then wonder why they have not had a pay rise in 10 years and the main things they spend their money on every day are going up in price !

[taio]

Which professions haven't had a pay rise for 10 years?

[TVC15]

It's why im using the term funded rather than costed. It's easy to cost something but less so to demonstrate a credible plan for funding it.

Not really sure where you are coming from here.
The future is a forecast - and like any forecast it's based on a set of assumptions.
I am not aware of one manifesto in the history of politics that is not based on assumptions around growth.
One of the main growth assumptions used by Labour is the "one for one" investment v growth used by the OBR - so pretty credible.

As said it's all pretty irrelevant - as it's what people like yourself believe or perceive that will matter on the 8th June.

[TVC15]

Which professions haven't had a pay rise for 10 years?

I was making a point - but sure you know fully well that many public sector employees have had less than inflation pay rises for many years now.

Not really the main point in my post but hey ho

[claretandy]

You are saying that like it's a fact.

Whilst Corporation Tax has been coming down every year employment was already high - so all that has happened is that directors salaries and executive pay has hit record highs. Now that's a fact.

The other fact is that small businesses are making record profits.

So 2 facts of record profits and record high directors pay make it a very logical target for increasing tax to pay for investment in less fortunate parts of the economy.

As for inflation increasing - don't worry about that. All that happens is that the government redifine the definition of inflation to suit their own purpose....like they have done for many years now.

The public think that inflation is low then wonder why they have not had a pay rise in 10 years and the main things they spend their money on every day are going up in price !

I've had a pay rise for every year of the last 10 plus i'm paying less income tax.

[taio]

Of course it's based on forecasting. I don't have a problem with that. But I made no reference to growth projections. I'm referring to public spending based on £19b of extra corporation tax receipts as one example irrespective of economic growth

[taio]

I was making a point - but sure you know fully well that many public sector employees have had less than inflation pay rises for many years now.

Not really the main point in my post but hey ho

That fails to recognise that most public sector bodies have pay progression built into their wage structure.

[claretspice]

If you put up corporation taxes then businesses will put up prices, employ less people and it will lead to higher inflation.

Claret Andy has been reading the Sun and the Daily Mail again, and swallowing it whole.

He must be a favoured child of Murdoch and Dacre. Doesn't bother using any critical analysis, just loyally accepts the soundbites they peddle through.

Of course, everything in Andy's statement could be true, but probably isn't in practice. We have historically low levels of corporation tax currently, and it hasn't resulted in lower prices or lower inflation. In the list of factors likely to result in lower employment and higher inflation currently, Corporation Tax levels are miles down the list.

[clarethomer]

I've had a pay rise for every year of the last 10 plus i'm paying less income tax.

Me too... However the manifesto released by conservatives (who I was going to vote for) has made me seriously reconsider this.

I'm not a voter who always votes for the same party so try to look at what I feel is important that the government should be focused on.

Im no socialist either so it's got me in a bit of a quandary to which way I should vote.

[taio]

And lower corporation tax hasnt resulted in low corporation tax receipts so I fail to see how increasing it by 7% can increase revenue by £19b.

[TVC15]

And lower corporation tax hasnt resulted in low corporation tax receipts so I fail to see how increasing it by 7% can increase revenue by £19b.

You missed the bit about record profits being made by British small businesses ? The maths is really not that hard.

And of course the corporation tax numbers used by Labour are partly based on growth of small businesses - from the investment in their other pledges but also from other widely used statistics on volumes of small businesses in the future.

You say you don't believe in the numbers quoted for corporation tax by Labour Party. So I will put to one side my view that this is your perception rather than anything else so that you can let us all know exactly why you think this number is not correct.

It should be pretty easy for you as you seem convinced so list which assumptions and numbers you think are incorrect rather than just telling us you think the headline number is not right.

[TVC15]

I've had a pay rise for every year of the last 10 plus i'm paying less income tax.

I'm really pleased for you.

[Spijed]

Question is, why have the Tories shot themselves in the foot with their social care policy?

Is there a deliberate masterplan hidden away?

[taio]

You missed the bit about record profits being made by British small businesses ? The maths is really not that hard.

And of course the corporation tax numbers used by Labour are partly based on growth of small businesses - from the investment in their other pledges but also from other widely used statistics on volumes of small businesses in the future.

You say you don't believe in the numbers quoted for corporation tax by Labour Party. So I will put to one side my view that this is your perception rather than anything else so that you can let us all know exactly why you think this number is not correct.

It should be pretty easy for you as you seem convinced so list which assumptions and numbers you think are incorrect rather than just telling us you think the headline number is not right.

If the maths isn't hard tell me how an increase of 7% in corporation tax translates into £19 billion additional revenue.

Prior to the credit crunch the UK was very healthy economically and whilst corporation tax was at a higher rate at it's peak brought in similar revenues as now.

Where is the evidence that public sector workers have only had a 1% increase in wages each year for the last 10 years?

[claretandy]

Question is, why have the Tories shot themselves in the foot with their social care policy?

Is there a deliberate masterplan hidden away?

They know they are going to win, so get the difficult stuff out the way first, and, if its in the manifesto, it can't be blocked by the Lords.

[taio]

Question is, why have the Tories shot themselves in the foot with their social care policy?

Is there a deliberate masterplan hidden away?

Because they have been badly advised and they know that generally speaking it won't be decisive in how people vote because people don't think ahead and realise how they will be impacted. It's a poor and regressive policy but they know they can get away with it. Labour's proposal is much better but that's a problem with having weak opposition.

[Damo]

In the list of factors likely to result in lower employment and higher inflation currently, Corporation Tax levels are miles down the list.

Yes, right behind a massive increase in the minimum wage and more time off with pay probably

[Lancasterclaret]

To be fair to them and the Lib Dems, they have effectively gambled on people understanding that we have to accept that we now need tax rises.

[dermotdermot]

Before anyone starts getting giddy, reports from the doorstep from Labour activists suggest they will lose at least 90 seat. 75% of UKIP votes are going to the Tories and 25% of Labour 2015 voters won't turnout because of the Corbyn effect.

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2017/05/20/ne ... more-21610

This is what will happen. A wipeout for Labour. I can't see what Corbyn can get out of this. He and his supporters are simply delusional. He perhaps just relishes being this selfishly pathetic voice of protest that will probably finish off the party for good. Does he care? I don't think so.

[joey13]

If you put up corporation taxes then businesses will put up prices, employ less people and it will lead to higher inflation.

Germany corporation tax is a lot more than UK and their inflation rate is lower also, please explain how this occurs

[joey13]

This is what will happen. A wipeout for Labour. I can't see what Corbyn can get out of this. He and his supporters are simply delusional. He perhaps just relishes being this selfishly pathetic voice of protest that will probably finish off the party for good. Does he care? I don't think so.

Another one who is brainwashed by the right wing media , try thinking for yourself.

[taio]

The idea that public sector workers have had no pay rise or at best a 1% annual pay rise for the last decade is nonsense.

For example:

Band 5 Nurse (mid-point): £24,547 rising to £25,807 next year, which will be a 5.1% increase
Police constable (mid-point): £24,483 rising to £25,758 next year, which will be a 5.2% increase.

Teachers, social workers etc will be similar.