General Election, June 8th

[Realist Guy In The Room]

8 minutes ago, MattP said:

Not implying foul play, just that it doesn't make sense. Usually that question along with National Security and Economic competence reflect national polling - Labour are miles behind on all three of those and yet within 5pts. That's just so different to any other election I have seen.

 

I genuinely think anything could happen on June 8th from a Tory landslide to a hung parliament. 

Whilst they're sitting there waiting for the exit poll, I imagine they're all gonna be holding their breath!

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

Whilst they're sitting there waiting for the exit poll, I imagine they're all gonna be holding their breath!

Big time. 

 

YouGov have just released this now, exactly what I mean by it doesn't make sense.

 

"Will keep Britain safe from terrorism"

% Net trust

Theresa May +25
Amber Rudd -16
Jeremy Corbyn -18
Diane Abbott -53

Latest YouGov

 

Yet despite that Labour closed the gap whilst Manchester was on the news 24/7.

[Realist Guy In The Room]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

Big time. 

 

YouGov have just released this now, exactly what I mean by it doesn't make sense.

 

"Will keep Britain safe from terrorism"

% Net trust

Theresa May +25
Amber Rudd -16
Jeremy Corbyn -18
Diane Abbott -53

Latest YouGov

 

Yet despite that Labour closed the gap whilst Manchester was on the news 24/7.

It is crazy.  

 

The problem I think may be the way they ask the question.  If the individuals names were taken out and the parties and their policies were shown for possible answers, you may see a different result.

 

Or not.

 

To be honest the way its gone so far, trying to predict anything is a bit pointless!

 

 

[Charl91]

Slightly late to the party, but on the subject of tuition fees mentioned earlier.

 

Maybe controversial, but I'm not against university tuition fees (and this is from someone who has a shite load of 'debt' from them). I believe it's the fairest way, as it's essentially a "tax" if you earn above a certain amount - it makes sense that the people not going to university shouldn't subsidise it (I know someone's going to make the argument about "what about the schools/hospitals - I don't use them" etc. but I feel they're slightly different scenarios, though I can't quite put my finger on why.).

 

What does piss me off though is that the most of the people who've implemented this system are the ones who've got it for free themselves, and are now pulling up the ladder to stop everyone else doing the same.

 

I would introduce a tax on anyone who has been to university for free, and is earning above a certain amount (untill they've paid 'x' amount back - same as the loans). That would seem fair to me.

 

Pro university fees? No problem with that. Think it should all be paid by the tax payer? Fine by me too. Think you should get yours for free and then burden subsequent generations with the bill for it? No, that fvcking sucks.

[lgfualol]

Hm, May keeping Britain safe from terrorism is a popular opinion? 

 

Well let's hope she has changed her views from this 

Wasnt really scaremongering was it

[Sharpe's Fox]

1 hour ago, Charl91 said:

I would introduce a tax on anyone who has been to university for free, and is earning above a certain amount (untill they've paid 'x' amount back - same as the loans). That would seem fair to me.

Usually the logic would be people who have had higher education pay it back by entering higher tax bands. Of course that goes out the window if the degree chosen doesn't correspond to getting a better wage. There is much debate about Art degrees and the like and I'm not that bothered about that it's been done to death. What I would say is that many are doing STEM degrees which are well recieved but there isn't sufficient investment in the industries that use them.

[Alf Bentley]

A couple of excellent articles about terrorism/foreign policy in today's Grauniad (I only bother with it on a Saturday).

 

Jonathan Freedland on why jihadist thinking is the biggest problem, foreign policy being just a contributory factor:  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/26/delusion-terror-attacks-just-about-foreign-policy

He stresses how many of the people killed by jihadis are Muslims from other Islamic traditions, Yazidis etc. Also, how Islamic extremists have sometimes slated the West for NOT intervening in conflicts - and how ISIS supporters themselves declare that their hostility is to Western values as a whole (including girls dancing at concerts) and not just to Western foreign policy.

 

Paul Mason can spout some off-the-wall ultra-leftist guff, but here's an excellent article from him calling for stronger security measures against ISIS, again dismissing the idea that it is mainly motivated by Western foreign policy. He also stresses that Cameron was right to intervene in Libya - but that the West, including May, have allowed it to become a breeding ground for jihadists (though NOT the cause of their existence): 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/27/libya-fallout-theresa-may-failed-terror

 

I've no doubt that mismanaged foreign policy has boosted jihadism, from Bush & Blair leaving Iraq in chaos to Cameron, Sarkozy & Obama doing likewise in Libya, even if the initial intervention was justified.

But Iraq and Libya didn't CAUSE jihadism and disengaging from the Middle East and North Africa wouldn't make ISIS go away or stop attacking us.

 

If you read/listen to Corbyn's speech, he didn't claim that it was all down to foreign policy (May is guilty of more bare-faced lies, when she claims he said terror attacks were "our own fault").....but he placed undue emphasis on foreign policy, allowing it to seem that he was making such claims. Jihadist terrorism is a complex, hateful phenomenon that we'd have to combat even if we hadn't left Iraq and Libya in a mess.

[Charl91]

3 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Usually the logic would be people who have had higher education pay it back by entering higher tax bands. Of course that goes out the window if the degree chosen doesn't correspond to getting a better wage. There is much debate about Art degrees and the like and I'm not that bothered about that it's been done to death. What I would say is that many are doing STEM degrees which are well recieved but there isn't sufficient investment in the industries that use them.

 

But surely the people currently who go to University pay more tax AND have to pay back the loan on top of that (and if they're earning a top salary, will most likely pay it all back, rather than many who'll have some written off). Either way, still isn't fair.

[LiberalFox]

3 hours ago, MattP said:

Whilst we are on Rod Liddle he's done a decent piece in the spectator today about this is possibly the worst Tory campaign ever, hard to disagree with.

 

(Copied and pasted rather than linked as it's subcription)

 

 am trying to remember if there was ever a worse Conservative election campaign than this current dog’s breakfast — and failing. Certainly 2001 was pretty awful, with Oliver Letwin going rogue and Thatcher sniping nastily from behind the arras. It is often said that 1987 was a little lacklustre and Ted Heath had effectively thrown in the towel in October 1974. But I don’t think anything quite matches up to this combination of prize gaffes and the robotic incantation of platitudinous idiocies.

 

To have suggested that the hunting with dogs legislation might be subject to a free vote in the House of Commons was, whether you are pro hunting or against, a move of quite stunning stupidity. Why alienate that 84 per cent of the electorate opposed to fox-hunting (Ipsos-Mori, 2016), especially when some of them (including me) are quite passionately anti-hunting and might be tempted to change their vote? And when you already have the pro-fox-hunting votes in your grasp? It makes no electoral sense.

 

Still more remarkable was the decision to force demented people to sell their own houses, if they can remember where they are, to pay for their own care. Followed very shortly by an embarrassing U-turn.

 

This was passed off by the Tories as an example of pristine honesty, of nettles being grasped in an admirably transparent manner. But, like much of the current Tory campaign, it smacked to me of two things — complacency and arrogance. It suggested yet again that Theresa May called this election convinced that almost nothing she could do or say would prevent the inevitable landslide.

 

I think she was horribly wrong about that. I just pray to the Lord Jesus Christ that she was not so horribly wrong that we wake up on 9 June to find that Diane Abbott is the Home Secretary, Emily Thornberry in charge of Trident, all part of a Labour-Lib Dem-Tartan Munchkin Alliance, aided by that sinister reptilian Green woman, Lucas, and Natalie Wood or whatever her name is from Wales, look you.

 

That scenario is still unlikely, but I will bet it is not half so unlikely as many of you, or Theresa May, believed when the election was called. Back then the headlines were talking of a Labour and Ukip wipeout and a landslide for the Tories.

 

I never remotely bought that notion, no matter what the polls said. I have been banging on for ages about how the Labour vote, especially in the north, is a lot ‘stickier’ than the pollsters think. My guess was that May would win a majority of 30 or so, but that was before Conservative Central Office took out its hardy shotgun and began blowing off both of its feet. I may have to revise that figure downwards. Either way, and those gaffes excluded, here’s why I think the Tory lead in the polls has been halved — yes, halved — despite the fact that the Labour party is led by Chauncey Gardiner out of Hal Ashby’s wonderful satire Being There.

First, the election was not wanted and is deeply resented beyond the Westminster bubble. The only people who actually enjoy elections are journos and the politically active: that leaves 97 per cent of the population who are somewhat averse, especially after a bruising referendum last year. May is resented for having foisted the election upon us, and people may be inclined to punish her for it, either by staying at home or voting against. The most salient comment of this election may have been made on the day it was called, by Brenda of Bristol: ‘Oh no, what’s she done thatfor?’ People suspect that their lives are being disrupted for Theresa May’s political and personal gain. And they’re not wrong, are they?

 

Second. Jeremy Corbyn is not notably less popular in the Midlands and north of the country than Ed Miliband was. And he has had a good election so far. The Labour vote remains buoyant and is growing. Don’t forget that the populist revolution we have seen here and in the US and in Europe does not come exclusively from the right. Corbyn presents an anti-establishment populist left-wing agenda, much as did Syriza and Five Star (and the SNP, come to that) and he offers it to an electorate which has a certain appetite for such radicalism. If he changed his tune on immigration he could conceivably win.

 

Third. Theresa May has the personal warmth, wit, oratorical ability and attractiveness of an Indesit fridge-freezer which has been faultily connected by a man called Trevor for five quid, cash in hand, and which is now full of decomposing Findus Crispy Pancakes. There is no vision, there is no chutzpah. Just the bland repetition of meaningless phrases. Corbyn is a far better campaigner.

 

Fourth. Yes, the Labour front bench has the collective IQ of a fairly small bowl of krill. But the Conservative front bench is pretty thinnish, too, isn’t it? Would you book Amber Rudd or Philip Hammond to deliver a rousing speech at your company’s annual shindig? I’d rather listen to a tape of Greylag geese squabbling over mating rights.

 

Fifth. The Ukip vote will migrate to the Tories en masse — but in the south, where they don’t need it. Far less so in the north and Midlands, where they do need it. There, many will remain with Ukip, especially if Paul Nuttall ramps up the anti-Islam rhetoric in the wake of the Manchester atrocity. Of the rest, a fair few will go back to the habitual berth of the Labour party.

 

Sixth. I had not expected the Lib Dem vote to disappear. But given that it does seem to be disappearing, it won’t turn up in the pockets of Conservative candidates. Almost anyone but — and most likely Labour.

 

I’ve always thought that calling the election was a mistake predicated on misplaced confidence. Today, I’m even more convinced of that view.

 

Perhaps that's better than most of the trash he comes out with but I still detect an undercurrent of casual sexism misogyny and racism. He's right about the Tory campaign being shocking, probably one of biggest surprises given how easy it should have been.

[Sharpe's Fox]

3 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

 

But surely the people currently who go to University pay more tax AND have to pay back the loan on top of that (and if they're earning a top salary, will most likely pay it all back, rather than many who'll have some written off). Either way, still isn't fair.

I'm one of those people and it doesn't bother me. Nine grand on three years (a bit less since I got a scholarship) which i'll probably never pay back. It might grate a little bit, it would anyone, but I'm not some bitter Tory who'll throw his toys out the pram because I had to pay and someone else didn't. Good on those young people who would receive an education for free, surely the one of the points of civilisation is to provide the generation after yours with greater opportunity than you had yourself?

[Strokes]

2 hours ago, Charl91 said:

Slightly late to the party, but on the subject of tuition fees mentioned earlier.

 

Maybe controversial, but I'm not against university tuition fees (and this is from someone who has a shite load of 'debt' from them). I believe it's the fairest way, as it's essentially a "tax" if you earn above a certain amount - it makes sense that the people not going to university shouldn't subsidise it (I know someone's going to make the argument about "what about the schools/hospitals - I don't use them" etc. but I feel they're slightly different scenarios, though I can't quite put my finger on why.).

 

What does piss me off though is that the most of the people who've implemented this system are the ones who've got it for free themselves, and are now pulling up the ladder to stop everyone else doing the same.

 

I would introduce a tax on anyone who has been to university for free, and is earning above a certain amount (untill they've paid 'x' amount back - same as the loans). That would seem fair to me.

 

Pro university fees? No problem with that. Think it should all be paid by the tax payer? Fine by me too. Think you should get yours for free and then burden subsequent generations with the bill for it? No, that fvcking sucks.

Yeah I think that's fair, also I tend to agree with @toddybad that the threshold is way to low at £21,000.

[davieG]

Businesses  benefit greatly from employing people with degrees and many of them do little or no training 

We need to encourage them to both employ people on degree sandwich courses and to provide a greater level of sponsorship either at an individual level or through the running of courses relevant to their business so as to reduce the course fees.

When I was working I used to have a rolling 3 degree sandwich course employees so we had 12 to 15 at anyone time depending on whether they went on to do an MA this was in addition to those doing ONC/HNC/BTECs etc.

[Sharpe's Fox]

4 minutes ago, davieG said:

Businesses  benefit greatly from employing people with degrees and many of them do little or no training 

We need to encourage them to both employee people on degree sandwich courses and to provide a greater level of sponsorship either at an individual level or through the running of courses relevant to their business so as to reduce the course fees.

When I was working I used to have a rolling 3 degree sandwich course employees so we had 12 to 15 at anyone time depending on whether they went on to do an MA this was in addition to those doing ONC/HNC/BTECs etc.

Thats what I did, two years of my Civ Eng degree followed by a year of working in a professional consultancy practise followed by my final year. Great eye opener and increases my employability five fold. Agree that more businesses should be encouraged to take up placements because not a lot understand what it entails.

[davieG]

6 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Thats what I did, two years of my Civ Eng degree followed by a year of working in a professional consultancy practise followed by my final year. Great eye opener and increases my employability five fold. Agree that more businesses should be encouraged to take up placements because not a lot understand what it entails.

The excuse is they could up and leave when complete but we had a system where you paid back a graduated % If you left early up to 3 years after completion. Besides they can leave after you've  spent 3/4 bringing them up to scratch if you employ them straight from university and people will stay with a business if you treat them well and provide stimulating opportunities.

[Guest]

Business wants graduates. Business can pay a bit more tax and cover the costs.

[davieG]

Just now, toddybad said:

Business wants graduates. Business can pay a bit more tax and cover the costs.

Aye but would be better if they did it direct at the training level that way those that need pay. In fact I would do the opposite and provide tax incentives to get them involved somewhat akin to development costs.

[Sharpe's Fox]

 

 

Better than King. Sign him up Shakey

[Alf Bentley]

6 hours ago, MattP said:

Good interview, Corbyn was briefed well but still struggled. 

 

Left public in no doubt he supports the IRA and he has no real solution to anything though. I honestly find the Irish stuff hard to watch, stood in silence to honour many bombers, numerous meetings with hardliners, condemned the British Army on many occasions, never once condemned an IRA bomb until now as he courts the votes of the wider public, I know it can never be proved but I can't believe how gullible you would have to be seriously think he didn't want the IRA to win and instead was there to play a role in the peace process.

 

The Trident question was vdry interesting, he's needs to clarify this very quickly about whether the defence review could change policy on Trident. 

 

The last ten minutes were embarrassing, he didn't answer a single question and it was laughable at times.

 

"Do you still believe NATO is obselete?" 

 

"Well Andrew NATO was formed in......"

 

I think Andrew wanted to hang himself by that point.

 

Idealist guy, sure he's lovely for a sandwich and a cup of tea but imagine that as the leader of the country. 

 

I'd mark Corbyn at 5/10, compared to 3/10 for May.

 

I reckon the Trident issue is the one that will continue to cause him problems during the campaign. It's fine to be honest about his personal disagreement with the policy, but choosing to mention the defence review and saying that it would consider "the role of nuclear weapons" is just inviting the media to keep quizzing him about this (which the Tories will love).

 

I thought he handled questioning about Islamist terrorism quite well and got some good points in about services and investment. He got a bit wobbly about bonds to fund nationalisation (not sure he fully understood his own policy there). Claiming that he "left the public no doubt he supports the IRA" is overstating it. He was "content to share a platform with IRA people to support the Republican cause" is more like it, I'd say. That makes me queasy enough, though. However, knowing how the Hard Left operated in those days, it wouldn't have been a commitment to terrorism. It was more like they had a list of causes that you should support to be in their gang - Anti-Apartheid, CND, Palestine, Chile Solidarity, Troops Out/United Ireland etc. Him claiming that he was just promoting peace is disingenuous, though. He might not have been supporting the IRA, but he was supporting the Republican side - a very particular way of "promoting peace", though similar could be said of the "Conservative and Unionist Party".....anyway, I reckon Corbyn's past is already well-known in this regard, and well-publicised by the press.

 

Neil interviews people like a boxer with an opponent cornered on the ropes - not wild, blustering aggression like Paxman, just occasional, repeated sharp jabs to bring their guard down. Corbyn just about survived. If the other interviews are rescheduled, I reckon Farron will look punch-drunk by the end and I can see Nuttall getting counted out after 10 minutes. Sturgeon will probably be his toughest opponent.

[Nick]

7 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'd mark Corbyn at 5/10, compared to 3/10 for May.

 

I reckon the Trident issue is the one that will continue to cause him problems during the campaign. It's fine to be honest about his personal disagreement with the policy, but choosing to mention the defence review and saying that it would consider "the role of nuclear weapons" is just inviting the media to keep quizzing him about this (which the Tories will love).

 

I thought he handled questioning about Islamist terrorism quite well and got some good points in about services and investment. He got a bit wobbly about bonds to fund nationalisation (not sure he fully understood his own policy there). Claiming that he "left the public no doubt he supports the IRA" is overstating it. He was "content to share a platform with IRA people to support the Republican cause" is more like it, I'd say. That makes me queasy enough, though. However, knowing how the Hard Left operated in those days, it wouldn't have been a commitment to terrorism. It was more like they had a list of causes that you should support to be in their gang - Anti-Apartheid, CND, Palestine, Chile Solidarity, Troops Out/United Ireland etc. Him claiming that he was just promoting peace is disingenuous, though. He might not have been supporting the IRA, but he was supporting the Republican side - a very particular way of "promoting peace", though similar could be said of the "Conservative and Unionist Party".....anyway, I reckon Corbyn's past is already well-known in this regard, and well-publicised by the press.

 

Neil interviews people like a boxer with an opponent cornered on the ropes - not wild, blustering aggression like Paxman, just occasional, repeated sharp jabs to bring their guard down. Corbyn just about survived. If the other interviews are rescheduled, I reckon Farron will look punch-drunk by the end and I can see Nuttall getting counted out after 10 minutes. Sturgeon will probably be his toughest opponent.

Good post - do wonder if comparatively, Farron cabs do any worse than either of them... A glorious opportunity if he can take it....

[Bryn]

7 hours ago, MattP said:

Well just answer the question, what are you going to do about? Is there an intention to clear it by 2022 if McDonnell?

 

Just saying "we need growth" doesn't really cut it - the IFS have said that the Labour manifesto  (and the Tories for that matter) is likely to increase taxation on everyone and stuntil growth.

 

At least the Tories are admitting they'll be cuts, Labour is expecting us to believe they can keep public spending at its current rate, raise taxes to the highest levels since the 40''s, then borrow even more whilst maintaining economic growth, it's not serious. 

 

The debt has grown under Tory government. You can tart around bigging them up all you want, they promised they'd reduced the deficit and it's grown, how can you excuse that? Every single aspect of public life is worse and they haven't even managed to improve the economy, it's lose lose under further Tory rule.

[Alf Bentley]

4 hours ago, MattP said:

 

I genuinely think anything could happen on June 8th from a Tory landslide to a hung parliament. 

 

I still reckon that an increased Tory majority is the most likely outcome - just not increased by as much as May hoped.

If Corbyn continues to perform better than expected and the Tories don't get a landslide, that presumably secures his position in the short-term. Where that leaves Labour is another matter.

Maybe the Tories will then ruin their reputation by failing to negotiate a good Brexit deal (Brexit, remember that forgotten concept?) and/or presiding over an economic debacle? God knows what happens to UK politics then...

 

I was surprised to see your mate Rod Liddle suggesting that the Labour vote in the North was "sticky". Outside the major cities, the council results and polling data suggest otherwise - bigger swing to the Tories than elsewhere. Didn't analysis also show that the recent tightening of the polls had mainly been caused by ABC1 voters switching to Labour, not C2DE voters?

 

The extra potential votes that Labour is accumulating might be in the wrong locations - in big city seats that they already hold or prosperous Tory seats in the South that they stand no chance of winning.

If voting matches the polls, Labour could still lose an awful lot of seats across the North and Midlands, winning just a handful in the South. A Tory landslide is still a lot more likely than a hung parliament, I reckon.

 

There could also be a late swing back to the Tories. They were largely relying on Labour's unpopularity, not their own popularity - and have severely pissed a lot of people off with their crap manifesto, U-turns and social care policy. But I can imagine a lot of voters angry at the Tories either staying at home or grudgingly voting Tory at the last minute, out of concern for what Corbyn might be like.

[Charl91]

2 hours ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

I'm one of those people and it doesn't bother me. Nine grand on three years (a bit less since I got a scholarship) which i'll probably never pay back. It might grate a little bit, it would anyone, but I'm not some bitter Tory who'll throw his toys out the pram because I had to pay and someone else didn't. Good on those young people who would receive an education for free, surely the one of the points of civilisation is to provide the generation after yours with greater opportunity than you had yourself?

I can see the argument, for sure. I've got 18k to pay (not including maintenance loan, probably comes to over 30k in total) but I don't mind paying it*. It's not really a "free" education, in that the money still comes from somewhere - I feel it's somewhat unfair to make the people who aren't going to university pay for it.  If you don't have a degree, then chances are you'll be earning a lower wage (not definitely, but statistically likely). In my opinion, it then seems a kick in the face to make these people subsidise those who will most likely be going on to earn more money.

 

I'd argue your point about "providing the generation after with a greater opportunity" - I'd say that fairness is more important. It may provide those who go to university a greater opportunity (if by 'greater opportunity' you mean, pay-slightly-less-'tax'-back-when-they-have-a-well-paying-job), but I'd say it's an inherently unfair way of looking at it. As others have said previously on the topic, I do think we need more education about student loans to counter-act the general perception of them - they're not really a barrier to anyone looking to go to university (infact, people from poorer backgrounds also get bursaries/other payments I believe to help towards). I'm on aprox 24k at the moment, and I probably only paid about £500 pounds back in student loan. They're never going to bankrupt anyone.

 

So like I said. Keep student loans, and tax people who've been to university for free (under roughly the same terms that people currently pay their loans back). Would make a ton of extra money for the treasury, that's for sure!

 

*I would, however be a little bitter about being the only generation to end up having to spend 30k or so in tuition fees. Not quite sure that makes me a Tory though!

[Alf Bentley]

13 minutes ago, Bryn said:

 

The debt has grown under Tory government. You can tart around bigging them up all you want, they promised they'd reduced the deficit and it's grown, how can you excuse that? Every single aspect of public life is worse and they haven't even managed to improve the economy, it's lose lose under further Tory rule.

 

I agree with your general point but.....

 

- The debt has grown under the Tories, but not the deficit

- They promised they'd eliminate the deficit, but have only reduced it

(i.e. our Profit & Loss Account shows a smaller loss than before, but still a loss; our Balance Sheet has got a lot worse; we've not invested in new plant; the workforce is demoralised & the factory is falling down......Oh! Almost forgot, we're about to tell our main customers to fvck right off! )

[LiberalFox]

5 hours ago, MattP said:

Big time. 

 

YouGov have just released this now, exactly what I mean by it doesn't make sense.

 

"Will keep Britain safe from terrorism"

% Net trust

Theresa May +25
Amber Rudd -16
Jeremy Corbyn -18
Diane Abbott -53

Latest YouGov

 

Yet despite that Labour closed the gap whilst Manchester was on the news 24/7.

 

It's possible what we are seeing is a form of social desirability bias.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_desirability_bias

 

 I also think a lot of people on the left who worked against Corbyn since his election are embarassed to admit he's campaigned well and can't bring themselves to say they trust him or any of his loyalists (McDonnell, Abbott and Thornberry)

 

[LiberalFox]

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 46% (-2)

LAB: 34% (+4)

LDEM: 8% (-2)

UKIP: 5% (-)

GRN: 2% (-1)

(via @ComRes / 24 - 26 May)

 

On who is best to represent Britain on the world stage:                 T. May: 49%   ;J. Corbyn: 21% 

On who is most likely to deliver improvements to the NHS:             T. May: 25%  ;J. Corbyn: 41%

On who is best to lead Britain's negotiations over Brexit:               T. May: 48%  ;J. Corbyn: 18%

On who is most likely to keep Britain safe from terrorism:              T. May: 42%  ;J. Corbyn: 16%

On who is best to look after the interests of hard working families:T. May: 28%  ;J. Corbyn: 41%

On who is most likely to raise school standards:                            T. May: 31%  ;J. Corbyn: 31%

On who is most likely to reduce net migration to the UK:                T. May: 33%  ;J. Corbyn: 11%   ;P. Nuttall: 21%

On who is most likely to protect the interests of older people-

dependent on the social care system:                                            T. May: 20%  ;J. Corbyn: 43%

On who 'have the best policies for people like me and my family':  May and the Tories: 37% ;  Corbyn and Labour: 42%

On who would make a better Home Secretary:                               Amber Rudd: 43%  ; Diane Abbott: 12%

On who would make a better Prime Minister:                                  T. May: 51% J. Corbyn: 30%

 

(via @ComRes)

 

So 34% are voting Labour but only 30% think Corbyn would be a better PM.

 

On the other hand 46% are voting Tory but only 37% think they 'have the best policies for people like me and my family'.