Howdy, Stranger!

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

Crouching tiger, hidden dragon – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited November 21 in General
Crouching tiger, hidden dragon – politicalbetting.com

Working families lose 75% of their assets, millionaires keep 75% plus of their assets. Sir Humphrey would call this a "bold" reform. Guess the question is – will voters understand it? And if they don't: can Labour get them to understand it? https://t.co/TQuNZSIN3d

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,516
    edited November 21
    What a ridiculous article. The £86,000 cap in fact protects the wealth of the average voter given the average UK house price is now comfortably over £200,000 that means the average voter and above will keep the majority of the value of their estate in the family exempt from care costs.

    The problem with the May plan was it mean only the first £100,000 of your estate was exempt from care costs, beyond that your entire estate could be liable, hence it lost her the support of the average voter and lost her the election.

    There are very few Tory seats with an average house price of just £105,000 in the Dilnot chart who would see no benefit from he government's reforms and still see most of their assets consumed in care costs. Indeed the median Redwall house price is £160,000 and the median house price of Conservative seats held in 2019 is an even higher £270,000 and therefore both areas as the Dilnot chart shows will benefit considerably compared to the current system. Both Redwall and Conservative seats would see less than half the average estate lost in care costs under the government's proposed reformed. A significant improvement from now.

    https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/without-a-cap-on-social-care-cost-former-red-wall-seat-residents
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,516
    edited November 21
    HYUFD said:

    What a ridiculous article. The £86,000 cap in fact protects the wealth of the average voter given the average UK house price is now comfortably over £200,000 that means the average voter and above will keep the majority of the value of their estate in the family exempt from care costs.

    The problem with the May plan was it meant only the first £100,000 of your estate was exempt from care costs, beyond that your entire estate could be liable, hence it lost her the support of the average voter and lost her the election.

    There are very few Tory seats with an average house price of just £105,000 who in the Dilnot chart would see no benefit from the government's reforms and still see most of their assets consumed in care costs. Indeed the median Redwall house price is £160,000 and the median house price of Conservative seats held in 2019 is an even higher £270,000 and therefore both areas as the Dilnot chart shows will benefit considerably compared to the current system. Both Redwall and Conservative seats would see less than half the average estate lost in care costs under the government's proposed reformed. A significant improvement from now.

    https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/without-a-cap-on-social-care-cost-former-red-wall-seat-residents

    Plus May's plan of course made the family home liable for at home carer costs without a cap, extending what was already the case for residential care costs
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,311
    There’s been a big increase in the number of people who think the Conservative and Unionist Party are a bunch of

    From a high base.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,516
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a ridiculous article. The £86,000 cap in fact protects the wealth of the average voter given the average UK house price is now comfortably over £200,000 that means the average voter and above will keep the majority of the value of their estate in the family exempt from care costs.

    The problem with the May plan was it meant only the first £100,000 of your estate was exempt from care costs, beyond that your entire estate could be liable, hence it lost her the support of the average voter and lost her the election.

    There are very few Tory seats with an average house price of just £105,000 who in the Dilnot chart would see no benefit from the government's reforms and still see most of their assets consumed in care costs. Indeed the median Redwall house price is £160,000 and the median house price of Conservative seats held in 2019 is an even higher £270,000 and therefore both areas as the Dilnot chart shows will benefit considerably compared to the current system. Both Redwall and Conservative seats would not see most of the value of the average estate lost in care costs under the government's proposed reformed. A significant improvement from now.

    https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/without-a-cap-on-social-care-cost-former-red-wall-seat-residents

    Plus May's plan of course made the family home liable for at home carer costs without a cap, extending what was already the case for residential care costs
    In summary both Redwall seats and the average Conservative seat would see significant improvements from the current system where both as the Dilnot chart shows faced losing up to 90% of their assets. Now Redwall seats would see the average estate keep close to half of that value exempt from care costs and Conservative seats held in 2019 would see about 2/3 of that value exempt from care costs. The fact Blue Wall seats benefit even more than Redwall seats does not change the fact both still benefit compared to the current system
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,311
    I note that FUDHY is talking to himself. How very symbolic for a once-mighty political movement rapidly disappearing up its own arse.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 941
    I was thinking that the sleaze scandal could be the low point for the tories; I didn't expect things to get worse but they are proving me wrong. This is a mad policy as it completely skewers people with inheritences below £100k; so your average person on the street.

    Surely it would be better to raise the total amount payable (say to £150k) but then taper the contribution to care costs based on the total value of the estate, so people would only contribute on average 50% towards it, and with the wealthy paying more. Whats the argument against that?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,888
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a ridiculous article. The £86,000 cap in fact protects the wealth of the average voter given the average UK house price is now comfortably over £200,000 that means the average voter and above will keep the majority of the value of their estate in the family exempt from care costs.

    The problem with the May plan was it meant only the first £100,000 of your estate was exempt from care costs, beyond that your entire estate could be liable, hence it lost her the support of the average voter and lost her the election.

    There are very few Tory seats with an average house price of just £105,000 who in the Dilnot chart would see no benefit from the government's reforms and still see most of their assets consumed in care costs. Indeed the median Redwall house price is £160,000 and the median house price of Conservative seats held in 2019 is an even higher £270,000 and therefore both areas as the Dilnot chart shows will benefit considerably compared to the current system. Both Redwall and Conservative seats would not see most of the value of the average estate lost in care costs under the government's proposed reformed. A significant improvement from now.

    https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/without-a-cap-on-social-care-cost-former-red-wall-seat-residents

    Plus May's plan of course made the family home liable for at home carer costs without a cap, extending what was already the case for residential care costs
    In summary both Redwall seats and the average Conservative seat would see significant improvements from the current system where both as the Dilnot chart shows faced losing up to 90% of their assets. Now Redwall seats would see the average estate keep close to half of that value exempt from care costs and Conservative seats held in 2019 would see about 2/3 of that value exempt from care costs. The fact Blue Wall seats benefit even more than Redwall seats does not change the fact both still benefit compared to the current system
    It’s not a benefit if you’re paying for it through other means, but obviously that doesn’t fit with your bullshit propaganda.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,888
    darkage said:

    I was thinking that the sleaze scandal could be the low point for the tories; I didn't expect things to get worse but they are proving me wrong. This is a mad policy as it completely skewers people with inheritences below £100k; so your average person on the street.

    Surely it would be better to raise the total amount payable (say to £150k) but then taper the contribution to care costs based on the total value of the estate, so people would only contribute on average 50% towards it, and with the wealthy paying more. Whats the argument against that?

    The argument against that is the Tory client vote “paying more”.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 941
    Boris's downfall seems to be repeated bad judgements. There is a strong argument that the problem is the lack of good advisors at No.10, and the dominance of Carrie within it.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 941

    darkage said:

    I was thinking that the sleaze scandal could be the low point for the tories; I didn't expect things to get worse but they are proving me wrong. This is a mad policy as it completely skewers people with inheritences below £100k; so your average person on the street.

    Surely it would be better to raise the total amount payable (say to £150k) but then taper the contribution to care costs based on the total value of the estate, so people would only contribute on average 50% towards it, and with the wealthy paying more. Whats the argument against that?

    The argument against that is the Tory client vote “paying more”.
    Surely much of the tory client vote have sub 100k inheritances?
    The policy fails even if it was conceived as a bung to the tory client vote.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 941
    It is sad seeing the PM in such a bad place. He has lost his political bearings and is looking shambolic and miserable.

    The only adviser at Number 10 who he trusted (Eddie Lister) was forced out and now he is surrounded by the second rate.

    It is hard not to sense that the support of Tory
    MPs is ebbing away. Boris is starting to be regarded as a political liability. He needs to remember just how ruthless the Tory Party can be.

    This story doesn’t need to have a sad ending. Boris simply needs to put an end to the court of Carrie and her anti Tory agenda, appoint a strong political chief of staff and reset the government’s agenda to one that is Tory. Otherwise the game is up.

    Interesting to note that when Boris is floundering, Sunak, Javid and Gove are nowhere to be seen. Reminds me of Berbatov during his second season at Fulham. Boris needs to protect his front let alone his back. How has it come to this?

    Amazingly, there are some Tories who believe that Liz Truss is their best hope. Let’s get real. She makes Gavin Williamson look like a statesman. Unbelievable …

    So what happens next? I know what I would do. I also know just how hopeless the people are who surround the PM. Desperate times …


    Sums it up. From a PR guy on Linkedin.

    https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6867118818771238912/
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,888
    edited November 21
    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    I was thinking that the sleaze scandal could be the low point for the tories; I didn't expect things to get worse but they are proving me wrong. This is a mad policy as it completely skewers people with inheritences below £100k; so your average person on the street.

    Surely it would be better to raise the total amount payable (say to £150k) but then taper the contribution to care costs based on the total value of the estate, so people would only contribute on average 50% towards it, and with the wealthy paying more. Whats the argument against that?

    The argument against that is the Tory client vote “paying more”.
    Surely much of the tory client vote have sub 100k inheritances?
    The policy fails even if it was conceived as a bung to the tory client vote.
    Well, the country is chock full of old people with non-mortgaged real property who all vote Conservative and the average house price is 200K. So as @HYUFD likes to repeat on a daily basis, its the Conservative Party’s job to protect that inheritance.

    At the end of the day though the cost has to be paid somehow and in reality that just means even more tax on working people.
  • darkage said:

    Boris's downfall seems to be repeated bad judgements. There is a strong argument that the problem is the lack of good advisors at No.10, and the dominance of Carrie within it.

    Yes, there is that argument. Is it not also possible that the Prime Minister, any Prime Minister, should be capable of making his own political judgements?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,311
    darkage said:

    Boris's downfall seems to be repeated bad judgements.

    Virus’s rise was punctuated by repeated bad judgments. Why should his fall be any different?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,992
    darkage said:

    Boris's downfall seems to be repeated bad judgements. There is a strong argument that the problem is the lack of good advisors at No.10, and the dominance of Carrie within it.

    Yes. Say it quietly, but he needs another Dominic.

    The problem is that no-one who’s any good, will be interested in competing for the PM’s attention with the top man’s own wife.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,311

    darkage said:

    Boris's downfall seems to be repeated bad judgements. There is a strong argument that the problem is the lack of good advisors at No.10, and the dominance of Carrie within it.

    Yes, there is that argument. Is it not also possible that the Prime Minister, any Prime Minister, should be capable of making his own political judgements?
    The summit of Boris Johnson’s political career was the day he chose to campaign for Leave instead of Remain. It was a decision made late and in haste, but it propelled him to the top. As far as I can make out, he made that sound political judgement purely by himself. He judged that the English public were total mugs, and he was right.

    But like all essentially lazy people, he fobs off as much responsibility as possible to other people. Hence the endless catalogue of appalling political judgements. He really doesn’t care. As long as Jack’s alright.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 941

    darkage said:

    Boris's downfall seems to be repeated bad judgements. There is a strong argument that the problem is the lack of good advisors at No.10, and the dominance of Carrie within it.

    Yes, there is that argument. Is it not also possible that the Prime Minister, any Prime Minister, should be capable of making his own political judgements?
    Of course - and he has made some good ones, such as this summer on Covid. But the PM needs strong advisors to filter through the vast activities of government, work through issues and identify the key judgements to be made; the breakdown of this may be the cause of all these problems.
  • Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Boris's downfall seems to be repeated bad judgements. There is a strong argument that the problem is the lack of good advisors at No.10, and the dominance of Carrie within it.

    Yes. Say it quietly, but he needs another Dominic.

    The problem is that no-one who’s any good, will be interested in competing for the PM’s attention with the top man’s own wife.
    Why blame Carrie? And if we are to blame Carrie, what are we blaming her for? HS2 maybe, on the grounds she likes the environment, even though the green lobby is generally pro-rail and against road and air; in unrelated news, the Transport Secretary has been criticised for lobbying for air transport. The NI rise came from next door. It was widely reported that the Owen Paterson debacle was due to an Old Etonian cabal.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,992
    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Boris's downfall seems to be repeated bad judgements. There is a strong argument that the problem is the lack of good advisors at No.10, and the dominance of Carrie within it.

    Yes, there is that argument. Is it not also possible that the Prime Minister, any Prime Minister, should be capable of making his own political judgements?
    Of course - and he has made some good ones, such as this summer on Covid. But the PM needs strong advisors to filter through the vast activities of government, work through issues and identify the key judgements to be made; the breakdown of this may be the cause of all these problems.
    It’s been said before, but the relative success of the UK in combatting the pandemic is likely to be ignored by a media eager to return to politics as usual.

    The winter is not going to be full of stories of how the UK is the only country is Western Europe not facing severe restrictions, except for a few minor notes about how the journalists’ skiing holidays are affected.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,854
    edited November 21
    HYUFD said:

    What a ridiculous article. The £86,000 cap in fact protects the wealth of the average voter given the average UK house price is now comfortably over £200,000 that means the average voter and above will keep the majority of the value of their estate in the family exempt from care costs.

    The problem with the May plan was it mean only the first £100,000 of your estate was exempt from care costs, beyond that your entire estate could be liable, hence it lost her the support of the average voter and lost her the election.

    There are very few Tory seats with an average house price of just £105,000 in the Dilnot chart who would see no benefit from he government's reforms and still see most of their assets consumed in care costs. Indeed the median Redwall house price is £160,000 and the median house price of Conservative seats held in 2019 is an even higher £270,000 and therefore both areas as the Dilnot chart shows will benefit considerably compared to the current system. Both Redwall and Conservative seats would see less than half the average estate lost in care costs under the government's proposed reformed. A significant improvement from now.

    https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/without-a-cap-on-social-care-cost-former-red-wall-seat-residents

    As a matter of interest, I wonder what the average house price is in Stoke Central, Stoke North, Great Grimsby, Scunthorpe, Redcar, Burnley, Blackpool South.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,724
    I don’t think I’ve ever written this before but...

    I agree with @HYUFD

    It’s a bit like inheritance tax. It might seem odd that some less rich people don’t like it, but it’s the reality.

    And I think HYUFD is probably right regarding the wealth of Tory voters. There’s this idea that the Tories won the last election by securing the votes of the destitute poor in the north. They didn’t.

    Personally, I thought May’s proposals were pretty good, but the problem was she sprung them during an election.

    This will only be an issue at the next election if Labour go for something radically different.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,888
    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a ridiculous article. The £86,000 cap in fact protects the wealth of the average voter given the average UK house price is now comfortably over £200,000 that means the average voter and above will keep the majority of the value of their estate in the family exempt from care costs.

    The problem with the May plan was it mean only the first £100,000 of your estate was exempt from care costs, beyond that your entire estate could be liable, hence it lost her the support of the average voter and lost her the election.

    There are very few Tory seats with an average house price of just £105,000 in the Dilnot chart who would see no benefit from he government's reforms and still see most of their assets consumed in care costs. Indeed the median Redwall house price is £160,000 and the median house price of Conservative seats held in 2019 is an even higher £270,000 and therefore both areas as the Dilnot chart shows will benefit considerably compared to the current system. Both Redwall and Conservative seats would see less than half the average estate lost in care costs under the government's proposed reformed. A significant improvement from now.

    https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/without-a-cap-on-social-care-cost-former-red-wall-seat-residents

    As a matter of interest, I wonder what the average house price is in Stoke Central, Stoke North, Great Grimsby, Scunthorpe, Redcar, Burnley, Blackpool South.
    Stoke on Trent 195k
    Grimsby 132k
    Scunthorpe 135k
    Redcar 151k
    Burnley 114k
    Blackpool 174k

    Source Plumpilot
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,724
    And remember, the Tories are defending against the Lib Dems. If Labour go on this issue, the Tories are nicely placed to say “vote Lib Dem and lose your house.”

    You might not like it, but after 2017, I think Labour and the Lib Dems deserve it if the Tories turn the tables on them.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,724

    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a ridiculous article. The £86,000 cap in fact protects the wealth of the average voter given the average UK house price is now comfortably over £200,000 that means the average voter and above will keep the majority of the value of their estate in the family exempt from care costs.

    The problem with the May plan was it mean only the first £100,000 of your estate was exempt from care costs, beyond that your entire estate could be liable, hence it lost her the support of the average voter and lost her the election.

    There are very few Tory seats with an average house price of just £105,000 in the Dilnot chart who would see no benefit from he government's reforms and still see most of their assets consumed in care costs. Indeed the median Redwall house price is £160,000 and the median house price of Conservative seats held in 2019 is an even higher £270,000 and therefore both areas as the Dilnot chart shows will benefit considerably compared to the current system. Both Redwall and Conservative seats would see less than half the average estate lost in care costs under the government's proposed reformed. A significant improvement from now.

    https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/without-a-cap-on-social-care-cost-former-red-wall-seat-residents

    As a matter of interest, I wonder what the average house price is in Stoke Central, Stoke North, Great Grimsby, Scunthorpe, Redcar, Burnley, Blackpool South.
    Stoke on Trent 195k
    Grimsby 132k
    Scunthorpe 135k
    Redcar 151k
    Burnley 114k
    Blackpool 174k

    Source Plumpilot
    And what’s the average asset wealth of Tories in those seats? And even that doesn’t matter when the politics of this is: “they’re gonna steal your house.”
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,888
    tlg86 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a ridiculous article. The £86,000 cap in fact protects the wealth of the average voter given the average UK house price is now comfortably over £200,000 that means the average voter and above will keep the majority of the value of their estate in the family exempt from care costs.

    The problem with the May plan was it mean only the first £100,000 of your estate was exempt from care costs, beyond that your entire estate could be liable, hence it lost her the support of the average voter and lost her the election.

    There are very few Tory seats with an average house price of just £105,000 in the Dilnot chart who would see no benefit from he government's reforms and still see most of their assets consumed in care costs. Indeed the median Redwall house price is £160,000 and the median house price of Conservative seats held in 2019 is an even higher £270,000 and therefore both areas as the Dilnot chart shows will benefit considerably compared to the current system. Both Redwall and Conservative seats would see less than half the average estate lost in care costs under the government's proposed reformed. A significant improvement from now.

    https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/without-a-cap-on-social-care-cost-former-red-wall-seat-residents

    As a matter of interest, I wonder what the average house price is in Stoke Central, Stoke North, Great Grimsby, Scunthorpe, Redcar, Burnley, Blackpool South.
    Stoke on Trent 195k
    Grimsby 132k
    Scunthorpe 135k
    Redcar 151k
    Burnley 114k
    Blackpool 174k

    Source Plumpilot
    And what’s the average asset wealth of Tories in those seats? And even that doesn’t matter when the politics of this is: “they’re gonna steal your house.”
    I don’t know, I just provided what was asked.

    “Tories are all liars. You can’t believe anything they say.”
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 941

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Boris's downfall seems to be repeated bad judgements. There is a strong argument that the problem is the lack of good advisors at No.10, and the dominance of Carrie within it.

    Yes. Say it quietly, but he needs another Dominic.

    The problem is that no-one who’s any good, will be interested in competing for the PM’s attention with the top man’s own wife.
    Why blame Carrie? And if we are to blame Carrie, what are we blaming her for? HS2 maybe, on the grounds she likes the environment, even though the green lobby is generally pro-rail and against road and air; in unrelated news, the Transport Secretary has been criticised for lobbying for air transport. The NI rise came from next door. It was widely reported that the Owen Paterson debacle was due to an Old Etonian cabal.
    The problem is the odd situation where she is holding court at No.10; She was widely held to be behind the end of the partnership between Johnson and Cummings, and appears to be acting as a sort of gatekeeper. And now Johnson is making error after error.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,724

    tlg86 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a ridiculous article. The £86,000 cap in fact protects the wealth of the average voter given the average UK house price is now comfortably over £200,000 that means the average voter and above will keep the majority of the value of their estate in the family exempt from care costs.

    The problem with the May plan was it mean only the first £100,000 of your estate was exempt from care costs, beyond that your entire estate could be liable, hence it lost her the support of the average voter and lost her the election.

    There are very few Tory seats with an average house price of just £105,000 in the Dilnot chart who would see no benefit from he government's reforms and still see most of their assets consumed in care costs. Indeed the median Redwall house price is £160,000 and the median house price of Conservative seats held in 2019 is an even higher £270,000 and therefore both areas as the Dilnot chart shows will benefit considerably compared to the current system. Both Redwall and Conservative seats would see less than half the average estate lost in care costs under the government's proposed reformed. A significant improvement from now.

    https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/without-a-cap-on-social-care-cost-former-red-wall-seat-residents

    As a matter of interest, I wonder what the average house price is in Stoke Central, Stoke North, Great Grimsby, Scunthorpe, Redcar, Burnley, Blackpool South.
    Stoke on Trent 195k
    Grimsby 132k
    Scunthorpe 135k
    Redcar 151k
    Burnley 114k
    Blackpool 174k

    Source Plumpilot
    And what’s the average asset wealth of Tories in those seats? And even that doesn’t matter when the politics of this is: “they’re gonna steal your house.”
    I don’t know, I just provided what was asked.

    “Tories are all liars. You can’t believe anything they say.”
    If that’s the Labour campaign at the next election, the Tory majority will go up.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,228
    ‘walking into a crocodile pit whilst smothered in barbecue sauce & flailing your legs near their mouths’

    I’m intrigued, Mr Eagles. Who do you know who’s done that?

    On topic, yet another stupid policy from Johnson. Prepare for a massive rise in fridgemakers’ stocks as he buys more places to hide…
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,888
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a ridiculous article. The £86,000 cap in fact protects the wealth of the average voter given the average UK house price is now comfortably over £200,000 that means the average voter and above will keep the majority of the value of their estate in the family exempt from care costs.

    The problem with the May plan was it mean only the first £100,000 of your estate was exempt from care costs, beyond that your entire estate could be liable, hence it lost her the support of the average voter and lost her the election.

    There are very few Tory seats with an average house price of just £105,000 in the Dilnot chart who would see no benefit from he government's reforms and still see most of their assets consumed in care costs. Indeed the median Redwall house price is £160,000 and the median house price of Conservative seats held in 2019 is an even higher £270,000 and therefore both areas as the Dilnot chart shows will benefit considerably compared to the current system. Both Redwall and Conservative seats would see less than half the average estate lost in care costs under the government's proposed reformed. A significant improvement from now.

    https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/without-a-cap-on-social-care-cost-former-red-wall-seat-residents

    As a matter of interest, I wonder what the average house price is in Stoke Central, Stoke North, Great Grimsby, Scunthorpe, Redcar, Burnley, Blackpool South.
    Stoke on Trent 195k
    Grimsby 132k
    Scunthorpe 135k
    Redcar 151k
    Burnley 114k
    Blackpool 174k

    Source Plumpilot
    And what’s the average asset wealth of Tories in those seats? And even that doesn’t matter when the politics of this is: “they’re gonna steal your house.”
    I don’t know, I just provided what was asked.

    “Tories are all liars. You can’t believe anything they say.”
    If that’s the Labour campaign at the next election, the Tory majority will go up.
    “We’ll build what the Tories promised and didn’t deliver”

    “We’ll make Brexit work”

    Open goals everywhere.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,228
    edited November 21

    I note that FUDHY is talking to himself. How very symbolic for a once-mighty political movement rapidly disappearing up its own arse.

    Perhaps the mods should give him a new avatar - one of Salmond and Sturgeon?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,370
    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: Verstappen, Bottas, and Sainz all set to see the stewards for not slowing under yellows.

    Reasonable chance they all get penalties. May happen close to the start time, so bear in mind if you're betting.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 6,356
    edited November 21
    Everyone benefits from these proposals vs the current system and the current system didn't stop Con winning a majority.

    The point about social care is 95% of people don't have a clue how it works - so the best thing to do politically is to say nothing and do nothing.

    Theresa May raised it in 2017 and it was disastrous for her.

    How many times was Social care mentioned in the 2019 GE Campaign? Almost never - and Con won a majority of 80. So the current system was no bar to electoral success.

    Just by talking about it you draw attention to it - which can only be a downside politically. And the higher profile you make it the more votes you will lose.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,228
    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Boris's downfall seems to be repeated bad judgements. There is a strong argument that the problem is the lack of good advisors at No.10, and the dominance of Carrie within it.

    Yes. Say it quietly, but he needs another Dominic.

    The problem is that no-one who’s any good, will be interested in competing for the PM’s attention with the top man’s own wife.
    No, he needs a good adviser. Somebody intelligent who could understand the issues, lay out options, and guide decision making.

    Cummings is a liar and fantasist of limited intellect (albeit unshakeably convinced of his own genius) whose every business venture has failed due to his ineptitude at administration and management and whose every decision has not merely proven to be wrong but was obviously wrong at the time.

    ‘Another Dominic’ is about the only way things could get worse. Remember, we all noticed a distinct improvement when he was finally fired.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,228

    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a ridiculous article. The £86,000 cap in fact protects the wealth of the average voter given the average UK house price is now comfortably over £200,000 that means the average voter and above will keep the majority of the value of their estate in the family exempt from care costs.

    The problem with the May plan was it mean only the first £100,000 of your estate was exempt from care costs, beyond that your entire estate could be liable, hence it lost her the support of the average voter and lost her the election.

    There are very few Tory seats with an average house price of just £105,000 in the Dilnot chart who would see no benefit from he government's reforms and still see most of their assets consumed in care costs. Indeed the median Redwall house price is £160,000 and the median house price of Conservative seats held in 2019 is an even higher £270,000 and therefore both areas as the Dilnot chart shows will benefit considerably compared to the current system. Both Redwall and Conservative seats would see less than half the average estate lost in care costs under the government's proposed reformed. A significant improvement from now.

    https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/without-a-cap-on-social-care-cost-former-red-wall-seat-residents

    As a matter of interest, I wonder what the average house price is in Stoke Central, Stoke North, Great Grimsby, Scunthorpe, Redcar, Burnley, Blackpool South.
    Stoke on Trent 195k
    Grimsby 132k
    Scunthorpe 135k
    Redcar 151k
    Burnley 114k
    Blackpool 174k

    Source Plumpilot
    Be careful of the figure for Stoke as it’s skewed by the fact there are, surprising though people find it, pockets of enormous wealth with very high house prices in it.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,992

    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: Verstappen, Bottas, and Sainz all set to see the stewards for not slowing under yellows.

    Reasonable chance they all get penalties. May happen close to the start time, so bear in mind if you're betting.

    The FIA are looking like a right bunch of muppets.

    Seb Vettel is quoted as saying they removed the yellow flags for Gasly’s car at the end of the session “Because Max was coming”. After all the controversy last week, it looks like the race director is quickly losing control of the situation.

    Presumably Lewis will be getting a grid penalty, for driving too quickly in the qualifying session?

    I’m done betting on F1 this season, it’s turning into WWE with all the off-track bollocks and inconsistent application of the rule book.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,370
    F1: on that note, not sure if I'll recommend this or not but should Verstappen and Bottas both get penalties then the 19 and 21 for Gasly and Alonso respectively to lead lap 1 (Betfair) would be excellent value.

    Of course, that's contingent on penalties.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,888
    ydoethur said:

    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a ridiculous article. The £86,000 cap in fact protects the wealth of the average voter given the average UK house price is now comfortably over £200,000 that means the average voter and above will keep the majority of the value of their estate in the family exempt from care costs.

    The problem with the May plan was it mean only the first £100,000 of your estate was exempt from care costs, beyond that your entire estate could be liable, hence it lost her the support of the average voter and lost her the election.

    There are very few Tory seats with an average house price of just £105,000 in the Dilnot chart who would see no benefit from he government's reforms and still see most of their assets consumed in care costs. Indeed the median Redwall house price is £160,000 and the median house price of Conservative seats held in 2019 is an even higher £270,000 and therefore both areas as the Dilnot chart shows will benefit considerably compared to the current system. Both Redwall and Conservative seats would see less than half the average estate lost in care costs under the government's proposed reformed. A significant improvement from now.

    https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/without-a-cap-on-social-care-cost-former-red-wall-seat-residents

    As a matter of interest, I wonder what the average house price is in Stoke Central, Stoke North, Great Grimsby, Scunthorpe, Redcar, Burnley, Blackpool South.
    Stoke on Trent 195k
    Grimsby 132k
    Scunthorpe 135k
    Redcar 151k
    Burnley 114k
    Blackpool 174k

    Source Plumpilot
    Be careful of the figure for Stoke as it’s skewed by the fact there are, surprising though people find it, pockets of enormous wealth with very high house prices in it.
    The Redcar figure is for Cleveland as well - the number for Redcar town will be lower.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,370
    Mr. Sandpit, the yellow flag hokey-cokey was bizarre. Was it three times they appeared and vanished?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,228
    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: Verstappen, Bottas, and Sainz all set to see the stewards for not slowing under yellows.

    Reasonable chance they all get penalties. May happen close to the start time, so bear in mind if you're betting.

    The FIA are looking like a right bunch of muppets.
    To quote Bernard Cornwell;

    ‘You made him look like a bloody idiot sir. But that ain’t difficult on account of the fact that he is a bloody idiot.’
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 97,925
    edited November 21
    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: Verstappen, Bottas, and Sainz all set to see the stewards for not slowing under yellows.

    Reasonable chance they all get penalties. May happen close to the start time, so bear in mind if you're betting.

    The FIA are looking like a right bunch of muppets.

    Seb Vettel is quoted as saying they removed the yellow flags for Gasly’s car at the end of the session “Because Max was coming”. After all the controversy last week, it looks like the race director is quickly losing control of the situation.

    Presumably Lewis will be getting a grid penalty, for driving too quickly in the qualifying session?

    I’m done betting on F1 this season, it’s turning into WWE with all the off-track bollocks and inconsistent application of the rule book.
    “Driver 44 passed through the affected part of the track prior to the incident, thus gaining a lasting advantage”

    https://twitter.com/DustbinDaz/status/1462119481468235776

    Honestly, Michael Massi is a bigger **** than Nigel Farage and Mark Reckless combined.

    Charlie Whiting would never have allowed this situation to occur.
  • ydoethur said:

    ‘walking into a crocodile pit whilst smothered in barbecue sauce & flailing your legs near their mouths’

    I’m intrigued, Mr Eagles. Who do you know who’s done that?

    On topic, yet another stupid policy from Johnson. Prepare for a massive rise in fridgemakers’ stocks as he buys more places to hide…

    My friend got very drunk one time in Florida.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,228

    F1: on that note, not sure if I'll recommend this or not but should Verstappen and Bottas both get penalties then the 19 and 21 for Gasly and Alonso respectively to lead lap 1 (Betfair) would be excellent value.

    Of course, that's contingent on penalties.

    I wonder whether Alonso is still sore about losing the world championship in 2007 thanks to Hamilton’s antics…
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,228

    ydoethur said:

    ‘walking into a crocodile pit whilst smothered in barbecue sauce & flailing your legs near their mouths’

    I’m intrigued, Mr Eagles. Who do you know who’s done that?

    On topic, yet another stupid policy from Johnson. Prepare for a massive rise in fridgemakers’ stocks as he buys more places to hide…

    My friend got very drunk one time in Florida.
    I assume it was the last time? :hushed:
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 97,925
    edited November 21
    HYUFD said:

    What a ridiculous article. The £86,000 cap in fact protects the wealth of the average voter given the average UK house price is now comfortably over £200,000 that means the average voter and above will keep the majority of the value of their estate in the family exempt from care costs.

    The problem with the May plan was it mean only the first £100,000 of your estate was exempt from care costs, beyond that your entire estate could be liable, hence it lost her the support of the average voter and lost her the election.

    There are very few Tory seats with an average house price of just £105,000 in the Dilnot chart who would see no benefit from he government's reforms and still see most of their assets consumed in care costs. Indeed the median Redwall house price is £160,000 and the median house price of Conservative seats held in 2019 is an even higher £270,000 and therefore both areas as the Dilnot chart shows will benefit considerably compared to the current system. Both Redwall and Conservative seats would see less than half the average estate lost in care costs under the government's proposed reformed. A significant improvement from now.

    https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/without-a-cap-on-social-care-cost-former-red-wall-seat-residents

    The link you posted is from July.

    I'm looking at the policy announced this week so the reality is somewhat different to the fantasy, as evidenced by these links in the thread header

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/nov/17/englands-poorest-oaps-face-same-care-costs-as-wealthier-elderly-analysts-suggest

    and

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/amended-social-care-plans-will-cost-most-people-more-p6gcsdfxd

    But I'm a generous sort, and I'll accept my article is ridiculous, then why are Tory MPs publicly revolting on this policy announcement?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/nov/20/boris-johnson-told-dump-plan-for-social-care-charges-or-face-tory-rebellion
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ‘walking into a crocodile pit whilst smothered in barbecue sauce & flailing your legs near their mouths’

    I’m intrigued, Mr Eagles. Who do you know who’s done that?

    On topic, yet another stupid policy from Johnson. Prepare for a massive rise in fridgemakers’ stocks as he buys more places to hide…

    My friend got very drunk one time in Florida.
    I assume it was the last time? :hushed:
    No, a helpful American intervened.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,888
    @TheScreamingEagles they’re not real Tories, duh.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,992

    F1: on that note, not sure if I'll recommend this or not but should Verstappen and Bottas both get penalties then the 19 and 21 for Gasly and Alonso respectively to lead lap 1 (Betfair) would be excellent value.

    Of course, that's contingent on penalties.

    Gasly is the highest starter on the soft tyres, may well be worth a punt for leading the first lap.

    It’s worth noting that there are no support races at this event, which is likely to massively favour the odd numbers on the grid, because the track is clean on that side and dirty on the ‘even’ side.

    The one you can’t bet on, is the most likely outcome - Bernd Mayländer to lead the first lap, it’s likely to be carnage at the start!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,370
    Betting post

    F1: Backed Alonso at 5.75 to be best of the rest. Of 'the rest' only Gasly is ahead of him on-track, and Alonso's rather good at lap 1 overtakes.

    The time difference in qualifying was a few-hundredths only.

    Also, some betting suggestions for those with free bets or who like adding a bottle top here or there.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,589
    tlg86 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a ridiculous article. The £86,000 cap in fact protects the wealth of the average voter given the average UK house price is now comfortably over £200,000 that means the average voter and above will keep the majority of the value of their estate in the family exempt from care costs.

    The problem with the May plan was it mean only the first £100,000 of your estate was exempt from care costs, beyond that your entire estate could be liable, hence it lost her the support of the average voter and lost her the election.

    There are very few Tory seats with an average house price of just £105,000 in the Dilnot chart who would see no benefit from he government's reforms and still see most of their assets consumed in care costs. Indeed the median Redwall house price is £160,000 and the median house price of Conservative seats held in 2019 is an even higher £270,000 and therefore both areas as the Dilnot chart shows will benefit considerably compared to the current system. Both Redwall and Conservative seats would see less than half the average estate lost in care costs under the government's proposed reformed. A significant improvement from now.

    https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/without-a-cap-on-social-care-cost-former-red-wall-seat-residents

    As a matter of interest, I wonder what the average house price is in Stoke Central, Stoke North, Great Grimsby, Scunthorpe, Redcar, Burnley, Blackpool South.
    Stoke on Trent 195k
    Grimsby 132k
    Scunthorpe 135k
    Redcar 151k
    Burnley 114k
    Blackpool 174k

    Source Plumpilot
    And what’s the average asset wealth of Tories in those seats? And even that doesn’t matter when the politics of this is: “they’re gonna steal your house.”
    I don't think it's terrible politics: there are lots of moderately well off people, who are 50+ years old, who previously voted Labour and who are now Conservatives, and for whom this policy allows them to pass an inheritance onto their kids,

    Smart - not dumb - politics.

    But it doesn't deal with the fundamental problem in British politics (and indeed, the politics of the developed world): how do you pay for ageing populations?

    The Conservative Party seems to have decided that the right thing to do is to become the party of the newly (and soon to be) retired. Hence their choice to raise National Insurance over Income tax, and now these reforms to social care costs. Every pound that does not come out of the recipient of the care's pocket needs to come out of a worker's pocket.

    And that's the choice the government is making (and making repeatedly) - to tax the workers to pay for the retirees.

    That has consequences - specifically, it means that of every hour of work, a greater proportion of your income is going to be spent on the support, health care and pensions of the old. And it starts a negative feedback loop too, as it encourages emigration. If the UK is following the taxation policies of the 1960s and 1970s, why not go somewhere where the government won't pick the pocket of workers?
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 941
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Boris's downfall seems to be repeated bad judgements. There is a strong argument that the problem is the lack of good advisors at No.10, and the dominance of Carrie within it.

    Yes. Say it quietly, but he needs another Dominic.

    The problem is that no-one who’s any good, will be interested in competing for the PM’s attention with the top man’s own wife.
    No, he needs a good adviser. Somebody intelligent who could understand the issues, lay out options, and guide decision making.

    Cummings is a liar and fantasist of limited intellect (albeit unshakeably convinced of his own genius) whose every business venture has failed due to his ineptitude at administration and management and whose every decision has not merely proven to be wrong but was obviously wrong at the time.

    ‘Another Dominic’ is about the only way things could get worse. Remember, we all noticed a distinct improvement when he was finally fired.
    That is very true. Originally the tory MP's welcomed the rise of Carrie as they were sick of Cummings.

    Cummings is a curious figure. He has a lot of interesting ideas but seems to seriously over estimate his own abilities. I am doubtful that he can really learn from other people or react positively to feedback. Brexit is probably going to be his high water mark in terms of his political career.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,724
    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a ridiculous article. The £86,000 cap in fact protects the wealth of the average voter given the average UK house price is now comfortably over £200,000 that means the average voter and above will keep the majority of the value of their estate in the family exempt from care costs.

    The problem with the May plan was it mean only the first £100,000 of your estate was exempt from care costs, beyond that your entire estate could be liable, hence it lost her the support of the average voter and lost her the election.

    There are very few Tory seats with an average house price of just £105,000 in the Dilnot chart who would see no benefit from he government's reforms and still see most of their assets consumed in care costs. Indeed the median Redwall house price is £160,000 and the median house price of Conservative seats held in 2019 is an even higher £270,000 and therefore both areas as the Dilnot chart shows will benefit considerably compared to the current system. Both Redwall and Conservative seats would see less than half the average estate lost in care costs under the government's proposed reformed. A significant improvement from now.

    https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/without-a-cap-on-social-care-cost-former-red-wall-seat-residents

    As a matter of interest, I wonder what the average house price is in Stoke Central, Stoke North, Great Grimsby, Scunthorpe, Redcar, Burnley, Blackpool South.
    Stoke on Trent 195k
    Grimsby 132k
    Scunthorpe 135k
    Redcar 151k
    Burnley 114k
    Blackpool 174k

    Source Plumpilot
    And what’s the average asset wealth of Tories in those seats? And even that doesn’t matter when the politics of this is: “they’re gonna steal your house.”
    I don't think it's terrible politics: there are lots of moderately well off people, who are 50+ years old, who previously voted Labour and who are now Conservatives, and for whom this policy allows them to pass an inheritance onto their kids,

    Smart - not dumb - politics.

    But it doesn't deal with the fundamental problem in British politics (and indeed, the politics of the developed world): how do you pay for ageing populations?

    The Conservative Party seems to have decided that the right thing to do is to become the party of the newly (and soon to be) retired. Hence their choice to raise National Insurance over Income tax, and now these reforms to social care costs. Every pound that does not come out of the recipient of the care's pocket needs to come out of a worker's pocket.

    And that's the choice the government is making (and making repeatedly) - to tax the workers to pay for the retirees.

    That has consequences - specifically, it means that of every hour of work, a greater proportion of your income is going to be spent on the support, health care and pensions of the old. And it starts a negative feedback loop too, as it encourages emigration. If the UK is following the taxation policies of the 1960s and 1970s, why not go somewhere where the government won't pick the pocket of workers?
    I think everyone on here would agree with you.

    But for it to hurt the Tories, it would need Labour to grow a spine and tell pensioners they’ve had it and got it too good.

    The other thing in all this. The key metric is the asset wealth of the old. I don’t own my own house, but my parents do.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,236
    edited November 21
    Good morning everybody
    Clouds limited, sun's coming up; looks as though it's going to be quite a pleasant day.

    One of the problems with this area of social care policy is that for many people it's academic; for (probably) Big G and myself it's something we have to think about every so often.
    Mrs C and I would like to leave something to our children & grandchildren and, as we approach infirmity it becomes something of a direct concern.

    I shall have to do some modelling (again) and see how a new scheme would affect us. Current objective, of course, is to have a few more years then get something quick and nasty!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 97,925
    edited November 21
    darkage said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Boris's downfall seems to be repeated bad judgements. There is a strong argument that the problem is the lack of good advisors at No.10, and the dominance of Carrie within it.

    Yes. Say it quietly, but he needs another Dominic.

    The problem is that no-one who’s any good, will be interested in competing for the PM’s attention with the top man’s own wife.
    No, he needs a good adviser. Somebody intelligent who could understand the issues, lay out options, and guide decision making.

    Cummings is a liar and fantasist of limited intellect (albeit unshakeably convinced of his own genius) whose every business venture has failed due to his ineptitude at administration and management and whose every decision has not merely proven to be wrong but was obviously wrong at the time.

    ‘Another Dominic’ is about the only way things could get worse. Remember, we all noticed a distinct improvement when he was finally fired.
    That is very true. Originally the tory MP's welcomed the rise of Carrie as they were sick of Cummings.

    Cummings is a curious figure. He has a lot of interesting ideas but seems to seriously over estimate his own abilities. I am doubtful that he can really learn from other people or react positively to feedback. Brexit is probably going to be his high water mark in terms of his political career.
    I know somebody who thought David Cameron was joking/overegging it when he said Dominic Cummings was a psychopath. Then he spent five minutes with Dom Cummings and realised in fact Dave was underegging it.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,589
    edited November 21
    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a ridiculous article. The £86,000 cap in fact protects the wealth of the average voter given the average UK house price is now comfortably over £200,000 that means the average voter and above will keep the majority of the value of their estate in the family exempt from care costs.

    The problem with the May plan was it mean only the first £100,000 of your estate was exempt from care costs, beyond that your entire estate could be liable, hence it lost her the support of the average voter and lost her the election.

    There are very few Tory seats with an average house price of just £105,000 in the Dilnot chart who would see no benefit from he government's reforms and still see most of their assets consumed in care costs. Indeed the median Redwall house price is £160,000 and the median house price of Conservative seats held in 2019 is an even higher £270,000 and therefore both areas as the Dilnot chart shows will benefit considerably compared to the current system. Both Redwall and Conservative seats would see less than half the average estate lost in care costs under the government's proposed reformed. A significant improvement from now.

    https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/without-a-cap-on-social-care-cost-former-red-wall-seat-residents

    As a matter of interest, I wonder what the average house price is in Stoke Central, Stoke North, Great Grimsby, Scunthorpe, Redcar, Burnley, Blackpool South.
    Stoke on Trent 195k
    Grimsby 132k
    Scunthorpe 135k
    Redcar 151k
    Burnley 114k
    Blackpool 174k

    Source Plumpilot
    And what’s the average asset wealth of Tories in those seats? And even that doesn’t matter when the politics of this is: “they’re gonna steal your house.”
    I don't think it's terrible politics: there are lots of moderately well off people, who are 50+ years old, who previously voted Labour and who are now Conservatives, and for whom this policy allows them to pass an inheritance onto their kids,

    Smart - not dumb - politics.

    But it doesn't deal with the fundamental problem in British politics (and indeed, the politics of the developed world): how do you pay for ageing populations?

    The Conservative Party seems to have decided that the right thing to do is to become the party of the newly (and soon to be) retired. Hence their choice to raise National Insurance over Income tax, and now these reforms to social care costs. Every pound that does not come out of the recipient of the care's pocket needs to come out of a worker's pocket.

    And that's the choice the government is making (and making repeatedly) - to tax the workers to pay for the retirees.

    That has consequences - specifically, it means that of every hour of work, a greater proportion of your income is going to be spent on the support, health care and pensions of the old. And it starts a negative feedback loop too, as it encourages emigration. If the UK is following the taxation policies of the 1960s and 1970s, why not go somewhere where the government won't pick the pocket of workers?
    I think everyone on here would agree with you.

    But for it to hurt the Tories, it would need Labour to grow a spine and tell pensioners they’ve had it and got it too good.

    The other thing in all this. The key metric is the asset wealth of the old. I don’t own my own house, but my parents do.
    Most people don't inherit their parents' house until they are close to retirement (or even past it) - so I'm not sure that helps that much with the workers v retirees narrative.

    If an opposition party gets traction - and so far none have - I suspect it will be on the subject of intergenerational conflict. Someone will manage to frame it as the Future vs the Past.

    It's also worth noting that once a society has aged to a certain extent, it becomes very hard not to make decisions for the benefit of the old (who, after all, are much more likely to vote). Look at Italy: the oldies have completely captured the political system, choosing to protect their pensions via staying in the Euro, while screwing over the workers. And the young and the talented have responded by leaving the country.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,992
    One of the perils of having a club legend player as your manager - how to let them down gently when it’s time to leave.

    Steven Gerrard, please take note.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 941
    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a ridiculous article. The £86,000 cap in fact protects the wealth of the average voter given the average UK house price is now comfortably over £200,000 that means the average voter and above will keep the majority of the value of their estate in the family exempt from care costs.

    The problem with the May plan was it mean only the first £100,000 of your estate was exempt from care costs, beyond that your entire estate could be liable, hence it lost her the support of the average voter and lost her the election.

    There are very few Tory seats with an average house price of just £105,000 in the Dilnot chart who would see no benefit from he government's reforms and still see most of their assets consumed in care costs. Indeed the median Redwall house price is £160,000 and the median house price of Conservative seats held in 2019 is an even higher £270,000 and therefore both areas as the Dilnot chart shows will benefit considerably compared to the current system. Both Redwall and Conservative seats would see less than half the average estate lost in care costs under the government's proposed reformed. A significant improvement from now.

    https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/without-a-cap-on-social-care-cost-former-red-wall-seat-residents

    As a matter of interest, I wonder what the average house price is in Stoke Central, Stoke North, Great Grimsby, Scunthorpe, Redcar, Burnley, Blackpool South.
    Stoke on Trent 195k
    Grimsby 132k
    Scunthorpe 135k
    Redcar 151k
    Burnley 114k
    Blackpool 174k

    Source Plumpilot
    And what’s the average asset wealth of Tories in those seats? And even that doesn’t matter when the politics of this is: “they’re gonna steal your house.”
    I don't think it's terrible politics: there are lots of moderately well off people, who are 50+ years old, who previously voted Labour and who are now Conservatives, and for whom this policy allows them to pass an inheritance onto their kids,

    Smart - not dumb - politics.

    But it doesn't deal with the fundamental problem in British politics (and indeed, the politics of the developed world): how do you pay for ageing populations?

    The Conservative Party seems to have decided that the right thing to do is to become the party of the newly (and soon to be) retired. Hence their choice to raise National Insurance over Income tax, and now these reforms to social care costs. Every pound that does not come out of the recipient of the care's pocket needs to come out of a worker's pocket.

    And that's the choice the government is making (and making repeatedly) - to tax the workers to pay for the retirees.

    That has consequences - specifically, it means that of every hour of work, a greater proportion of your income is going to be spent on the support, health care and pensions of the old. And it starts a negative feedback loop too, as it encourages emigration. If the UK is following the taxation policies of the 1960s and 1970s, why not go somewhere where the government won't pick the pocket of workers?
    I think everyone on here would agree with you.

    But for it to hurt the Tories, it would need Labour to grow a spine and tell pensioners they’ve had it and got it too good.

    The other thing in all this. The key metric is the asset wealth of the old. I don’t own my own house, but my parents do.
    Most people don't inherit their parents' house until they are close to retirement (or even past it) - so I'm not sure that helps that much with the workers v retirees narrative.

    If an opposition party gets traction - and so far none have - I suspect it will be on the subject of intergenerational conflict. Someone will manage to frame it as the Future vs the Past.

    It's also worth noting that once a society has aged to a certain extent, it becomes very hard not to make decisions for the benefit of the old (who, after all, are much more likely to vote). Look at Italy: the oldies have completely captured the political system, choosing to protect their pensions via staying in the Euro, while screwing over the workers. And the young and the talented have responded by leaving the country.
    Fundamentally if the policy disproportionately hits those with smaller estates worse than those with big estates, and this can be exploited by the opposition, it is bad politics.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,228
    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a ridiculous article. The £86,000 cap in fact protects the wealth of the average voter given the average UK house price is now comfortably over £200,000 that means the average voter and above will keep the majority of the value of their estate in the family exempt from care costs.

    The problem with the May plan was it mean only the first £100,000 of your estate was exempt from care costs, beyond that your entire estate could be liable, hence it lost her the support of the average voter and lost her the election.

    There are very few Tory seats with an average house price of just £105,000 in the Dilnot chart who would see no benefit from he government's reforms and still see most of their assets consumed in care costs. Indeed the median Redwall house price is £160,000 and the median house price of Conservative seats held in 2019 is an even higher £270,000 and therefore both areas as the Dilnot chart shows will benefit considerably compared to the current system. Both Redwall and Conservative seats would see less than half the average estate lost in care costs under the government's proposed reformed. A significant improvement from now.

    https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/without-a-cap-on-social-care-cost-former-red-wall-seat-residents

    As a matter of interest, I wonder what the average house price is in Stoke Central, Stoke North, Great Grimsby, Scunthorpe, Redcar, Burnley, Blackpool South.
    Stoke on Trent 195k
    Grimsby 132k
    Scunthorpe 135k
    Redcar 151k
    Burnley 114k
    Blackpool 174k

    Source Plumpilot
    And what’s the average asset wealth of Tories in those seats? And even that doesn’t matter when the politics of this is: “they’re gonna steal your house.”
    I don't think it's terrible politics: there are lots of moderately well off people, who are 50+ years old, who previously voted Labour and who are now Conservatives, and for whom this policy allows them to pass an inheritance onto their kids,

    Smart - not dumb - politics.

    But it doesn't deal with the fundamental problem in British politics (and indeed, the politics of the developed world): how do you pay for ageing populations?

    The Conservative Party seems to have decided that the right thing to do is to become the party of the newly (and soon to be) retired. Hence their choice to raise National Insurance over Income tax, and now these reforms to social care costs. Every pound that does not come out of the recipient of the care's pocket needs to come out of a worker's pocket.

    And that's the choice the government is making (and making repeatedly) - to tax the workers to pay for the retirees.

    That has consequences - specifically, it means that of every hour of work, a greater proportion of your income is going to be spent on the support, health care and pensions of the old. And it starts a negative feedback loop too, as it encourages emigration. If the UK is following the taxation policies of the 1960s and 1970s, why not go somewhere where the government won't pick the pocket of workers?
    I think everyone on here would agree with you.

    But for it to hurt the Tories, it would need Labour to grow a spine and tell pensioners they’ve had it and got it too good.

    The other thing in all this. The key metric is the asset wealth of the old. I don’t own my own house, but my parents do.
    Most people don't inherit their parents' house until they are close to retirement (or even past it) - so I'm not sure that helps that much with the workers v retirees narrative.

    If an opposition party gets traction - and so far none have - I suspect it will be on the subject of intergenerational conflict. Someone will manage to frame it as the Future vs the Past.

    It's also worth noting that once a society has aged to a certain extent, it becomes very hard not to make decisions for the benefit of the old (who, after all, are much more likely to vote). Look at Italy: the oldies have completely captured the political system, choosing to protect their pensions via staying in the Euro, while screwing over the workers. And the young and the talented have responded by leaving the country.
    Fundamentally if the policy disproportionately hits those with smaller estates worse than those with big estates, and this can be exploited by the opposition, it is bad politics.
    The problem is, that the vast majority of policymakers think £500k is a small estate, and a couple of million is average.
    I remember how shocked some posters on here were in 2017 when I told them you could get a very nice house in Cannock for under £100,000. (You can't now, by the way.)

    They assumed any three bed semi anywhere in England was at lest £450k.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,311
    ydoethur said:

    I note that FUDHY is talking to himself. How very symbolic for a once-mighty political movement rapidly disappearing up its own arse.

    Perhaps the mods should give him a new avatar - one of Salmond and Sturgeon?
    Yes, I did see the squirrel thank you. Wasn’t he magnificent in his late-autumn finery!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,228

    ydoethur said:

    I note that FUDHY is talking to himself. How very symbolic for a once-mighty political movement rapidly disappearing up its own arse.

    Perhaps the mods should give him a new avatar - one of Salmond and Sturgeon?
    Yes, I did see the squirrel thank you. Wasn’t he magnificent in his late-autumn finery!
    Going up that tree with its beautiful autumnal colours.

    (Incidentally don't know what it's like round your way but it's been weirdly warm this month so far. Just one frost and most trees still have their leaves due to the lack of wind.)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,589
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a ridiculous article. The £86,000 cap in fact protects the wealth of the average voter given the average UK house price is now comfortably over £200,000 that means the average voter and above will keep the majority of the value of their estate in the family exempt from care costs.

    The problem with the May plan was it mean only the first £100,000 of your estate was exempt from care costs, beyond that your entire estate could be liable, hence it lost her the support of the average voter and lost her the election.

    There are very few Tory seats with an average house price of just £105,000 in the Dilnot chart who would see no benefit from he government's reforms and still see most of their assets consumed in care costs. Indeed the median Redwall house price is £160,000 and the median house price of Conservative seats held in 2019 is an even higher £270,000 and therefore both areas as the Dilnot chart shows will benefit considerably compared to the current system. Both Redwall and Conservative seats would see less than half the average estate lost in care costs under the government's proposed reformed. A significant improvement from now.

    https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/without-a-cap-on-social-care-cost-former-red-wall-seat-residents

    As a matter of interest, I wonder what the average house price is in Stoke Central, Stoke North, Great Grimsby, Scunthorpe, Redcar, Burnley, Blackpool South.
    Stoke on Trent 195k
    Grimsby 132k
    Scunthorpe 135k
    Redcar 151k
    Burnley 114k
    Blackpool 174k

    Source Plumpilot
    And what’s the average asset wealth of Tories in those seats? And even that doesn’t matter when the politics of this is: “they’re gonna steal your house.”
    I don't think it's terrible politics: there are lots of moderately well off people, who are 50+ years old, who previously voted Labour and who are now Conservatives, and for whom this policy allows them to pass an inheritance onto their kids,

    Smart - not dumb - politics.

    But it doesn't deal with the fundamental problem in British politics (and indeed, the politics of the developed world): how do you pay for ageing populations?

    The Conservative Party seems to have decided that the right thing to do is to become the party of the newly (and soon to be) retired. Hence their choice to raise National Insurance over Income tax, and now these reforms to social care costs. Every pound that does not come out of the recipient of the care's pocket needs to come out of a worker's pocket.

    And that's the choice the government is making (and making repeatedly) - to tax the workers to pay for the retirees.

    That has consequences - specifically, it means that of every hour of work, a greater proportion of your income is going to be spent on the support, health care and pensions of the old. And it starts a negative feedback loop too, as it encourages emigration. If the UK is following the taxation policies of the 1960s and 1970s, why not go somewhere where the government won't pick the pocket of workers?
    I think everyone on here would agree with you.

    But for it to hurt the Tories, it would need Labour to grow a spine and tell pensioners they’ve had it and got it too good.

    The other thing in all this. The key metric is the asset wealth of the old. I don’t own my own house, but my parents do.
    Most people don't inherit their parents' house until they are close to retirement (or even past it) - so I'm not sure that helps that much with the workers v retirees narrative.

    If an opposition party gets traction - and so far none have - I suspect it will be on the subject of intergenerational conflict. Someone will manage to frame it as the Future vs the Past.

    It's also worth noting that once a society has aged to a certain extent, it becomes very hard not to make decisions for the benefit of the old (who, after all, are much more likely to vote). Look at Italy: the oldies have completely captured the political system, choosing to protect their pensions via staying in the Euro, while screwing over the workers. And the young and the talented have responded by leaving the country.
    Fundamentally if the policy disproportionately hits those with smaller estates worse than those with big estates, and this can be exploited by the opposition, it is bad politics.
    The problem is, that the vast majority of policymakers think £500k is a small estate, and a couple of million is average.
    I remember how shocked some posters on here were in 2017 when I told them you could get a very nice house in Cannock for under £100,000. (You can't now, by the way.)

    They assumed any three bed semi anywhere in England was at lest £450k.
    Which tube line is Cannock on? I don't seem to be able to find it on the Underground map.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,228
    edited November 21
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a ridiculous article. The £86,000 cap in fact protects the wealth of the average voter given the average UK house price is now comfortably over £200,000 that means the average voter and above will keep the majority of the value of their estate in the family exempt from care costs.

    The problem with the May plan was it mean only the first £100,000 of your estate was exempt from care costs, beyond that your entire estate could be liable, hence it lost her the support of the average voter and lost her the election.

    There are very few Tory seats with an average house price of just £105,000 in the Dilnot chart who would see no benefit from he government's reforms and still see most of their assets consumed in care costs. Indeed the median Redwall house price is £160,000 and the median house price of Conservative seats held in 2019 is an even higher £270,000 and therefore both areas as the Dilnot chart shows will benefit considerably compared to the current system. Both Redwall and Conservative seats would see less than half the average estate lost in care costs under the government's proposed reformed. A significant improvement from now.

    https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/without-a-cap-on-social-care-cost-former-red-wall-seat-residents

    As a matter of interest, I wonder what the average house price is in Stoke Central, Stoke North, Great Grimsby, Scunthorpe, Redcar, Burnley, Blackpool South.
    Stoke on Trent 195k
    Grimsby 132k
    Scunthorpe 135k
    Redcar 151k
    Burnley 114k
    Blackpool 174k

    Source Plumpilot
    And what’s the average asset wealth of Tories in those seats? And even that doesn’t matter when the politics of this is: “they’re gonna steal your house.”
    I don't think it's terrible politics: there are lots of moderately well off people, who are 50+ years old, who previously voted Labour and who are now Conservatives, and for whom this policy allows them to pass an inheritance onto their kids,

    Smart - not dumb - politics.

    But it doesn't deal with the fundamental problem in British politics (and indeed, the politics of the developed world): how do you pay for ageing populations?

    The Conservative Party seems to have decided that the right thing to do is to become the party of the newly (and soon to be) retired. Hence their choice to raise National Insurance over Income tax, and now these reforms to social care costs. Every pound that does not come out of the recipient of the care's pocket needs to come out of a worker's pocket.

    And that's the choice the government is making (and making repeatedly) - to tax the workers to pay for the retirees.

    That has consequences - specifically, it means that of every hour of work, a greater proportion of your income is going to be spent on the support, health care and pensions of the old. And it starts a negative feedback loop too, as it encourages emigration. If the UK is following the taxation policies of the 1960s and 1970s, why not go somewhere where the government won't pick the pocket of workers?
    I think everyone on here would agree with you.

    But for it to hurt the Tories, it would need Labour to grow a spine and tell pensioners they’ve had it and got it too good.

    The other thing in all this. The key metric is the asset wealth of the old. I don’t own my own house, but my parents do.
    Most people don't inherit their parents' house until they are close to retirement (or even past it) - so I'm not sure that helps that much with the workers v retirees narrative.

    If an opposition party gets traction - and so far none have - I suspect it will be on the subject of intergenerational conflict. Someone will manage to frame it as the Future vs the Past.

    It's also worth noting that once a society has aged to a certain extent, it becomes very hard not to make decisions for the benefit of the old (who, after all, are much more likely to vote). Look at Italy: the oldies have completely captured the political system, choosing to protect their pensions via staying in the Euro, while screwing over the workers. And the young and the talented have responded by leaving the country.
    Fundamentally if the policy disproportionately hits those with smaller estates worse than those with big estates, and this can be exploited by the opposition, it is bad politics.
    The problem is, that the vast majority of policymakers think £500k is a small estate, and a couple of million is average.
    I remember how shocked some posters on here were in 2017 when I told them you could get a very nice house in Cannock for under £100,000. (You can't now, by the way.)

    They assumed any three bed semi anywhere in England was at lest £450k.
    Which tube line is Cannock on? I don't seem to be able to find it on the Underground map.
    Why would you look on an underground map? You assume I live in a shitheap like London?

    Edit - although house prices have gone mad round here. Just checking, a three bed terrace in the next street, no off street parking, around £85,000 when I moved here in 2014, now offers over £180,000.

    I need to get my house revalued next month so I can remortgage. I have no idea what it's worth but I'm thinking the 190k I assumed is going to be a significant underestimate.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,311
    edited November 21
    darkage said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Boris's downfall seems to be repeated bad judgements. There is a strong argument that the problem is the lack of good advisors at No.10, and the dominance of Carrie within it.

    Yes. Say it quietly, but he needs another Dominic.

    The problem is that no-one who’s any good, will be interested in competing for the PM’s attention with the top man’s own wife.
    No, he needs a good adviser. Somebody intelligent who could understand the issues, lay out options, and guide decision making.

    Cummings is a liar and fantasist of limited intellect (albeit unshakeably convinced of his own genius) whose every business venture has failed due to his ineptitude at administration and management and whose every decision has not merely proven to be wrong but was obviously wrong at the time.

    ‘Another Dominic’ is about the only way things could get worse. Remember, we all noticed a distinct improvement when he was finally fired.
    That is very true. Originally the tory MP's welcomed the rise of Carrie as they were sick of Cummings.

    Cummings is a curious figure. He has a lot of interesting ideas but seems to seriously over estimate his own abilities. I am doubtful that he can really learn from other people or react positively to feedback. Brexit is probably going to be his high water mark in terms of his political career.
    Cummings is a typical product of the social media age, where nasty, talentless weirdos are elevated to the status of demi-gods by groupings of other nasty, talentless weirdos (cf Trump, Corbyn, Johnson, the PB Herd etc ad infinitum.)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,228

    darkage said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Boris's downfall seems to be repeated bad judgements. There is a strong argument that the problem is the lack of good advisors at No.10, and the dominance of Carrie within it.

    Yes. Say it quietly, but he needs another Dominic.

    The problem is that no-one who’s any good, will be interested in competing for the PM’s attention with the top man’s own wife.
    No, he needs a good adviser. Somebody intelligent who could understand the issues, lay out options, and guide decision making.

    Cummings is a liar and fantasist of limited intellect (albeit unshakeably convinced of his own genius) whose every business venture has failed due to his ineptitude at administration and management and whose every decision has not merely proven to be wrong but was obviously wrong at the time.

    ‘Another Dominic’ is about the only way things could get worse. Remember, we all noticed a distinct improvement when he was finally fired.
    That is very true. Originally the tory MP's welcomed the rise of Carrie as they were sick of Cummings.

    Cummings is a curious figure. He has a lot of interesting ideas but seems to seriously over estimate his own abilities. I am doubtful that he can really learn from other people or react positively to feedback. Brexit is probably going to be his high water mark in terms of his political career.
    Cummings is a typical product of the social media age, where nasty, talentless weirdos are elevated to the status of demi-gods by groupings of other nasty, talentless weirdos (cf Trump, Corbyn, the PB Herd etc ad infinitum.)
    You seem in a very sour mood today. Not at all like your usual cheery self. Are you wearing the Bishop's shoes by any chance?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,236
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a ridiculous article. The £86,000 cap in fact protects the wealth of the average voter given the average UK house price is now comfortably over £200,000 that means the average voter and above will keep the majority of the value of their estate in the family exempt from care costs.

    The problem with the May plan was it mean only the first £100,000 of your estate was exempt from care costs, beyond that your entire estate could be liable, hence it lost her the support of the average voter and lost her the election.

    There are very few Tory seats with an average house price of just £105,000 in the Dilnot chart who would see no benefit from he government's reforms and still see most of their assets consumed in care costs. Indeed the median Redwall house price is £160,000 and the median house price of Conservative seats held in 2019 is an even higher £270,000 and therefore both areas as the Dilnot chart shows will benefit considerably compared to the current system. Both Redwall and Conservative seats would see less than half the average estate lost in care costs under the government's proposed reformed. A significant improvement from now.

    https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/without-a-cap-on-social-care-cost-former-red-wall-seat-residents

    As a matter of interest, I wonder what the average house price is in Stoke Central, Stoke North, Great Grimsby, Scunthorpe, Redcar, Burnley, Blackpool South.
    Stoke on Trent 195k
    Grimsby 132k
    Scunthorpe 135k
    Redcar 151k
    Burnley 114k
    Blackpool 174k

    Source Plumpilot
    And what’s the average asset wealth of Tories in those seats? And even that doesn’t matter when the politics of this is: “they’re gonna steal your house.”
    I don't think it's terrible politics: there are lots of moderately well off people, who are 50+ years old, who previously voted Labour and who are now Conservatives, and for whom this policy allows them to pass an inheritance onto their kids,

    Smart - not dumb - politics.

    But it doesn't deal with the fundamental problem in British politics (and indeed, the politics of the developed world): how do you pay for ageing populations?

    The Conservative Party seems to have decided that the right thing to do is to become the party of the newly (and soon to be) retired. Hence their choice to raise National Insurance over Income tax, and now these reforms to social care costs. Every pound that does not come out of the recipient of the care's pocket needs to come out of a worker's pocket.

    And that's the choice the government is making (and making repeatedly) - to tax the workers to pay for the retirees.

    That has consequences - specifically, it means that of every hour of work, a greater proportion of your income is going to be spent on the support, health care and pensions of the old. And it starts a negative feedback loop too, as it encourages emigration. If the UK is following the taxation policies of the 1960s and 1970s, why not go somewhere where the government won't pick the pocket of workers?
    I think everyone on here would agree with you.

    But for it to hurt the Tories, it would need Labour to grow a spine and tell pensioners they’ve had it and got it too good.

    The other thing in all this. The key metric is the asset wealth of the old. I don’t own my own house, but my parents do.
    Most people don't inherit their parents' house until they are close to retirement (or even past it) - so I'm not sure that helps that much with the workers v retirees narrative.

    If an opposition party gets traction - and so far none have - I suspect it will be on the subject of intergenerational conflict. Someone will manage to frame it as the Future vs the Past.

    It's also worth noting that once a society has aged to a certain extent, it becomes very hard not to make decisions for the benefit of the old (who, after all, are much more likely to vote). Look at Italy: the oldies have completely captured the political system, choosing to protect their pensions via staying in the Euro, while screwing over the workers. And the young and the talented have responded by leaving the country.
    Fundamentally if the policy disproportionately hits those with smaller estates worse than those with big estates, and this can be exploited by the opposition, it is bad politics.
    The problem is, that the vast majority of policymakers think £500k is a small estate, and a couple of million is average.
    I remember how shocked some posters on here were in 2017 when I told them you could get a very nice house in Cannock for under £100,000. (You can't now, by the way.)

    They assumed any three bed semi anywhere in England was at lest £450k.
    Well, just looked up a couple of places locally and am astounded at the prices Zoopla quote.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,236
    edited November 21
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a ridiculous article. The £86,000 cap in fact protects the wealth of the average voter given the average UK house price is now comfortably over £200,000 that means the average voter and above will keep the majority of the value of their estate in the family exempt from care costs.

    The problem with the May plan was it mean only the first £100,000 of your estate was exempt from care costs, beyond that your entire estate could be liable, hence it lost her the support of the average voter and lost her the election.

    There are very few Tory seats with an average house price of just £105,000 in the Dilnot chart who would see no benefit from he government's reforms and still see most of their assets consumed in care costs. Indeed the median Redwall house price is £160,000 and the median house price of Conservative seats held in 2019 is an even higher £270,000 and therefore both areas as the Dilnot chart shows will benefit considerably compared to the current system. Both Redwall and Conservative seats would see less than half the average estate lost in care costs under the government's proposed reformed. A significant improvement from now.

    https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/without-a-cap-on-social-care-cost-former-red-wall-seat-residents

    As a matter of interest, I wonder what the average house price is in Stoke Central, Stoke North, Great Grimsby, Scunthorpe, Redcar, Burnley, Blackpool South.
    Stoke on Trent 195k
    Grimsby 132k
    Scunthorpe 135k
    Redcar 151k
    Burnley 114k
    Blackpool 174k

    Source Plumpilot
    And what’s the average asset wealth of Tories in those seats? And even that doesn’t matter when the politics of this is: “they’re gonna steal your house.”
    I don't think it's terrible politics: there are lots of moderately well off people, who are 50+ years old, who previously voted Labour and who are now Conservatives, and for whom this policy allows them to pass an inheritance onto their kids,

    Smart - not dumb - politics.

    But it doesn't deal with the fundamental problem in British politics (and indeed, the politics of the developed world): how do you pay for ageing populations?

    The Conservative Party seems to have decided that the right thing to do is to become the party of the newly (and soon to be) retired. Hence their choice to raise National Insurance over Income tax, and now these reforms to social care costs. Every pound that does not come out of the recipient of the care's pocket needs to come out of a worker's pocket.

    And that's the choice the government is making (and making repeatedly) - to tax the workers to pay for the retirees.

    That has consequences - specifically, it means that of every hour of work, a greater proportion of your income is going to be spent on the support, health care and pensions of the old. And it starts a negative feedback loop too, as it encourages emigration. If the UK is following the taxation policies of the 1960s and 1970s, why not go somewhere where the government won't pick the pocket of workers?
    I think everyone on here would agree with you.

    But for it to hurt the Tories, it would need Labour to grow a spine and tell pensioners they’ve had it and got it too good.

    The other thing in all this. The key metric is the asset wealth of the old. I don’t own my own house, but my parents do.
    Most people don't inherit their parents' house until they are close to retirement (or even past it) - so I'm not sure that helps that much with the workers v retirees narrative.

    If an opposition party gets traction - and so far none have - I suspect it will be on the subject of intergenerational conflict. Someone will manage to frame it as the Future vs the Past.

    It's also worth noting that once a society has aged to a certain extent, it becomes very hard not to make decisions for the benefit of the old (who, after all, are much more likely to vote). Look at Italy: the oldies have completely captured the political system, choosing to protect their pensions via staying in the Euro, while screwing over the workers. And the young and the talented have responded by leaving the country.
    Fundamentally if the policy disproportionately hits those with smaller estates worse than those with big estates, and this can be exploited by the opposition, it is bad politics.
    The problem is, that the vast majority of policymakers think £500k is a small estate, and a couple of million is average.
    I remember how shocked some posters on here were in 2017 when I told them you could get a very nice house in Cannock for under £100,000. (You can't now, by the way.)

    They assumed any three bed semi anywhere in England was at lest £450k.
    Which tube line is Cannock on? I don't seem to be able to find it on the Underground map.
    Why would you look on an underground map? You assume I live in a shitheap like London?

    Edit - although house prices have gone mad round here. Just checking, a three bed terrace in the next street, no off street parking, around £85,000 when I moved here in 2014, now offers over £180,000.

    I need to get my house revalued next month so I can remortgage. I have no idea what it's worth but I'm thinking the 190k I assumed is going to be a significant underestimate.
    Just looked at mine. Moved here twenty years ago. As I posted upthread, am astounded at the price quoted.

    Edit; We have got quite a lot of parking space though.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,311
    ydoethur said:

    darkage said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Boris's downfall seems to be repeated bad judgements. There is a strong argument that the problem is the lack of good advisors at No.10, and the dominance of Carrie within it.

    Yes. Say it quietly, but he needs another Dominic.

    The problem is that no-one who’s any good, will be interested in competing for the PM’s attention with the top man’s own wife.
    No, he needs a good adviser. Somebody intelligent who could understand the issues, lay out options, and guide decision making.

    Cummings is a liar and fantasist of limited intellect (albeit unshakeably convinced of his own genius) whose every business venture has failed due to his ineptitude at administration and management and whose every decision has not merely proven to be wrong but was obviously wrong at the time.

    ‘Another Dominic’ is about the only way things could get worse. Remember, we all noticed a distinct improvement when he was finally fired.
    That is very true. Originally the tory MP's welcomed the rise of Carrie as they were sick of Cummings.

    Cummings is a curious figure. He has a lot of interesting ideas but seems to seriously over estimate his own abilities. I am doubtful that he can really learn from other people or react positively to feedback. Brexit is probably going to be his high water mark in terms of his political career.
    Cummings is a typical product of the social media age, where nasty, talentless weirdos are elevated to the status of demi-gods by groupings of other nasty, talentless weirdos (cf Trump, Corbyn, the PB Herd etc ad infinitum.)
    You seem in a very sour mood today. Not at all like your usual cheery self. Are you wearing the Bishop's shoes by any chance?
    Heard of bishop’s sleeve, but not shoes. I’m a dour Presbyterian and have no truck with lickspittle bishops.

    No, I’m actually in great form. Out walking the dog prior to an ice hockey match in half an hour. Got to inspect my NHL investment.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,609
    edited November 21

    Good morning everybody
    Clouds limited, sun's coming up; looks as though it's going to be quite a pleasant day.

    One of the problems with this area of social care policy is that for many people it's academic; for (probably) Big G and myself it's something we have to think about every so often.
    Mrs C and I would like to leave something to our children & grandchildren and, as we approach infirmity it becomes something of a direct concern.

    I shall have to do some modelling (again) and see how a new scheme would affect us. Current objective, of course, is to have a few more years then get something quick and nasty!

    I did some modelling when this policy was announced, based on my MiL who sold her bungalow for £180 000 and moved into a care home in March 2019. It made no difference to her self funded costs.

    The £86 000 cap only applies to personal care, with "hotel costs" of board and lodging excluded. In addition only costs after October 2023 count to the cap, so at £1 000 per week, with £200 per week on hotel costs, no one will reach the new cap before late autumn 2025. Note that this is well after the next GE, though we will be paying the new levy from April 2022.

    She died in September after 30 months there. She was generally quite happy in the home, enjoying the company and the arts and crafts, even though lockdown was difficult for visiting. It was her savings and money well spent as far as we were concerned. Mrs Foxy inherits a modest sum of about £27 000, as does her sister.



  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,228

    ydoethur said:

    darkage said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Boris's downfall seems to be repeated bad judgements. There is a strong argument that the problem is the lack of good advisors at No.10, and the dominance of Carrie within it.

    Yes. Say it quietly, but he needs another Dominic.

    The problem is that no-one who’s any good, will be interested in competing for the PM’s attention with the top man’s own wife.
    No, he needs a good adviser. Somebody intelligent who could understand the issues, lay out options, and guide decision making.

    Cummings is a liar and fantasist of limited intellect (albeit unshakeably convinced of his own genius) whose every business venture has failed due to his ineptitude at administration and management and whose every decision has not merely proven to be wrong but was obviously wrong at the time.

    ‘Another Dominic’ is about the only way things could get worse. Remember, we all noticed a distinct improvement when he was finally fired.
    That is very true. Originally the tory MP's welcomed the rise of Carrie as they were sick of Cummings.

    Cummings is a curious figure. He has a lot of interesting ideas but seems to seriously over estimate his own abilities. I am doubtful that he can really learn from other people or react positively to feedback. Brexit is probably going to be his high water mark in terms of his political career.
    Cummings is a typical product of the social media age, where nasty, talentless weirdos are elevated to the status of demi-gods by groupings of other nasty, talentless weirdos (cf Trump, Corbyn, the PB Herd etc ad infinitum.)
    You seem in a very sour mood today. Not at all like your usual cheery self. Are you wearing the Bishop's shoes by any chance?
    Heard of bishop’s sleeve, but not shoes. I’m a dour Presbyterian and have no truck with lickspittle bishops.

    No, I’m actually in great form. Out walking the dog prior to an ice hockey match in half an hour. Got to inspect my NHL investment.
    https://youtu.be/yG_O1ErlQLM

    Start at 1.15.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,134
    Thanks for the header. The BBQ sauce line made me laugh.

    My sense is this policy will get dropped and so limited political impact. Agree that Labour will want to keep the narrative on sleaze/can't trust the Tories.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,853
    rkrkrk said:

    Thanks for the header. The BBQ sauce line made me laugh.

    My sense is this policy will get dropped and so limited political impact. Agree that Labour will want to keep the narrative on sleaze/can't trust the Tories.

    Which policy, trains investment or Social Care.

    Both are designed to keep Government costs as low as possible so how is Boris going to scrap either policy now he is just a figurehead with the Treasury back in full control?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,311
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    darkage said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Boris's downfall seems to be repeated bad judgements. There is a strong argument that the problem is the lack of good advisors at No.10, and the dominance of Carrie within it.

    Yes. Say it quietly, but he needs another Dominic.

    The problem is that no-one who’s any good, will be interested in competing for the PM’s attention with the top man’s own wife.
    No, he needs a good adviser. Somebody intelligent who could understand the issues, lay out options, and guide decision making.

    Cummings is a liar and fantasist of limited intellect (albeit unshakeably convinced of his own genius) whose every business venture has failed due to his ineptitude at administration and management and whose every decision has not merely proven to be wrong but was obviously wrong at the time.

    ‘Another Dominic’ is about the only way things could get worse. Remember, we all noticed a distinct improvement when he was finally fired.
    That is very true. Originally the tory MP's welcomed the rise of Carrie as they were sick of Cummings.

    Cummings is a curious figure. He has a lot of interesting ideas but seems to seriously over estimate his own abilities. I am doubtful that he can really learn from other people or react positively to feedback. Brexit is probably going to be his high water mark in terms of his political career.
    Cummings is a typical product of the social media age, where nasty, talentless weirdos are elevated to the status of demi-gods by groupings of other nasty, talentless weirdos (cf Trump, Corbyn, the PB Herd etc ad infinitum.)
    You seem in a very sour mood today. Not at all like your usual cheery self. Are you wearing the Bishop's shoes by any chance?
    Heard of bishop’s sleeve, but not shoes. I’m a dour Presbyterian and have no truck with lickspittle bishops.

    No, I’m actually in great form. Out walking the dog prior to an ice hockey match in half an hour. Got to inspect my NHL investment.
    https://youtu.be/yG_O1ErlQLM

    Start at 1.15.
    VG.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,311
    edited November 21
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that FUDHY is talking to himself. How very symbolic for a once-mighty political movement rapidly disappearing up its own arse.

    Perhaps the mods should give him a new avatar - one of Salmond and Sturgeon?
    Yes, I did see the squirrel thank you. Wasn’t he magnificent in his late-autumn finery!
    Going up that tree with its beautiful autumnal colours.

    (Incidentally don't know what it's like round your way but it's been weirdly warm this month so far. Just one frost and most trees still have their leaves due to the lack of wind.)
    Exactly the same here: unbelievably mild. In fact, on the way to the ice rink this morning we passed the local “bandy” pitch (think shinty, except on ice). It was simply a huge pond of water. Normally at this time of year it would be frozen solid and full of activity (this town has one of the biggest bandy clubs in the country).
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,263
    MikeL said:

    Everyone benefits from these proposals vs the current system and the current system didn't stop Con winning a majority.

    The point about social care is 95% of people don't have a clue how it works - so the best thing to do politically is to say nothing and do nothing.

    Theresa May raised it in 2017 and it was disastrous for her.

    How many times was Social care mentioned in the 2019 GE Campaign? Almost never - and Con won a majority of 80. So the current system was no bar to electoral success.

    Just by talking about it you draw attention to it - which can only be a downside politically. And the higher profile you make it the more votes you will lose.

    It sounds a lot like House of Lords reform. Everyone can agree that almost any reform is better than the status quo, but any specific reform proposed is compared to an imagined ideal, rather than the status quo, and so always gets shot down. Only it's worse with social care reform, because all the imperfect reforms also come with large increases in general taxation.

    Put like that I'm surprised that Johnson is proposing a variation on reform, rather than simply quietly pushing back any implementation date and slowly forgetting about it.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,579
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that FUDHY is talking to himself. How very symbolic for a once-mighty political movement rapidly disappearing up its own arse.

    Perhaps the mods should give him a new avatar - one of Salmond and Sturgeon?
    Yes, I did see the squirrel thank you. Wasn’t he magnificent in his late-autumn finery!
    Going up that tree with its beautiful autumnal colours.

    (Incidentally don't know what it's like round your way but it's been weirdly warm this month so far. Just one frost and most trees still have their leaves due to the lack of wind.)
    Change is coming, with more wintry weather on its way. We’ve had around four frosts this autumn which is not unusual for wilts.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,454
    tlg86 said:



    And what’s the average asset wealth of Tories in those seats? And even that doesn’t matter when the politics of this is: “they’re gonna steal your house.”

    Yes, that's the political problem. If the Opposition is sufficiently unscrupulous (I'm not sure that Starmer is, but the LibDems are), that's going to be the message, and even people in richer areas will recoil. It's the same problem as a wealth tax on £1 million+ assets. Most people don't have that, but the campaign against will imply that they'll somehow be threatened.

    The REAL problem, as Foxy points out, is that hotel costs are not covered. So even people with large houses in the south will tend to lose them anyway from their estates. Nobody I know thinks this is a serious problem, but nobody I know is against IHT - the universal sentiment in my circle is "kids can make their own way, what parents leave is just a possible bonus, and we certainly don't want to live in Mum's house when she goes". But polls show that lots of people think differently.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 12,887
    The intention, I think, is an insurance policy. Losers of one of life's lotteries, who go into slow and ruinously expensive decline in nursing homes, get supported financially while the relative winners, who are in and out (feet first) of institutions in a few months or less, can support themselves.

    So far, so sensible.

    The problem, as so often, is that the government is trying to save money while implementing this sensible policy. The £86 000 cap wasn't chosen by accident. It's a year or so of nursing home fees, which happens to be the average length of a stay. Lottery losers with fewer assets will fall back on the state under current rules once their money runs out. The net change of this policy is to protect the assets of a small number of wealthy people.

    The poor judgment is almost certainly Sunak's, not Johnson's. It doesn't matter though. Sunak is a very skilled blame-shifter.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,022
    As a young libel lawyer working on @spittingimage I was taught that you could say pretty much what you liked about Margaret Thatcher. She had too much class to sue. As an old libel lawyer, I teach that you can say pretty much what you like about @BorisJohnson. It’s all true.

    https://twitter.com/simongallant7/status/1462156768134549524?s=20
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,609
    FF43 said:

    The intention, I think, is an insurance policy. Losers of one of life's lotteries, who go into slow and ruinously expensive decline in nursing homes, get supported financially while the relative winners, who are in and out (feet first) of institutions in a few months or less, can support themselves.

    So far, so sensible.

    The problem, as so often, is that the government is trying to save money while implementing this sensible policy. The £86 000 cap wasn't chosen by accident. It's a year or so of nursing home fees, which happens to be the average length of a stay. Lottery losers with fewer assets will fall back on the state under current rules once their money runs out. The net change of this policy is to protect the assets of a small number of wealthy people.

    The poor judgment is almost certainly Sunak's, not Johnson's. It doesn't matter though. Sunak is a very skilled blame-shifter.

    I think 2 years of fees, not one. It doesn't cover "hotel costs" and rates are typically around £1000 per week. 2/3 of care home residents are already state funded at a lower rate, so the privately funded already are subsidising the poorer residents.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,476

    tlg86 said:



    And what’s the average asset wealth of Tories in those seats? And even that doesn’t matter when the politics of this is: “they’re gonna steal your house.”

    Yes, that's the political problem. If the Opposition is sufficiently unscrupulous (I'm not sure that Starmer is, but the LibDems are), that's going to be the message, and even people in richer areas will recoil. It's the same problem as a wealth tax on £1 million+ assets. Most people don't have that, but the campaign against will imply that they'll somehow be threatened.

    The REAL problem, as Foxy points out, is that hotel costs are not covered. So even people with large houses in the south will tend to lose them anyway from their estates. Nobody I know thinks this is a serious problem, but nobody I know is against IHT - the universal sentiment in my circle is "kids can make their own way, what parents leave is just a possible bonus, and we certainly don't want to live in Mum's house when she goes". But polls show that lots of people think differently.
    Yeah I don't really get it. I think my total inheritance from my grandparents was something like £5k, which disappeared into some renovation work we were doing. I don't expect to inherit anything from my parents, don't need the money now and certainly don't imagine I will need it when they die, which I am hoping won't be for another 10-20 years. I've been putting money into junior ISAs for our kids and I imagine may be providing free board and lodging when they're young adults at some point but don't expect to be providing them with any massive inheritance, and if there is any money left when we die I am guessing they will be in late middle age and hopefully making their own way in the world by then. People shouldn't be expecting bank of mum and dad to be supporting them.
    I also think this idea that it's OK for the government to take 50% of your labour income but terrible for them to take 50% of your (potentially unearned windfall) housing equity *to pay for your own care* a bit weird.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,501
    ...
  • eekeek Posts: 15,853

    tlg86 said:



    And what’s the average asset wealth of Tories in those seats? And even that doesn’t matter when the politics of this is: “they’re gonna steal your house.”

    Yes, that's the political problem. If the Opposition is sufficiently unscrupulous (I'm not sure that Starmer is, but the LibDems are), that's going to be the message, and even people in richer areas will recoil. It's the same problem as a wealth tax on £1 million+ assets. Most people don't have that, but the campaign against will imply that they'll somehow be threatened.

    The REAL problem, as Foxy points out, is that hotel costs are not covered. So even people with large houses in the south will tend to lose them anyway from their estates. Nobody I know thinks this is a serious problem, but nobody I know is against IHT - the universal sentiment in my circle is "kids can make their own way, what parents leave is just a possible bonus, and we certainly don't want to live in Mum's house when she goes". But polls show that lots of people think differently.
    Yeah I don't really get it. I think my total inheritance from my grandparents was something like £5k, which disappeared into some renovation work we were doing. I don't expect to inherit anything from my parents, don't need the money now and certainly don't imagine I will need it when they die, which I am hoping won't be for another 10-20 years. I've been putting money into junior ISAs for our kids and I imagine may be providing free board and lodging when they're young adults at some point but don't expect to be providing them with any massive inheritance, and if there is any money left when we die I am guessing they will be in late middle age and hopefully making their own way in the world by then. People shouldn't be expecting bank of mum and dad to be supporting them.
    I also think this idea that it's OK for the government to take 50% of your labour income but terrible for them to take 50% of your (potentially unearned windfall) housing equity *to pay for your own care* a bit weird.
    We are charging "rent" but that money is in a separate account so we can give it back to them when they buy a house.

    One reason for charging "rent" is so they don't get any shocks when they leave home and suddenly have £x00 less pounds a month to live on.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,571
    edited November 21

    tlg86 said:



    And what’s the average asset wealth of Tories in those seats? And even that doesn’t matter when the politics of this is: “they’re gonna steal your house.”

    Yes, that's the political problem. If the Opposition is sufficiently unscrupulous (I'm not sure that Starmer is, but the LibDems are), that's going to be the message, and even people in richer areas will recoil. It's the same problem as a wealth tax on £1 million+ assets. Most people don't have that, but the campaign against will imply that they'll somehow be threatened.

    The REAL problem, as Foxy points out, is that hotel costs are not covered. So even people with large houses in the south will tend to lose them anyway from their estates. Nobody I know thinks this is a serious problem, but nobody I know is against IHT - the universal sentiment in my circle is "kids can make their own way, what parents leave is just a possible bonus, and we certainly don't want to live in Mum's house when she goes". But polls show that lots of people think differently.
    HYUFD's postings show cogently that the Tories are relying on their pampering of the well off southern house-owning pensioner for a majot component of their vote.

    People in Hartlepool will be clobbered in a way which people in Epping simply will not. So it's fair game for the LDs to get in the mud with the Tories on this issue.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,622
    edited November 21

    tlg86 said:



    And what’s the average asset wealth of Tories in those seats? And even that doesn’t matter when the politics of this is: “they’re gonna steal your house.”

    Yes, that's the political problem. If the Opposition is sufficiently unscrupulous (I'm not sure that Starmer is, but the LibDems are), that's going to be the message, and even people in richer areas will recoil. It's the same problem as a wealth tax on £1 million+ assets. Most people don't have that, but the campaign against will imply that they'll somehow be threatened.

    The REAL problem, as Foxy points out, is that hotel costs are not covered. So even people with large houses in the south will tend to lose them anyway from their estates. Nobody I know thinks this is a serious problem, but nobody I know is against IHT - the universal sentiment in my circle is "kids can make their own way, what parents leave is just a possible bonus, and we certainly don't want to live in Mum's house when she goes". But polls show that lots of people think differently.
    Yeah I don't really get it. I think my total inheritance from my grandparents was something like £5k, which disappeared into some renovation work we were doing. I don't expect to inherit anything from my parents, don't need the money now and certainly don't imagine I will need it when they die, which I am hoping won't be for another 10-20 years. I've been putting money into junior ISAs for our kids and I imagine may be providing free board and lodging when they're young adults at some point but don't expect to be providing them with any massive inheritance, and if there is any money left when we die I am guessing they will be in late middle age and hopefully making their own way in the world by then. People shouldn't be expecting bank of mum and dad to be supporting them.
    I also think this idea that it's OK for the government to take 50% of your labour income but terrible for them to take 50% of your (potentially unearned windfall) housing equity *to pay for your own care* a bit weird.
    Likewise - to me it seems like the possible income I'd care least about being taxed: Per pound received it's the least valuable income to me compared to salary or pension or investment returns, because I don't know when I'll get it, how much I'll get, or if I'll get it at all since my parents might outlive me, blow it on bad by-election bets or connect me to my pb comments and cut me out of the will.

    I wonder if the opposition is mainly from the old folks rather than the potential recipients; I guess they feel like they've already paid a lot of tax on it, and taking out another chunk when they die feels unsporting. This doesn't apply to the heir, for whom its income that they only pay tax on once.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,022
    From July:

    Maintaining the current Covid restrictions through the summer would only delay a wave of hospitalisations and deaths rather than reduce them, the chief medical officer for England has warned.

    Prof Chris Whitty told a Downing Street briefing that while scientific opinion was mixed on when to lift the last remaining restrictions in the government’s roadmap out of lockdown, he believed that doing so in the summer had some advantages over releasing in the autumn.

    “At a certain point, you move to the situation where instead of actually averting hospitalisations and deaths, you move over to just delaying them. So you’re not actually changing the number of people who will go to hospital or die, you may change when they happen,” he said.

    “There is quite a strong view by many people, including myself actually, that going in the summer has some advantages, all other things being equal, to opening up into the autumn when schools are going back and when we’re heading into the winter period when the NHS tends to be under greatest pressure for many other reasons,” he added.


    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/05/chris-whitty-keeping-covid-restrictions-will-only-delay-wave
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 2,693
    edited November 21
    People calling London a "shitheap". Surely some mistake? London is a great World City - arguable the best city in the World. Places like Scunthorpe, Hartlepool, Middlesborough are the real shitheaps - miserable places with miserable uneducated bigotted trash who reside there?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,571

    tlg86 said:



    And what’s the average asset wealth of Tories in those seats? And even that doesn’t matter when the politics of this is: “they’re gonna steal your house.”

    Yes, that's the political problem. If the Opposition is sufficiently unscrupulous (I'm not sure that Starmer is, but the LibDems are), that's going to be the message, and even people in richer areas will recoil. It's the same problem as a wealth tax on £1 million+ assets. Most people don't have that, but the campaign against will imply that they'll somehow be threatened.

    The REAL problem, as Foxy points out, is that hotel costs are not covered. So even people with large houses in the south will tend to lose them anyway from their estates. Nobody I know thinks this is a serious problem, but nobody I know is against IHT - the universal sentiment in my circle is "kids can make their own way, what parents leave is just a possible bonus, and we certainly don't want to live in Mum's house when she goes". But polls show that lots of people think differently.
    Yeah I don't really get it. I think my total inheritance from my grandparents was something like £5k, which disappeared into some renovation work we were doing. I don't expect to inherit anything from my parents, don't need the money now and certainly don't imagine I will need it when they die, which I am hoping won't be for another 10-20 years. I've been putting money into junior ISAs for our kids and I imagine may be providing free board and lodging when they're young adults at some point but don't expect to be providing them with any massive inheritance, and if there is any money left when we die I am guessing they will be in late middle age and hopefully making their own way in the world by then. People shouldn't be expecting bank of mum and dad to be supporting them.
    I also think this idea that it's OK for the government to take 50% of your labour income but terrible for them to take 50% of your (potentially unearned windfall) housing equity *to pay for your own care* a bit weird.
    Likewise - to me it seems like the possible income I'd care least about being taxed: Per pound received it's the least valuable income to me, because I don't know when I'll get it, how much I'll get, or if I'll get it at all since my parents might outlive me, blow it on bad by-election bets or connect me to my pb comments and cut me out of the will.

    I wonder if the opposition is mainly from the old folks rather than the potential recipients; I guess they feel like they've already paid a lot of tax on it, and taking out another chunk when they die feels unsporting. This doesn't apply to the heir, for whom its income that they only pay tax on once.
    That is entirely consistent with the Tories' concern with what well off house-owning southern pensioners think (even if it is not entirely rational, as you, OLB, Foxy et al point out). This focus is very clear in HYUFD's postings, which are a very helpful guide to Conservative mentality on the issue inso far as it affects a major chunk of their vote

    Yet how this can be done without alienating other components such as northern red waller voterts is an increasingly tricky matter.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/21/has-boris-johnson-crashed-the-tory-car

    "Last week, an announcement on social care further infuriated Tory MPs from less well-off areas, as it meant poorer pensioners paying the same as wealthier people. The idea that a government led by Johnson would be progressive had fallen victim again to lack of money and the Treasury’s wariness of further tax rises. Senior backbenchers such as Damian Green and former health secretary Jeremy Hunt criticised the plan as unprogressive. A Commons rebellion is brewing ahead of a vote on the issue early this week.

    Many of the Tory party’s recent problems can be put down to poor judgments and poor presentation. But as Johnson struggles to keep a grip, it is also becoming clearer that a core problem is that of how to govern for a new, post-2019 coalition of Tory voters that is so wide and disparate, and includes Tory conquests behind the red wall."
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,263

    tlg86 said:



    And what’s the average asset wealth of Tories in those seats? And even that doesn’t matter when the politics of this is: “they’re gonna steal your house.”

    Yes, that's the political problem. If the Opposition is sufficiently unscrupulous (I'm not sure that Starmer is, but the LibDems are), that's going to be the message, and even people in richer areas will recoil. It's the same problem as a wealth tax on £1 million+ assets. Most people don't have that, but the campaign against will imply that they'll somehow be threatened.

    The REAL problem, as Foxy points out, is that hotel costs are not covered. So even people with large houses in the south will tend to lose them anyway from their estates. Nobody I know thinks this is a serious problem, but nobody I know is against IHT - the universal sentiment in my circle is "kids can make their own way, what parents leave is just a possible bonus, and we certainly don't want to live in Mum's house when she goes". But polls show that lots of people think differently.
    Yeah I don't really get it. I think my total inheritance from my grandparents was something like £5k, which disappeared into some renovation work we were doing. I don't expect to inherit anything from my parents, don't need the money now and certainly don't imagine I will need it when they die, which I am hoping won't be for another 10-20 years. I've been putting money into junior ISAs for our kids and I imagine may be providing free board and lodging when they're young adults at some point but don't expect to be providing them with any massive inheritance, and if there is any money left when we die I am guessing they will be in late middle age and hopefully making their own way in the world by then. People shouldn't be expecting bank of mum and dad to be supporting them.
    I also think this idea that it's OK for the government to take 50% of your labour income but terrible for them to take 50% of your (potentially unearned windfall) housing equity *to pay for your own care* a bit weird.
    Likewise - to me it seems like the possible income I'd care least about being taxed: Per pound received it's the least valuable income to me compared to salary or pension or investment returns, because I don't know when I'll get it, how much I'll get, or if I'll get it at all since my parents might outlive me, blow it on bad by-election bets or connect me to my pb comments and cut me out of the will.

    I wonder if the opposition is mainly from the old folks rather than the potential recipients; I guess they feel like they've already paid a lot of tax on it, and taking out another chunk when they die feels unsporting. This doesn't apply to the heir, for whom its income that they only pay tax on once.
    Parents generally want to be able to help their children, and when you're dead the only way you can do this is by passing on as many worldly goods as possible.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,853
    edited November 21
    Carnyx said:

    tlg86 said:



    And what’s the average asset wealth of Tories in those seats? And even that doesn’t matter when the politics of this is: “they’re gonna steal your house.”

    Yes, that's the political problem. If the Opposition is sufficiently unscrupulous (I'm not sure that Starmer is, but the LibDems are), that's going to be the message, and even people in richer areas will recoil. It's the same problem as a wealth tax on £1 million+ assets. Most people don't have that, but the campaign against will imply that they'll somehow be threatened.

    The REAL problem, as Foxy points out, is that hotel costs are not covered. So even people with large houses in the south will tend to lose them anyway from their estates. Nobody I know thinks this is a serious problem, but nobody I know is against IHT - the universal sentiment in my circle is "kids can make their own way, what parents leave is just a possible bonus, and we certainly don't want to live in Mum's house when she goes". But polls show that lots of people think differently.
    Yeah I don't really get it. I think my total inheritance from my grandparents was something like £5k, which disappeared into some renovation work we were doing. I don't expect to inherit anything from my parents, don't need the money now and certainly don't imagine I will need it when they die, which I am hoping won't be for another 10-20 years. I've been putting money into junior ISAs for our kids and I imagine may be providing free board and lodging when they're young adults at some point but don't expect to be providing them with any massive inheritance, and if there is any money left when we die I am guessing they will be in late middle age and hopefully making their own way in the world by then. People shouldn't be expecting bank of mum and dad to be supporting them.
    I also think this idea that it's OK for the government to take 50% of your labour income but terrible for them to take 50% of your (potentially unearned windfall) housing equity *to pay for your own care* a bit weird.
    Likewise - to me it seems like the possible income I'd care least about being taxed: Per pound received it's the least valuable income to me, because I don't know when I'll get it, how much I'll get, or if I'll get it at all since my parents might outlive me, blow it on bad by-election bets or connect me to my pb comments and cut me out of the will.

    I wonder if the opposition is mainly from the old folks rather than the potential recipients; I guess they feel like they've already paid a lot of tax on it, and taking out another chunk when they die feels unsporting. This doesn't apply to the heir, for whom its income that they only pay tax on once.
    That is entirely consistent with the Tories' concern with what well off house-owning southern pensioners think (even if it is not entirely rational, as you, OLB, Foxy et al point out). This focus is very clear in HYUFD's postings, which are a very helpful guide to Conservative mentality on the issue inso far as it affects a major chunk of their vote

    Yet how this can be done without alienating other components such as northern red waller voterts is an increasingly tricky matter.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/21/has-boris-johnson-crashed-the-tory-car

    "Last week, an announcement on social care further infuriated Tory MPs from less well-off areas, as it meant poorer pensioners paying the same as wealthier people. The idea that a government led by Johnson would be progressive had fallen victim again to lack of money and the Treasury’s wariness of further tax rises. Senior backbenchers such as Damian Green and former health secretary Jeremy Hunt criticised the plan as unprogressive. A Commons rebellion is brewing ahead of a vote on the issue early this week.

    Many of the Tory party’s recent problems can be put down to poor judgments and poor presentation. But as Johnson struggles to keep a grip, it is also becoming clearer that a core problem is that of how to govern for a new, post-2019 coalition of Tory voters that is so wide and disparate, and includes Tory conquests behind the red wall."
    These Social care changes are only occurring because the funding has changed (remember the 2.5% increase in NI if you include Employer from back in September).

    Boris's real problem now is that he changed the Tory party from having rich Southern Pensioners at it's core to targetting northern seats. The Lib Dems are going to do well targeting those Southern votes via NIMBYISM and social care, and Labour will focus on look at everything Boris promised and failed to deliver.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,932
    darkage said:

    I was thinking that the sleaze scandal could be the low point for the tories; I didn't expect things to get worse but they are proving me wrong. This is a mad policy as it completely skewers people with inheritences below £100k; so your average person on the street.

    Surely it would be better to raise the total amount payable (say to £150k) but then taper the contribution to care costs based on the total value of the estate, so people would only contribute on average 50% towards it, and with the wealthy paying more. Whats the argument against that?

    The vast majority of people will have care costs well below £100k.

    This is effectively catastrophe insurance which is frequently provided at the government level.

    Does catastrophe insurance offer more protection to the rich? Yes. But that’s only incidental. It’s designed to offer 100% protection regardless of wealth
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,609
    Carnyx said:

    tlg86 said:



    And what’s the average asset wealth of Tories in those seats? And even that doesn’t matter when the politics of this is: “they’re gonna steal your house.”

    Yes, that's the political problem. If the Opposition is sufficiently unscrupulous (I'm not sure that Starmer is, but the LibDems are), that's going to be the message, and even people in richer areas will recoil. It's the same problem as a wealth tax on £1 million+ assets. Most people don't have that, but the campaign against will imply that they'll somehow be threatened.

    The REAL problem, as Foxy points out, is that hotel costs are not covered. So even people with large houses in the south will tend to lose them anyway from their estates. Nobody I know thinks this is a serious problem, but nobody I know is against IHT - the universal sentiment in my circle is "kids can make their own way, what parents leave is just a possible bonus, and we certainly don't want to live in Mum's house when she goes". But polls show that lots of people think differently.
    Yeah I don't really get it. I think my total inheritance from my grandparents was something like £5k, which disappeared into some renovation work we were doing. I don't expect to inherit anything from my parents, don't need the money now and certainly don't imagine I will need it when they die, which I am hoping won't be for another 10-20 years. I've been putting money into junior ISAs for our kids and I imagine may be providing free board and lodging when they're young adults at some point but don't expect to be providing them with any massive inheritance, and if there is any money left when we die I am guessing they will be in late middle age and hopefully making their own way in the world by then. People shouldn't be expecting bank of mum and dad to be supporting them.
    I also think this idea that it's OK for the government to take 50% of your labour income but terrible for them to take 50% of your (potentially unearned windfall) housing equity *to pay for your own care* a bit weird.
    Likewise - to me it seems like the possible income I'd care least about being taxed: Per pound received it's the least valuable income to me, because I don't know when I'll get it, how much I'll get, or if I'll get it at all since my parents might outlive me, blow it on bad by-election bets or connect me to my pb comments and cut me out of the will.

    I wonder if the opposition is mainly from the old folks rather than the potential recipients; I guess they feel like they've already paid a lot of tax on it, and taking out another chunk when they die feels unsporting. This doesn't apply to the heir, for whom its income that they only pay tax on once.
    That is entirely consistent with the Tories' concern with what well off house-owning southern pensioners think (even if it is not entirely rational, as you, OLB, Foxy et al point out). This focus is very clear in HYUFD's postings, which are a very helpful guide to Conservative mentality on the issue inso far as it affects a major chunk of their vote

    Yet how this can be done without alienating other components such as northern red waller voterts is an increasingly tricky matter.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/21/has-boris-johnson-crashed-the-tory-car

    "Last week, an announcement on social care further infuriated Tory MPs from less well-off areas, as it meant poorer pensioners paying the same as wealthier people. The idea that a government led by Johnson would be progressive had fallen victim again to lack of money and the Treasury’s wariness of further tax rises. Senior backbenchers such as Damian Green and former health secretary Jeremy Hunt criticised the plan as unprogressive. A Commons rebellion is brewing ahead of a vote on the issue early this week.

    Many of the Tory party’s recent problems can be put down to poor judgments and poor presentation. But as Johnson struggles to keep a grip, it is also becoming clearer that a core problem is that of how to govern for a new, post-2019 coalition of Tory voters that is so wide and disparate, and includes Tory conquests behind the red wall."
    Probably the only way to preserve inheritances in the parts of England outside the home counties would be to use more or less the current system, but instead of preserving the last £26 000, doing so for the last £100 000.

    It does start to sound a lot like Mrs May's 2017 manifesto proposal...
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 905

    From July:

    Maintaining the current Covid restrictions through the summer would only delay a wave of hospitalisations and deaths rather than reduce them, the chief medical officer for England has warned.

    Prof Chris Whitty told a Downing Street briefing that while scientific opinion was mixed on when to lift the last remaining restrictions in the government’s roadmap out of lockdown, he believed that doing so in the summer had some advantages over releasing in the autumn.

    “At a certain point, you move to the situation where instead of actually averting hospitalisations and deaths, you move over to just delaying them. So you’re not actually changing the number of people who will go to hospital or die, you may change when they happen,” he said.

    “There is quite a strong view by many people, including myself actually, that going in the summer has some advantages, all other things being equal, to opening up into the autumn when schools are going back and when we’re heading into the winter period when the NHS tends to be under greatest pressure for many other reasons,” he added.


    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/05/chris-whitty-keeping-covid-restrictions-will-only-delay-wave

    And events may well be proving him right, though the picture is complex: Germany, the Netherlands, and a number of other European countries that kept NPIs are now suffering the predicted delayed Winter wave of death, but France, Italy and Spain appear to be holding up quite well. It'll be interesting to see if they manage to avoid going down the tubes too, or if that merely happens more slowly.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,992
    murali_s said:

    People calling London a "shitheap". Surely some mistake? London is a great World City - arguable the best city in the World. Places like Scunthorpe, Hartlepool, Middlesborough are the real shitheaps - miserable places with miserable uneducated bigotted trash who reside there?

    Vote Labour or else, you bigoted deplorables.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,476
    eek said:

    tlg86 said:



    And what’s the average asset wealth of Tories in those seats? And even that doesn’t matter when the politics of this is: “they’re gonna steal your house.”

    Yes, that's the political problem. If the Opposition is sufficiently unscrupulous (I'm not sure that Starmer is, but the LibDems are), that's going to be the message, and even people in richer areas will recoil. It's the same problem as a wealth tax on £1 million+ assets. Most people don't have that, but the campaign against will imply that they'll somehow be threatened.

    The REAL problem, as Foxy points out, is that hotel costs are not covered. So even people with large houses in the south will tend to lose them anyway from their estates. Nobody I know thinks this is a serious problem, but nobody I know is against IHT - the universal sentiment in my circle is "kids can make their own way, what parents leave is just a possible bonus, and we certainly don't want to live in Mum's house when she goes". But polls show that lots of people think differently.
    Yeah I don't really get it. I think my total inheritance from my grandparents was something like £5k, which disappeared into some renovation work we were doing. I don't expect to inherit anything from my parents, don't need the money now and certainly don't imagine I will need it when they die, which I am hoping won't be for another 10-20 years. I've been putting money into junior ISAs for our kids and I imagine may be providing free board and lodging when they're young adults at some point but don't expect to be providing them with any massive inheritance, and if there is any money left when we die I am guessing they will be in late middle age and hopefully making their own way in the world by then. People shouldn't be expecting bank of mum and dad to be supporting them.
    I also think this idea that it's OK for the government to take 50% of your labour income but terrible for them to take 50% of your (potentially unearned windfall) housing equity *to pay for your own care* a bit weird.
    We are charging "rent" but that money is in a separate account so we can give it back to them when they buy a house.

    One reason for charging "rent" is so they don't get any shocks when they leave home and suddenly have £x00 less pounds a month to live on.
    That's a smart set-up. The biggest advantage our kids have is that we live in London so if that's where professional life or study take them then they have somewhere free/subsidised to stay. Was very different for my wife and I, coming from the arse end of nowhere.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,228
    edited November 21
    murali_s said:

    People calling London a "shitheap". Surely some mistake? London is a great World City - arguable the best city in the World. Places like Scunthorpe, Hartlepool, Middlesborough are the real shitheaps - miserable places with miserable uneducated bigotted trash who reside there?

    I'm just loving the irony of that post...

    Edit – I had to spend a lot of time in London when I was doing my PhD because all my research was in the British Library, the National Archives or the London Metropolitan Archives. My favourite sight in London is a big blue sign that says 'Reading and the West M4.' I stand by my statement that it is a shitheap.
  • murali_s said:

    People calling London a "shitheap". Surely some mistake? London is a great World City - arguable the best city in the World. Places like Scunthorpe, Hartlepool, Middlesborough are the real shitheaps - miserable places with miserable uneducated bigotted trash who reside there?

    What a disgusting post

    Ordinary hard working people with families live in these areas and are the salt of the earth

    Who on earth do you think you are
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,476
    ydoethur said:

    murali_s said:

    People calling London a "shitheap". Surely some mistake? London is a great World City - arguable the best city in the World. Places like Scunthorpe, Hartlepool, Middlesborough are the real shitheaps - miserable places with miserable uneducated bigotted trash who reside there?

    I'm just loving the irony of that post...
    The more dignified response to people sagging off London is to just ignore them. Everyone knows that London is the greatest place on earth, especially South London. It's just their jealousy speaking.
Sign In or Register to comment.