Jo Coburn on Politics Live once again putting to the Solicitor General that what the Prime Minister said to the Commons is "Not. True." (her emphasis). And he isn't defending Peppa by claiming that what he said was true.
What is true is the issue is complex and certainly if someone is in care and their partner is at home the home is disregarded for care costs
Is that what the new rules say or are you saying that without checking the entire detail?
No - that is my experience here in Wales
Which means you don't know the post October 2023 rules in England then while claiming that you do....
It seems @stodge has affirmed my understanding of these rules is the same in England
Interesting chart from the John Burn-Murdoch thread:
Despite UK having lower vax coverage than e.g Belgium & France, the difference in share of people previously infected is larger (UK 30%, FRA 15%), meaning that going into this winter, the UK had fewer people still exposed to the virus, less scope for a wave of hospitalisations.
Yes, those 9m infections since the end of May have made a huge difference to our overall picture. Having a summer/autumn exit wave is why we're very much on the endemic side of this
Needless Suffering
Britain offers a warning of what happens when a country ignores Covid.
Interesting chart from the John Burn-Murdoch thread:
Despite UK having lower vax coverage than e.g Belgium & France, the difference in share of people previously infected is larger (UK 30%, FRA 15%), meaning that going into this winter, the UK had fewer people still exposed to the virus, less scope for a wave of hospitalisations.
Yes, those 9m infections since the end of May have made a huge difference to our overall picture. Having a summer/autumn exit wave is why we're very much on the endemic side of this
Needless Suffering
Britain offers a warning of what happens when a country ignores Covid.
Paywalled sadly. Is the article as hyperbolic and hysterical as the headline?
Yes. Limousine Liberal America will never forgive the UK for Brexit.
John Kerry of course has frequently said America's oldest ally is France not the UK
Well that is simply historical fact. Nothing to do with John Kerry!
Beyond the US War of Independence however he said it deliberately.
Liberal Democrats in the US tend to look more towards continental Europe and the EU not the Anglosphere.
Republican Presidents tend to look more towards the Anglosphere than the EU.
The exceptions being Bush Snr who was closer to Kohl than Thatcher (though he got on better with Major) and to some extent Biden post AUKUS (though Biden is also clearly closer to the EU than Boris' UK on Northern Ireland)
Jo Coburn on Politics Live once again putting to the Solicitor General that what the Prime Minister said to the Commons is "Not. True." (her emphasis). And he isn't defending Peppa by claiming that what he said was true.
What is true is the issue is complex and certainly if someone is in care and their partner is at home the home is disregarded for care costs
Is that what the new rules say or are you saying that without checking the entire detail?
No - that is my experience here in Wales
Which means you don't know the post October 2023 rules in England then while claiming that you do....
It seems @stodge has affirmed my understanding of these rules is the same in England
But do you have personal prior experience of the post October 2023 rules? - as that is what you are claiming.
Interesting chart from the John Burn-Murdoch thread:
Despite UK having lower vax coverage than e.g Belgium & France, the difference in share of people previously infected is larger (UK 30%, FRA 15%), meaning that going into this winter, the UK had fewer people still exposed to the virus, less scope for a wave of hospitalisations.
Yes, those 9m infections since the end of May have made a huge difference to our overall picture. Having a summer/autumn exit wave is why we're very much on the endemic side of this
Needless Suffering
Britain offers a warning of what happens when a country ignores Covid.
Paywalled sadly. Is the article as hyperbolic and hysterical as the headline?
It is depressingly poor and incurious. American journalism is in a right old state. British hacks used to admire the American press for its numerous fact-checkers and prickly adherence to the truth, even if it was stodgy and stiff compared to British journalism
What a precipitous decline we have seen. This denial of the facts started with the right, I suspect- shock jocks and Fox News - but it has now infested the left as badly if not worse, via Wokery and Trump, and it is now everywhere. This is just one example. The NYT doesn't like Brexit Britain, so anything it does must be bad, including its handling of Covid. The agenda is prioritised over the truth, there isn't really any attempt to seek the truth.
It means Americans are now shockingly misinformed across the political spectrum at probably the worst time for that to happen
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
The PM didn’t say anything about qualifying his statement because the house isn’t sold to pay for care until after death.
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
The literal wording from the manifesto is "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " If that isn't about the inheritance left to pass on to their kids then what is it?
The whole reason for the reform is to stop someone's entire assets being swallowed up by care costs so that there is nothing left to inherit. And the PM stood up and repeatedly said that nobody would have to sell their home because the home is not counted as an asset. This is simply wrong. He either doesn't know his own policy or he is lying about it.
Question - how many of the red wallers are going to accept your attempts at sophistry and go "fair enough, I'm being taxed heavily so that I don't lose my home, but I'm going to lose it anyway whilst the well off dont. yes of course the Tories still have my vote".
Northerners are not stupid.
The PM said "nobody would have to sell their home" which is true. They have the option of selling it or not selling it with payments due being paid after death.
In addition there are situations where the main home is exempt anyway: at home care, spouse still living in the house, other relative over 60 living in house, any relative of any age still living in the house etc etc.
And that is not just my understanding but also experience and some on here attacking Boris do not know the detail themselves
If you’ve been pushed back to the ‘greater idiot’ defence, I suggest you stop digging?
You will not be surprised to learn that I will ignore your patronising nonsense and reiterate my experience in this field
Do you have any
If you're going to use that principle then never talk about HS2/the railways ever again.
The Labour Party is not a registered political party in Northern Ireland and does not currently contest elections.[2]
Well, I think the point is, that's a decision taken by Labour. They could contest elections if they wanted to. They could be pro-Union if they wanted to.
Personally, I don't see it as bad thing that they are neutral on the subject.
Equally it tallies with the long standing relationships between GB and NI political parties.
The republican parties (bar Sinn Fein) have always had a working relationship with Labour loyalist / Unionist parties have tended to side with the Conservative party.
Interesting chart from the John Burn-Murdoch thread:
Despite UK having lower vax coverage than e.g Belgium & France, the difference in share of people previously infected is larger (UK 30%, FRA 15%), meaning that going into this winter, the UK had fewer people still exposed to the virus, less scope for a wave of hospitalisations.
Yes, those 9m infections since the end of May have made a huge difference to our overall picture. Having a summer/autumn exit wave is why we're very much on the endemic side of this
Needless Suffering
Britain offers a warning of what happens when a country ignores Covid.
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
The PM didn’t say anything about qualifying his statement because the house isn’t sold to pay for care until after death.
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
The literal wording from the manifesto is "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " If that isn't about the inheritance left to pass on to their kids then what is it?
The whole reason for the reform is to stop someone's entire assets being swallowed up by care costs so that there is nothing left to inherit. And the PM stood up and repeatedly said that nobody would have to sell their home because the home is not counted as an asset. This is simply wrong. He either doesn't know his own policy or he is lying about it.
Question - how many of the red wallers are going to accept your attempts at sophistry and go "fair enough, I'm being taxed heavily so that I don't lose my home, but I'm going to lose it anyway whilst the well off dont. yes of course the Tories still have my vote".
Northerners are not stupid.
The PM said "nobody would have to sell their home" which is true. They have the option of selling it or not selling it with payments due being paid after death.
In addition there are situations where the main home is exempt anyway: at home care, spouse still living in the house, other relative over 60 living in house, any relative of any age still living in the house etc etc.
And that is not just my understanding but also experience and some on here attacking Boris do not know the detail themselves
If you’ve been pushed back to the ‘greater idiot’ defence, I suggest you stop digging?
You will not be surprised to learn that I will ignore your patronising nonsense and reiterate my experience in this field
Do you have any
You think the fact that you've been on a cruise to the South China Seas makes you more qualified to talk about China, so 🤷♂️
Interesting chart from the John Burn-Murdoch thread:
Despite UK having lower vax coverage than e.g Belgium & France, the difference in share of people previously infected is larger (UK 30%, FRA 15%), meaning that going into this winter, the UK had fewer people still exposed to the virus, less scope for a wave of hospitalisations.
Yes, those 9m infections since the end of May have made a huge difference to our overall picture. Having a summer/autumn exit wave is why we're very much on the endemic side of this
Needless Suffering
Britain offers a warning of what happens when a country ignores Covid.
Paywalled sadly. Is the article as hyperbolic and hysterical as the headline?
Yes. Limousine Liberal America will never forgive the UK for Brexit.
John Kerry of course has frequently said America's oldest ally is France not the UK
That is true. The UK is the USA's oldest enemy.
The US does have more in common with France in the sense that both are republics and France helped free the US from the British crown. There is not really any Toryism in the US as there is in say Canada or Australia for instance (with Canadian Conservatives and Australian Coalition members of Parliament often referred to as Tories).
However since the War of Independence the UK has generally fought more wars alongside the US than France has
The Labour Party is not a registered political party in Northern Ireland and does not currently contest elections.[2]
Well, I think the point is, that's a decision taken by Labour. They could contest elections if they wanted to. They could be pro-Union if they wanted to.
Personally, I don't see it as bad thing that they are neutral on the subject.
The whole argument arises from the lazy assumption that for anyone in Britain, the default patriotic only position is that NI (and indeed Scotland) ought to be part of the UK. Whether or not its inhabitants desire it. That simply doesn't follow.
No, there is a default assumption that a government of ANY country does not want to see part of the country break off to join another country. This is true of 99.3% of countries, Britain under a future Labour Party might be the only exception
I can see the strict logic in this Labour position, but boy the optics are bad, and it is an easy stick with which to batter them senseless - "they don't care if the UK breaks up" will be a statement of fact. Impossible to refute. Awful for a left-wing party already suspected of being non-patriotic if not treacherous
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
The PM didn’t say anything about qualifying his statement because the house isn’t sold to pay for care until after death.
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
The literal wording from the manifesto is "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " If that isn't about the inheritance left to pass on to their kids then what is it?
The whole reason for the reform is to stop someone's entire assets being swallowed up by care costs so that there is nothing left to inherit. And the PM stood up and repeatedly said that nobody would have to sell their home because the home is not counted as an asset. This is simply wrong. He either doesn't know his own policy or he is lying about it.
Question - how many of the red wallers are going to accept your attempts at sophistry and go "fair enough, I'm being taxed heavily so that I don't lose my home, but I'm going to lose it anyway whilst the well off dont. yes of course the Tories still have my vote".
Northerners are not stupid.
The PM said "nobody would have to sell their home" which is true. They have the option of selling it or not selling it with payments due being paid after death.
In addition there are situations where the main home is exempt anyway: at home care, spouse still living in the house, other relative over 60 living in house, any relative of any age still living in the house etc etc.
If you need to pay £86k and of your £100k assets almost all of it is your home, where exactly are you to get the money other than from the sale of the home?
Yes we know its payable after death - its the dementia death tax which removes inheritance. So why did he said "you don't need to sell your home" when you do? And if you definitely don't need to, why didn't the Solicitor General firmly put Jo Coburn back in her box on the telly just now?
Because the PM is lying.
I'm not sure that he is. His problem is that he doesn't do detail and decided that after a difficult period he had to do massive boosterism as a defence. So he glories in the amazing new policy proposal despite repeatedly making completely false statements to the house.
If the bill goes through without being hugely amended by the Lords, today's shambles will come back to bite him. Because we will have a manifesto saying "you won't have to sell your house", a PM saying "you won't have to sell your house" and then northern voters in the election campaign having to sell being told by the PM that they are wrong. I know I keep saying northerners aren't stupid, but some Tories and their parrots are really working on the assumption that they are.
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
The PM didn’t say anything about qualifying his statement because the house isn’t sold to pay for care until after death.
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
The literal wording from the manifesto is "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " If that isn't about the inheritance left to pass on to their kids then what is it?
The whole reason for the reform is to stop someone's entire assets being swallowed up by care costs so that there is nothing left to inherit. And the PM stood up and repeatedly said that nobody would have to sell their home because the home is not counted as an asset. This is simply wrong. He either doesn't know his own policy or he is lying about it.
Question - how many of the red wallers are going to accept your attempts at sophistry and go "fair enough, I'm being taxed heavily so that I don't lose my home, but I'm going to lose it anyway whilst the well off dont. yes of course the Tories still have my vote".
Northerners are not stupid.
The PM said "nobody would have to sell their home" which is true. They have the option of selling it or not selling it with payments due being paid after death.
In addition there are situations where the main home is exempt anyway: at home care, spouse still living in the house, other relative over 60 living in house, any relative of any age still living in the house etc etc.
If you need to pay £86k and of your £100k assets almost all of it is your home, where exactly are you to get the money other than from the sale of the home?
Yes we know its payable after death - its the dementia death tax which removes inheritance. So why did he said "you don't need to sell your home" when you do? And if you definitely don't need to, why didn't the Solicitor General firmly put Jo Coburn back in her box on the telly just now?
It won't play well in a country obsessed with property wealth and inheritance but legally and logically selling a home after you have died is not selling your home. Once you are dead, it temporarily belongs to your estate then the beneficiaries.
Completely off topic, but an attempt at taking advantage of the collective wisdom of PB. I'm meant to be going to Austria in the new year for a martial arts camp. Obviously their lockdown is meant to be over by then, but if you still believe "just a few weeks to flatten the curve" then you probably haven't been paying much attention!
Any suggestions for countries that are most likely to be open and worth visiting at that time (i.e. covid restrictions don't make the whole thing pointless, I had a friend who went to Singapore last week and it sounded dire unless you just wanted to sit by a hotel pool all day)?: If I lived abroad, England would be the obvious one, but I'm not keen on yet another domestic holiday.
I figure it'll be dependent on a combination of current vaccination/infection levels and political stance, so most of Europe is probably out. Canada also seems risky, so the only other place I can think of is the southern states of the USA. All ideas welcome!
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
The PM didn’t say anything about qualifying his statement because the house isn’t sold to pay for care until after death.
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
The literal wording from the manifesto is "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " If that isn't about the inheritance left to pass on to their kids then what is it?
The whole reason for the reform is to stop someone's entire assets being swallowed up by care costs so that there is nothing left to inherit. And the PM stood up and repeatedly said that nobody would have to sell their home because the home is not counted as an asset. This is simply wrong. He either doesn't know his own policy or he is lying about it.
Question - how many of the red wallers are going to accept your attempts at sophistry and go "fair enough, I'm being taxed heavily so that I don't lose my home, but I'm going to lose it anyway whilst the well off dont. yes of course the Tories still have my vote".
Northerners are not stupid.
The PM said "nobody would have to sell their home" which is true. They have the option of selling it or not selling it with payments due being paid after death.
In addition there are situations where the main home is exempt anyway: at home care, spouse still living in the house, other relative over 60 living in house, any relative of any age still living in the house etc etc.
If you need to pay £86k and of your £100k assets almost all of it is your home, where exactly are you to get the money other than from the sale of the home?
Yes we know its payable after death - its the dementia death tax which removes inheritance. So why did he said "you don't need to sell your home" when you do? And if you definitely don't need to, why didn't the Solicitor General firmly put Jo Coburn back in her box on the telly just now?
It won't play well in a country obsessed with property wealth and inheritance but legally and logically selling a home after you have died is not selling your home. Once you are dead, it temporarily belongs to your estate then the beneficiaries.
Or doesn't because it will have been sold to pay for your residential care home care...
Our risk guy is now saying 14/27 EU countries will implement lockdown measures or full lockdown over the next 3 months. It started as 3, he pushed it to 8 and now it's 14. Quite an indictment of how Europe decided not to face up to the reality of COVID and not pushing hard on booster shots. It's quite shocking how some nations still aren't despite the EU now having around 250m doses of Pfizer sitting in freezers and fridges across the 27 nations.
Completely off topic, but an attempt at taking advantage of the collective wisdom of PB. I'm meant to be going to Austria in the new year for a martial arts camp. Obviously their lockdown is meant to be over by then, but if you still believe "just a few weeks to flatten the curve" then you probably haven't been paying much attention!
Any suggestions for countries that are most likely to be open and worth visiting at that time (i.e. covid restrictions don't make the whole thing pointless, I had a friend who went to Singapore last week and it sounded dire unless you just wanted to sit by a hotel pool all day)?: If I lived abroad, England would be the obvious one, but I'm not keen on yet another domestic holiday.
I figure it'll be dependent on a combination of current vaccination/infection levels and political stance, so most of Europe is probably out. Canada also seems risky, so the only other place I can think of is the southern states of the USA. All ideas welcome!
Sunshine: Egypt? Or the Maldives?
New Zealand is now opening up and obvs has zero cases, almost, but it's a heck of a journey
Thailand is now open, but the bars are not (they are meant to open on Jan 15th). However if you get a close contact with a carrier (eg on the plane) you have to quarantine at your own expense for 2 weeks, I think. Not fun, and a big risk
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
The PM didn’t say anything about qualifying his statement because the house isn’t sold to pay for care until after death.
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
The literal wording from the manifesto is "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " If that isn't about the inheritance left to pass on to their kids then what is it?
The whole reason for the reform is to stop someone's entire assets being swallowed up by care costs so that there is nothing left to inherit. And the PM stood up and repeatedly said that nobody would have to sell their home because the home is not counted as an asset. This is simply wrong. He either doesn't know his own policy or he is lying about it.
Question - how many of the red wallers are going to accept your attempts at sophistry and go "fair enough, I'm being taxed heavily so that I don't lose my home, but I'm going to lose it anyway whilst the well off dont. yes of course the Tories still have my vote".
Northerners are not stupid.
The PM said "nobody would have to sell their home" which is true. They have the option of selling it or not selling it with payments due being paid after death.
In addition there are situations where the main home is exempt anyway: at home care, spouse still living in the house, other relative over 60 living in house, any relative of any age still living in the house etc etc.
If you need to pay £86k and of your £100k assets almost all of it is your home, where exactly are you to get the money other than from the sale of the home?
Yes we know its payable after death - its the dementia death tax which removes inheritance. So why did he said "you don't need to sell your home" when you do? And if you definitely don't need to, why didn't the Solicitor General firmly put Jo Coburn back in her box on the telly just now?
When you go into a care home you do not need to sell your home. Obviously there is accountability after death but what do you expect? That taxpayers cover everything when wealth in property can be used to cover some of the cost? You are misrepresenting things for party political reasons. As Starmer did earlier. And as the media did re: May's plans.
Social Care is important. We must stick to the facts. Below is a worked example from the published proposals which is not too dissimilar from yours.
"Yusuf is in his late 70s. He has lived on his own since his wife died from cancer ten years ago. When she died, he downsized from their family home in Hastings to a smaller property worth £180,000. As a result, he has £70,000 in savings.
Yusuf develops dementia, can no longer cope at home and needs to move into residential care. His underlying health is good and he ultimately spends eight years living at the residential home. Yusuf's care home costs £700 per week. Under the current system, Yusuf would spend about £293,000 on his care from his assets and his income, and as a result only have £72,000 left in assets.
Under the new system, Yusuf hits the £86,000 cap after three years and four months. He no longer needs to contribute for his personal care from either his assets or his income. Beyond this, he will only have to contribute towards daily living costs. He is now left with £173,000, almost 70 per cent of his original assets.
Over his whole care journey, Yusuf spends £123,000 less than under the current system."
France to announce new Covid measures as infections surge France is to announce new Covid measures tomorrow as infections surge across the country.
Spokesman Gabriel Attal said today that the government wants to strengthen social distancing and speed up vaccinations and said they are doing all they can to save the Christmas holiday season.
They also plan to tighten regulations on using the country’s health pass.
Despite this, he said the situation is likely to worsen in the coming days. The incidence rate (infections per week per 100,000 people) is expected to rise above 200 this week
The Labour Party is not a registered political party in Northern Ireland and does not currently contest elections.[2]
Well, I think the point is, that's a decision taken by Labour. They could contest elections if they wanted to. They could be pro-Union if they wanted to.
Personally, I don't see it as bad thing that they are neutral on the subject.
The whole argument arises from the lazy assumption that for anyone in Britain, the default patriotic only position is that NI (and indeed Scotland) ought to be part of the UK. Whether or not its inhabitants desire it. That simply doesn't follow.
No, there is a default assumption that a government of ANY country does not want to see part of the country break off to join another country. This is true of 99.3% of countries, Britain under a future Labour Party might be the only exception
I can see the strict logic in this Labour position, but boy the optics are bad, and it is an easy stick with which to batter them senseless - "they don't care if the UK breaks up" will be a statement of fact. Impossible to refute. Awful for a left-wing party already suspected of being non-patriotic if not treacherous
But hasn't that been the Labour Party approach for the best part of a century though: NI as part of the union so long as the majority desires it, but in parallel gently persuade them that a united Ireland is ultimately in everyone's best interest?
Completely off topic, but an attempt at taking advantage of the collective wisdom of PB. I'm meant to be going to Austria in the new year for a martial arts camp. Obviously their lockdown is meant to be over by then, but if you still believe "just a few weeks to flatten the curve" then you probably haven't been paying much attention!
Any suggestions for countries that are most likely to be open and worth visiting at that time (i.e. covid restrictions don't make the whole thing pointless, I had a friend who went to Singapore last week and it sounded dire unless you just wanted to sit by a hotel pool all day)?: If I lived abroad, England would be the obvious one, but I'm not keen on yet another domestic holiday.
I figure it'll be dependent on a combination of current vaccination/infection levels and political stance, so most of Europe is probably out. Canada also seems risky, so the only other place I can think of is the southern states of the USA. All ideas welcome!
We're thinking of Costa Rica, the pandemic looks all but over there. Hopefully the government decides to get rid of the last few restrictions before Feb when we're looking to go. Still not sure anywhere in the world except the UK, Sweden and a few red states in the US will be fully reopen before April though.
Interesting chart from the John Burn-Murdoch thread:
Despite UK having lower vax coverage than e.g Belgium & France, the difference in share of people previously infected is larger (UK 30%, FRA 15%), meaning that going into this winter, the UK had fewer people still exposed to the virus, less scope for a wave of hospitalisations.
Yes, those 9m infections since the end of May have made a huge difference to our overall picture. Having a summer/autumn exit wave is why we're very much on the endemic side of this
Needless Suffering
Britain offers a warning of what happens when a country ignores Covid.
Completely off topic, but an attempt at taking advantage of the collective wisdom of PB. I'm meant to be going to Austria in the new year for a martial arts camp. Obviously their lockdown is meant to be over by then, but if you still believe "just a few weeks to flatten the curve" then you probably haven't been paying much attention!
Any suggestions for countries that are most likely to be open and worth visiting at that time (i.e. covid restrictions don't make the whole thing pointless, I had a friend who went to Singapore last week and it sounded dire unless you just wanted to sit by a hotel pool all day)?: If I lived abroad, England would be the obvious one, but I'm not keen on yet another domestic holiday.
I figure it'll be dependent on a combination of current vaccination/infection levels and political stance, so most of Europe is probably out. Canada also seems risky, so the only other place I can think of is the southern states of the USA. All ideas welcome!
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
The PM didn’t say anything about qualifying his statement because the house isn’t sold to pay for care until after death.
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
The literal wording from the manifesto is "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " If that isn't about the inheritance left to pass on to their kids then what is it?
The whole reason for the reform is to stop someone's entire assets being swallowed up by care costs so that there is nothing left to inherit. And the PM stood up and repeatedly said that nobody would have to sell their home because the home is not counted as an asset. This is simply wrong. He either doesn't know his own policy or he is lying about it.
Question - how many of the red wallers are going to accept your attempts at sophistry and go "fair enough, I'm being taxed heavily so that I don't lose my home, but I'm going to lose it anyway whilst the well off dont. yes of course the Tories still have my vote".
Northerners are not stupid.
The PM said "nobody would have to sell their home" which is true. They have the option of selling it or not selling it with payments due being paid after death.
In addition there are situations where the main home is exempt anyway: at home care, spouse still living in the house, other relative over 60 living in house, any relative of any age still living in the house etc etc.
If you need to pay £86k and of your £100k assets almost all of it is your home, where exactly are you to get the money other than from the sale of the home?
Yes we know its payable after death - its the dementia death tax which removes inheritance. So why did he said "you don't need to sell your home" when you do? And if you definitely don't need to, why didn't the Solicitor General firmly put Jo Coburn back in her box on the telly just now?
It won't play well in a country obsessed with property wealth and inheritance but legally and logically selling a home after you have died is not selling your home. Once you are dead, it temporarily belongs to your estate then the beneficiaries.
Or doesn't because it will have been sold to pay for your residential care home care...
Then the house is not your home - the care home is.
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
The PM didn’t say anything about qualifying his statement because the house isn’t sold to pay for care until after death.
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
The literal wording from the manifesto is "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " If that isn't about the inheritance left to pass on to their kids then what is it?
The whole reason for the reform is to stop someone's entire assets being swallowed up by care costs so that there is nothing left to inherit. And the PM stood up and repeatedly said that nobody would have to sell their home because the home is not counted as an asset. This is simply wrong. He either doesn't know his own policy or he is lying about it.
Question - how many of the red wallers are going to accept your attempts at sophistry and go "fair enough, I'm being taxed heavily so that I don't lose my home, but I'm going to lose it anyway whilst the well off dont. yes of course the Tories still have my vote".
Northerners are not stupid.
The PM said "nobody would have to sell their home" which is true. They have the option of selling it or not selling it with payments due being paid after death.
In addition there are situations where the main home is exempt anyway: at home care, spouse still living in the house, other relative over 60 living in house, any relative of any age still living in the house etc etc.
If you need to pay £86k and of your £100k assets almost all of it is your home, where exactly are you to get the money other than from the sale of the home?
Yes we know its payable after death - its the dementia death tax which removes inheritance. So why did he said "you don't need to sell your home" when you do? And if you definitely don't need to, why didn't the Solicitor General firmly put Jo Coburn back in her box on the telly just now?
It won't play well in a country obsessed with property wealth and inheritance but legally and logically selling a home after you have died is not selling your home. Once you are dead, it temporarily belongs to your estate then the beneficiaries.
Or doesn't because it will have been sold to pay for your residential care home care...
I haven't read the details but presume the home has a charge against it similar to a mortgage, rather than has been sold?
If the house gains 30% value or drops 30% value who gets the change in value? The homeowner or the state? If the homeowner, then no, it has not been sold before death, and is no longer "your" home after death. If the state then you are correct.
France to announce new Covid measures as infections surge France is to announce new Covid measures tomorrow as infections surge across the country.
Spokesman Gabriel Attal said today that the government wants to strengthen social distancing and speed up vaccinations and said they are doing all they can to save the Christmas holiday season.
They also plan to tighten regulations on using the country’s health pass.
Despite this, he said the situation is likely to worsen in the coming days. The incidence rate (infections per week per 100,000 people) is expected to rise above 200 this week
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
The PM didn’t say anything about qualifying his statement because the house isn’t sold to pay for care until after death.
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
The literal wording from the manifesto is "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " If that isn't about the inheritance left to pass on to their kids then what is it?
The whole reason for the reform is to stop someone's entire assets being swallowed up by care costs so that there is nothing left to inherit. And the PM stood up and repeatedly said that nobody would have to sell their home because the home is not counted as an asset. This is simply wrong. He either doesn't know his own policy or he is lying about it.
Question - how many of the red wallers are going to accept your attempts at sophistry and go "fair enough, I'm being taxed heavily so that I don't lose my home, but I'm going to lose it anyway whilst the well off dont. yes of course the Tories still have my vote".
Northerners are not stupid.
The PM said "nobody would have to sell their home" which is true. They have the option of selling it or not selling it with payments due being paid after death.
In addition there are situations where the main home is exempt anyway: at home care, spouse still living in the house, other relative over 60 living in house, any relative of any age still living in the house etc etc.
If you need to pay £86k and of your £100k assets almost all of it is your home, where exactly are you to get the money other than from the sale of the home?
Yes we know its payable after death - its the dementia death tax which removes inheritance. So why did he said "you don't need to sell your home" when you do? And if you definitely don't need to, why didn't the Solicitor General firmly put Jo Coburn back in her box on the telly just now?
When you go into a care home you do not need to sell your home. Obviously there is accountability after death but what do you expect? That taxpayers cover everything when wealth in property can be used to cover some of the cost? You are misrepresenting things for party political reasons. As Starmer did earlier. And as the media did re: May's plans.
Social Care is important. We must stick to the facts. Below is a worked example from the published proposals which is not too dissimilar from yours.
"Yusuf is in his late 70s. He has lived on his own since his wife died from cancer ten years ago. When she died, he downsized from their family home in Hastings to a smaller property worth £180,000. As a result, he has £70,000 in savings.
Yusuf develops dementia, can no longer cope at home and needs to move into residential care. His underlying health is good and he ultimately spends eight years living at the residential home. Yusuf's care home costs £700 per week. Under the current system, Yusuf would spend about £293,000 on his care from his assets and his income, and as a result only have £72,000 left in assets.
Under the new system, Yusuf hits the £86,000 cap after three years and four months. He no longer needs to contribute for his personal care from either his assets or his income. Beyond this, he will only have to contribute towards daily living costs. He is now left with £173,000, almost 70 per cent of his original assets.
Over his whole care journey, Yusuf spends £123,000 less than under the current system."
You can sell the proposals or you can defend the PM's statement; they're not the same thing. In that example poor Yusuf can clearly only get the last £7,000 from the sale of his house.
France to announce new Covid measures as infections surge France is to announce new Covid measures tomorrow as infections surge across the country.
Spokesman Gabriel Attal said today that the government wants to strengthen social distancing and speed up vaccinations and said they are doing all they can to save the Christmas holiday season.
They also plan to tighten regulations on using the country’s health pass.
Despite this, he said the situation is likely to worsen in the coming days. The incidence rate (infections per week per 100,000 people) is expected to rise above 200 this week
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
The PM didn’t say anything about qualifying his statement because the house isn’t sold to pay for care until after death.
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
The literal wording from the manifesto is "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " If that isn't about the inheritance left to pass on to their kids then what is it?
The whole reason for the reform is to stop someone's entire assets being swallowed up by care costs so that there is nothing left to inherit. And the PM stood up and repeatedly said that nobody would have to sell their home because the home is not counted as an asset. This is simply wrong. He either doesn't know his own policy or he is lying about it.
Question - how many of the red wallers are going to accept your attempts at sophistry and go "fair enough, I'm being taxed heavily so that I don't lose my home, but I'm going to lose it anyway whilst the well off dont. yes of course the Tories still have my vote".
Northerners are not stupid.
The PM said "nobody would have to sell their home" which is true. They have the option of selling it or not selling it with payments due being paid after death.
In addition there are situations where the main home is exempt anyway: at home care, spouse still living in the house, other relative over 60 living in house, any relative of any age still living in the house etc etc.
If you need to pay £86k and of your £100k assets almost all of it is your home, where exactly are you to get the money other than from the sale of the home?
Yes we know its payable after death - its the dementia death tax which removes inheritance. So why did he said "you don't need to sell your home" when you do? And if you definitely don't need to, why didn't the Solicitor General firmly put Jo Coburn back in her box on the telly just now?
It won't play well in a country obsessed with property wealth and inheritance but legally and logically selling a home after you have died is not selling your home. Once you are dead, it temporarily belongs to your estate then the beneficiaries.
Or doesn't because it will have been sold to pay for your residential care home care...
I haven't read the details but presume the home has a charge against it similar to a mortgage, rather than has been sold?
If the house gains 30% value or drops 30% value who gets the change in value? The homeowner or the state? If the homeowner, then no, it has not been sold before death, and is no longer "your" home after death. If the state then you are correct.
No. It's not the home that has the charge against it, it is the local council. I don't think interest can be charged (but I'm not certain of this, maybe inflation proofed?). Any rise in house price goes to the beneficiaries of the will.
The Labour Party is not a registered political party in Northern Ireland and does not currently contest elections.[2]
Well, I think the point is, that's a decision taken by Labour. They could contest elections if they wanted to. They could be pro-Union if they wanted to.
Personally, I don't see it as bad thing that they are neutral on the subject.
The whole argument arises from the lazy assumption that for anyone in Britain, the default patriotic only position is that NI (and indeed Scotland) ought to be part of the UK. Whether or not its inhabitants desire it. That simply doesn't follow.
No, there is a default assumption that a government of ANY country does not want to see part of the country break off to join another country. This is true of 99.3% of countries, Britain under a future Labour Party might be the only exception
I can see the strict logic in this Labour position, but boy the optics are bad, and it is an easy stick with which to batter them senseless - "they don't care if the UK breaks up" will be a statement of fact. Impossible to refute. Awful for a left-wing party already suspected of being non-patriotic if not treacherous
But hasn't that been the Labour Party approach for the best part of a century though: NI as part of the union so long as the majority desires it, but in parallel gently persuade them that a united Ireland is ultimately in everyone's best interest?
Yes, hence why I said "I can see the strict logic", but after the traumatic experience of Corbyn, when Labour got destroyed by the perception of anti-patriotism, pro-IRA, anti-British Marxist bullshit, they should now run a mile from anything that remotely suggests a repeat of this
They didn't have to make this statement, and they should not have done so. Far better to stay quiet. But if they do feel a need to take a position, it should have been something like "as a future UK government, we will always want the UK to stay together, for the benefit of all; however we recognise the GFA and we will not interfere with the choice made by the people of Northern Ireland, it is for them to decide"
That's basically saying the same thing but avoiding the dread word "neutral". As a government you can not and must not be "neutral" on the break up of the country.
Harry Cole is right. This will probably come back to bite them on the arse, very badly.
The Labour Party is not a registered political party in Northern Ireland and does not currently contest elections.[2]
Well, I think the point is, that's a decision taken by Labour. They could contest elections if they wanted to. They could be pro-Union if they wanted to.
Personally, I don't see it as bad thing that they are neutral on the subject.
The whole argument arises from the lazy assumption that for anyone in Britain, the default patriotic only position is that NI (and indeed Scotland) ought to be part of the UK. Whether or not its inhabitants desire it. That simply doesn't follow.
No, there is a default assumption that a government of ANY country does not want to see part of the country break off to join another country. This is true of 99.3% of countries, Britain under a future Labour Party might be the only exception
I can see the strict logic in this Labour position, but boy the optics are bad, and it is an easy stick with which to batter them senseless - "they don't care if the UK breaks up" will be a statement of fact. Impossible to refute. Awful for a left-wing party already suspected of being non-patriotic if not treacherous
But hasn't that been the Labour Party approach for the best part of a century though: NI as part of the union so long as the majority desires it, but in parallel gently persuade them that a united Ireland is ultimately in everyone's best interest?
Yes, hence why I said "I can see the strict logic", but after the traumatic experience of Corbyn, when Labour got destroyed by the perception of anti-patriotism, pro-IRA, anti-British Marxist bullshit, they should now run a mile from anything that remotely suggests a repeat of this
They didn't have to make this statement, and they should not have done so. Far better to stay quiet. But if they do feel a need to take a position, it should have been something like "as a future UK government, we will always want the UK to stay together, for the benefit of all; however we recognise the GFA and we will not interfere with the choice made by the people of Northern Ireland, it is for them to decide"
That's basically saying the same thing but avoiding the dread word "neutral". As a government you can not and must not be "neutral" on the break up of the country.
Harry Cole is right. This will probably come back to bite them on the arse, very badly.
More to the point it will prevent them ever getting DUP support if they are Kingmakers again like 2017.
Telling that Boris Johnson cannot answer that yes or no question.
What question was it? As in fairness many yes or no questions that are put cannot properly be answered in a non misleading way if you are told to say just yes or no.
Which is why people demand it of course.
That said I can easily believe he fails to answer do even when appropriate and easy.
Will people need to sell their homes to fund social care.
Yes or no.
Yes, that one is pretty straightforward.
As I understand it Johnson is technically correct. The person in receipt of care will not have to sell their house - because they will be dead. It is the children who will have to sell the house to pay the bills.
The Labour Party is not a registered political party in Northern Ireland and does not currently contest elections.[2]
Well, I think the point is, that's a decision taken by Labour. They could contest elections if they wanted to. They could be pro-Union if they wanted to.
Personally, I don't see it as bad thing that they are neutral on the subject.
The whole argument arises from the lazy assumption that for anyone in Britain, the default patriotic only position is that NI (and indeed Scotland) ought to be part of the UK. Whether or not its inhabitants desire it. That simply doesn't follow.
No, there is a default assumption that a government of ANY country does not want to see part of the country break off to join another country. This is true of 99.3% of countries, Britain under a future Labour Party might be the only exception
I can see the strict logic in this Labour position, but boy the optics are bad, and it is an easy stick with which to batter them senseless - "they don't care if the UK breaks up" will be a statement of fact. Impossible to refute. Awful for a left-wing party already suspected of being non-patriotic if not treacherous
But hasn't that been the Labour Party approach for the best part of a century though: NI as part of the union so long as the majority desires it, but in parallel gently persuade them that a united Ireland is ultimately in everyone's best interest?
Yes, hence why I said "I can see the strict logic", but after the traumatic experience of Corbyn, when Labour got destroyed by the perception of anti-patriotism, pro-IRA, anti-British Marxist bullshit, they should now run a mile from anything that remotely suggests a repeat of this
They didn't have to make this statement, and they should not have done so. Far better to stay quiet. But if they do feel a need to take a position, it should have been something like "as a future UK government, we will always want the UK to stay together, for the benefit of all; however we recognise the GFA and we will not interfere with the choice made by the people of Northern Ireland, it is for them to decide"
That's basically saying the same thing but avoiding the dread word "neutral". As a government you can not and must not be "neutral" on the break up of the country.
Harry Cole is right. This will probably come back to bite them on the arse, very badly.
Just goes to show what a genius Boris is.
Lab has some namby-pamby sympathy for Irish Republicans: the Party is lambasted for it; the Conservative government puts a border in the Irish Sea, thereby setting in motion a path to Irish reunification: trebles all round.
France to announce new Covid measures as infections surge France is to announce new Covid measures tomorrow as infections surge across the country.
Spokesman Gabriel Attal said today that the government wants to strengthen social distancing and speed up vaccinations and said they are doing all they can to save the Christmas holiday season.
They also plan to tighten regulations on using the country’s health pass.
Despite this, he said the situation is likely to worsen in the coming days. The incidence rate (infections per week per 100,000 people) is expected to rise above 200 this week
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
The PM didn’t say anything about qualifying his statement because the house isn’t sold to pay for care until after death.
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
The literal wording from the manifesto is "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " If that isn't about the inheritance left to pass on to their kids then what is it?
The whole reason for the reform is to stop someone's entire assets being swallowed up by care costs so that there is nothing left to inherit. And the PM stood up and repeatedly said that nobody would have to sell their home because the home is not counted as an asset. This is simply wrong. He either doesn't know his own policy or he is lying about it.
Question - how many of the red wallers are going to accept your attempts at sophistry and go "fair enough, I'm being taxed heavily so that I don't lose my home, but I'm going to lose it anyway whilst the well off dont. yes of course the Tories still have my vote".
Northerners are not stupid.
The PM said "nobody would have to sell their home" which is true. They have the option of selling it or not selling it with payments due being paid after death.
In addition there are situations where the main home is exempt anyway: at home care, spouse still living in the house, other relative over 60 living in house, any relative of any age still living in the house etc etc.
If you need to pay £86k and of your £100k assets almost all of it is your home, where exactly are you to get the money other than from the sale of the home?
Yes we know its payable after death - its the dementia death tax which removes inheritance. So why did he said "you don't need to sell your home" when you do? And if you definitely don't need to, why didn't the Solicitor General firmly put Jo Coburn back in her box on the telly just now?
It won't play well in a country obsessed with property wealth and inheritance but legally and logically selling a home after you have died is not selling your home. Once you are dead, it temporarily belongs to your estate then the beneficiaries.
Or doesn't because it will have been sold to pay for your residential care home care...
I haven't read the details but presume the home has a charge against it similar to a mortgage, rather than has been sold?
If the house gains 30% value or drops 30% value who gets the change in value? The homeowner or the state? If the homeowner, then no, it has not been sold before death, and is no longer "your" home after death. If the state then you are correct.
No. It's not the home that has the charge against it, it is the local council. I don't think interest can be charged (but I'm not certain of this, maybe inflation proofed?). Any rise in house price goes to the beneficiaries of the will.
I don't know many house sales where you sell the house but are still entitled to the change in its future value, so for me, I think technically the PM may be correct.
Politically, because of emotional attachment to homes and inheritances, more people will see this as lying though.
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
The PM didn’t say anything about qualifying his statement because the house isn’t sold to pay for care until after death.
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
The literal wording from the manifesto is "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " If that isn't about the inheritance left to pass on to their kids then what is it?
The whole reason for the reform is to stop someone's entire assets being swallowed up by care costs so that there is nothing left to inherit. And the PM stood up and repeatedly said that nobody would have to sell their home because the home is not counted as an asset. This is simply wrong. He either doesn't know his own policy or he is lying about it.
Question - how many of the red wallers are going to accept your attempts at sophistry and go "fair enough, I'm being taxed heavily so that I don't lose my home, but I'm going to lose it anyway whilst the well off dont. yes of course the Tories still have my vote".
Northerners are not stupid.
The PM said "nobody would have to sell their home" which is true. They have the option of selling it or not selling it with payments due being paid after death.
In addition there are situations where the main home is exempt anyway: at home care, spouse still living in the house, other relative over 60 living in house, any relative of any age still living in the house etc etc.
If you need to pay £86k and of your £100k assets almost all of it is your home, where exactly are you to get the money other than from the sale of the home?
Yes we know its payable after death - its the dementia death tax which removes inheritance. So why did he said "you don't need to sell your home" when you do? And if you definitely don't need to, why didn't the Solicitor General firmly put Jo Coburn back in her box on the telly just now?
When you go into a care home you do not need to sell your home. Obviously there is accountability after death but what do you expect? That taxpayers cover everything when wealth in property can be used to cover some of the cost? You are misrepresenting things for party political reasons. As Starmer did earlier. And as the media did re: May's plans.
Social Care is important. We must stick to the facts. Below is a worked example from the published proposals which is not too dissimilar from yours.
"Yusuf is in his late 70s. He has lived on his own since his wife died from cancer ten years ago. When she died, he downsized from their family home in Hastings to a smaller property worth £180,000. As a result, he has £70,000 in savings.
Yusuf develops dementia, can no longer cope at home and needs to move into residential care. His underlying health is good and he ultimately spends eight years living at the residential home. Yusuf's care home costs £700 per week. Under the current system, Yusuf would spend about £293,000 on his care from his assets and his income, and as a result only have £72,000 left in assets.
Under the new system, Yusuf hits the £86,000 cap after three years and four months. He no longer needs to contribute for his personal care from either his assets or his income. Beyond this, he will only have to contribute towards daily living costs. He is now left with £173,000, almost 70 per cent of his original assets.
Over his whole care journey, Yusuf spends £123,000 less than under the current system."
You can sell the proposals or you can defend the PM's statement; they're not the same thing. In that example poor Yusuf can clearly only get the last £7,000 from the sale of his house.
I wasn't meaning to conflate - and I have no interest in selling anything - we good liberals should be interested in logic and reason - just showing that in this worked example Yusef (or rather his beneficiaries) are substantially better off than under the present system - and his estate is a modest one.
The unfairness, if you want to find one, is that homeowners (either directly or via a reduced estate to the beneficiaries) have to pay for care when non-homeowners do not. That penalises prudence and many will bridle at this. Me? I see both sides of this. On one hand why should taxpayers pay for everything and on the other should main residence be treated as cash would be? Dunno.
Fixing social care is a trap which May and now Johnson have fallen into.
The Labour Party is not a registered political party in Northern Ireland and does not currently contest elections.[2]
Well, I think the point is, that's a decision taken by Labour. They could contest elections if they wanted to. They could be pro-Union if they wanted to.
Personally, I don't see it as bad thing that they are neutral on the subject.
The whole argument arises from the lazy assumption that for anyone in Britain, the default patriotic only position is that NI (and indeed Scotland) ought to be part of the UK. Whether or not its inhabitants desire it. That simply doesn't follow.
No, there is a default assumption that a government of ANY country does not want to see part of the country break off to join another country. This is true of 99.3% of countries, Britain under a future Labour Party might be the only exception
I can see the strict logic in this Labour position, but boy the optics are bad, and it is an easy stick with which to batter them senseless - "they don't care if the UK breaks up" will be a statement of fact. Impossible to refute. Awful for a left-wing party already suspected of being non-patriotic if not treacherous
But hasn't that been the Labour Party approach for the best part of a century though: NI as part of the union so long as the majority desires it, but in parallel gently persuade them that a united Ireland is ultimately in everyone's best interest?
Yes, hence why I said "I can see the strict logic", but after the traumatic experience of Corbyn, when Labour got destroyed by the perception of anti-patriotism, pro-IRA, anti-British Marxist bullshit, they should now run a mile from anything that remotely suggests a repeat of this
They didn't have to make this statement, and they should not have done so. Far better to stay quiet. But if they do feel a need to take a position, it should have been something like "as a future UK government, we will always want the UK to stay together, for the benefit of all; however we recognise the GFA and we will not interfere with the choice made by the people of Northern Ireland, it is for them to decide"
That's basically saying the same thing but avoiding the dread word "neutral". As a government you can not and must not be "neutral" on the break up of the country.
Harry Cole is right. This will probably come back to bite them on the arse, very badly.
Just goes to show what a genius Boris is.
Lab has some namby-pamby sympathy for Irish Republicans: the Party is lambasted for it; the Conservative government puts a border in the Irish Sea, thereby setting in motion a path to Irish reunification: trebles all round.
There won't be a Border poll for decades (if ever). The gentlemen of violence, on both sides, will see to that
As soon as it looks like one might be imminent, there will be bombs, and everyone will go off the idea. Even (especially?) the Irish in the south
The Labour Party is not a registered political party in Northern Ireland and does not currently contest elections.[2]
Well, I think the point is, that's a decision taken by Labour. They could contest elections if they wanted to. They could be pro-Union if they wanted to.
Personally, I don't see it as bad thing that they are neutral on the subject.
The whole argument arises from the lazy assumption that for anyone in Britain, the default patriotic only position is that NI (and indeed Scotland) ought to be part of the UK. Whether or not its inhabitants desire it. That simply doesn't follow.
No, there is a default assumption that a government of ANY country does not want to see part of the country break off to join another country. This is true of 99.3% of countries, Britain under a future Labour Party might be the only exception
I can see the strict logic in this Labour position, but boy the optics are bad, and it is an easy stick with which to batter them senseless - "they don't care if the UK breaks up" will be a statement of fact. Impossible to refute. Awful for a left-wing party already suspected of being non-patriotic if not treacherous
But hasn't that been the Labour Party approach for the best part of a century though: NI as part of the union so long as the majority desires it, but in parallel gently persuade them that a united Ireland is ultimately in everyone's best interest?
Yes, hence why I said "I can see the strict logic", but after the traumatic experience of Corbyn, when Labour got destroyed by the perception of anti-patriotism, pro-IRA, anti-British Marxist bullshit, they should now run a mile from anything that remotely suggests a repeat of this
They didn't have to make this statement, and they should not have done so. Far better to stay quiet. But if they do feel a need to take a position, it should have been something like "as a future UK government, we will always want the UK to stay together, for the benefit of all; however we recognise the GFA and we will not interfere with the choice made by the people of Northern Ireland, it is for them to decide"
That's basically saying the same thing but avoiding the dread word "neutral". As a government you can not and must not be "neutral" on the break up of the country.
Harry Cole is right. This will probably come back to bite them on the arse, very badly.
Just goes to show what a genius Boris is.
Lab has some namby-pamby sympathy for Irish Republicans: the Party is lambasted for it; the Conservative government puts a border in the Irish Sea, thereby setting in motion a path to Irish reunification: trebles all round.
The Government will next year invoke Article 16 to suspend the Irish Sea border it seems
Interesting chart from the John Burn-Murdoch thread:
Despite UK having lower vax coverage than e.g Belgium & France, the difference in share of people previously infected is larger (UK 30%, FRA 15%), meaning that going into this winter, the UK had fewer people still exposed to the virus, less scope for a wave of hospitalisations.
Yes, those 9m infections since the end of May have made a huge difference to our overall picture. Having a summer/autumn exit wave is why we're very much on the endemic side of this
Needless Suffering
Britain offers a warning of what happens when a country ignores Covid.
Paywalled sadly. Is the article as hyperbolic and hysterical as the headline?
I won't be naughty, but there is a paywall 12 foot ladder available to be able to read such articles...
Thanks! I have located the ladder! Actually, I thought the piece was fairly balanced in NYT terms. They seemed to have talked themselves out of their own headline by the end – having examined the facts...
The Labour Party is not a registered political party in Northern Ireland and does not currently contest elections.[2]
Well, I think the point is, that's a decision taken by Labour. They could contest elections if they wanted to. They could be pro-Union if they wanted to.
Personally, I don't see it as bad thing that they are neutral on the subject.
The whole argument arises from the lazy assumption that for anyone in Britain, the default patriotic only position is that NI (and indeed Scotland) ought to be part of the UK. Whether or not its inhabitants desire it. That simply doesn't follow.
No, there is a default assumption that a government of ANY country does not want to see part of the country break off to join another country. This is true of 99.3% of countries, Britain under a future Labour Party might be the only exception
I can see the strict logic in this Labour position, but boy the optics are bad, and it is an easy stick with which to batter them senseless - "they don't care if the UK breaks up" will be a statement of fact. Impossible to refute. Awful for a left-wing party already suspected of being non-patriotic if not treacherous
But hasn't that been the Labour Party approach for the best part of a century though: NI as part of the union so long as the majority desires it, but in parallel gently persuade them that a united Ireland is ultimately in everyone's best interest?
Yes, hence why I said "I can see the strict logic", but after the traumatic experience of Corbyn, when Labour got destroyed by the perception of anti-patriotism, pro-IRA, anti-British Marxist bullshit, they should now run a mile from anything that remotely suggests a repeat of this
They didn't have to make this statement, and they should not have done so. Far better to stay quiet. But if they do feel a need to take a position, it should have been something like "as a future UK government, we will always want the UK to stay together, for the benefit of all; however we recognise the GFA and we will not interfere with the choice made by the people of Northern Ireland, it is for them to decide"
That's basically saying the same thing but avoiding the dread word "neutral". As a government you can not and must not be "neutral" on the break up of the country.
Harry Cole is right. This will probably come back to bite them on the arse, very badly.
Just goes to show what a genius Boris is.
Lab has some namby-pamby sympathy for Irish Republicans: the Party is lambasted for it; the Conservative government puts a border in the Irish Sea, thereby setting in motion a path to Irish reunification: trebles all round.
There won't be a Border poll for decades (if ever). The gentlemen of violence, on both sides, will see to that
As soon as it looks like one might be imminent, there will be bombs, and everyone will go off the idea. Even (especially?) the Irish in the south
Were I an Irish Republican sympathiser I would be very happy with the current state of play in GB treating NI as a separate entity. Very happy indeed. And my AK can stay in its hide all the while.
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
The PM didn’t say anything about qualifying his statement because the house isn’t sold to pay for care until after death.
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
The literal wording from the manifesto is "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " If that isn't about the inheritance left to pass on to their kids then what is it?
The whole reason for the reform is to stop someone's entire assets being swallowed up by care costs so that there is nothing left to inherit. And the PM stood up and repeatedly said that nobody would have to sell their home because the home is not counted as an asset. This is simply wrong. He either doesn't know his own policy or he is lying about it.
Question - how many of the red wallers are going to accept your attempts at sophistry and go "fair enough, I'm being taxed heavily so that I don't lose my home, but I'm going to lose it anyway whilst the well off dont. yes of course the Tories still have my vote".
Northerners are not stupid.
The PM said "nobody would have to sell their home" which is true. They have the option of selling it or not selling it with payments due being paid after death.
In addition there are situations where the main home is exempt anyway: at home care, spouse still living in the house, other relative over 60 living in house, any relative of any age still living in the house etc etc.
If you need to pay £86k and of your £100k assets almost all of it is your home, where exactly are you to get the money other than from the sale of the home?
Yes we know its payable after death - its the dementia death tax which removes inheritance. So why did he said "you don't need to sell your home" when you do? And if you definitely don't need to, why didn't the Solicitor General firmly put Jo Coburn back in her box on the telly just now?
It won't play well in a country obsessed with property wealth and inheritance but legally and logically selling a home after you have died is not selling your home. Once you are dead, it temporarily belongs to your estate then the beneficiaries.
Or doesn't because it will have been sold to pay for your residential care home care...
I haven't read the details but presume the home has a charge against it similar to a mortgage, rather than has been sold?
If the house gains 30% value or drops 30% value who gets the change in value? The homeowner or the state? If the homeowner, then no, it has not been sold before death, and is no longer "your" home after death. If the state then you are correct.
No. It's not the home that has the charge against it, it is the local council. I don't think interest can be charged (but I'm not certain of this, maybe inflation proofed?). Any rise in house price goes to the beneficiaries of the will.
I don't know many house sales where you sell the house but are still entitled to the change in its future value, so for me, I think technically the PM may be correct.
Politically, because of emotional attachment to homes and inheritances, more people will see this as lying though.
You are not selling anything. You are retaining 100% of the ownership but accepting a charge that means that the council can recoup their costs, which in effect they have loaned, after death. of course the homeowner/beneficiaries take any rise in house price in the interim, though of course the reverse is true if the house price falls.
The Labour Party is not a registered political party in Northern Ireland and does not currently contest elections.[2]
Well, I think the point is, that's a decision taken by Labour. They could contest elections if they wanted to. They could be pro-Union if they wanted to.
Personally, I don't see it as bad thing that they are neutral on the subject.
The whole argument arises from the lazy assumption that for anyone in Britain, the default patriotic only position is that NI (and indeed Scotland) ought to be part of the UK. Whether or not its inhabitants desire it. That simply doesn't follow.
No, there is a default assumption that a government of ANY country does not want to see part of the country break off to join another country. This is true of 99.3% of countries, Britain under a future Labour Party might be the only exception
I can see the strict logic in this Labour position, but boy the optics are bad, and it is an easy stick with which to batter them senseless - "they don't care if the UK breaks up" will be a statement of fact. Impossible to refute. Awful for a left-wing party already suspected of being non-patriotic if not treacherous
But hasn't that been the Labour Party approach for the best part of a century though: NI as part of the union so long as the majority desires it, but in parallel gently persuade them that a united Ireland is ultimately in everyone's best interest?
Yes, hence why I said "I can see the strict logic", but after the traumatic experience of Corbyn, when Labour got destroyed by the perception of anti-patriotism, pro-IRA, anti-British Marxist bullshit, they should now run a mile from anything that remotely suggests a repeat of this
They didn't have to make this statement, and they should not have done so. Far better to stay quiet. But if they do feel a need to take a position, it should have been something like "as a future UK government, we will always want the UK to stay together, for the benefit of all; however we recognise the GFA and we will not interfere with the choice made by the people of Northern Ireland, it is for them to decide"
That's basically saying the same thing but avoiding the dread word "neutral". As a government you can not and must not be "neutral" on the break up of the country.
Harry Cole is right. This will probably come back to bite them on the arse, very badly.
So, wait, if a majority of the people of Northern Ireland wanted NI to be independent or part of Ireland, you think the UK government should interfere with that choice?
The Labour Party is not a registered political party in Northern Ireland and does not currently contest elections.[2]
Well, I think the point is, that's a decision taken by Labour. They could contest elections if they wanted to. They could be pro-Union if they wanted to.
Personally, I don't see it as bad thing that they are neutral on the subject.
The whole argument arises from the lazy assumption that for anyone in Britain, the default patriotic only position is that NI (and indeed Scotland) ought to be part of the UK. Whether or not its inhabitants desire it. That simply doesn't follow.
No, there is a default assumption that a government of ANY country does not want to see part of the country break off to join another country. This is true of 99.3% of countries, Britain under a future Labour Party might be the only exception
I can see the strict logic in this Labour position, but boy the optics are bad, and it is an easy stick with which to batter them senseless - "they don't care if the UK breaks up" will be a statement of fact. Impossible to refute. Awful for a left-wing party already suspected of being non-patriotic if not treacherous
But hasn't that been the Labour Party approach for the best part of a century though: NI as part of the union so long as the majority desires it, but in parallel gently persuade them that a united Ireland is ultimately in everyone's best interest?
Yes, hence why I said "I can see the strict logic", but after the traumatic experience of Corbyn, when Labour got destroyed by the perception of anti-patriotism, pro-IRA, anti-British Marxist bullshit, they should now run a mile from anything that remotely suggests a repeat of this
They didn't have to make this statement, and they should not have done so. Far better to stay quiet. But if they do feel a need to take a position, it should have been something like "as a future UK government, we will always want the UK to stay together, for the benefit of all; however we recognise the GFA and we will not interfere with the choice made by the people of Northern Ireland, it is for them to decide"
That's basically saying the same thing but avoiding the dread word "neutral". As a government you can not and must not be "neutral" on the break up of the country.
Harry Cole is right. This will probably come back to bite them on the arse, very badly.
Just goes to show what a genius Boris is.
Lab has some namby-pamby sympathy for Irish Republicans: the Party is lambasted for it; the Conservative government puts a border in the Irish Sea, thereby setting in motion a path to Irish reunification: trebles all round.
The Government will next year invoke Article 16 to suspend the Irish Sea border it seems
The Labour Party is not a registered political party in Northern Ireland and does not currently contest elections.[2]
Well, I think the point is, that's a decision taken by Labour. They could contest elections if they wanted to. They could be pro-Union if they wanted to.
Personally, I don't see it as bad thing that they are neutral on the subject.
The whole argument arises from the lazy assumption that for anyone in Britain, the default patriotic only position is that NI (and indeed Scotland) ought to be part of the UK. Whether or not its inhabitants desire it. That simply doesn't follow.
No, there is a default assumption that a government of ANY country does not want to see part of the country break off to join another country. This is true of 99.3% of countries, Britain under a future Labour Party might be the only exception
I can see the strict logic in this Labour position, but boy the optics are bad, and it is an easy stick with which to batter them senseless - "they don't care if the UK breaks up" will be a statement of fact. Impossible to refute. Awful for a left-wing party already suspected of being non-patriotic if not treacherous
But hasn't that been the Labour Party approach for the best part of a century though: NI as part of the union so long as the majority desires it, but in parallel gently persuade them that a united Ireland is ultimately in everyone's best interest?
Yes, hence why I said "I can see the strict logic", but after the traumatic experience of Corbyn, when Labour got destroyed by the perception of anti-patriotism, pro-IRA, anti-British Marxist bullshit, they should now run a mile from anything that remotely suggests a repeat of this
They didn't have to make this statement, and they should not have done so. Far better to stay quiet. But if they do feel a need to take a position, it should have been something like "as a future UK government, we will always want the UK to stay together, for the benefit of all; however we recognise the GFA and we will not interfere with the choice made by the people of Northern Ireland, it is for them to decide"
That's basically saying the same thing but avoiding the dread word "neutral". As a government you can not and must not be "neutral" on the break up of the country.
Harry Cole is right. This will probably come back to bite them on the arse, very badly.
Just goes to show what a genius Boris is.
Lab has some namby-pamby sympathy for Irish Republicans: the Party is lambasted for it; the Conservative government puts a border in the Irish Sea, thereby setting in motion a path to Irish reunification: trebles all round.
The Government will next year invoke Article 16 to suspend the Irish Sea border it seems
Can't wait. Meanwhile in events closer to home, what about the 2.10 Novice Hurdle at Hereford?
"Countries should consider mandatory Covid vaccination, says WHO Europe
Countries should consider implementing mandatory Covid vaccination, the director of World Health Organization (WHO) Europe said today.
Robb Butler said that although “mandatory vaccine can, but does not always, increase uptake”, he suggested countries should start thinking about the issue.
It comes after Germany’s tourism commissioner, Thomas Bareiss, said he expected vaccination to become mandatory in the country. Austria plans to make it compulsory from February."
(Guardian Live blog)
If this happens, anti-vaxxers will riot, and it will be much worse than anything hitherto. So many of them REALLY believe. I foresee violence, and deaths. Tragically
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
The PM didn’t say anything about qualifying his statement because the house isn’t sold to pay for care until after death.
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
The literal wording from the manifesto is "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " If that isn't about the inheritance left to pass on to their kids then what is it?
The whole reason for the reform is to stop someone's entire assets being swallowed up by care costs so that there is nothing left to inherit. And the PM stood up and repeatedly said that nobody would have to sell their home because the home is not counted as an asset. This is simply wrong. He either doesn't know his own policy or he is lying about it.
Question - how many of the red wallers are going to accept your attempts at sophistry and go "fair enough, I'm being taxed heavily so that I don't lose my home, but I'm going to lose it anyway whilst the well off dont. yes of course the Tories still have my vote".
Northerners are not stupid.
The PM said "nobody would have to sell their home" which is true. They have the option of selling it or not selling it with payments due being paid after death.
In addition there are situations where the main home is exempt anyway: at home care, spouse still living in the house, other relative over 60 living in house, any relative of any age still living in the house etc etc.
If you need to pay £86k and of your £100k assets almost all of it is your home, where exactly are you to get the money other than from the sale of the home?
Yes we know its payable after death - its the dementia death tax which removes inheritance. So why did he said "you don't need to sell your home" when you do? And if you definitely don't need to, why didn't the Solicitor General firmly put Jo Coburn back in her box on the telly just now?
When you go into a care home you do not need to sell your home. Obviously there is accountability after death but what do you expect? That taxpayers cover everything when wealth in property can be used to cover some of the cost? You are misrepresenting things for party political reasons. As Starmer did earlier. And as the media did re: May's plans.
Social Care is important. We must stick to the facts. Below is a worked example from the published proposals which is not too dissimilar from yours.
"Yusuf is in his late 70s. He has lived on his own since his wife died from cancer ten years ago. When she died, he downsized from their family home in Hastings to a smaller property worth £180,000. As a result, he has £70,000 in savings.
Yusuf develops dementia, can no longer cope at home and needs to move into residential care. His underlying health is good and he ultimately spends eight years living at the residential home. Yusuf's care home costs £700 per week. Under the current system, Yusuf would spend about £293,000 on his care from his assets and his income, and as a result only have £72,000 left in assets.
Under the new system, Yusuf hits the £86,000 cap after three years and four months. He no longer needs to contribute for his personal care from either his assets or his income. Beyond this, he will only have to contribute towards daily living costs. He is now left with £173,000, almost 70 per cent of his original assets.
Over his whole care journey, Yusuf spends £123,000 less than under the current system."
You can sell the proposals or you can defend the PM's statement; they're not the same thing. In that example poor Yusuf can clearly only get the last £7,000 from the sale of his house.
I wasn't meaning to conflate - and I have no interest in selling anything - we good liberals should be interested in logic and reason - just showing that in this worked example Yusef (or rather his beneficiaries) are substantially better off than under the present system - and his estate is a modest one.
The unfairness, if you want to find one, is that homeowners (either directly or via a reduced estate to the beneficiaries) have to pay for care when non-homeowners do not. That penalises prudence and many will bridle at this. Me? I see both sides of this. On one hand why should taxpayers pay for everything and on the other should main residence be treated as cash would be? Dunno.
Fixing social care is a trap which May and now Johnson have fallen into.
It is not true that homeowners have to pay and non homeowners don't. It is to do with wealth, there are rich, well off and median renters out there who will pay more than many homeowners, even if there are fewer of us.
The Labour Party is not a registered political party in Northern Ireland and does not currently contest elections.[2]
Well, I think the point is, that's a decision taken by Labour. They could contest elections if they wanted to. They could be pro-Union if they wanted to.
Personally, I don't see it as bad thing that they are neutral on the subject.
The whole argument arises from the lazy assumption that for anyone in Britain, the default patriotic only position is that NI (and indeed Scotland) ought to be part of the UK. Whether or not its inhabitants desire it. That simply doesn't follow.
No, there is a default assumption that a government of ANY country does not want to see part of the country break off to join another country. This is true of 99.3% of countries, Britain under a future Labour Party might be the only exception
I can see the strict logic in this Labour position, but boy the optics are bad, and it is an easy stick with which to batter them senseless - "they don't care if the UK breaks up" will be a statement of fact. Impossible to refute. Awful for a left-wing party already suspected of being non-patriotic if not treacherous
But hasn't that been the Labour Party approach for the best part of a century though: NI as part of the union so long as the majority desires it, but in parallel gently persuade them that a united Ireland is ultimately in everyone's best interest?
Yes, hence why I said "I can see the strict logic", but after the traumatic experience of Corbyn, when Labour got destroyed by the perception of anti-patriotism, pro-IRA, anti-British Marxist bullshit, they should now run a mile from anything that remotely suggests a repeat of this
They didn't have to make this statement, and they should not have done so. Far better to stay quiet. But if they do feel a need to take a position, it should have been something like "as a future UK government, we will always want the UK to stay together, for the benefit of all; however we recognise the GFA and we will not interfere with the choice made by the people of Northern Ireland, it is for them to decide"
That's basically saying the same thing but avoiding the dread word "neutral". As a government you can not and must not be "neutral" on the break up of the country.
Harry Cole is right. This will probably come back to bite them on the arse, very badly.
So, wait, if a majority of the people of Northern Ireland wanted NI to be independent or part of Ireland, you think the UK government should interfere with that choice?
The Labour Party is not a registered political party in Northern Ireland and does not currently contest elections.[2]
Well, I think the point is, that's a decision taken by Labour. They could contest elections if they wanted to. They could be pro-Union if they wanted to.
Personally, I don't see it as bad thing that they are neutral on the subject.
The whole argument arises from the lazy assumption that for anyone in Britain, the default patriotic only position is that NI (and indeed Scotland) ought to be part of the UK. Whether or not its inhabitants desire it. That simply doesn't follow.
No, there is a default assumption that a government of ANY country does not want to see part of the country break off to join another country. This is true of 99.3% of countries, Britain under a future Labour Party might be the only exception
I can see the strict logic in this Labour position, but boy the optics are bad, and it is an easy stick with which to batter them senseless - "they don't care if the UK breaks up" will be a statement of fact. Impossible to refute. Awful for a left-wing party already suspected of being non-patriotic if not treacherous
But hasn't that been the Labour Party approach for the best part of a century though: NI as part of the union so long as the majority desires it, but in parallel gently persuade them that a united Ireland is ultimately in everyone's best interest?
Yes, hence why I said "I can see the strict logic", but after the traumatic experience of Corbyn, when Labour got destroyed by the perception of anti-patriotism, pro-IRA, anti-British Marxist bullshit, they should now run a mile from anything that remotely suggests a repeat of this
They didn't have to make this statement, and they should not have done so. Far better to stay quiet. But if they do feel a need to take a position, it should have been something like "as a future UK government, we will always want the UK to stay together, for the benefit of all; however we recognise the GFA and we will not interfere with the choice made by the people of Northern Ireland, it is for them to decide"
That's basically saying the same thing but avoiding the dread word "neutral". As a government you can not and must not be "neutral" on the break up of the country.
Harry Cole is right. This will probably come back to bite them on the arse, very badly.
Just goes to show what a genius Boris is.
Lab has some namby-pamby sympathy for Irish Republicans: the Party is lambasted for it; the Conservative government puts a border in the Irish Sea, thereby setting in motion a path to Irish reunification: trebles all round.
The Government will next year invoke Article 16 to suspend the Irish Sea border it seems
I hope not.
It would be the wrong thing to do at this time
Most likely they will probably wait until just before the Stormont elections next Spring, then do so, to give a boost to the DUP so they regain votes lost to TUV to help them stay ahead of SF as largest party and before the EU has a chance to respond.
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
The PM didn’t say anything about qualifying his statement because the house isn’t sold to pay for care until after death.
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
The literal wording from the manifesto is "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " If that isn't about the inheritance left to pass on to their kids then what is it?
The whole reason for the reform is to stop someone's entire assets being swallowed up by care costs so that there is nothing left to inherit. And the PM stood up and repeatedly said that nobody would have to sell their home because the home is not counted as an asset. This is simply wrong. He either doesn't know his own policy or he is lying about it.
Question - how many of the red wallers are going to accept your attempts at sophistry and go "fair enough, I'm being taxed heavily so that I don't lose my home, but I'm going to lose it anyway whilst the well off dont. yes of course the Tories still have my vote".
Northerners are not stupid.
The PM said "nobody would have to sell their home" which is true. They have the option of selling it or not selling it with payments due being paid after death.
In addition there are situations where the main home is exempt anyway: at home care, spouse still living in the house, other relative over 60 living in house, any relative of any age still living in the house etc etc.
If you need to pay £86k and of your £100k assets almost all of it is your home, where exactly are you to get the money other than from the sale of the home?
Yes we know its payable after death - its the dementia death tax which removes inheritance. So why did he said "you don't need to sell your home" when you do? And if you definitely don't need to, why didn't the Solicitor General firmly put Jo Coburn back in her box on the telly just now?
When you go into a care home you do not need to sell your home. Obviously there is accountability after death but what do you expect? That taxpayers cover everything when wealth in property can be used to cover some of the cost? You are misrepresenting things for party political reasons. As Starmer did earlier. And as the media did re: May's plans.
Social Care is important. We must stick to the facts. Below is a worked example from the published proposals which is not too dissimilar from yours.
"Yusuf is in his late 70s. He has lived on his own since his wife died from cancer ten years ago. When she died, he downsized from their family home in Hastings to a smaller property worth £180,000. As a result, he has £70,000 in savings.
Yusuf develops dementia, can no longer cope at home and needs to move into residential care. His underlying health is good and he ultimately spends eight years living at the residential home. Yusuf's care home costs £700 per week. Under the current system, Yusuf would spend about £293,000 on his care from his assets and his income, and as a result only have £72,000 left in assets.
Under the new system, Yusuf hits the £86,000 cap after three years and four months. He no longer needs to contribute for his personal care from either his assets or his income. Beyond this, he will only have to contribute towards daily living costs. He is now left with £173,000, almost 70 per cent of his original assets.
Over his whole care journey, Yusuf spends £123,000 less than under the current system."
Its very very simple. EVen for PB Peppa parrots.
The issue is inheritance. If you have to sell your home to pay for care - whether before or after your death - it does not pass to your children. Fear of this death tax has driven all kinds of policies and pledges. Including in this case the "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " pledge repeated by Peppa today.
This simply is not true with the new bill. And you've given the exact example that northern red wall Tories will be wapped round the head with. Reduce Yusuf's assets to £120k of which almost all is the house, and there will be no other way to pay the £86k retrospectively other than sell the house to pay for care.
Yusef in Hasting's estate is £173k. Yusuf in Hartlepool's estate is £34k. It slams working class northerners in a way that it doesn't southerners.
You mentioned the facts. Why doesn't the PM know them?
Why has Johnson just answered Layla Moran with a jibe about "this wouldn't have happened under Labour"? Layla Moran is a Lib Dem MP.
She may as well be, in Oxford West and Abingdon most Labour supporters vote for her and she is on the left of the LDs and ultra woke
Yep. Anyone who isn't an HYUFDist Tory - including significant numbers of Tory voters - are all Labour in disguise.
No, I would not say that.
There are a few Orange Book LDs who could have been Tories, certainly pre Brexit eg Nick Clegg, David Laws and Jeremy Browne and Danny Alexander.
However Layla Moran would not be anything other than Labour if the LDs did not exist
Although they can work with the right sort of Tories I doubt any could be Tories. I was paired with David Laws to knock up at the Winchester by election and from our chats I couldn't see him doing so.
I am, I guess, an orange booker and I think the same goes for me. I'm not fixed on my alligence but do you think I could be a Tory?
I would certainly say David Laws was even right of some MPs who actually were Tories eg Ken Clarke or Anna Soubry.
I certainly would say you could support a coalition with say another Cameron like Tory leader, even if not with the current Boris led Tory party.
Labour leaning LDs like Moran however would oppose any coalition with the Tories, ever. Moran of course was elected in 2017, post Coalition
I don't think any Lib Dem would even consider coalition with the present shower.
The Labour Party is not a registered political party in Northern Ireland and does not currently contest elections.[2]
Well, I think the point is, that's a decision taken by Labour. They could contest elections if they wanted to. They could be pro-Union if they wanted to.
Personally, I don't see it as bad thing that they are neutral on the subject.
The whole argument arises from the lazy assumption that for anyone in Britain, the default patriotic only position is that NI (and indeed Scotland) ought to be part of the UK. Whether or not its inhabitants desire it. That simply doesn't follow.
No, there is a default assumption that a government of ANY country does not want to see part of the country break off to join another country. This is true of 99.3% of countries, Britain under a future Labour Party might be the only exception
I can see the strict logic in this Labour position, but boy the optics are bad, and it is an easy stick with which to batter them senseless - "they don't care if the UK breaks up" will be a statement of fact. Impossible to refute. Awful for a left-wing party already suspected of being non-patriotic if not treacherous
But hasn't that been the Labour Party approach for the best part of a century though: NI as part of the union so long as the majority desires it, but in parallel gently persuade them that a united Ireland is ultimately in everyone's best interest?
Yes, hence why I said "I can see the strict logic", but after the traumatic experience of Corbyn, when Labour got destroyed by the perception of anti-patriotism, pro-IRA, anti-British Marxist bullshit, they should now run a mile from anything that remotely suggests a repeat of this
They didn't have to make this statement, and they should not have done so. Far better to stay quiet. But if they do feel a need to take a position, it should have been something like "as a future UK government, we will always want the UK to stay together, for the benefit of all; however we recognise the GFA and we will not interfere with the choice made by the people of Northern Ireland, it is for them to decide"
That's basically saying the same thing but avoiding the dread word "neutral". As a government you can not and must not be "neutral" on the break up of the country.
Harry Cole is right. This will probably come back to bite them on the arse, very badly.
I doubt it very much. I think few in GB would care at all if Ireland peacefully voted for unification. More than a few would see it as unfinished business resolved.
Interesting chart from the John Burn-Murdoch thread:
Despite UK having lower vax coverage than e.g Belgium & France, the difference in share of people previously infected is larger (UK 30%, FRA 15%), meaning that going into this winter, the UK had fewer people still exposed to the virus, less scope for a wave of hospitalisations.
Yes, those 9m infections since the end of May have made a huge difference to our overall picture. Having a summer/autumn exit wave is why we're very much on the endemic side of this
Needless Suffering
Britain offers a warning of what happens when a country ignores Covid.
Paywalled sadly. Is the article as hyperbolic and hysterical as the headline?
It is depressingly poor and incurious. American journalism is in a right old state. British hacks used to admire the American press for its numerous fact-checkers and prickly adherence to the truth, even if it was stodgy and stiff compared to British journalism
What a precipitous decline we have seen. This denial of the facts started with the right, I suspect- shock jocks and Fox News - but it has now infested the left as badly if not worse, via Wokery and Trump, and it is now everywhere. This is just one example. The NYT doesn't like Brexit Britain, so anything it does must be bad, including its handling of Covid. The agenda is prioritised over the truth, there isn't really any attempt to seek the truth.
It means Americans are now shockingly misinformed across the political spectrum at probably the worst time for that to happen
When Britain opened up, the NYT was running almost daily stories about what a risk the UK was taking. Now......
The Labour Party is not a registered political party in Northern Ireland and does not currently contest elections.[2]
Well, I think the point is, that's a decision taken by Labour. They could contest elections if they wanted to. They could be pro-Union if they wanted to.
Personally, I don't see it as bad thing that they are neutral on the subject.
The whole argument arises from the lazy assumption that for anyone in Britain, the default patriotic only position is that NI (and indeed Scotland) ought to be part of the UK. Whether or not its inhabitants desire it. That simply doesn't follow.
No, there is a default assumption that a government of ANY country does not want to see part of the country break off to join another country. This is true of 99.3% of countries, Britain under a future Labour Party might be the only exception
I can see the strict logic in this Labour position, but boy the optics are bad, and it is an easy stick with which to batter them senseless - "they don't care if the UK breaks up" will be a statement of fact. Impossible to refute. Awful for a left-wing party already suspected of being non-patriotic if not treacherous
But hasn't that been the Labour Party approach for the best part of a century though: NI as part of the union so long as the majority desires it, but in parallel gently persuade them that a united Ireland is ultimately in everyone's best interest?
Yes, hence why I said "I can see the strict logic", but after the traumatic experience of Corbyn, when Labour got destroyed by the perception of anti-patriotism, pro-IRA, anti-British Marxist bullshit, they should now run a mile from anything that remotely suggests a repeat of this
They didn't have to make this statement, and they should not have done so. Far better to stay quiet. But if they do feel a need to take a position, it should have been something like "as a future UK government, we will always want the UK to stay together, for the benefit of all; however we recognise the GFA and we will not interfere with the choice made by the people of Northern Ireland, it is for them to decide"
That's basically saying the same thing but avoiding the dread word "neutral". As a government you can not and must not be "neutral" on the break up of the country.
Harry Cole is right. This will probably come back to bite them on the arse, very badly.
So, wait, if a majority of the people of Northern Ireland wanted NI to be independent or part of Ireland, you think the UK government should interfere with that choice?
Telling that Boris Johnson cannot answer that yes or no question.
What question was it? As in fairness many yes or no questions that are put cannot properly be answered in a non misleading way if you are told to say just yes or no.
Which is why people demand it of course.
That said I can easily believe he fails to answer do even when appropriate and easy.
Will people need to sell their homes to fund social care.
Yes or no.
Yes, that one is pretty straightforward.
As I understand it Johnson is technically correct. The person in receipt of care will not have to sell their house - because they will be dead. It is the children who will have to sell the house to pay the bills.
Which is explicitly what the manifesto pledge was designed to stop
Interesting chart from the John Burn-Murdoch thread:
Despite UK having lower vax coverage than e.g Belgium & France, the difference in share of people previously infected is larger (UK 30%, FRA 15%), meaning that going into this winter, the UK had fewer people still exposed to the virus, less scope for a wave of hospitalisations.
Yes, those 9m infections since the end of May have made a huge difference to our overall picture. Having a summer/autumn exit wave is why we're very much on the endemic side of this
Needless Suffering
Britain offers a warning of what happens when a country ignores Covid.
Paywalled sadly. Is the article as hyperbolic and hysterical as the headline?
It is depressingly poor and incurious. American journalism is in a right old state. British hacks used to admire the American press for its numerous fact-checkers and prickly adherence to the truth, even if it was stodgy and stiff compared to British journalism
What a precipitous decline we have seen. This denial of the facts started with the right, I suspect- shock jocks and Fox News - but it has now infested the left as badly if not worse, via Wokery and Trump, and it is now everywhere. This is just one example. The NYT doesn't like Brexit Britain, so anything it does must be bad, including its handling of Covid. The agenda is prioritised over the truth, there isn't really any attempt to seek the truth.
It means Americans are now shockingly misinformed across the political spectrum at probably the worst time for that to happen
Even as a polemic that article is palpably unconvinced by its own invective.
It concludes with this: "Still, it is worth putting Britain’s troubles in perspective. The country’s high vaccination rate means that only a tiny share of recent cases have led to severe illness, and the death rate this fall has been a fraction of what it was last winter. “This virus is going to be with us for years, if not the rest of our lives,” Willem van Schaik, a microbiologist at the University of Birmingham in England, told us. “We’ve definitely left the worst behind us.”
Anyone who toiled the bottom of the piece would wonder whether the subeditor had done likewise.
"Countries should consider mandatory Covid vaccination, says WHO Europe
Countries should consider implementing mandatory Covid vaccination, the director of World Health Organization (WHO) Europe said today.
Robb Butler said that although “mandatory vaccine can, but does not always, increase uptake”, he suggested countries should start thinking about the issue.
It comes after Germany’s tourism commissioner, Thomas Bareiss, said he expected vaccination to become mandatory in the country. Austria plans to make it compulsory from February."
(Guardian Live blog)
If this happens, anti-vaxxers will riot, and it will be much worse than anything hitherto. So many of them REALLY believe. I foresee violence, and deaths. Tragically
These people have really completely lost the plot. People can choose to be idiots. I don't agree with their choice but that's the bloody point of living in a free country, they have the fucking choice to do it anyway.
Interesting chart from the John Burn-Murdoch thread:
Despite UK having lower vax coverage than e.g Belgium & France, the difference in share of people previously infected is larger (UK 30%, FRA 15%), meaning that going into this winter, the UK had fewer people still exposed to the virus, less scope for a wave of hospitalisations.
Yes, those 9m infections since the end of May have made a huge difference to our overall picture. Having a summer/autumn exit wave is why we're very much on the endemic side of this
Needless Suffering
Britain offers a warning of what happens when a country ignores Covid.
Paywalled sadly. Is the article as hyperbolic and hysterical as the headline?
It is depressingly poor and incurious. American journalism is in a right old state. British hacks used to admire the American press for its numerous fact-checkers and prickly adherence to the truth, even if it was stodgy and stiff compared to British journalism
What a precipitous decline we have seen. This denial of the facts started with the right, I suspect- shock jocks and Fox News - but it has now infested the left as badly if not worse, via Wokery and Trump, and it is now everywhere. This is just one example. The NYT doesn't like Brexit Britain, so anything it does must be bad, including its handling of Covid. The agenda is prioritised over the truth, there isn't really any attempt to seek the truth.
It means Americans are now shockingly misinformed across the political spectrum at probably the worst time for that to happen
When Britain opened up, the NYT was running almost daily stories about what a risk the UK was taking. Now......
GIven our various discussions this morning I read that as being the National Youth Theatre...
Interesting chart from the John Burn-Murdoch thread:
Despite UK having lower vax coverage than e.g Belgium & France, the difference in share of people previously infected is larger (UK 30%, FRA 15%), meaning that going into this winter, the UK had fewer people still exposed to the virus, less scope for a wave of hospitalisations.
Yes, those 9m infections since the end of May have made a huge difference to our overall picture. Having a summer/autumn exit wave is why we're very much on the endemic side of this
Needless Suffering
Britain offers a warning of what happens when a country ignores Covid.
Paywalled sadly. Is the article as hyperbolic and hysterical as the headline?
I won't be naughty, but there is a paywall 12 foot ladder available to be able to read such articles...
Thanks! I have located the ladder! Actually, I thought the piece was fairly balanced in NYT terms. They seemed to have talked themselves out of their own headline by the end – having examined the facts...
Glad you found it. I hoped my wording was suggestive without being too explicit...
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
The PM didn’t say anything about qualifying his statement because the house isn’t sold to pay for care until after death.
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
The literal wording from the manifesto is "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " If that isn't about the inheritance left to pass on to their kids then what is it?
The whole reason for the reform is to stop someone's entire assets being swallowed up by care costs so that there is nothing left to inherit. And the PM stood up and repeatedly said that nobody would have to sell their home because the home is not counted as an asset. This is simply wrong. He either doesn't know his own policy or he is lying about it.
Question - how many of the red wallers are going to accept your attempts at sophistry and go "fair enough, I'm being taxed heavily so that I don't lose my home, but I'm going to lose it anyway whilst the well off dont. yes of course the Tories still have my vote".
Northerners are not stupid.
The PM said "nobody would have to sell their home" which is true. They have the option of selling it or not selling it with payments due being paid after death.
In addition there are situations where the main home is exempt anyway: at home care, spouse still living in the house, other relative over 60 living in house, any relative of any age still living in the house etc etc.
If you need to pay £86k and of your £100k assets almost all of it is your home, where exactly are you to get the money other than from the sale of the home?
Yes we know its payable after death - its the dementia death tax which removes inheritance. So why did he said "you don't need to sell your home" when you do? And if you definitely don't need to, why didn't the Solicitor General firmly put Jo Coburn back in her box on the telly just now?
When you go into a care home you do not need to sell your home. Obviously there is accountability after death but what do you expect? That taxpayers cover everything when wealth in property can be used to cover some of the cost? You are misrepresenting things for party political reasons. As Starmer did earlier. And as the media did re: May's plans.
Social Care is important. We must stick to the facts. Below is a worked example from the published proposals which is not too dissimilar from yours.
"Yusuf is in his late 70s. He has lived on his own since his wife died from cancer ten years ago. When she died, he downsized from their family home in Hastings to a smaller property worth £180,000. As a result, he has £70,000 in savings.
Yusuf develops dementia, can no longer cope at home and needs to move into residential care. His underlying health is good and he ultimately spends eight years living at the residential home. Yusuf's care home costs £700 per week. Under the current system, Yusuf would spend about £293,000 on his care from his assets and his income, and as a result only have £72,000 left in assets.
Under the new system, Yusuf hits the £86,000 cap after three years and four months. He no longer needs to contribute for his personal care from either his assets or his income. Beyond this, he will only have to contribute towards daily living costs. He is now left with £173,000, almost 70 per cent of his original assets.
Over his whole care journey, Yusuf spends £123,000 less than under the current system."
You can sell the proposals or you can defend the PM's statement; they're not the same thing. In that example poor Yusuf can clearly only get the last £7,000 from the sale of his house.
Yusef has £250,000 in assets, all of which would come up for assessment (because there is no spouse in the house). He also has income.
He would not have to pay 8 years worth of care costs (as he likely would under the current system) because he hits the new £86k cap much sooner. From there none of his capital is taken, though he still has to pay £200 pw for living expense component of the care home.
Overall, the new system benefits him. And, of course, disadvantages the council. Any Social Care "fix" is playing with the balance between the two.
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
The PM didn’t say anything about qualifying his statement because the house isn’t sold to pay for care until after death.
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
The literal wording from the manifesto is "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " If that isn't about the inheritance left to pass on to their kids then what is it?
The whole reason for the reform is to stop someone's entire assets being swallowed up by care costs so that there is nothing left to inherit. And the PM stood up and repeatedly said that nobody would have to sell their home because the home is not counted as an asset. This is simply wrong. He either doesn't know his own policy or he is lying about it.
Question - how many of the red wallers are going to accept your attempts at sophistry and go "fair enough, I'm being taxed heavily so that I don't lose my home, but I'm going to lose it anyway whilst the well off dont. yes of course the Tories still have my vote".
Northerners are not stupid.
The PM said "nobody would have to sell their home" which is true. They have the option of selling it or not selling it with payments due being paid after death.
In addition there are situations where the main home is exempt anyway: at home care, spouse still living in the house, other relative over 60 living in house, any relative of any age still living in the house etc etc.
If you need to pay £86k and of your £100k assets almost all of it is your home, where exactly are you to get the money other than from the sale of the home?
Yes we know its payable after death - its the dementia death tax which removes inheritance. So why did he said "you don't need to sell your home" when you do? And if you definitely don't need to, why didn't the Solicitor General firmly put Jo Coburn back in her box on the telly just now?
It won't play well in a country obsessed with property wealth and inheritance but legally and logically selling a home after you have died is not selling your home. Once you are dead, it temporarily belongs to your estate then the beneficiaries.
Or doesn't because it will have been sold to pay for your residential care home care...
I haven't read the details but presume the home has a charge against it similar to a mortgage, rather than has been sold?
If the house gains 30% value or drops 30% value who gets the change in value? The homeowner or the state? If the homeowner, then no, it has not been sold before death, and is no longer "your" home after death. If the state then you are correct.
No. It's not the home that has the charge against it, it is the local council. I don't think interest can be charged (but I'm not certain of this, maybe inflation proofed?). Any rise in house price goes to the beneficiaries of the will.
I don't know many house sales where you sell the house but are still entitled to the change in its future value, so for me, I think technically the PM may be correct.
Politically, because of emotional attachment to homes and inheritances, more people will see this as lying though.
OTOH houseowners are pampered when it comes to IHT in a way which nonhouseowners are not - which adds to the irrationality of the entire business.
Completely off topic, but an attempt at taking advantage of the collective wisdom of PB. I'm meant to be going to Austria in the new year for a martial arts camp. Obviously their lockdown is meant to be over by then, but if you still believe "just a few weeks to flatten the curve" then you probably haven't been paying much attention!
Any suggestions for countries that are most likely to be open and worth visiting at that time (i.e. covid restrictions don't make the whole thing pointless, I had a friend who went to Singapore last week and it sounded dire unless you just wanted to sit by a hotel pool all day)?: If I lived abroad, England would be the obvious one, but I'm not keen on yet another domestic holiday.
I figure it'll be dependent on a combination of current vaccination/infection levels and political stance, so most of Europe is probably out. Canada also seems risky, so the only other place I can think of is the southern states of the USA. All ideas welcome!
Sunshine: Egypt? Or the Maldives?
New Zealand is now opening up and obvs has zero cases, almost, but it's a heck of a journey
Thailand is now open, but the bars are not (they are meant to open on Jan 15th). However if you get a close contact with a carrier (eg on the plane) you have to quarantine at your own expense for 2 weeks, I think. Not fun, and a big risk
Nowhere is perfect - ie easy, safe, sunny
New Zealand has announced its opening up, but it will not be till 30 April, and even then you will need to isolate for a week on arrival, (unless arrangements change)
I do hope restrictions for NZ ease up at I am hoping to go there for my father in Lows 80th Birthday next year.
It’s more or less the basis of my thinking on the Con Maj bet - it’s handy did the opposition to be able to scrutinise the govt and expose weaknesses in mid term, but come GE time they have to sell their positive vision of the future with Sir Keir as the salesman. Labour’s Achilles heel is they always sound like they’re moaning, hence only Blair has been any good at winning elections.
Boris can say he got Brexit done whilst Sir Keir wanted to put us through another referendum, he got the vaccines done whist Sir Keir was trying to tie us to the EmA, and set us free when Sir Keir wanted to lock us down - three big things that will go down in history to boast about vs minor quibbles over policy from Labour that no one really notices
The Labour Party is not a registered political party in Northern Ireland and does not currently contest elections.[2]
Well, I think the point is, that's a decision taken by Labour. They could contest elections if they wanted to. They could be pro-Union if they wanted to.
Personally, I don't see it as bad thing that they are neutral on the subject.
The whole argument arises from the lazy assumption that for anyone in Britain, the default patriotic only position is that NI (and indeed Scotland) ought to be part of the UK. Whether or not its inhabitants desire it. That simply doesn't follow.
No, there is a default assumption that a government of ANY country does not want to see part of the country break off to join another country. This is true of 99.3% of countries, Britain under a future Labour Party might be the only exception
I can see the strict logic in this Labour position, but boy the optics are bad, and it is an easy stick with which to batter them senseless - "they don't care if the UK breaks up" will be a statement of fact. Impossible to refute. Awful for a left-wing party already suspected of being non-patriotic if not treacherous
But hasn't that been the Labour Party approach for the best part of a century though: NI as part of the union so long as the majority desires it, but in parallel gently persuade them that a united Ireland is ultimately in everyone's best interest?
Yes, hence why I said "I can see the strict logic", but after the traumatic experience of Corbyn, when Labour got destroyed by the perception of anti-patriotism, pro-IRA, anti-British Marxist bullshit, they should now run a mile from anything that remotely suggests a repeat of this
They didn't have to make this statement, and they should not have done so. Far better to stay quiet. But if they do feel a need to take a position, it should have been something like "as a future UK government, we will always want the UK to stay together, for the benefit of all; however we recognise the GFA and we will not interfere with the choice made by the people of Northern Ireland, it is for them to decide"
That's basically saying the same thing but avoiding the dread word "neutral". As a government you can not and must not be "neutral" on the break up of the country.
Harry Cole is right. This will probably come back to bite them on the arse, very badly.
Just goes to show what a genius Boris is.
Lab has some namby-pamby sympathy for Irish Republicans: the Party is lambasted for it; the Conservative government puts a border in the Irish Sea, thereby setting in motion a path to Irish reunification: trebles all round.
There won't be a Border poll for decades (if ever). The gentlemen of violence, on both sides, will see to that
As soon as it looks like one might be imminent, there will be bombs, and everyone will go off the idea. Even (especially?) the Irish in the south
Were I an Irish Republican sympathiser I would be very happy with the current state of play in GB treating NI as a separate entity. Very happy indeed. And my AK can stay in its hide all the while.
Likewise, if I was a super intelligent unionist (which I am) I would realise that ultimately NI will be in a peachy position, unlike anywhere else - part of the UK Single Market, part of the EU Single Market, blessed with Free Movement in the EU but also part of the UK, the NHS, and so on.
Companies will move to Northern Ireland to take advantage of this, especially as Corporation Tax rises in the south, as it must
Indeed, it is already happening, you just didn't notice
Ardagh’s investment in Belfast factory seen as vote of confidence in region’s protocol"
"A total of 170 jobs are to be created in Northern Ireland by one of the world’s biggest packaging companies, the latest business seeking to exploit the region’s “best of both worlds” post-Brexit trading status.
Ardagh Metal Packaging on Friday announced plans to build a $200m beverage can plant near Belfast, from which drinks will be exported both to Britain and EU markets."
"Countries should consider mandatory Covid vaccination, says WHO Europe
Countries should consider implementing mandatory Covid vaccination, the director of World Health Organization (WHO) Europe said today.
Robb Butler said that although “mandatory vaccine can, but does not always, increase uptake”, he suggested countries should start thinking about the issue.
It comes after Germany’s tourism commissioner, Thomas Bareiss, said he expected vaccination to become mandatory in the country. Austria plans to make it compulsory from February."
(Guardian Live blog)
If this happens, anti-vaxxers will riot, and it will be much worse than anything hitherto. So many of them REALLY believe. I foresee violence, and deaths. Tragically
Question: How can you force someone to have a vaccination? At the very worst, you could throw them in jail (which would be farcical) – we are not going to have stormtroopers with needles entering people's homes!
Good for him. Everyone's jabbed. Wearing facemasks at the theatre is ghastly.
I really wish I could understand the thought processes of people like you. You know being jabbed has only a limited effect on the capacity to get and spread the virus. Yet you still carry on posting utter non sequiturs like that.
Interesting chart from the John Burn-Murdoch thread:
Despite UK having lower vax coverage than e.g Belgium & France, the difference in share of people previously infected is larger (UK 30%, FRA 15%), meaning that going into this winter, the UK had fewer people still exposed to the virus, less scope for a wave of hospitalisations.
Yes, those 9m infections since the end of May have made a huge difference to our overall picture. Having a summer/autumn exit wave is why we're very much on the endemic side of this
Needless Suffering
Britain offers a warning of what happens when a country ignores Covid.
Paywalled sadly. Is the article as hyperbolic and hysterical as the headline?
I won't be naughty, but there is a paywall 12 foot ladder available to be able to read such articles...
Thanks! I have located the ladder! Actually, I thought the piece was fairly balanced in NYT terms. They seemed to have talked themselves out of their own headline by the end – having examined the facts...
Glad you found it. I hoped my wording was suggestive without being too explicit...
Yes. Thank you. A subtle invitation to an unnamed B&Q rather than a delivery of said ladder to one's door.
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
The PM didn’t say anything about qualifying his statement because the house isn’t sold to pay for care until after death.
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
The literal wording from the manifesto is "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " If that isn't about the inheritance left to pass on to their kids then what is it?
The whole reason for the reform is to stop someone's entire assets being swallowed up by care costs so that there is nothing left to inherit. And the PM stood up and repeatedly said that nobody would have to sell their home because the home is not counted as an asset. This is simply wrong. He either doesn't know his own policy or he is lying about it.
Question - how many of the red wallers are going to accept your attempts at sophistry and go "fair enough, I'm being taxed heavily so that I don't lose my home, but I'm going to lose it anyway whilst the well off dont. yes of course the Tories still have my vote".
Northerners are not stupid.
The PM said "nobody would have to sell their home" which is true. They have the option of selling it or not selling it with payments due being paid after death.
In addition there are situations where the main home is exempt anyway: at home care, spouse still living in the house, other relative over 60 living in house, any relative of any age still living in the house etc etc.
If you need to pay £86k and of your £100k assets almost all of it is your home, where exactly are you to get the money other than from the sale of the home?
Yes we know its payable after death - its the dementia death tax which removes inheritance. So why did he said "you don't need to sell your home" when you do? And if you definitely don't need to, why didn't the Solicitor General firmly put Jo Coburn back in her box on the telly just now?
When you go into a care home you do not need to sell your home. Obviously there is accountability after death but what do you expect? That taxpayers cover everything when wealth in property can be used to cover some of the cost? You are misrepresenting things for party political reasons. As Starmer did earlier. And as the media did re: May's plans.
Social Care is important. We must stick to the facts. Below is a worked example from the published proposals which is not too dissimilar from yours.
"Yusuf is in his late 70s. He has lived on his own since his wife died from cancer ten years ago. When she died, he downsized from their family home in Hastings to a smaller property worth £180,000. As a result, he has £70,000 in savings.
Yusuf develops dementia, can no longer cope at home and needs to move into residential care. His underlying health is good and he ultimately spends eight years living at the residential home. Yusuf's care home costs £700 per week. Under the current system, Yusuf would spend about £293,000 on his care from his assets and his income, and as a result only have £72,000 left in assets.
Under the new system, Yusuf hits the £86,000 cap after three years and four months. He no longer needs to contribute for his personal care from either his assets or his income. Beyond this, he will only have to contribute towards daily living costs. He is now left with £173,000, almost 70 per cent of his original assets.
Over his whole care journey, Yusuf spends £123,000 less than under the current system."
Its very very simple. EVen for PB Peppa parrots.
The issue is inheritance. If you have to sell your home to pay for care - whether before or after your death - it does not pass to your children. Fear of this death tax has driven all kinds of policies and pledges. Including in this case the "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " pledge repeated by Peppa today.
This simply is not true with the new bill. And you've given the exact example that northern red wall Tories will be wapped round the head with. Reduce Yusuf's assets to £120k of which almost all is the house, and there will be no other way to pay the £86k retrospectively other than sell the house to pay for care.
Yusef in Hasting's estate is £173k. Yusuf in Hartlepool's estate is £34k. It slams working class northerners in a way that it doesn't southerners.
You mentioned the facts. Why doesn't the PM know them?
The system is the same whether you live in Hastings or Hartlepool.
Some people have more valuable houses/estates than others. This is the case now and has nothing to do with it.
You seem to be arguing that the system should be different in Hastings and Hartlepool.
Have to scoot now - that's enough yellow on yellow action. Though your yellow is tinged towards the orange and mine tinged towards the green.
The Labour Party is not a registered political party in Northern Ireland and does not currently contest elections.[2]
Well, I think the point is, that's a decision taken by Labour. They could contest elections if they wanted to. They could be pro-Union if they wanted to.
Personally, I don't see it as bad thing that they are neutral on the subject.
The whole argument arises from the lazy assumption that for anyone in Britain, the default patriotic only position is that NI (and indeed Scotland) ought to be part of the UK. Whether or not its inhabitants desire it. That simply doesn't follow.
No, there is a default assumption that a government of ANY country does not want to see part of the country break off to join another country. This is true of 99.3% of countries, Britain under a future Labour Party might be the only exception
I can see the strict logic in this Labour position, but boy the optics are bad, and it is an easy stick with which to batter them senseless - "they don't care if the UK breaks up" will be a statement of fact. Impossible to refute. Awful for a left-wing party already suspected of being non-patriotic if not treacherous
But hasn't that been the Labour Party approach for the best part of a century though: NI as part of the union so long as the majority desires it, but in parallel gently persuade them that a united Ireland is ultimately in everyone's best interest?
Yes, hence why I said "I can see the strict logic", but after the traumatic experience of Corbyn, when Labour got destroyed by the perception of anti-patriotism, pro-IRA, anti-British Marxist bullshit, they should now run a mile from anything that remotely suggests a repeat of this
They didn't have to make this statement, and they should not have done so. Far better to stay quiet. But if they do feel a need to take a position, it should have been something like "as a future UK government, we will always want the UK to stay together, for the benefit of all; however we recognise the GFA and we will not interfere with the choice made by the people of Northern Ireland, it is for them to decide"
That's basically saying the same thing but avoiding the dread word "neutral". As a government you can not and must not be "neutral" on the break up of the country.
Harry Cole is right. This will probably come back to bite them on the arse, very badly.
Just goes to show what a genius Boris is.
Lab has some namby-pamby sympathy for Irish Republicans: the Party is lambasted for it; the Conservative government puts a border in the Irish Sea, thereby setting in motion a path to Irish reunification: trebles all round.
There won't be a Border poll for decades (if ever). The gentlemen of violence, on both sides, will see to that
As soon as it looks like one might be imminent, there will be bombs, and everyone will go off the idea. Even (especially?) the Irish in the south
Were I an Irish Republican sympathiser I would be very happy with the current state of play in GB treating NI as a separate entity. Very happy indeed. And my AK can stay in its hide all the while.
Likewise, if I was a super intelligent unionist (which I am) I would realise that ultimately NI will be in a peachy position, unlike anywhere else - part of the UK Single Market, part of the EU Single Market, blessed with Free Movement in the EU but also part of the UK, the NHS, and so on.
Companies will move to Northern Ireland to take advantage of this, especially as Corporation Tax rises in the south, as it must
Indeed, it is already happening, you just didn't notice
Ardagh’s investment in Belfast factory seen as vote of confidence in region’s protocol"
"A total of 170 jobs are to be created in Northern Ireland by one of the world’s biggest packaging companies, the latest business seeking to exploit the region’s “best of both worlds” post-Brexit trading status.
Ardagh Metal Packaging on Friday announced plans to build a $200m beverage can plant near Belfast, from which drinks will be exported both to Britain and EU markets."
Good for him. Everyone's jabbed. Wearing facemasks at the theatre is ghastly.
I really wish I could understand the thought processes of people like you. You know being jabbed has only a limited effect on the capacity to get and spread the virus. Yet you still carry on posting utter non sequiturs like that.
Have you nothing better to do?
When Chris Big Brain speaks - the planet listens. Or not.
Is there not a more erudite chat room you could spend time on rather than wasting it on here.
Completely off topic, but an attempt at taking advantage of the collective wisdom of PB. I'm meant to be going to Austria in the new year for a martial arts camp. Obviously their lockdown is meant to be over by then, but if you still believe "just a few weeks to flatten the curve" then you probably haven't been paying much attention!
Any suggestions for countries that are most likely to be open and worth visiting at that time (i.e. covid restrictions don't make the whole thing pointless, I had a friend who went to Singapore last week and it sounded dire unless you just wanted to sit by a hotel pool all day)?: If I lived abroad, England would be the obvious one, but I'm not keen on yet another domestic holiday.
I figure it'll be dependent on a combination of current vaccination/infection levels and political stance, so most of Europe is probably out. Canada also seems risky, so the only other place I can think of is the southern states of the USA. All ideas welcome!
Sunshine: Egypt? Or the Maldives?
New Zealand is now opening up and obvs has zero cases, almost, but it's a heck of a journey
Thailand is now open, but the bars are not (they are meant to open on Jan 15th). However if you get a close contact with a carrier (eg on the plane) you have to quarantine at your own expense for 2 weeks, I think. Not fun, and a big risk
Nowhere is perfect - ie easy, safe, sunny
New Zealand has announced its opening up, but it will not be till 30 April, and even then you will need to isolate for a week on arrival, (unless arrangements change)
I do hope restrictions for NZ ease up at I am hoping to go there for my father in Lows 80th Birthday next year.
Why Jacinda thinks opening up her borders on the cusp of the southern hemisphere winter is a good idea is beyond me. She should JFDI.
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
The PM didn’t say anything about qualifying his statement because the house isn’t sold to pay for care until after death.
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
The literal wording from the manifesto is "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " If that isn't about the inheritance left to pass on to their kids then what is it?
The whole reason for the reform is to stop someone's entire assets being swallowed up by care costs so that there is nothing left to inherit. And the PM stood up and repeatedly said that nobody would have to sell their home because the home is not counted as an asset. This is simply wrong. He either doesn't know his own policy or he is lying about it.
Question - how many of the red wallers are going to accept your attempts at sophistry and go "fair enough, I'm being taxed heavily so that I don't lose my home, but I'm going to lose it anyway whilst the well off dont. yes of course the Tories still have my vote".
Northerners are not stupid.
The PM said "nobody would have to sell their home" which is true. They have the option of selling it or not selling it with payments due being paid after death.
In addition there are situations where the main home is exempt anyway: at home care, spouse still living in the house, other relative over 60 living in house, any relative of any age still living in the house etc etc.
If you need to pay £86k and of your £100k assets almost all of it is your home, where exactly are you to get the money other than from the sale of the home?
Yes we know its payable after death - its the dementia death tax which removes inheritance. So why did he said "you don't need to sell your home" when you do? And if you definitely don't need to, why didn't the Solicitor General firmly put Jo Coburn back in her box on the telly just now?
It won't play well in a country obsessed with property wealth and inheritance but legally and logically selling a home after you have died is not selling your home. Once you are dead, it temporarily belongs to your estate then the beneficiaries.
Or doesn't because it will have been sold to pay for your residential care home care...
I haven't read the details but presume the home has a charge against it similar to a mortgage, rather than has been sold?
If the house gains 30% value or drops 30% value who gets the change in value? The homeowner or the state? If the homeowner, then no, it has not been sold before death, and is no longer "your" home after death. If the state then you are correct.
No. It's not the home that has the charge against it, it is the local council. I don't think interest can be charged (but I'm not certain of this, maybe inflation proofed?). Any rise in house price goes to the beneficiaries of the will.
I don't know many house sales where you sell the house but are still entitled to the change in its future value, so for me, I think technically the PM may be correct.
Politically, because of emotional attachment to homes and inheritances, more people will see this as lying though.
OTOH houseowners are pampered when it comes to IHT in a way which nonhouseowners are not - which adds to the irrationality of the entire business.
As I said earlier, whether you can defer is up to the local council.
Here is a Sept 21 piece by BBC news on DPAs:
"Deferred-payment agreements (DPAs) were introduced by the then government in 2015.
A DPA is a legal arrangement with a local council. It covers care costs up front and secures these against a person's home at a fixed-interest rate.
When the person dies, their home is sold to repay the loan - but they will not have to sell it before then to pay for residential care.
As well as interest, administration costs may also apply.
And councils can refuse to approve these loans, if, for example, they do not think they will get all of their money back.
In the year ending March 2020:
3,415 new DPAs were agreed, at a total value of £53.2m a further 690 requests were turned down by councils in England "
If my parents end up in a care home I assumed they’d sell the house to pay for it. Who do people suppose is going to otherwise?
When I were a lad there was a hospital for gentlefolk across the road from that hole - closed by Labour and sold by the Tories for housing. Plenty of other local hospitals were dealt the same hand. They should have been kept open and eased the looming dementia crisis
It’s more or less the basis of my thinking on the Con Maj bet - it’s handy did the opposition to be able to scrutinise the govt and expose weaknesses in mid term, but come GE time they have to sell their positive vision of the future with Sir Keir as the salesman. Labour’s Achilles heel is they always sound like they’re moaning, hence only Blair has been any good at winning elections.
Boris can say he got Brexit done whilst Sir Keir wanted to put us through another referendum, he got the vaccines done whist Sir Keir was trying to tie us to the EmA, and set us free when Sir Keir wanted to lock us down - three big things that will go down in history to boast about vs minor quibbles over policy from Labour that no one really notices
Hedgehogs vs Foxes I think
Spot on. People say the Govt is a shambles. Let's take a look at the big picture and not the weeds: Why would you vote for the Conservatives?
1. Society heading back to normal vs the rest of Europe, which is facing increasing chaos;
2. Furlough scheme implemented, which stopped mass unemployment;
3. Vaccine rollout success when the UK was being pelted with brickbats;
4. Brexit done and not the catastrophe predicted;
5. For most people, the economy is doing quite well.
Interesting chart from the John Burn-Murdoch thread:
Despite UK having lower vax coverage than e.g Belgium & France, the difference in share of people previously infected is larger (UK 30%, FRA 15%), meaning that going into this winter, the UK had fewer people still exposed to the virus, less scope for a wave of hospitalisations.
Yes, those 9m infections since the end of May have made a huge difference to our overall picture. Having a summer/autumn exit wave is why we're very much on the endemic side of this
Needless Suffering
Britain offers a warning of what happens when a country ignores Covid.
Paywalled sadly. Is the article as hyperbolic and hysterical as the headline?
It is depressingly poor and incurious. American journalism is in a right old state. British hacks used to admire the American press for its numerous fact-checkers and prickly adherence to the truth, even if it was stodgy and stiff compared to British journalism
What a precipitous decline we have seen. This denial of the facts started with the right, I suspect- shock jocks and Fox News - but it has now infested the left as badly if not worse, via Wokery and Trump, and it is now everywhere. This is just one example. The NYT doesn't like Brexit Britain, so anything it does must be bad, including its handling of Covid. The agenda is prioritised over the truth, there isn't really any attempt to seek the truth.
It means Americans are now shockingly misinformed across the political spectrum at probably the worst time for that to happen
Even as a polemic that article is palpably unconvinced by its own invective.
It concludes with this: "Still, it is worth putting Britain’s troubles in perspective. The country’s high vaccination rate means that only a tiny share of recent cases have led to severe illness, and the death rate this fall has been a fraction of what it was last winter. “This virus is going to be with us for years, if not the rest of our lives,” Willem van Schaik, a microbiologist at the University of Birmingham in England, told us. “We’ve definitely left the worst behind us.”
Anyone who toiled the bottom of the piece would wonder whether the subeditor had done likewise.
It's more that they really tried very hard to push the whole "plague island" agenda along with the rest of the global liberal left who see the UK as some kind of outcast that left heaven. Now it seems as though all of our decisions in 2021 have been correct, the vaccine programme, the reopening schedule, the full reopening and dumping almost all of the NPIs, allowing for kids to be infected in September/October and the booster shot timing/availability. These decisions were all basically the right course of action. In the world of the liberal left anything the UK does is wrong and you can still sense this attitude now with loads of European countries ratcheting up their NPIs without admitting that, yes, maybe the UK got it right and they got it wrong on reopening and "running hot" in the summer/autumn.
Very few voices in Europe (and liberal America) are doing their retrospective and coming to the correct conclusion that they were wrong to keep hold of NPIs in the summer and reduce the spread. As I said last week, it almost feels as thought they will repeat this exercise in March/April when it's time to reduce NPIs, they simply don't seem to have it within them to admit we did it right and will hold onto idiotic vaccine passports, masks, social distancing and keep late night socialising closed.
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
The PM didn’t say anything about qualifying his statement because the house isn’t sold to pay for care until after death.
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
The literal wording from the manifesto is "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " If that isn't about the inheritance left to pass on to their kids then what is it?
The whole reason for the reform is to stop someone's entire assets being swallowed up by care costs so that there is nothing left to inherit. And the PM stood up and repeatedly said that nobody would have to sell their home because the home is not counted as an asset. This is simply wrong. He either doesn't know his own policy or he is lying about it.
Question - how many of the red wallers are going to accept your attempts at sophistry and go "fair enough, I'm being taxed heavily so that I don't lose my home, but I'm going to lose it anyway whilst the well off dont. yes of course the Tories still have my vote".
Northerners are not stupid.
The PM said "nobody would have to sell their home" which is true. They have the option of selling it or not selling it with payments due being paid after death.
In addition there are situations where the main home is exempt anyway: at home care, spouse still living in the house, other relative over 60 living in house, any relative of any age still living in the house etc etc.
If you need to pay £86k and of your £100k assets almost all of it is your home, where exactly are you to get the money other than from the sale of the home?
Yes we know its payable after death - its the dementia death tax which removes inheritance. So why did he said "you don't need to sell your home" when you do? And if you definitely don't need to, why didn't the Solicitor General firmly put Jo Coburn back in her box on the telly just now?
When you go into a care home you do not need to sell your home. Obviously there is accountability after death but what do you expect? That taxpayers cover everything when wealth in property can be used to cover some of the cost? You are misrepresenting things for party political reasons. As Starmer did earlier. And as the media did re: May's plans.
Social Care is important. We must stick to the facts. Below is a worked example from the published proposals which is not too dissimilar from yours.
"Yusuf is in his late 70s. He has lived on his own since his wife died from cancer ten years ago. When she died, he downsized from their family home in Hastings to a smaller property worth £180,000. As a result, he has £70,000 in savings.
Yusuf develops dementia, can no longer cope at home and needs to move into residential care. His underlying health is good and he ultimately spends eight years living at the residential home. Yusuf's care home costs £700 per week. Under the current system, Yusuf would spend about £293,000 on his care from his assets and his income, and as a result only have £72,000 left in assets.
Under the new system, Yusuf hits the £86,000 cap after three years and four months. He no longer needs to contribute for his personal care from either his assets or his income. Beyond this, he will only have to contribute towards daily living costs. He is now left with £173,000, almost 70 per cent of his original assets.
Over his whole care journey, Yusuf spends £123,000 less than under the current system."
Its very very simple. EVen for PB Peppa parrots.
The issue is inheritance. If you have to sell your home to pay for care - whether before or after your death - it does not pass to your children. Fear of this death tax has driven all kinds of policies and pledges. Including in this case the "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " pledge repeated by Peppa today.
This simply is not true with the new bill. And you've given the exact example that northern red wall Tories will be wapped round the head with. Reduce Yusuf's assets to £120k of which almost all is the house, and there will be no other way to pay the £86k retrospectively other than sell the house to pay for care.
Yusef in Hasting's estate is £173k. Yusuf in Hartlepool's estate is £34k. It slams working class northerners in a way that it doesn't southerners.
You mentioned the facts. Why doesn't the PM know them?
The system is the same whether you live in Hastings or Hartlepool.
Some people have more valuable houses/estates than others. This is the case now and has nothing to do with it.
You seem to be arguing that the system should be different in Hastings and Hartlepool.
It is fair to point out that this is a transfer of wealth from Hartlepool to Hastings (or more so Brighton/Guildford/London etc) as the money raised via NI will be much closer between the two, than the money saved by those needing care. It is the opposite of levelling up.
Why has Johnson just answered Layla Moran with a jibe about "this wouldn't have happened under Labour"? Layla Moran is a Lib Dem MP.
She may as well be, in Oxford West and Abingdon most Labour supporters vote for her and she is on the left of the LDs and ultra woke
Yep. Anyone who isn't an HYUFDist Tory - including significant numbers of Tory voters - are all Labour in disguise.
No, I would not say that.
There are a few Orange Book LDs who could have been Tories, certainly pre Brexit eg Nick Clegg, David Laws and Jeremy Browne and Danny Alexander.
However Layla Moran would not be anything other than Labour if the LDs did not exist
Although they can work with the right sort of Tories I doubt any could be Tories. I was paired with David Laws to knock up at the Winchester by election and from our chats I couldn't see him doing so.
I am, I guess, an orange booker and I think the same goes for me. I'm not fixed on my alligence but do you think I could be a Tory?
I would certainly say David Laws was even right of some MPs who actually were Tories eg Ken Clarke or Anna Soubry.
I certainly would say you could support a coalition with say another Cameron like Tory leader, even if not with the current Boris led Tory party.
Labour leaning LDs like Moran however would oppose any coalition with the Tories, ever. Moran of course was elected in 2017, post Coalition
I don't think any Lib Dem would even consider coalition with the present shower.
The problem for the LibDems is that after taking many years to build up their representation in the House of Commons, the minute they are big enough to force a coalition with either Labour or Tories, a large chunk of their own coalition peels off, and they get pummelled in the next election. Back to square one, and with the task ahead of them (again) of the slow march back to relevance. Have to admire Sir Ed for even bothering with it. He's already been a cabinet minister, after all.
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
The PM didn’t say anything about qualifying his statement because the house isn’t sold to pay for care until after death.
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
The literal wording from the manifesto is "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " If that isn't about the inheritance left to pass on to their kids then what is it?
The whole reason for the reform is to stop someone's entire assets being swallowed up by care costs so that there is nothing left to inherit. And the PM stood up and repeatedly said that nobody would have to sell their home because the home is not counted as an asset. This is simply wrong. He either doesn't know his own policy or he is lying about it.
Question - how many of the red wallers are going to accept your attempts at sophistry and go "fair enough, I'm being taxed heavily so that I don't lose my home, but I'm going to lose it anyway whilst the well off dont. yes of course the Tories still have my vote".
Northerners are not stupid.
The PM said "nobody would have to sell their home" which is true. They have the option of selling it or not selling it with payments due being paid after death.
In addition there are situations where the main home is exempt anyway: at home care, spouse still living in the house, other relative over 60 living in house, any relative of any age still living in the house etc etc.
If you need to pay £86k and of your £100k assets almost all of it is your home, where exactly are you to get the money other than from the sale of the home?
Yes we know its payable after death - its the dementia death tax which removes inheritance. So why did he said "you don't need to sell your home" when you do? And if you definitely don't need to, why didn't the Solicitor General firmly put Jo Coburn back in her box on the telly just now?
When you go into a care home you do not need to sell your home. Obviously there is accountability after death but what do you expect? That taxpayers cover everything when wealth in property can be used to cover some of the cost? You are misrepresenting things for party political reasons. As Starmer did earlier. And as the media did re: May's plans.
Social Care is important. We must stick to the facts. Below is a worked example from the published proposals which is not too dissimilar from yours.
"Yusuf is in his late 70s. He has lived on his own since his wife died from cancer ten years ago. When she died, he downsized from their family home in Hastings to a smaller property worth £180,000. As a result, he has £70,000 in savings.
Yusuf develops dementia, can no longer cope at home and needs to move into residential care. His underlying health is good and he ultimately spends eight years living at the residential home. Yusuf's care home costs £700 per week. Under the current system, Yusuf would spend about £293,000 on his care from his assets and his income, and as a result only have £72,000 left in assets.
Under the new system, Yusuf hits the £86,000 cap after three years and four months. He no longer needs to contribute for his personal care from either his assets or his income. Beyond this, he will only have to contribute towards daily living costs. He is now left with £173,000, almost 70 per cent of his original assets.
Over his whole care journey, Yusuf spends £123,000 less than under the current system."
Its very very simple. EVen for PB Peppa parrots.
The issue is inheritance. If you have to sell your home to pay for care - whether before or after your death - it does not pass to your children. Fear of this death tax has driven all kinds of policies and pledges. Including in this case the "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " pledge repeated by Peppa today.
This simply is not true with the new bill. And you've given the exact example that northern red wall Tories will be wapped round the head with. Reduce Yusuf's assets to £120k of which almost all is the house, and there will be no other way to pay the £86k retrospectively other than sell the house to pay for care.
Yusef in Hasting's estate is £173k. Yusuf in Hartlepool's estate is £34k. It slams working class northerners in a way that it doesn't southerners.
You mentioned the facts. Why doesn't the PM know them?
The system is the same whether you live in Hastings or Hartlepool.
Some people have more valuable houses/estates than others. This is the case now and has nothing to do with it.
You seem to be arguing that the system should be different in Hastings and Hartlepool.
I'm arguing that when the pledge is "you won't need to sell your home" and the PM tells the commons today that "you won't need to sell your home" that northerners finding out that they DO need to sell their home will not be a vote winner. Especially when the same won't be true of people with more assets.
"Countries should consider mandatory Covid vaccination, says WHO Europe
Countries should consider implementing mandatory Covid vaccination, the director of World Health Organization (WHO) Europe said today.
Robb Butler said that although “mandatory vaccine can, but does not always, increase uptake”, he suggested countries should start thinking about the issue.
It comes after Germany’s tourism commissioner, Thomas Bareiss, said he expected vaccination to become mandatory in the country. Austria plans to make it compulsory from February."
(Guardian Live blog)
If this happens, anti-vaxxers will riot, and it will be much worse than anything hitherto. So many of them REALLY believe. I foresee violence, and deaths. Tragically
Question: How can you force someone to have a vaccination? At the very worst, you could throw them in jail (which would be farcical) – we are not going to have stormtroopers with needles entering people's homes!
If my parents end up in a care home I assumed they’d sell the house to pay for it. Who do people suppose is going to otherwise?
When I were a lad there was a hospital for gentlefolk across the road from that hole - closed by Labour and sold by the Tories for housing. Plenty of other local hospitals were dealt the same hand. They should have been kept open and eased the looming dementia crisis
Yes. Quite.
People who suppose otherwise see the family home as different from other assets. And bridle at the thought that non-homeowners have their care paid for.
The Labour Party is not a registered political party in Northern Ireland and does not currently contest elections.[2]
Well, I think the point is, that's a decision taken by Labour. They could contest elections if they wanted to. They could be pro-Union if they wanted to.
Personally, I don't see it as bad thing that they are neutral on the subject.
The whole argument arises from the lazy assumption that for anyone in Britain, the default patriotic only position is that NI (and indeed Scotland) ought to be part of the UK. Whether or not its inhabitants desire it. That simply doesn't follow.
No, there is a default assumption that a government of ANY country does not want to see part of the country break off to join another country. This is true of 99.3% of countries, Britain under a future Labour Party might be the only exception
I can see the strict logic in this Labour position, but boy the optics are bad, and it is an easy stick with which to batter them senseless - "they don't care if the UK breaks up" will be a statement of fact. Impossible to refute. Awful for a left-wing party already suspected of being non-patriotic if not treacherous
But hasn't that been the Labour Party approach for the best part of a century though: NI as part of the union so long as the majority desires it, but in parallel gently persuade them that a united Ireland is ultimately in everyone's best interest?
Yes, hence why I said "I can see the strict logic", but after the traumatic experience of Corbyn, when Labour got destroyed by the perception of anti-patriotism, pro-IRA, anti-British Marxist bullshit, they should now run a mile from anything that remotely suggests a repeat of this
They didn't have to make this statement, and they should not have done so. Far better to stay quiet. But if they do feel a need to take a position, it should have been something like "as a future UK government, we will always want the UK to stay together, for the benefit of all; however we recognise the GFA and we will not interfere with the choice made by the people of Northern Ireland, it is for them to decide"
That's basically saying the same thing but avoiding the dread word "neutral". As a government you can not and must not be "neutral" on the break up of the country.
Harry Cole is right. This will probably come back to bite them on the arse, very badly.
I doubt it very much. I think few in GB would care at all if Ireland peacefully voted for unification. More than a few would see it as unfinished business resolved.
Labour voters may not care, 2019 Labour voters back Irish unity by 33% to 31%.
The Labour Party is not a registered political party in Northern Ireland and does not currently contest elections.[2]
Well, I think the point is, that's a decision taken by Labour. They could contest elections if they wanted to. They could be pro-Union if they wanted to.
Personally, I don't see it as bad thing that they are neutral on the subject.
The whole argument arises from the lazy assumption that for anyone in Britain, the default patriotic only position is that NI (and indeed Scotland) ought to be part of the UK. Whether or not its inhabitants desire it. That simply doesn't follow.
No, there is a default assumption that a government of ANY country does not want to see part of the country break off to join another country. This is true of 99.3% of countries, Britain under a future Labour Party might be the only exception
I can see the strict logic in this Labour position, but boy the optics are bad, and it is an easy stick with which to batter them senseless - "they don't care if the UK breaks up" will be a statement of fact. Impossible to refute. Awful for a left-wing party already suspected of being non-patriotic if not treacherous
But hasn't that been the Labour Party approach for the best part of a century though: NI as part of the union so long as the majority desires it, but in parallel gently persuade them that a united Ireland is ultimately in everyone's best interest?
Yes, hence why I said "I can see the strict logic", but after the traumatic experience of Corbyn, when Labour got destroyed by the perception of anti-patriotism, pro-IRA, anti-British Marxist bullshit, they should now run a mile from anything that remotely suggests a repeat of this
They didn't have to make this statement, and they should not have done so. Far better to stay quiet. But if they do feel a need to take a position, it should have been something like "as a future UK government, we will always want the UK to stay together, for the benefit of all; however we recognise the GFA and we will not interfere with the choice made by the people of Northern Ireland, it is for them to decide"
That's basically saying the same thing but avoiding the dread word "neutral". As a government you can not and must not be "neutral" on the break up of the country.
Harry Cole is right. This will probably come back to bite them on the arse, very badly.
Just goes to show what a genius Boris is.
Lab has some namby-pamby sympathy for Irish Republicans: the Party is lambasted for it; the Conservative government puts a border in the Irish Sea, thereby setting in motion a path to Irish reunification: trebles all round.
There won't be a Border poll for decades (if ever). The gentlemen of violence, on both sides, will see to that
As soon as it looks like one might be imminent, there will be bombs, and everyone will go off the idea. Even (especially?) the Irish in the south
Were I an Irish Republican sympathiser I would be very happy with the current state of play in GB treating NI as a separate entity. Very happy indeed. And my AK can stay in its hide all the while.
Likewise, if I was a super intelligent unionist (which I am) I would realise that ultimately NI will be in a peachy position, unlike anywhere else - part of the UK Single Market, part of the EU Single Market, blessed with Free Movement in the EU but also part of the UK, the NHS, and so on.
Companies will move to Northern Ireland to take advantage of this, especially as Corporation Tax rises in the south, as it must
Indeed, it is already happening, you just didn't notice
Ardagh’s investment in Belfast factory seen as vote of confidence in region’s protocol"
"A total of 170 jobs are to be created in Northern Ireland by one of the world’s biggest packaging companies, the latest business seeking to exploit the region’s “best of both worlds” post-Brexit trading status.
Ardagh Metal Packaging on Friday announced plans to build a $200m beverage can plant near Belfast, from which drinks will be exported both to Britain and EU markets."
I hereby predict the Norns will want to keep their special status. Indeed I predicted all this about a year ago, and I am right
The interesting question longer-term is whether the ROI moves towards the UK. Given they effectively have no voice in Europe, they are a net contributor and it's clear Europe would sh1t on their interests if Europe wanted to, why not?
The Labour Party is not a registered political party in Northern Ireland and does not currently contest elections.[2]
Well, I think the point is, that's a decision taken by Labour. They could contest elections if they wanted to. They could be pro-Union if they wanted to.
Personally, I don't see it as bad thing that they are neutral on the subject.
The whole argument arises from the lazy assumption that for anyone in Britain, the default patriotic only position is that NI (and indeed Scotland) ought to be part of the UK. Whether or not its inhabitants desire it. That simply doesn't follow.
No, there is a default assumption that a government of ANY country does not want to see part of the country break off to join another country. This is true of 99.3% of countries, Britain under a future Labour Party might be the only exception
I can see the strict logic in this Labour position, but boy the optics are bad, and it is an easy stick with which to batter them senseless - "they don't care if the UK breaks up" will be a statement of fact. Impossible to refute. Awful for a left-wing party already suspected of being non-patriotic if not treacherous
But hasn't that been the Labour Party approach for the best part of a century though: NI as part of the union so long as the majority desires it, but in parallel gently persuade them that a united Ireland is ultimately in everyone's best interest?
Yes, hence why I said "I can see the strict logic", but after the traumatic experience of Corbyn, when Labour got destroyed by the perception of anti-patriotism, pro-IRA, anti-British Marxist bullshit, they should now run a mile from anything that remotely suggests a repeat of this
They didn't have to make this statement, and they should not have done so. Far better to stay quiet. But if they do feel a need to take a position, it should have been something like "as a future UK government, we will always want the UK to stay together, for the benefit of all; however we recognise the GFA and we will not interfere with the choice made by the people of Northern Ireland, it is for them to decide"
That's basically saying the same thing but avoiding the dread word "neutral". As a government you can not and must not be "neutral" on the break up of the country.
Harry Cole is right. This will probably come back to bite them on the arse, very badly.
Just goes to show what a genius Boris is.
Lab has some namby-pamby sympathy for Irish Republicans: the Party is lambasted for it; the Conservative government puts a border in the Irish Sea, thereby setting in motion a path to Irish reunification: trebles all round.
There won't be a Border poll for decades (if ever). The gentlemen of violence, on both sides, will see to that
As soon as it looks like one might be imminent, there will be bombs, and everyone will go off the idea. Even (especially?) the Irish in the south
Were I an Irish Republican sympathiser I would be very happy with the current state of play in GB treating NI as a separate entity. Very happy indeed. And my AK can stay in its hide all the while.
Likewise, if I was a super intelligent unionist (which I am) I would realise that ultimately NI will be in a peachy position, unlike anywhere else - part of the UK Single Market, part of the EU Single Market, blessed with Free Movement in the EU but also part of the UK, the NHS, and so on.
Companies will move to Northern Ireland to take advantage of this, especially as Corporation Tax rises in the south, as it must
Indeed, it is already happening, you just didn't notice
Ardagh’s investment in Belfast factory seen as vote of confidence in region’s protocol"
"A total of 170 jobs are to be created in Northern Ireland by one of the world’s biggest packaging companies, the latest business seeking to exploit the region’s “best of both worlds” post-Brexit trading status.
Ardagh Metal Packaging on Friday announced plans to build a $200m beverage can plant near Belfast, from which drinks will be exported both to Britain and EU markets."
I hereby predict the Norns will want to keep their special status. Indeed I predicted all this about a year ago, and I am right
Unusual to have a Brexiter boast how great being in the Single Market is.
I was a soft Leaver, I wanted us to go to something like EEA/EFTA for at least a decade, as a holding position. The Single Market is a good thing, and I personally had no problem with Free Movement - tho I respect the votes of people who do. I am not a cleaner or a tradesman who has seen his or her wages stagnate due to high immigration from Eastern Europe
Anyway, well done Northern Ireland. I reckon it is now going to boom, economically, because of its unique position. They deserve it. And as it booms, talk of reunification will dwindle away
"Countries should consider mandatory Covid vaccination, says WHO Europe
Countries should consider implementing mandatory Covid vaccination, the director of World Health Organization (WHO) Europe said today.
Robb Butler said that although “mandatory vaccine can, but does not always, increase uptake”, he suggested countries should start thinking about the issue.
It comes after Germany’s tourism commissioner, Thomas Bareiss, said he expected vaccination to become mandatory in the country. Austria plans to make it compulsory from February."
(Guardian Live blog)
If this happens, anti-vaxxers will riot, and it will be much worse than anything hitherto. So many of them REALLY believe. I foresee violence, and deaths. Tragically
These people have really completely lost the plot. People can choose to be idiots. I don't agree with their choice but that's the bloody point of living in a free country, they have the fucking choice to do it anyway.
It will be utterly and totally and insanely counter-productive and indeed as @Leon warns lead to civil unrest.
Still, I expect several europe countries to try it because the Something Must Be Done mentality is so strong.
One of Starmer or Johnson doesn’t understand the care proposals.
It has been the case that the home is only sold on death to pay care costs
Actually, I think under present system that is up to the local council in question. They have to agree to defer until death.
I do not know of anyone having to sell their home while they are alive
Of course it may be the home is sold as they do not live in it, but I would ask if anybody has any experience of a home owner having to sell to pay their care costs while they are alive
The PM didn’t say anything about qualifying his statement because the house isn’t sold to pay for care until after death.
Nor did the Tory manifesto qualify its promise in that way.
Indeed, didn’t the whole issue arise because Mrs May proposed to use the proceeds of people’s homes, sold after death? Hence the ‘death tax’?
People in that position are more worried about their inheritance than having somewhere to live - their being in care generally being a one way street.
The literal wording from the manifesto is "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " If that isn't about the inheritance left to pass on to their kids then what is it?
The whole reason for the reform is to stop someone's entire assets being swallowed up by care costs so that there is nothing left to inherit. And the PM stood up and repeatedly said that nobody would have to sell their home because the home is not counted as an asset. This is simply wrong. He either doesn't know his own policy or he is lying about it.
Question - how many of the red wallers are going to accept your attempts at sophistry and go "fair enough, I'm being taxed heavily so that I don't lose my home, but I'm going to lose it anyway whilst the well off dont. yes of course the Tories still have my vote".
Northerners are not stupid.
The PM said "nobody would have to sell their home" which is true. They have the option of selling it or not selling it with payments due being paid after death.
In addition there are situations where the main home is exempt anyway: at home care, spouse still living in the house, other relative over 60 living in house, any relative of any age still living in the house etc etc.
If you need to pay £86k and of your £100k assets almost all of it is your home, where exactly are you to get the money other than from the sale of the home?
Yes we know its payable after death - its the dementia death tax which removes inheritance. So why did he said "you don't need to sell your home" when you do? And if you definitely don't need to, why didn't the Solicitor General firmly put Jo Coburn back in her box on the telly just now?
When you go into a care home you do not need to sell your home. Obviously there is accountability after death but what do you expect? That taxpayers cover everything when wealth in property can be used to cover some of the cost? You are misrepresenting things for party political reasons. As Starmer did earlier. And as the media did re: May's plans.
Social Care is important. We must stick to the facts. Below is a worked example from the published proposals which is not too dissimilar from yours.
"Yusuf is in his late 70s. He has lived on his own since his wife died from cancer ten years ago. When she died, he downsized from their family home in Hastings to a smaller property worth £180,000. As a result, he has £70,000 in savings.
Yusuf develops dementia, can no longer cope at home and needs to move into residential care. His underlying health is good and he ultimately spends eight years living at the residential home. Yusuf's care home costs £700 per week. Under the current system, Yusuf would spend about £293,000 on his care from his assets and his income, and as a result only have £72,000 left in assets.
Under the new system, Yusuf hits the £86,000 cap after three years and four months. He no longer needs to contribute for his personal care from either his assets or his income. Beyond this, he will only have to contribute towards daily living costs. He is now left with £173,000, almost 70 per cent of his original assets.
Over his whole care journey, Yusuf spends £123,000 less than under the current system."
Its very very simple. EVen for PB Peppa parrots.
The issue is inheritance. If you have to sell your home to pay for care - whether before or after your death - it does not pass to your children. Fear of this death tax has driven all kinds of policies and pledges. Including in this case the "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " pledge repeated by Peppa today.
This simply is not true with the new bill. And you've given the exact example that northern red wall Tories will be wapped round the head with. Reduce Yusuf's assets to £120k of which almost all is the house, and there will be no other way to pay the £86k retrospectively other than sell the house to pay for care.
Yusef in Hasting's estate is £173k. Yusuf in Hartlepool's estate is £34k. It slams working class northerners in a way that it doesn't southerners.
You mentioned the facts. Why doesn't the PM know them?
The system is the same whether you live in Hastings or Hartlepool.
Some people have more valuable houses/estates than others. This is the case now and has nothing to do with it.
You seem to be arguing that the system should be different in Hastings and Hartlepool.
I'm arguing that when the pledge is "you won't need to sell your home" and the PM tells the commons today that "you won't need to sell your home" that northerners finding out that they DO need to sell their home will not be a vote winner. Especially when the same won't be true of people with more assets.
It's got nothing to do with Northerners! the same can be said of a poor person in Hastings vs a rich person in Hastings.
Comments
Liberal Democrats in the US tend to look more towards continental Europe and the EU not the Anglosphere.
Republican Presidents tend to look more towards the Anglosphere than the EU.
The exceptions being Bush Snr who was closer to Kohl than Thatcher (though he got on better with Major) and to some extent Biden post AUKUS (though Biden is also clearly closer to the EU than Boris' UK on Northern Ireland)
What a precipitous decline we have seen. This denial of the facts started with the right, I suspect- shock jocks and Fox News - but it has now infested the left as badly if not worse, via Wokery and Trump, and it is now everywhere. This is just one example. The NYT doesn't like Brexit Britain, so anything it does must be bad, including its handling of Covid. The agenda is prioritised over the truth, there isn't really any attempt to seek the truth.
It means Americans are now shockingly misinformed across the political spectrum at probably the worst time for that to happen
Oh and for you - my tube update: last night around 6pm (Victoria, Piccadilly) - would say mask wearing was much lower than previously - around 40%.
This morning (Central, Victoria) around 8am much much higher - around 80%.
Could be that people going home/out of an evening don't give much less of a **** but in the cold light of day in the morning they think: better had.
The Scene: Parliament Square. A Tree.
Truss: Lets' Go
Sunak: We Can't
Truss: Why Not?
Sunak: We're waiting for Brady
However since the War of Independence the UK has generally fought more wars alongside the US than France has
LAB: 38% (-2)
CON: 36% (+2)
LDEM: 10% (-)
GRN: 5% (-)
via @SavantaComRes, 19 - 21 Nov
Chgs. w/ 12 Nov
https://www.newstatesman.com/the-latest-polls-britain-elects
I can see the strict logic in this Labour position, but boy the optics are bad, and it is an easy stick with which to batter them senseless - "they don't care if the UK breaks up" will be a statement of fact. Impossible to refute. Awful for a left-wing party already suspected of being non-patriotic if not treacherous
If the bill goes through without being hugely amended by the Lords, today's shambles will come back to bite him. Because we will have a manifesto saying "you won't have to sell your house", a PM saying "you won't have to sell your house" and then northern voters in the election campaign having to sell being told by the PM that they are wrong. I know I keep saying northerners aren't stupid, but some Tories and their parrots are really working on the assumption that they are.
Any suggestions for countries that are most likely to be open and worth visiting at that time (i.e. covid restrictions don't make the whole thing pointless, I had a friend who went to Singapore last week and it sounded dire unless you just wanted to sit by a hotel pool all day)?: If I lived abroad, England would be the obvious one, but I'm not keen on yet another domestic holiday.
I figure it'll be dependent on a combination of current vaccination/infection levels and political stance, so most of Europe is probably out. Canada also seems risky, so the only other place I can think of is the southern states of the USA. All ideas welcome!
However Starmer could become PM with SNP support
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=36&LAB=38&LIB=10&Reform=2&Green=5&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=22.3&SCOTLAB=18.3&SCOTLIB=6.3&SCOTReform=0.7&SCOTGreen=0.7&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=48.3&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase
New Zealand is now opening up and obvs has zero cases, almost, but it's a heck of a journey
Thailand is now open, but the bars are not (they are meant to open on Jan 15th). However if you get a close contact with a carrier (eg on the plane) you have to quarantine at your own expense for 2 weeks, I think. Not fun, and a big risk
Nowhere is perfect - ie easy, safe, sunny
Net favourability:
Johnson -14% (-5)
UK gov -16% (-4)
Starmer -9% (-3)
Sunak +10% (-1)
2,184 UK adults, 19-21 Nov
(Changes from 15-17 Oct) https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1463500363215036424/photo/1
Social Care is important. We must stick to the facts. Below is a worked example from the published proposals which is not too dissimilar from yours.
"Yusuf is in his late 70s. He has lived on his own since his wife died from cancer ten years ago. When she died, he downsized from their family home in Hastings to a smaller property worth £180,000. As a result, he has £70,000 in savings.
Yusuf develops dementia, can no longer cope at home and needs to move into residential care. His underlying health is good and he ultimately spends eight years living at the residential home. Yusuf's care home costs £700 per week. Under the current system, Yusuf would spend about £293,000 on his care from his assets and his income, and as a result only have £72,000 left in assets.
Under the new system, Yusuf hits the £86,000 cap after three years and four months. He no longer needs to contribute for his personal care from either his assets or his income. Beyond this, he will only have to contribute towards daily living costs. He is now left with £173,000, almost 70 per cent of his original assets.
Over his whole care journey, Yusuf spends £123,000 less than under the current system."
France is to announce new Covid measures tomorrow as infections surge across the country.
Spokesman Gabriel Attal said today that the government wants to strengthen social distancing and speed up vaccinations and said they are doing all they can to save the Christmas holiday season.
They also plan to tighten regulations on using the country’s health pass.
Despite this, he said the situation is likely to worsen in the coming days. The incidence rate (infections per week per 100,000 people) is expected to rise above 200 this week
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2021/nov/24/covid-news-live-south-korea-reports-record-daily-cases-us-to-require-vaccination-proof-at-all-border-crossings?page=with:block-619e2edd8f0866e46b622c62#block-619e2edd8f0866e46b622c62
It's, really dickishly, strictly true.
Like the " "new" "hospitals" ".
If the house gains 30% value or drops 30% value who gets the change in value? The homeowner or the state? If the homeowner, then no, it has not been sold before death, and is no longer "your" home after death. If the state then you are correct.
They didn't have to make this statement, and they should not have done so. Far better to stay quiet. But if they do feel a need to take a position, it should have been something like "as a future UK government, we will always want the UK to stay together, for the benefit of all; however we recognise the GFA and we will not interfere with the choice made by the people of Northern Ireland, it is for them to decide"
That's basically saying the same thing but avoiding the dread word "neutral". As a government you can not and must not be "neutral" on the break up of the country.
Harry Cole is right. This will probably come back to bite them on the arse, very badly.
Boris 39 (=)
Starmer 30 (-2)
Perfectly possible on current polls
https://twitter.com/J_Donaldson_MP/status/1463192730088132622?s=20
Lab has some namby-pamby sympathy for Irish Republicans: the Party is lambasted for it; the Conservative government puts a border in the Irish Sea, thereby setting in motion a path to Irish reunification: trebles all round.
"Social distancing becomes mandatory in the Netherlands amid calls for tougher measures"
And then look at the sign. It is in English, and uses quite sophisticated English - with wordplay.
The tiny subtitles are in Dutch
Dutch is going to die out in a generation
Politically, because of emotional attachment to homes and inheritances, more people will see this as lying though.
On WATO. "Is this a serious hunt?"
"Yes it is a hunt."
Can't be accidental, can it?
The unfairness, if you want to find one, is that homeowners (either directly or via a reduced estate to the beneficiaries) have to pay for care when non-homeowners do not. That penalises prudence and many will bridle at this. Me? I see both sides of this. On one hand why should taxpayers pay for everything and on the other should main residence be treated as cash would be? Dunno.
Fixing social care is a trap which May and now Johnson have fallen into.
Boris Johnson 39% =
Keir Starmer 30% -2
Don’t know 31% +2
(Change on month)
@SavantaComRes
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1463503258555760641?s=20
As soon as it looks like one might be imminent, there will be bombs, and everyone will go off the idea. Even (especially?) the Irish in the south
It would be the wrong thing to do at this time
"Countries should consider mandatory Covid vaccination, says WHO Europe
Countries should consider implementing mandatory Covid vaccination, the director of World Health Organization (WHO) Europe said today.
Robb Butler said that although “mandatory vaccine can, but does not always, increase uptake”, he suggested countries should start thinking about the issue.
It comes after Germany’s tourism commissioner, Thomas Bareiss, said he expected vaccination to become mandatory in the country. Austria plans to make it compulsory from February."
(Guardian Live blog)
If this happens, anti-vaxxers will riot, and it will be much worse than anything hitherto. So many of them REALLY believe. I foresee violence, and deaths. Tragically
The issue is inheritance. If you have to sell your home to pay for care - whether before or after your death - it does not pass to your children. Fear of this death tax has driven all kinds of policies and pledges. Including in this case the "nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. " pledge repeated by Peppa today.
This simply is not true with the new bill. And you've given the exact example that northern red wall Tories will be wapped round the head with. Reduce Yusuf's assets to £120k of which almost all is the house, and there will be no other way to pay the £86k retrospectively other than sell the house to pay for care.
Yusef in Hasting's estate is £173k. Yusuf in Hartlepool's estate is £34k. It slams working class northerners in a way that it doesn't southerners.
You mentioned the facts. Why doesn't the PM know them?
It concludes with this: "Still, it is worth putting Britain’s troubles in perspective. The country’s high vaccination rate means that only a tiny share of recent cases have led to severe illness, and the death rate this fall has been a fraction of what it was last winter. “This virus is going to be with us for years, if not the rest of our lives,” Willem van Schaik, a microbiologist at the University of Birmingham in England, told us. “We’ve definitely left the worst behind us.”
Anyone who toiled the bottom of the piece would wonder whether the subeditor had done likewise.
He would not have to pay 8 years worth of care costs (as he likely would under the current system) because he hits the new £86k cap much sooner. From there none of his capital is taken, though he still has to pay £200 pw for living expense component of the care home.
Overall, the new system benefits him. And, of course, disadvantages the council. Any Social Care "fix" is playing with the balance between the two.
I do hope restrictions for NZ ease up at I am hoping to go there for my father in Lows 80th Birthday next year.
Boris can say he got Brexit done whilst Sir Keir wanted to put us through another referendum, he got the vaccines done whist Sir Keir was trying to tie us to the EmA, and set us free when Sir Keir wanted to lock us down - three big things that will go down in history to boast about vs minor quibbles over policy from Labour that no one really notices
Hedgehogs vs Foxes I think
Companies will move to Northern Ireland to take advantage of this, especially as Corporation Tax rises in the south, as it must
Indeed, it is already happening, you just didn't notice
"Northern Ireland’s post-Brexit trading advantage lures packing giant
Ardagh’s investment in Belfast factory seen as vote of confidence in region’s protocol"
"A total of 170 jobs are to be created in Northern Ireland by one of the world’s biggest packaging companies, the latest business seeking to exploit the region’s “best of both worlds” post-Brexit trading status.
Ardagh Metal Packaging on Friday announced plans to build a $200m beverage can plant near Belfast, from which drinks will be exported both to Britain and EU markets."
https://www.ft.com/content/0b6f751d-363b-424d-a452-7a235e13eb00
I hereby predict the Norns will want to keep their special status. Indeed I predicted all this about a year ago, and I am right
Have you nothing better to do?
Some people have more valuable houses/estates than others. This is the case now and has nothing to do with it.
You seem to be arguing that the system should be different in Hastings and Hartlepool.
Have to scoot now - that's enough yellow on yellow action. Though your yellow is tinged towards the orange and mine tinged towards the green.
Is there not a more erudite chat room you could spend time on rather than wasting it on here.
Here is a Sept 21 piece by BBC news on DPAs:
"Deferred-payment agreements (DPAs) were introduced by the then government in 2015.
A DPA is a legal arrangement with a local council. It covers care costs up front and secures these against a person's home at a fixed-interest rate.
When the person dies, their home is sold to repay the loan - but they will not have to sell it before then to pay for residential care.
As well as interest, administration costs may also apply.
And councils can refuse to approve these loans, if, for example, they do not think they will get all of their money back.
In the year ending March 2020:
3,415 new DPAs were agreed, at a total value of £53.2m
a further 690 requests were turned down by councils in England "
When I were a lad there was a hospital for gentlefolk across the road from that hole - closed by Labour and sold by the Tories for housing. Plenty of other local hospitals were dealt the same hand. They should have been kept open and eased the looming dementia crisis
1. Society heading back to normal vs the rest of Europe, which is facing increasing chaos;
2. Furlough scheme implemented, which stopped mass unemployment;
3. Vaccine rollout success when the UK was being pelted with brickbats;
4. Brexit done and not the catastrophe predicted;
5. For most people, the economy is doing quite well.
Very few voices in Europe (and liberal America) are doing their retrospective and coming to the correct conclusion that they were wrong to keep hold of NPIs in the summer and reduce the spread. As I said last week, it almost feels as thought they will repeat this exercise in March/April when it's time to reduce NPIs, they simply don't seem to have it within them to admit we did it right and will hold onto idiotic vaccine passports, masks, social distancing and keep late night socialising closed.
For UK it will mostly be hassle going on holiday.
People who suppose otherwise see the family home as different from other assets. And bridle at the thought that non-homeowners have their care paid for.
However 2019 Tory voters do care, they want NI to stay in the UK by 47% to 25% and Starmer needs a number of them to become PM
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1463187662890680326?s=20
Anyway, well done Northern Ireland. I reckon it is now going to boom, economically, because of its unique position. They deserve it. And as it booms, talk of reunification will dwindle away
Still, I expect several europe countries to try it because the Something Must Be Done mentality is so strong.