Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
What? What “transitory sample”? These are not words I have used.
Lucky hasn't worked out what happens to domestic prisoners at the end of their sentences, apparently.
If what Bondygoo is saying is that they are being deported, but only when they've served their full sentence (minus reductions) in the UK, that is the logic fail. The whole idea of deporting them in the context of this discussion is that we reduce the prison population and stop paying the equivalent of Eton fees to house them.
I never said we only deport them after they’ve served their full sentence. Please read what I’ve written. There are various schemes whereby some are deported partway through their sentence when we can be confident they are going to a country that will appropriately imprison them for the remainder of their sentence.
We could deport many foreign offenders sooner, but the downside of that is that they might get out of prison earlier. Do you think it’s acceptable that someone should get away with a lesser sentence because they are not a UK national? That really would be two-tier justice.
In my limited experience of this area a further problem with transferring foreign prisoners is what happens to them when they are released. A lot of sex offenders, for example, are subject to extended sentences where they are very carefully monitored on release and restricted in what jobs they can apply for, have notification requirements and restrictions on internet usage. Some countries don't seem to have anything similar with the result that the sentence cannot be properly served in the country they might potentially be deported to. The result is that they are subject to supervision in this country.
I am not entirely sure that most Judges get that these kinds of conditions, which are entirely appropriate for UK prisoners, might result in a continuing risk to the UK population on release.
We can't rehabilitate people we don't want in our country otherwise we end up with the weird logic where robbery gets you sent back home but rape allows you to stay in the UK.
And while I don't particular want robbers to remain in the UK no-one is going to want rapists staying..
Foreign nationals are not for us to reform or rehabilitate. Any justification for their continued presence is removed by them comitting a severe crime. Their liberty to continue their criminal career in their country of origin isn't our problem either - it is entirely their choice whether they set the person free or continue their detention.
So, justice for British victims means nothing to you?
Justice is served by the criminals being deported, never to return. If I had been the victim of violent crime, I would far rather the perptrator be deported back to where they came from than serve a British sentence in a British gaol. I think there are few who would differ.
Let's consider a more detailed scenario. Someone comes over from Algeria and viciously assaults you. Would you rather, if these were the only choices...
a) They serve 20 years in a British gaol and are then deported to Algeria; or
b) They are immediately deported to Algeria, but serve no time or other punishment there.
I think most people would rather (a), but I've not seen polling on the matter.
You’d need to point out that (a) carries a cost of more than a million pounds in taxpayers’ money.
There’s also option (c), which is that Algeria agrees to take their prisoner back and they get to spend two decades in Algerian prison, five men to a room with a bucket in the corner, where it gets damn hot in summer and there’s no air conditioning.
I'm sure you could phrase a polling question a range of different ways and get a range of different responses. You could also point out that reciprocal agreements mean that we would still be spending taxpayers' money on British people who had offended abroad and were sent back to serve time in the UK. I'd need to see how the figures would work out before being particularly persuaded by that myself.
If option (c) -- deporting them to their country of origin with guarantees that they will do time -- exists, it seems sensible. However, it frequently does not exist. Some countries are not on good terms with us. Some countries have high levels of corruption. Some countries have very different ideas of what punishments are appropriate.
We do deport lots of foreign offenders before they have served their full sentence on these terms to countries where we have good agreements.
Get them on a plane, now. 100% of the time. Do not pass go, do not collect £200. Notify Algeria of what they have done, and pass them to the authorities there. If the Algerians see fit to free them for a life of wine, women and song, that's not our problem. They can't have been enjoying life in Algeria that much, or they wouldn't have come to the UK.
In the very rare case where a judge feels that public outrage can only be satisfied by a guaranteed minimum custodial sentence, the Home Secretary could be asked to make arrangements with the country of origin to hire space within their justice system.
I think it very much is our problem if a tourist from country X comes to the UK, commits a terrible crime, and then returns to country X to face no punishment. That is not justice for the victim. I don't think your policy would prove popular with the public. The controversy over the return of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi to Libya demonstrates that.
A working prison system would be very popular with the public. We cannot afford to house the criminals of the world. For very severe crimes, a prison sentence served abroad would be far tougher than anything meted out by the British justice system.
..That said Andy Burnham currently has much better political antennae and communication skills than Gordon Brown.
I know but then again 29% at the next general election could lead to a Labour landslide.
If Badenoch went full frontal One Nation Tory, dispensed with all the Reform racism- based rubbish, disposed of all the old- guard scumbags like Michael Green and called the party the New Conservatives she would be on 45%.
No she wouldn’t as half of those type of voters now vote LD. The Conservatives need to be neither LD2 nor Reform2
Become One Nation Tories and all your LDs come back home.
The Tories are already dabbling in Reform 2 narratives.
Not unless the Tories also promised to rejoin the EEA and ultimately the EU and reverse Brexit, in which case Tories may as well merge into the LDs with the rest joining Reform anyway
Good afternoon
Just catching up on the thread it seems all Kemi has to do is adopt Lib Dem policies and she is home and dry
Kemi is plotting her own course with increasing popularity and support within her own party
Time will tell but I do expect her to overtake Reform and be the party of the right going into GE29 with policies on the economy, youth and defence
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
..That said Andy Burnham currently has much better political antennae and communication skills than Gordon Brown.
I know but then again 29% at the next general election could lead to a Labour landslide.
If Badenoch went full frontal One Nation Tory, dispensed with all the Reform racism- based rubbish, disposed of all the old- guard scumbags like Michael Green and called the party the New Conservatives she would be on 45%.
No she wouldn’t as half of those type of voters now vote LD. The Conservatives need to be neither LD2 nor Reform2
Become One Nation Tories and all your LDs come back home.
The Tories are already dabbling in Reform 2 narratives.
But they then lose as many in the other direction to Reform.
I started to respond to this and then I thought if you can't see swimming in the same excrement as Reform and Restore is sub optimal when there are Labour and LD votes to pick off if you tack to the centre, I am wasting my time.
Stupid argument.
Cookie is not advocating voting for Reform or Restore. He is merely pointing out that, since many people will do just that, any move by Badenoch towards the centre ground is likely to be, at best, vote neutral. And almost certainly vote negative given the centre ground is already pretty crowded.
Again, this is not to advocate for a move to the right, or even staying where the Tory party currently lies. Simply pointing out that any move towards the centre is unlikely to improve Tory electoral fortunes.
This why, in spite of the current evidence, I think the Tory party is fecked.
I genuinely believe if the Tories entered what is currently a centrist dead zone between where they currently stand and where LD and right wing Labour are to be found they could do well and quickly in the face of an unpopular Government and a pretender in Farage,who these days keeps being found out as an unreliable Trumpian Charlatan.
This is the ground Churchill, McMillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major and Cameron won upon. It is dare I say it also the narrative of three time winning PM Blair.
They need to be a centre right, pro Brexit party that is neither LD pro EU or as anti immigration as Reform and Restore
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
What? What “transitory sample”? These are not words I have used.
Lucky hasn't worked out what happens to domestic prisoners at the end of their sentences, apparently.
If what Bondygoo is saying is that they are being deported, but only when they've served their full sentence (minus reductions) in the UK, that is the logic fail. The whole idea of deporting them in the context of this discussion is that we reduce the prison population and stop paying the equivalent of Eton fees to house them.
I never said we only deport them after they’ve served their full sentence. Please read what I’ve written. There are various schemes whereby some are deported partway through their sentence when we can be confident they are going to a country that will appropriately imprison them for the remainder of their sentence.
We could deport many foreign offenders sooner, but the downside of that is that they might get out of prison earlier. Do you think it’s acceptable that someone should get away with a lesser sentence because they are not a UK national? That really would be two-tier justice.
In my limited experience of this area a further problem with transferring foreign prisoners is what happens to them when they are released. A lot of sex offenders, for example, are subject to extended sentences where they are very carefully monitored on release and restricted in what jobs they can apply for, have notification requirements and restrictions on internet usage. Some countries don't seem to have anything similar with the result that the sentence cannot be properly served in the country they might potentially be deported to. The result is that they are subject to supervision in this country.
I am not entirely sure that most Judges get that these kinds of conditions, which are entirely appropriate for UK prisoners, might result in a continuing risk to the UK population on release.
We can't rehabilitate people we don't want in our country otherwise we end up with the weird logic where robbery gets you sent back home but rape allows you to stay in the UK.
And while I don't particular want robbers to remain in the UK no-one is going to want rapists staying..
Foreign nationals are not for us to reform or rehabilitate. Any justification for their continued presence is removed by them comitting a severe crime. Their liberty to continue their criminal career in their country of origin isn't our problem either - it is entirely their choice whether they set the person free or continue their detention.
So, justice for British victims means nothing to you?
Justice is served by the criminals being deported, never to return. If I had been the victim of violent crime, I would far rather the perptrator be deported back to where they came from than serve a British sentence in a British gaol. I think there are few who would differ.
Let's consider a more detailed scenario. Someone comes over from Algeria and viciously assaults you. Would you rather, if these were the only choices...
a) They serve 20 years in a British gaol and are then deported to Algeria; or
b) They are immediately deported to Algeria, but serve no time or other punishment there.
I think most people would rather (a), but I've not seen polling on the matter.
You’d need to point out that (a) carries a cost of more than a million pounds in taxpayers’ money.
There’s also option (c), which is that Algeria agrees to take their prisoner back and they get to spend two decades in Algerian prison, five men to a room with a bucket in the corner, where it gets damn hot in summer and there’s no air conditioning.
I'm sure you could phrase a polling question a range of different ways and get a range of different responses. You could also point out that reciprocal agreements mean that we would still be spending taxpayers' money on British people who had offended abroad and were sent back to serve time in the UK. I'd need to see how the figures would work out before being particularly persuaded by that myself.
If option (c) -- deporting them to their country of origin with guarantees that they will do time -- exists, it seems sensible. However, it frequently does not exist. Some countries are not on good terms with us. Some countries have high levels of corruption. Some countries have very different ideas of what punishments are appropriate.
We do deport lots of foreign offenders before they have served their full sentence on these terms to countries where we have good agreements.
Get them on a plane, now. 100% of the time. Do not pass go, do not collect £200. Notify Algeria of what they have done, and pass them to the authorities there. If the Algerians see fit to free them for a life of wine, women and song, that's not our problem. They can't have been enjoying life in Algeria that much, or they wouldn't have come to the UK.
In the very rare case where a judge feels that public outrage can only be satisfied by a guaranteed minimum custodial sentence, the Home Secretary could be asked to make arrangements with the country of origin to hire space within their justice system.
I think it very much is our problem if a tourist from country X comes to the UK, commits a terrible crime, and then returns to country X to face no punishment. That is not justice for the victim. I don't think your policy would prove popular with the public. The controversy over the return of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi to Libya demonstrates that.
..That said Andy Burnham currently has much better political antennae and communication skills than Gordon Brown.
I know but then again 29% at the next general election could lead to a Labour landslide.
If Badenoch went full frontal One Nation Tory, dispensed with all the Reform racism- based rubbish, disposed of all the old- guard scumbags like Michael Green and called the party the New Conservatives she would be on 45%.
No she wouldn’t as half of those type of voters now vote LD. The Conservatives need to be neither LD2 nor Reform2
Become One Nation Tories and all your LDs come back home.
The Tories are already dabbling in Reform 2 narratives.
But they then lose as many in the other direction to Reform.
I started to respond to this and then I thought if you can't see swimming in the same excrement as Reform and Restore is sub optimal when there are Labour and LD votes to pick off if you tack to the centre, I am wasting my time.
Stupid argument.
Cookie is not advocating voting for Reform or Restore. He is merely pointing out that, since many people will do just that, any move by Badenoch towards the centre ground is likely to be, at best, vote neutral. And almost certainly vote negative given the centre ground is already pretty crowded.
Again, this is not to advocate for a move to the right, or even staying where the Tory party currently lies. Simply pointing out that any move towards the centre is unlikely to improve Tory electoral fortunes.
This why, in spite of the current evidence, I think the Tory party is fecked.
I genuinely believe if the Tories entered what is currently a centrist dead zone between where they currently stand and where LD and right wing Labour are to be found they could do well and quickly in the face of an unpopular Government and a pretender in Farage,who these days keeps being found out as an unreliable Trumpian Charlatan.
This is the ground Churchill, McMillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major and Cameron won upon. It is dare I say it also the narrative of three time winning PM Blair.
You don't want centrism (better described as North London progressivism) to save the Tories, you want the Tories to save centrism.
There is something to that, and with a dose of dying Eurocentrism, but both the Conservative Party and centrism dying on their arses in union in the face of Farage would be disappointing.
Progressive centrism has been our guiding principle for the last 3 to 4 decades. It has resulted in a stagnant economy, a metastising state delivering dysfunctional public services, vast public debt, a society divided into factions and identities, immigration at a level where harmonious assimilation is impossible, a filthy and dangerous public sphere, and a Britain that only 6% of adults would fight for were we to be invaded. Forgive me if I don't share your disappointment at its demise as a political force.
The Heathite agenda has been shown to have well and truly failed.
Managed decline doesn't work, because it is more decline than can be managed.
Going for growth is the only option. Per Capita economic growth,
Free the city, free the small businesses, take CT and CGT both down to 15%. Exempt businesses under 10 staff from the majority of the employment law passed since Blair.
..That said Andy Burnham currently has much better political antennae and communication skills than Gordon Brown.
I know but then again 29% at the next general election could lead to a Labour landslide.
If Badenoch went full frontal One Nation Tory, dispensed with all the Reform racism- based rubbish, disposed of all the old- guard scumbags like Michael Green and called the party the New Conservatives she would be on 45%.
No she wouldn’t as half of those type of voters now vote LD. The Conservatives need to be neither LD2 nor Reform2
Become One Nation Tories and all your LDs come back home.
The Tories are already dabbling in Reform 2 narratives.
But they then lose as many in the other direction to Reform.
I started to respond to this and then I thought if you can't see swimming in the same excrement as Reform and Restore is sub optimal when there are Labour and LD votes to pick off if you tack to the centre, I am wasting my time.
Stupid argument.
Cookie is not advocating voting for Reform or Restore. He is merely pointing out that, since many people will do just that, any move by Badenoch towards the centre ground is likely to be, at best, vote neutral. And almost certainly vote negative given the centre ground is already pretty crowded.
Again, this is not to advocate for a move to the right, or even staying where the Tory party currently lies. Simply pointing out that any move towards the centre is unlikely to improve Tory electoral fortunes.
This why, in spite of the current evidence, I think the Tory party is fecked.
I genuinely believe if the Tories entered what is currently a centrist dead zone between where they currently stand and where LD and right wing Labour are to be found they could do well and quickly in the face of an unpopular Government and a pretender in Farage,who these days keeps being found out as an unreliable Trumpian Charlatan.
This is the ground Churchill, McMillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major and Cameron won upon. It is dare I say it also the narrative of three time winning PM Blair.
They need to be a centre right, pro Brexit party that is neither LD pro EU or as anti immigration as Reform and Restore
If they are a pro right, pro Brexit, not quite as racist as Reform and Restore they are the Conservative Party in name alone.
Now it doesn't bother me one way or another whether a progressive Tory Party survives, but if it doesn't I suspect what comes next would be far worse.
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
..That said Andy Burnham currently has much better political antennae and communication skills than Gordon Brown.
I know but then again 29% at the next general election could lead to a Labour landslide.
If Badenoch went full frontal One Nation Tory, dispensed with all the Reform racism- based rubbish, disposed of all the old- guard scumbags like Michael Green and called the party the New Conservatives she would be on 45%.
No she wouldn’t as half of those type of voters now vote LD. The Conservatives need to be neither LD2 nor Reform2
Become One Nation Tories and all your LDs come back home.
The Tories are already dabbling in Reform 2 narratives.
But they then lose as many in the other direction to Reform.
I started to respond to this and then I thought if you can't see swimming in the same excrement as Reform and Restore is sub optimal when there are Labour and LD votes to pick off if you tack to the centre, I am wasting my time.
Stupid argument.
Cookie is not advocating voting for Reform or Restore. He is merely pointing out that, since many people will do just that, any move by Badenoch towards the centre ground is likely to be, at best, vote neutral. And almost certainly vote negative given the centre ground is already pretty crowded.
Again, this is not to advocate for a move to the right, or even staying where the Tory party currently lies. Simply pointing out that any move towards the centre is unlikely to improve Tory electoral fortunes.
This why, in spite of the current evidence, I think the Tory party is fecked.
I genuinely believe if the Tories entered what is currently a centrist dead zone between where they currently stand and where LD and right wing Labour are to be found they could do well and quickly in the face of an unpopular Government and a pretender in Farage,who these days keeps being found out as an unreliable Trumpian Charlatan.
This is the ground Churchill, McMillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major and Cameron won upon. It is dare I say it also the narrative of three time winning PM Blair.
They need to be a centre right, pro Brexit party that is neither LD pro EU or as anti immigration as Reform and Restore
If they are a pro right, pro Brexit, not quite as racist as Reform and Restore they are the Conservative Party in name alone.
Now it doesn't bother me one way or another whether a progressive Tory Party survives, but if it doesn't I suspect what comes next would be far worse.
They are a new conservative party with a popular leader
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
As was discussed on here earlier in the week, it should be relatively straightforward to arrange for most foreigners to be deported to their country of origin to serve the majority of their sentences.
The stick being tourist visas and aid payments. Start with the countries with most prisoners in the UK, and work down the list.
Its ok though - because the centristdadsofpb seem to think the current situation is absolutely fine.....
If it were that easy, don't you think one of the half dozen previous Tory PMs would have had a crack at it ? Or were they deliberately setting up a problem for the next Labour government ?
The public have consistently voted for lower immigration for several decades. Politicians have ignored them. Is there any wonder the faith in the system is so low?
Politicians had ignored them. (Specifically, the Conservative Party politicians who were in power.) Politicians now aren’t ignoring them. Immigration is massively lower. UK net immigration has fallen 82% compared to its peak.
There are few things that the public want that have been so comprehensively delivered! Imagine if we could get a 82% fall in NHS waiting lists, or in robbery rates, or in the welfare bill.
Its down 82% from peak to trough, however it is at a comparable level to many years in the past and higher than it was in 2008 for instance.
Inflation coming down does not lower prices and in fact means they are still going up.
For anyone concerned with this, migration returning to what it was in the past when people were already concerned is not a huge triumph, let alone reverse the effects they were concerned about.
I think you have your figures wrong. The latest net immigration figures are lower than they were in 2008. You have to go back further than that.
The UK public were voting for New Labour and a looser immigration policy for many years. Mortimer was talking about what the people voted for. I don’t think the majority were voting for lower immigration before 2010.
Not sure what data you have but the data I looked at was 171,000 year to Dec 2025, the most recent data. 161,000 in 2008 is lower than that.
However if you want to discuss what people voted for then Boris gave no such pledge but Cameron and May both said "tens of thousands". Tens of thousands is the range 10,000 < x < 100,000
171,000 is not in that range. In fact it is 17x the lower bound of that range, more than 3.4x the middle of the range and 71% higher than the upper bound.
So your smug "people have been given what they asked for" does not match reality.
Mortimer said, "The public have consistently voted for lower immigration for several decades." I pointed out that the public have been given lower immigration. If Mortimer had said, "The public have consistently voted for immigration in the tens of thousands," I would not have replied or replied differently. I was just responding to the words that were written.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
So you accept that it has not been lowered to what people voted for (which under Cameron and May at least was an explicit, defined interval) but you still insist it has been accomplished anyway and wonder why those who voted that way aren't satisfied?
I suspect voters care about what they mean, and not what you are trying to twist it into.
I was responding to Mortimer's comment. I was not responding to some hypothetical comment that was not made.
If some people want immigration to be even lower, then (as I said before) they can at least be pleased that we are moving rapidly in the direction they want, even if we're not there yet.
You were not just responding to Mortimer's comments, you have made multiple such "mission accomplished" style comments in this thread.
"There are few things that the public want that have been so comprehensively delivered!"
"Those who want lower immigration have been given it."
"Lowering" it to a rate that is still almost double the upper bound proposed is hardly comprehensively delivering anything at all.
That's like saying the public should be grateful that inflation has fallen to 4% when it is still above target and prices are still going up and high.
Those comments were all in response to Mortimer's comment about the public voting for lower immigration. The public has been given much lower immigration.
If you go back five Prime Ministers, then, yes, May and Cameron before her made more specific promises on immigration. If you want to talk about those pledges, OK, let's humour you. It seems a long time ago to me, but I guess it's more recent than the other discussion about what the LibDems did in 2008!
Out of three general elections, between them, Cameron and May only achieved an overall majority once (2015, versus 2010 and 2017), so is it accurate to say the public consistently voted for their positions? The public were somewhat split on them and presumably their manifestos, it seems to me.
Leaving that aside, did Cameron and May deliver on their pledges? No, not remotely.
Has the Starmer and now Burnham government delivered on the pledges Cameron and May made? No. They're getting a lot closer than previous administrations, but, sure, they've not delivered net immigration in the tens of thousands.
No, Cameron and May did not deliver (which was I believe part of Mortimer's point, but nor yet has Starmer or anyone else.
The context for discussions of lower has long been "tens of thousands" and it is not remotely that yet.
They've not been given much lower migration, they have given marginally lower migration.
You could argue that it is closer now than it was under Cameron or May but instead you want to overegg the pudding by claiming it is comprehensively delivered.
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
You think no one will object to a 10% dementia tax when their estate is free of tax within the present regime ?
I expect the children of the elderly will not be impressed
..That said Andy Burnham currently has much better political antennae and communication skills than Gordon Brown.
I know but then again 29% at the next general election could lead to a Labour landslide.
If Badenoch went full frontal One Nation Tory, dispensed with all the Reform racism- based rubbish, disposed of all the old- guard scumbags like Michael Green and called the party the New Conservatives she would be on 45%.
No she wouldn’t as half of those type of voters now vote LD. The Conservatives need to be neither LD2 nor Reform2
Become One Nation Tories and all your LDs come back home.
The Tories are already dabbling in Reform 2 narratives.
But they then lose as many in the other direction to Reform.
I started to respond to this and then I thought if you can't see swimming in the same excrement as Reform and Restore is sub optimal when there are Labour and LD votes to pick off if you tack to the centre, I am wasting my time.
Stupid argument.
Cookie is not advocating voting for Reform or Restore. He is merely pointing out that, since many people will do just that, any move by Badenoch towards the centre ground is likely to be, at best, vote neutral. And almost certainly vote negative given the centre ground is already pretty crowded.
Again, this is not to advocate for a move to the right, or even staying where the Tory party currently lies. Simply pointing out that any move towards the centre is unlikely to improve Tory electoral fortunes.
This why, in spite of the current evidence, I think the Tory party is fecked.
I genuinely believe if the Tories entered what is currently a centrist dead zone between where they currently stand and where LD and right wing Labour are to be found they could do well and quickly in the face of an unpopular Government and a pretender in Farage,who these days keeps being found out as an unreliable Trumpian Charlatan.
This is the ground Churchill, McMillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major and Cameron won upon. It is dare I say it also the narrative of three time winning PM Blair.
They need to be a centre right, pro Brexit party that is neither LD pro EU or as anti immigration as Reform and Restore
If they are a pro right, pro Brexit, not quite as racist as Reform and Restore they are the Conservative Party in name alone.
Now it doesn't bother me one way or another whether a progressive Tory Party survives, but if it doesn't I suspect what comes next would be far worse.
No they are the Conservative party, still distinct from Labour, the Greens, the LDs, Reform and Restore
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
We could use insurance to fund social care like Japan
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
As was discussed on here earlier in the week, it should be relatively straightforward to arrange for most foreigners to be deported to their country of origin to serve the majority of their sentences.
The stick being tourist visas and aid payments. Start with the countries with most prisoners in the UK, and work down the list.
Its ok though - because the centristdadsofpb seem to think the current situation is absolutely fine.....
If it were that easy, don't you think one of the half dozen previous Tory PMs would have had a crack at it ? Or were they deliberately setting up a problem for the next Labour government ?
The public have consistently voted for lower immigration for several decades. Politicians have ignored them. Is there any wonder the faith in the system is so low?
Politicians had ignored them. (Specifically, the Conservative Party politicians who were in power.) Politicians now aren’t ignoring them. Immigration is massively lower. UK net immigration has fallen 82% compared to its peak.
There are few things that the public want that have been so comprehensively delivered! Imagine if we could get a 82% fall in NHS waiting lists, or in robbery rates, or in the welfare bill.
They wanted an 82% fall from the current levels, not the boriswave levels. They see through your 'peak'.
What baseline would you like? If we go back two decades, net immigration was about 550k p.a. It was stable at that level for several years and voters at the time weren’t voting much for parties promising lower figures. Net immigration is down 69% from that. Not quite as impressive as 82%, but still very impressive. A 69% change on most government indices would be fantastic.
Mortimer said the public have voted for lower immigration. They have undoubtedly been given lower immigration. OK, maybe they want even lower immigration, but we’re still going in the right direction for them. You can fiddle around with the baseline, but however you look at it, the number is going down.
If we go back two decades the figure was 265,000 not 550,000
I’m gutted to see the fires in France. At least two of the towns I stayed in this year, Le Porge and Parentis-en-Born, have been evacuated
I do hope that the damage is not too severe
Ditto. On my cycle ride from Bordeaux to Biarritz a few years ago I crossed from the peninsula to Arcachon on the ferry. The ferry pier had some dramatic shots last night on the news. I also stayed in Biscarrosse which I believe has been evacuated. The extent of the pine forest here is huge. When cycling through it you felt like there was not another human being for miles and miles (there probably wasn't). It was stunning. What a shame.
Also worth mentioning the Dunes of Pilat here are amazing. It is difficult to believe such a magnificent sight is not more well known. The tallest dunes in Europe. Like mountains when you are at the bottom of them.
I’m gutted to see the fires in France. At least two of the towns I stayed in this year, Le Porge and Parentis-en-Born, have been evacuated
I do hope that the damage is not too severe
Ditto. On my cycle ride from Bordeaux to Biarritz a few years ago I crossed from the peninsula to Arcachon on the ferry. The ferry pier had some dramatic shots last night on the news. I also stayed in Biscarrosse which I believe has been evacuated. The extent of the pine forest here is huge. When cycling through it you felt like there was not another human being for miles and miles (there probably wasn't). It was stunning. What a shame.
Also worth mentioning the Dunes of Pilat here are amazing. It is difficult to believe such a magnificent sight is not more well known. The tallest dunes in Europe. Like mountains when you are at the bottom of them.
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
You think no one will object to a 10% dementia tax when their estate is free of tax within the present regime ?
I expect the children of the elderly will not be impressed
I expect the children of the elderly in care might well be.
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
You think no one will object to a 10% dementia tax when their estate is free of tax within the present regime ?
I expect the children of the elderly will not be impressed
Need to see what the numbers look like, but I’d at least give Burnham credit for trying what several PMs have kicked down the road for reasons of political unpopularity.
I’d probably prefer some sort of insurance system, but the current system is very much broken and causing huge problems for local councils.
Comments
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
Just catching up on the thread it seems all Kemi has to do is adopt Lib Dem policies and she is home and dry
Kemi is plotting her own course with increasing popularity and support within her own party
Time will tell but I do expect her to overtake Reform and be the party of the right going into GE29 with policies on the economy, youth and defence
You are right in your comments @HYUFD
I do hope that the damage is not too severe
Managed decline doesn't work, because it is more decline than can be managed.
Going for growth is the only option. Per Capita economic growth,
Free the city, free the small businesses, take CT and CGT both down to 15%. Exempt businesses under 10 staff from the majority of the employment law passed since Blair.
See how that economy roars again!
Now it doesn't bother me one way or another whether a progressive Tory Party survives, but if it doesn't I suspect what comes next would be far worse.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
As I said time will tell
The context for discussions of lower has long been "tens of thousands" and it is not remotely that yet.
They've not been given much lower migration, they have given marginally lower migration.
You could argue that it is closer now than it was under Cameron or May but instead you want to overegg the pudding by claiming it is comprehensively delivered.
I expect the children of the elderly will not be impressed
You seem to be confusing gross with net figures.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/methodologies/internationalmigrationmethodology/qualityoflongterminternationalmigrationestimatesfrom2001to2011tcm77359622.pdf
Also worth mentioning the Dunes of Pilat here are amazing. It is difficult to believe such a magnificent sight is not more well known. The tallest dunes in Europe. Like mountains when you are at the bottom of them.
Also worth mentioning the Dunes of Pilat here are amazing. It is difficult to believe such a magnificent sight is not more well known. The tallest dunes in Europe. Like mountains when you are at the bottom of them.
"Burnham's poll tax" is lazy nonsense.
I’d probably prefer some sort of insurance system, but the current system is very much broken and causing huge problems for local councils.