Indeed Ms Vance. Very good piece indeed. I particularly liked this bit 'The American elections and British EU referendum degenerated into the most ignoble and repetitive exchanges of insults in living memory. They demonstrated that accusing your opponent of lying is worse than useless.'
I've recently had a crash course in the challenges of caring. After my other half's accident, he needed a lot of looking after initially. Fortunately, as he has made a good recovery he has been able to do more for himself but in the early months I was running myself into the ground trying to juggle my work and my home responsibilities.
The best care will mostly be delivered by nearest and dearest. However, the financial hit of reducing or stopping work will make that impractical for many as things currently stand (my own firm has been magnificent in its support of me). For the most effective and cost effective social care, we need to offer much more financial support for carers.
One benefit of artificial intelligence and automation should be a shift in the economy toward "human" services like this, IMHO.
All six contenders to be the UK's entry this year are X Factor rejects.
As an X Factor aficionado, I would suggest that Danyl Johnson will be the choice. He is a very talented singer and went into the live shows as the favourite before being nobbled by the producers.
As for another candidate, Lucie Jones, the night Simon Cowell saved Jedward over her is possibly the greatest moment in X Factor history:
Personally I think as a society we should just say... We elieve in looking after elderly... We will find it centrally to a decent standard. Doing it on a local basis oenalises places with high elderly populations and will lead to a postcode lottery.
I'd like to agree with you but ... here in Malaysia there is no locally provided social care. When you grow old your sons and daughters are expected to pay for your care and act accordingly. Your property and assets are sold and used to fund the care you need. I've lived and worked in the UK for over 60 years so I know what your expectations are but now I spend a lot of time outside those shores so I get to see my homeland in the way the rest of the world sees it. Frankly the world thinks the UK is broke and Brexit will be the last straw before a lot of cuts to services are forced on the UK Government. The UK cannot afford to look after old people as you would wish and more's the pity.
If I were in power then I'd freeze pensions (including my own of course!) and remove all other OAP 'perks' in the next Budget because the political damage from that is unlikely to cost me the next election. If the Tories delay doing so then it might be too late to make the necessary savings.
How we pay is a political choice. It can be through taxes or it can be by individuals or by some combination of the two. But we can afford it.
He confirms that any WTO member can veto our new trade schedules.
There is a process in the WTO that allows the UK to submit new schedules. But they can only be adopted – or certified – and thus replace our existing EU schedules if none of the WTO’s other 163 members object to them.
All six contenders to be the UK's entry this year are X Factor rejects.
That's normally pretty long odds to lay the UK on the winners market. Isn't it better to back the UK for a bottom 3 or 5 finish? (worked for me last year)
I've recently had a crash course in the challenges of caring. After my other half's accident, he needed a lot of looking after initially. Fortunately, as he has made a good recovery he has been able to do more for himself but in the early months I was running myself into the ground trying to juggle my work and my home responsibilities.
The best care will mostly be delivered by nearest and dearest. However, the financial hit of reducing or stopping work will make that impractical for many as things currently stand (my own firm has been magnificent in its support of me). For the most effective and cost effective social care, we need to offer much more financial support for carers.
One benefit of artificial intelligence and automation should be a shift in the economy toward "human" services like this, IMHO.
But, that could take 30 years or so to play out.
Yes.. AI shouldn't equal laziness, it should mean that the jobs that can only be done by humans should be done a lot better. I fear big business will see it purely as an economic boost though.
All six contenders to be the UK's entry this year are X Factor rejects.
That's normally pretty long odds to lay the UK on the winners market. Isn't it better to back the UK for a bottom 3 or 5 finish? (worked for me last year)
Yeah, the optimal time for tipping/betting is in the final few weeks before the final, when each country's contenders are known but before the semi finals.
Meanwhile, Macron is set to become President of France. Perfect result for him yesterday.
Macron really wanted Montebourg and he was eliminated though Hamon would be better for him than Valls. All the latest polls show a Le Pen v Fillon run off whether Hamon or Valls is P.S. nominee
Indeed Ms Vance. Very good piece indeed. I particularly liked this bit 'The American elections and British EU referendum degenerated into the most ignoble and repetitive exchanges of insults in living memory. They demonstrated that accusing your opponent of lying is worse than useless.'
It's why this '£350m for the NHS - THAT'S A LIE!!! was handled so poorly - all it did was i) keep the story in the news, ii) reinforce that the EU costs us money and iii) probably left the average voter with the impression 'It might not be that much, but it's still a lot...'
I think the entire state pension/care system needs looking at.
People had a life expectancy of about 5 years when the pension was first introduced, and died long before they needed any sort of care. Modern health improvements have fundamentally changed the equation and we've just tinkered round the edges raising the pension age by a few years. I've put my ideas downthread, normally a gov't wouldn't have the political capital to do such a thing but domestically Brexit is GIVING May capital, and with Corbyn having the Labour party in such a weak state May may have the room for this one.
Surrey's referendum will be lost but the question they raise is one for all of us.
In On Bullshit, the philosopher Frankfurt (2005) defines bullshit as something that is designed to impress but that was constructed absent direct concern for the truth. This distinguishes bullshit from lying, which entails a deliberate manipulation and subversion of truth (as understood by the liar). There is little question that bullshit is a real and consequential phenomenon. Indeed, given the rise of communication technology and the associated increase in the availability of information from a variety of sources, both expert and otherwise, bullshit may be more pervasive than ever before.
Indeed Ms Vance. Very good piece indeed. I particularly liked this bit 'The American elections and British EU referendum degenerated into the most ignoble and repetitive exchanges of insults in living memory. They demonstrated that accusing your opponent of lying is worse than useless.'
It's why this '£350m for the NHS - THAT'S A LIE!!! was handled so poorly - all it did was i) keep the story in the news, ii) reinforce that the EU costs us money and iii) probably left the average voter with the impression 'It might not be that much, but it's still a lot...'
Indeed, I flagged that up at the time, pointing the EU referendum was turning into the AV referendum
I must admit this surprised me. It is the Leader of Windsor & Maidenhead Council
"We have in the region of 150,000 residents, yet 40% of everything our local authority spends it spends on adult social care for in the region of 2,500 of those residents to protect them, they are vulnerable. We want to spend that money, we will spend that money,” he said.
Meanwhile, Macron is set to become President of France. Perfect result for him yesterday.
Macron really wanted Montebourg and he was eliminated though Hamon would be better for him than Valls. All the latest polls show a Le Pen v Fillon run off whether Hamon or Valls is P.S. nominee
Pleased that Hamon will make run-off. Almost certainly he wont be President, but if he does I am in for a yuuuge payday.
I am green on whole thing, except for Melenchon, which seems a good place to be.
So in a few years, when it goes sours, I wonder what innacurate single sourced allegations from her time at Cowley Tech will Lord Ashcroft publish about Mrs May? I hope it involves honey badgers
Look I am desperate for a way to take on Trump... I'm just not convinced this is it.
The recommendation is: "the best approach to Trump, and even the best way to embarrass him, is to take him seriously. We should examine his plans for more infrastructure, or less immigration, or a revival of American manufacturing, and agree or disagree with him on a case by case basis."
I read plenty of stuff about taking seriously his plan to scrap Obamacare, build a wall, to ban Muslims, to invest massively in infrastructure, to cut taxes for the wealthiest... I'm not convinced any of that cut through.
One thing that strikes me though is very often the media and Clinton herself used kind of weasel words to describe lying. They are called falsehoods... Or not accurate... or even controversial statements...
Whereas Trump was happy to just call her a world class liar, say she should be in jail etc...
@heraldscotland: MSPs will get vote on triggering of Article 50, @NicolaSturgeon says heraldscotland.com/politics/refer…
This will be followed by a vote on the hunting of unicorns, and porcine air traffic control...
She wants to hang it round Ruth Davidson's neck.
If she has any sense she'll refuse to play ball.
Some of the latest polls have voters backing controls on free movement even if that means leaving the single market with SNP voters less pro single market than Labour or LD voters
Meanwhile, Macron is set to become President of France. Perfect result for him yesterday.
Macron really wanted Montebourg and he was eliminated though Hamon would be better for him than Valls. All the latest polls show a Le Pen v Fillon run off whether Hamon or Valls is P.S. nominee
Pleased that Hamon will make run-off. Almost certainly he wont be President, but if he does I am in for a yuuuge payday.
I am green on whole thing, except for Melenchon, which seems a good place to be.
Hamon won't win but he has some of the youthful energy of Macron
I have seen (though I can't remember where - smilely) a graph that shows alzheimer s rates for men has decreased to about 1/3 of women's. I suspect we are looking at the relative prescription rates of diazepam among men and women.
So in a few years, when it goes sours, I wonder what innacurate single sourced allegations from her time at Cowley Tech will Lord Ashcroft publish about Mrs May? I hope it involves honey badgers
To be honest, there's something of the honey badger about Mrs May to start off with. If Lord Ashcroft has any material on her, he might want to think twice before releasing it, at least until she's out of office....
Good afternoon. It's time to introduce the social care systems used in 'Logan's Run'. William would be pleased as it would make cancellation of A50 a shoo-in, or at least pleased in the brief period of time before he was hunted down by a Sandman .
Longer term NI may need to be increased to pay for social care as well encouragement given to take out an annuity
Is it time we had a royal commission on all this and then get a cross-party agreement on its findings?
I'd like to see an independent review that looked at all aspects, including funding. If that meant a complete revision of how the NHS works then so be it
Look I am desperate for a way to take on Trump... I'm just not convinced this is it.
The recommendation is: "the best approach to Trump, and even the best way to embarrass him, is to take him seriously. We should examine his plans for more infrastructure, or less immigration, or a revival of American manufacturing, and agree or disagree with him on a case by case basis."
I read plenty of stuff about taking seriously his plan to scrap Obamacare, build a wall, to ban Muslims, to invest massively in infrastructure, to cut taxes for the wealthiest... I'm not convinced any of that cut through.
I imagine a sizable portion of Trump voters knew he was a liar and that his proposals were unlikely to work but didn't care and still voted for him.
Trump's appeal is that people think he is on their side or that at least he will distress and discombobulate the people they themselves dislike/hate, while not actively making life any worse for them.
Is this part of Boris legacy from his time as Mayor?
iirc even the French have curbs on scale of rail strikes. I mean... even the french!!!
Perhaps Ken? Or a legacy of rail unions being controlled by political extremists?
When I lived in London I seem to recall Livingstone encouraging tube drivers to strike because they had the wrong sort of boiler to use to make their tea.
"They also demanded urns for hot water, even though London Underground provides kettles and free tea and coffee.
Headteachers: By 2019 there will be no new IT, textbooks or teachers
Nearly three-quarters of headteachers believe their budgets will be untenable by 2019 as the number of schools that slumped into deficit doubled in a year, research has shown.
A survey of school leaders has revealed that schools are being forced to make drastic savings such as reducing teaching hours and cutting back on buying equipment to balance their budgets.
According to the findings, 72 per cent of heads do not think their funding will be sufficient to meet the needs of their pupils within just two years.
So Mrs May is channelling Michael Heseltine and intervening in British industry.
Sadly, rather than being genuinely transformative like Heseltine, it's just a way of offsetting the increased costs firms will face due to Brexit and disguising the bung to Nissan.
So Mrs May is channelling Michael Heseltine and intervening in British industry.
Sadly, rather than being genuinely transformative like Heseltine, it's just a way of offsetting the increased costs firms will face due to Brexit and disguising the bung to Nissan.
I read over the weekend, forgotten the link now, which said it might not be possible to give a bung to Nissan, no wonder the Nissan boss is getting nervous
The obsession amongst some Leavers to try to find thing they can blame on Cameron is very revealing. Not much sign of being 'magnamimous in victory!'
Obviously the explanation is intellectual insecurity.
Well he did tell blatant lies didn't he? In the House of Commons no less. @TheScreamingEagles linked to it yesterday, so I am hardly quoting a partial source
Labour really is setting the bar low, isn't it? You do wonder how much of this they believe. Personally, I find the 5/2 Ladbrokes are offering on Lab winning both by-elections very attractive. They *ought* to win both seats. But the more you see of these kind of tweets, the more you wonder.
Look I am desperate for a way to take on Trump... I'm just not convinced this is it.
The recommendation is: "the best approach to Trump, and even the best way to embarrass him, is to take him seriously. We should examine his plans for more infrastructure, or less immigration, or a revival of American manufacturing, and agree or disagree with him on a case by case basis."
I read plenty of stuff about taking seriously his plan to scrap Obamacare, build a wall, to ban Muslims, to invest massively in infrastructure, to cut taxes for the wealthiest... I'm not convinced any of that cut through.
I imagine a sizable portion of Trump voters knew he was a liar and that his proposals were unlikely to work but didn't care and still voted for him.
Trump's appeal is that people think he is on their side or that at least he will distress and discombobulate the people they themselves dislike/hate, while not actively making life any worse for them.
I agree, but I'd add that Trump's supporters expected to given a hard time by Clinton and her supporters, if she won.
Labour really is setting the bar low, isn't it? You do wonder how much of this they believe. Personally, I find the 5/2 Ladbrokes are offering on Lab winning both by-elections very attractive. They *ought* to win both seats. But the more you see of these kind of tweets, the more you wonder.
The Sun seems to have a quite naked anti-Labour agenda to be perfectly honest. Also check the Telegraph articles around the time of Oldham West. Not identical, but could be misleading to the punter.
Another thing I note the papers are doing - they'll say its too close to call in Copeland then head straight into Stoke "Nuttall set to take the fight to Labour there", there's a certain amount of deliberate confusion between both by-elections in articles in the press.
Longer term NI may need to be increased to pay for social care as well encouragement given to take out an annuity
Is it time we had a royal commission on all this and then get a cross-party agreement on its findings?
Much as I instinctively recoil against these kind of proposals as undemocratic (which they are), something needs to be done to ween the public off their current expectations and a Royal Commission that the parties sign up to in advance might be the way to do it. That said, the NHS is so central to Labour's sense of identity, I find it difficult to believe that they'd sign up to anything that might be criticised a 'privatisation' (which is a very catch-all term for left-wing critics), particularly under its current leadership.
Look I am desperate for a way to take on Trump... I'm just not convinced this is it.
The recommendation is: "the best approach to Trump, and even the best way to embarrass him, is to take him seriously. We should examine his plans for more infrastructure, or less immigration, or a revival of American manufacturing, and agree or disagree with him on a case by case basis."
I read plenty of stuff about taking seriously his plan to scrap Obamacare, build a wall, to ban Muslims, to invest massively in infrastructure, to cut taxes for the wealthiest... I'm not convinced any of that cut through.
I imagine a sizable portion of Trump voters knew he was a liar and that his proposals were unlikely to work but didn't care and still voted for him.
Trump's appeal is that people think he is on their side or that at least he will distress and discombobulate the people they themselves dislike/hate, while not actively making life any worse for them.
I agree, but I'd add that Trump's supporters expected to given a hard time by Clinton and her supporters, if she won.
Both sides bear equal responsibility for the rather nasty ultra partisan divisions in the US.
I liked Cameron right up until he tried to peddle that sack of shit he brought back from Brussels. I don't let that blind me to his good points; I thought he was an excellent coalition prime minister, he brought the party back from the brink and he was a credit to the nation when dealing with Johnny Foreigner - at least in terms of looking the part.
You could argue that he was a victim of his own success; I don't think he expected an outright majority and was then hoist by his own referendum petard.
Labour really is setting the bar low, isn't it? You do wonder how much of this they believe. Personally, I find the 5/2 Ladbrokes are offering on Lab winning both by-elections very attractive. They *ought* to win both seats. But the more you see of these kind of tweets, the more you wonder.
The Sun seems to have a quite naked anti-Labour agenda to be perfectly honest. Also check the Telegraph articles around the time of Oldham West. Not identical, but could be misleading to the punter.
Another thing I note the papers are doing - they'll say its too close to call in Copeland then head straight into Stoke "Nuttall set to take the fight to Labour there", there's a certain amount of deliberate confusion between both by-elections in articles in the press.
Lab are sub 1.8 on the fair and 4/5 w Lads and Coral
Look I am desperate for a way to take on Trump... I'm just not convinced this is it.
The recommendation is: "the best approach to Trump, and even the best way to embarrass him, is to take him seriously. We should examine his plans for more infrastructure, or less immigration, or a revival of American manufacturing, and agree or disagree with him on a case by case basis."
I read plenty of stuff about taking seriously his plan to scrap Obamacare, build a wall, to ban Muslims, to invest massively in infrastructure, to cut taxes for the wealthiest... I'm not convinced any of that cut through.
I imagine a sizable portion of Trump voters knew he was a liar and that his proposals were unlikely to work but didn't care and still voted for him.
Trump's appeal is that people think he is on their side or that at least he will distress and discombobulate the people they themselves dislike/hate, while not actively making life any worse for them.
I agree, but I'd add that Trump's supporters expected to given a hard time by Clinton and her supporters, if she won.
Both sides bear equal responsibility for the rather nasty ultra partisan divisions in the US.
Each side fears the other winning, and with good reason.
Labour really is setting the bar low, isn't it? You do wonder how much of this they believe. Personally, I find the 5/2 Ladbrokes are offering on Lab winning both by-elections very attractive. They *ought* to win both seats. But the more you see of these kind of tweets, the more you wonder.
The Sun seems to have a quite naked anti-Labour agenda to be perfectly honest. Also check the Telegraph articles around the time of Oldham West. Not identical, but could be misleading to the punter.
Another thing I note the papers are doing - they'll say its too close to call in Copeland then head straight into Stoke "Nuttall set to take the fight to Labour there", there's a certain amount of deliberate confusion between both by-elections in articles in the press.
I think the entire state pension/care system needs looking at.
People had a life expectancy of about 5 years when the pension was first introduced, and died long before they needed any sort of care. Modern health improvements have fundamentally changed the equation and we've just tinkered round the edges raising the pension age by a few years. I've put my ideas downthread, normally a gov't wouldn't have the political capital to do such a thing but domestically Brexit is GIVING May capital, and with Corbyn having the Labour party in such a weak state May may have the room for this one.
Surrey's referendum will be lost but the question they raise is one for all of us.
Part of the issue for all of us is whether or not we are able to save for our future. Politicians allowed moral hazard to balloon in the banking industry and decided to bail them out and go for QE. We're now stuck in an age of zero interest rates. This may have saved the bankers but it gives the expectation of permanently free money. We're dangerously hooked on an unsustainable cost of money. (Witness SeanT's recent mortgage offer). But...near zero interest rates wipe out savings and the incentive to save. And therefore old age security. Maybe we should run a thread on Gordon Brown and what a wonderful thing he was for our pensions industry and bank regulation. Bonus for anyone who mentions Advance Corporation Tax and the flow of dividends to pension funds.
The obsession amongst some Leavers to try to find thing they can blame on Cameron is very revealing. Not much sign of being 'magnamimous in victory!'
Obviously the explanation is intellectual insecurity.
"perfect Chancellor"
"Remain will win 70/30"
etc
CHORTLE
Chortle indeed.
The same level of self-assurance as 'obviously the explanation is'.
I think Richard's phrase was 'near-perfect'. Anyway, the Leavers are still dining out on Ozzy's economic legacy, so a little gratitude towards the great man (Ozzy not Richard) would be in order.
Longer term NI may need to be increased to pay for social care as well encouragement given to take out an annuity
Is it time we had a royal commission on all this and then get a cross-party agreement on its findings?
Much as I instinctively recoil against these kind of proposals as undemocratic (which they are), something needs to be done to ween the public off their current expectations and a Royal Commission that the parties sign up to in advance might be the way to do it. That said, the NHS is so central to Labour's sense of identity, I find it difficult to believe that they'd sign up to anything that might be criticised a 'privatisation' (which is a very catch-all term for left-wing critics), particularly under its current leadership.
I tend to agree, but we cannot go on as we are for very much longer. The NHS is in permanent crisis and the social care problem has been kicked down the road by successive governments. Furthermore, the present system of successive governments introducing reforms to the NHS which are then overturned by another set of reforms sometimes by the same government is absolutely crackers.
A royal Commission, which would probably take two or three years to come up with a long term plan for the way forward, is probably our best hope of ever getting out of the crisis loop and getting a health and care system suitable for the 21st century.
Headteachers: By 2019 there will be no new IT, textbooks or teachers
Nearly three-quarters of headteachers believe their budgets will be untenable by 2019 as the number of schools that slumped into deficit doubled in a year, research has shown.
A survey of school leaders has revealed that schools are being forced to make drastic savings such as reducing teaching hours and cutting back on buying equipment to balance their budgets.
According to the findings, 72 per cent of heads do not think their funding will be sufficient to meet the needs of their pupils within just two years.
Longer term NI may need to be increased to pay for social care as well encouragement given to take out an annuity
Is it time we had a royal commission on all this and then get a cross-party agreement on its findings?
Maybe but certainly people need to make more insurance provision for social care just as most people now take out private pensions alongside their NI contributions for the state pension
The obsession amongst some Leavers to try to find thing they can blame on Cameron is very revealing. Not much sign of being 'magnamimous in victory!'
Obviously the explanation is intellectual insecurity.
"perfect Chancellor"
"Remain will win 70/30"
etc
CHORTLE
Chortle indeed.
The same level of self-assurance as 'obviously the explanation is'.
I think Richard's phrase was 'near-perfect'. Anyway, the Leavers are still dining out on Ozzy's economic legacy, so a little gratitude towards the great man (Ozzy not Richard) would be in order.
It was 'near-perfect macroeconomic judgement' - an excellent call, as it happens. No-one can seriously dispute that now, but it was controversial when I made it (in around 2012, if memory serves me correctly).
Look I am desperate for a way to take on Trump... I'm just not convinced this is it.
The recommendation is: "the best approach to Trump, and even the best way to embarrass him, is to take him seriously. We should examine his plans for more infrastructure, or less immigration, or a revival of American manufacturing, and agree or disagree with him on a case by case basis."
I read plenty of stuff about taking seriously his plan to scrap Obamacare, build a wall, to ban Muslims, to invest massively in infrastructure, to cut taxes for the wealthiest... I'm not convinced any of that cut through.
I imagine a sizable portion of Trump voters knew he was a liar and that his proposals were unlikely to work but didn't care and still voted for him.
Trump's appeal is that people think he is on their side or that at least he will distress and discombobulate the people they themselves dislike/hate, while not actively making life any worse for them.
I agree, but I'd add that Trump's supporters expected to given a hard time by Clinton and her supporters, if she won.
Both sides bear equal responsibility for the rather nasty ultra partisan divisions in the US.
Yes, I wonder if that is an inevitable consequence of 2 party politics where the emergence of a third party is impossible.
Labour really is setting the bar low, isn't it? You do wonder how much of this they believe. Personally, I find the 5/2 Ladbrokes are offering on Lab winning both by-elections very attractive. They *ought* to win both seats. But the more you see of these kind of tweets, the more you wonder.
It could just be good expectation management... It could be... But it's not as if what we have seen so far gives confidence in Corbyn/McDonnell teams ability to handle the media.
Longer term NI may need to be increased to pay for social care as well encouragement given to take out an annuity
Is it time we had a royal commission on all this and then get a cross-party agreement on its findings?
Maybe but certainly people need to make more insurance provision for social care just as most people now take out private pensions alongside their NI contributions for the state pension
I am no expert on this, but am I right in thinking that currently there is no real market in social care insurance? i.e. not many insurers are providing it. iirc they thought it too risky without clarity from government over the long term issue of social care funding.
Labour really is setting the bar low, isn't it? You do wonder how much of this they believe. Personally, I find the 5/2 Ladbrokes are offering on Lab winning both by-elections very attractive. They *ought* to win both seats. But the more you see of these kind of tweets, the more you wonder.
It could just be good expectation management... It could be... But it's not as if what we have seen so far gives confidence in Corbyn/McDonnell teams ability to handle the media.
True. Though, to be fair, the one thing the current leadership has managed to do is play down expectations at by elections.
I suspect this will all prove very good practice for 2020. When expectations are going to have to be managed yugely,
Con gain Bootle might become JWiseCorbyn's mantra...
The First Minister is caught in her own Groundhog Day. She goes to bed every night hoping that tomorrow will be different, but every morning she wakens up to find we are still leaving the European Union. How often does the First Minister have to set her alarm clock before she realises that the only way to be released from her nightmare is to seek redemption by accepting the truth; more of the Scottish electorate voted to stay in the UK than voted to stay in the EU?
Headteachers: By 2019 there will be no new IT, textbooks or teachers
Nearly three-quarters of headteachers believe their budgets will be untenable by 2019 as the number of schools that slumped into deficit doubled in a year, research has shown.
A survey of school leaders has revealed that schools are being forced to make drastic savings such as reducing teaching hours and cutting back on buying equipment to balance their budgets.
According to the findings, 72 per cent of heads do not think their funding will be sufficient to meet the needs of their pupils within just two years.
The truth is that too many of us think looking after granny is the State's problem not ours.
If people have houses and savings then care in old age is exactly what they should be used for. It is absurd to expect the State to pay for care just so as to protect the childrens' inheritance.
That does not deal with those who don't have sufficient savings nor does it deal with the very real difficulties faced by family carers who need specialist nursing/medical help and/or some respite from the burdens involved in looking after elderly/sick people.
The first step though is to understand that looking after elderly people is a valuable job and one which needs to be paid for properly. That means proper funding, whether centrally or locally, and higher taxes and/or diversion of current monies to this. Trying to do something as important as this on the cheap won't work.
I have 3 experiences which may be relevant:
(a) my mother needed some assistance in her later years - even though she was in full command of her faculties. We paid for a personal carer to look after her and she lived with my brother. Plus we were lucky enough to live close by (though it was not perhaps quite so much luck as closeness to my mother was one of the factors which weighed in the balance when we bought our house) and saw her every week (minimum).
(b) Our very elderly neighbours (one died at 100 - she had dementia - and the other at 98) were able to stay in their home with regular care from the local council. But we also kept an eye on them - I had a key and was called on to assist at various times (falls/getting locked out etc). They were such a lovely couple that it was no burden and even my children helped when there were issues. But their own family were not very visible and I was dismayed to find that the grandchildren only turned up for the first time after their death. I appreciate that care may not have been possible but not even a visit?
(c) The issue of care is not just about the elderly. Specialist health/social care is needed for children and young adults with long-term conditions. Mental health is even less well resourced than social care - even if politicians and royals are now talking about it. It will not win any popularity contests. Its lack can be terminal. And the pressures it places on families and parents are equally tremendous. There is little support for them either.
In the end, good health/social care needs to be paid for. And we will need to take far more responsibility for our own families. And understand that savings need to be used for this and not just for holidays and other nice things. Being old and frail are the "rainy days" all that saving was for.
Finally, an excellent thread header from @Stodge. Thank you.
I liked Cameron right up until he tried to peddle that sack of shit he brought back from Brussels. I don't let that blind me to his good points; I thought he was an excellent coalition prime minister, he brought the party back from the brink and he was a credit to the nation when dealing with Johnny Foreigner - at least in terms of looking the part.
You could argue that he was a victim of his own success; I don't think he expected an outright majority and was then hoist by his own referendum petard.
Cameron was too readily influenced by his closest advisors. In his early years, that was Steve Hilton, Oliver Letwin and Andy Coulson, in his latter years it was Jeremy Heywood and Ivan Rogers. He found it difficult to arbitrate between opposing political choices because he had no particularly strong convictions of his own.
That also meant he struggled to understand why anyone would put principles above loyalty, because he had no particularly strong ones himself and so never would.
Longer term NI may need to be increased to pay for social care as well encouragement given to take out an annuity
Is it time we had a royal commission on all this and then get a cross-party agreement on its findings?
Much as I instinctively recoil against these kind of proposals as undemocratic (which they are), something needs to be done to ween the public off their current expectations and a Royal Commission that the parties sign up to in advance might be the way to do it. That said, the NHS is so central to Labour's sense of identity, I find it difficult to believe that they'd sign up to anything that might be criticised a 'privatisation' (which is a very catch-all term for left-wing critics), particularly under its current leadership.
I tend to agree, but we cannot go on as we are for very much longer. The NHS is in permanent crisis and the social care problem has been kicked down the road by successive governments. Furthermore, the present system of successive governments introducing reforms to the NHS which are then overturned by another set of reforms sometimes by the same government is absolutely crackers.
A royal Commission, which would probably take two or three years to come up with a long term plan for the way forward, is probably our best hope of ever getting out of the crisis loop and getting a health and care system suitable for the 21st century.
Such a commission could consider the issue of private vs public. Social care, as in care homes, is mainly privately provided unless I am much mistaken. Indeed, one of the nightmare issues at the moment is they do not make enough money to continue functioning, leaving huge gaps in provision.
Compulsory insurance (perhaps run by the private insurance industry), changes to scale of NI, and a tax on all death estates of say 10% might be other things to consider.
I would want a commission that had ruled nothing in or out before it started, other than it wouldn't spend years and years on the issue and that it would come up with a solution rather than a menu of endlessly flexible options. We need a Beveridge report for social care.
Now is an ideal time. The Tories have nothing to fear from the Opposition even if the Commission came up with something that the Daily Mail could portray as 'the end of the world as we know it' (i.e. some of their readers might have to pay towards it), the Tories would still win in 2020 and could enact the report conclusions.
Headteachers: By 2019 there will be no new IT, textbooks or teachers
Nearly three-quarters of headteachers believe their budgets will be untenable by 2019 as the number of schools that slumped into deficit doubled in a year, research has shown.
A survey of school leaders has revealed that schools are being forced to make drastic savings such as reducing teaching hours and cutting back on buying equipment to balance their budgets.
According to the findings, 72 per cent of heads do not think their funding will be sufficient to meet the needs of their pupils within just two years.
The obsession amongst some Leavers to try to find thing they can blame on Cameron is very revealing. Not much sign of being 'magnamimous in victory!'
Obviously the explanation is intellectual insecurity.
"perfect Chancellor"
"Remain will win 70/30"
etc
CHORTLE
Chortle indeed.
The same level of self-assurance as 'obviously the explanation is'.
I think Richard's phrase was 'near-perfect'. Anyway, the Leavers are still dining out on Ozzy's economic legacy, so a little gratitude towards the great man (Ozzy not Richard) would be in order.
It was 'near-perfect macroeconomic judgement' - an excellent call, as it happens. No-one can seriously dispute that now, but it was controversial when I made it (in around 2012, if memory serves me correctly).
How many hundreds of billions did Osborne need to borrow over his predictions for him not to be 'near perfect' ?
I'll have to look in later for a response as I have to get back to marching with the makers towards the trillion pound 2020 export target.
Alzeimers is a horrible awful disease and those that suffer it are due as much dignity as we can muster for them in today's society.
I genuinely believe that we are on the cusp of a breakthrough in Alzheimer's.
We are at a stage where we can move from measuring outcomes to managing data (a parallel is the shift in cardiovascular therapy from measuring heart attacks to managing blood pressure/cholesterol, etc).
Disease modifying combination vaccines are the way forward in my view. It'll probably be 5+ years before they are on the market, but for anyone at or about the age of 60-65 when they launch, I'd hope that Alzheimer's will be a thing of the past.
(the fact that I am a small shareholder in the best company in this field has in no way influenced my post)
Longer term NI may need to be increased to pay for social care as well encouragement given to take out an annuity
Is it time we had a royal commission on all this and then get a cross-party agreement on its findings?
Much as I instinctively recoil against these kind of proposals as undemocratic (which they are), something needs to be done to ween the public off their current expectations and a Royal Commission that the parties sign up to in advance might be the way to do it. That said, the NHS is so central to Labour's sense of identity, I find it difficult to believe that they'd sign up to anything that might be criticised a 'privatisation' (which is a very catch-all term for left-wing critics), particularly under its current leadership.
I tend to agree, but we cannot go on as we are for very much longer. The NHS is in permanent crisis and the social care problem has been kicked down the road by successive governments. Furthermore, the present system of successive governments introducing reforms to the NHS which are then overturned by another set of reforms sometimes by the same government is absolutely crackers.
A royal Commission, which would probably take two or three years to come up with a long term plan for the way forward, is probably our best hope of ever getting out of the crisis loop and getting a health and care system suitable for the 21st century.
Such a commission could consider the issue of private vs public. Social care, as in care homes, is mainly privately provided unless I am much mistaken. Indeed, one of the nightmare issues at the moment is they do not make enough money to continue functioning, leaving huge gaps in provision.
Compulsory insurance (perhaps run by the private insurance industry), changes to scale of NI, and a tax on all death estates of say 10% might be other things to consider.
I would want a commission that had ruled nothing in or out before it started, other than it wouldn't spend years and years on the issue and that it would come up with a solution rather than a menu of endlessly flexible options. We need a Beveridge report for social care.
Now is an ideal time. The Tories have nothing to fear from the Opposition even if the Commission came up with something that the Daily Mail could portray as 'the end of the world as we know it' (i.e. some of their readers might have to pay towards it), the Tories would still win in 2020 and could enact the report conclusions.
Royal Commissions generally take several years to report.
Longer term NI may need to be increased to pay for social care as well encouragement given to take out an annuity
Is it time we had a royal commission on all this and then get a cross-party agreement on its findings?
Much as I instinctively recoil against these kind of proposals as undemocratic (which they are), something needs to be done to ween the public off their current expectations and a Royal Commission that the parties sign up to in advance might be the way to do it. That said, the NHS is so central to Labour's sense of identity, I find it difficult to believe that they'd sign up to anything that might be criticised a 'privatisation' (which is a very catch-all term for left-wing critics), particularly under its current leadership.
I tend to agree, but we cannot go on as we are for very much longer. The NHS is in permanent crisis and the social care problem has been kicked down the road by successive governments. Furthermore, the present system of successive governments introducing reforms to the NHS which are then overturned by another set of reforms sometimes by the same government is absolutely crackers.
A royal Commission, which would probably take two or three years to come up with a long term plan for the way forward, is probably our best hope of ever getting out of the crisis loop and getting a health and care system suitable for the 21st century.
Such a commission could consider the issue of private vs public. Social care, as in care homes, is mainly privately provided unless I am much mistaken. Indeed, one of the nightmare issues at the moment is they do not make enough money to continue functioning, leaving huge gaps in provision.
snip Now is an ideal time. The Tories have nothing to fear from the Opposition even if the Commission came up with something that the Daily Mail could portray as 'the end of the world as we know it' (i.e. some of their readers might have to pay towards it), the Tories would still win in 2020 and could enact the report conclusions.
Royal Commissions generally take several years to report.
Given them two years. end of 2017 to end of 2019. GE in May 2020. Some of the work has already been done by Dilnott commission.
Longer term NI may need to be increased to pay for social care as well encouragement given to take out an annuity
Is it time we had a royal commission on all this and then get a cross-party agreement on its findings?
Much as I instinctively recoil against these kind of proposals as undemocratic (which they are), something needs to be done to ween the public off their current expectations and a Royal Commission that the parties sign up to in advance might be the way to do it. That said, the NHS is so central to Labour's sense of identity, I find it difficult to believe that they'd sign up to anything that might be criticised a 'privatisation' (which is a very catch-all term for left-wing critics), particularly under its current leadership.
I tend to agree, but we cannot go on as we are for very much longer. The NHS is in permanent crisis and the social care problem has been kicked down the road by successive governments. Furthermore, the present system of successive governments introducing reforms to the NHS which are then overturned by another set of reforms sometimes by the same government is absolutely crackers.
A royal Commission, which would probably take two or three years to come up with a long term plan for the way forward, is probably our best hope of ever getting out of the crisis loop and getting a health and care system suitable for the 21st century.
Such a commission could consider the issue of private vs public. Social care, as in care homes, is mainly privately provided unless I am much mistaken. Indeed, one of the nightmare issues at the moment is they do not make enough money to continue functioning, leaving huge gaps in provision.
Compulsory insurance (perhaps run by the private insurance industry), changes to scale of NI, and a tax on all death estates of say 10% might be other things to consider.
I would want a commission that had ruled nothing in or out before it started, other than it wouldn't spend years and years on the issue and that it would come up with a solution rather than a menu of endlessly flexible options. We need a Beveridge report for social care.
Now is an ideal time. The Tories have nothing to fear from the Opposition even if the Commission came up with something that the Daily Mail could portray as 'the end of the world as we know it' (i.e. some of their readers might have to pay towards it), the Tories would still win in 2020 and could enact the report conclusions.
Spot on, Mr. Borough, except I think we need a Beveridge report on Health AND Social care. The NHS has to be brought up to date.
The truth is that too many of us think looking after granny is the State's problem not ours.
If people have houses and savings then care in old age is exactly what they should be used for. It is absurd to expect the State to pay for care just so as to protect the childrens' inheritance.
That does not deal with those who don't have sufficient savings nor does it deal with the very real difficulties faced by family carers who need specialist nursing/medical help and/or some respite from the burdens involved in looking after elderly/sick people.
The first step though is to understand that looking after elderly people is a valuable job and one which needs to be paid for properly. That means proper funding, whether centrally or locally, and higher taxes and/or diversion of current monies to this. Trying to do something as important as this on the cheap won't work.
I have 3 experiences which may be relevant:
(a) my mother needed some assistance in her later years - even though she was in full command of her faculties. We paid for a personal carer to look after her and she lived with my brother. Plus we were lucky enough to live close by (though it was not perhaps quite so much luck as closeness
(c) The issue of care is not just about the elderly. Specialist health/social care is needed for children and young adults with long-term conditions. Mental health is even less well resourced than social care - even if politicians and royals are now talking about it. It will not win any popularity contests. Its lack can be terminal. And the pressures it places on families and parents are equally tremendous. There is little support for them either.
In the end, good health/social care needs to be paid for. And we will need to take far more responsibility for our own families. And understand that savings need to be used for this and not just for holidays and other nice things. Being old and frail are the "rainy days" all that saving was for.
Finally, an excellent thread header from @Stodge. Thank you.
If people took out insurance for social care and NI was increased to pay for it then there would not need to be sales of family homes etc (of course the government is capping at £75 000 the amount needed to be paid from savings for care before the local authority assists)
"If people have houses and savings then care in old age is exactly what they should be used for. It is absurd to expect the State to pay for care just so as to protect the childrens' inheritance"
Couldn't agree more.. and if the children are so desperate for the inheritance then take in the parents and look after them as they did you. What a nicer place the world would be
Labour really is setting the bar low, isn't it? You do wonder how much of this they believe. Personally, I find the 5/2 Ladbrokes are offering on Lab winning both by-elections very attractive. They *ought* to win both seats. But the more you see of these kind of tweets, the more you wonder.
It could just be good expectation management... It could be... But it's not as if what we have seen so far gives confidence in Corbyn/McDonnell teams ability to handle the media.
To be fair, expectations management is one thing that the Labour leadership has been quite good at. I don't recall the last time they underperformed expectations.
FWIW, I expect state-funded social care in the medium-long term to eventually move to a model that matches adults working lives more closely. A bit like childcare.
So rather than care being "24/7", the state would look after or help with care for an elderly person 9-6 Monday-Friday, whilst the adults are working, who would then be expected to look after them as part of their families during evenings and weekends, unless they paid extra, with call outs for medical support only included.
That would probably be better both ethically and financially, and halve the bill, although a lot more work for the adults looking after them.
Labour really is setting the bar low, isn't it? You do wonder how much of this they believe. Personally, I find the 5/2 Ladbrokes are offering on Lab winning both by-elections very attractive. They *ought* to win both seats. But the more you see of these kind of tweets, the more you wonder.
It could just be good expectation management... It could be... But it's not as if what we have seen so far gives confidence in Corbyn/McDonnell teams ability to handle the media.
To be fair, expectations management is one thing that the Labour leadership has been quite good at. I don't recall the last time they underperformed expectations.
Longer term NI may need to be increased to pay for social care as well encouragement given to take out an annuity
Is it time we had a royal commission on all this and then get a cross-party agreement on its findings?
Maybe but certainly people need to make more insurance provision for social care just as most people now take out private pensions alongside their NI contributions for the state pension
I am no expert on this, but am I right in thinking that currently there is no real market in social care insurance? i.e. not many insurers are providing it. iirc they thought it too risky without clarity from government over the long term issue of social care funding.
There are insurers you can get which provide annuities for social care but hopefully the government will eventually provide that clarity
The truth is that too many of us think looking after granny is the State's problem not ours.
If people have houses and savings then care in old age is exactly what they should be used for. It is absurd to expect the State to pay for care just so as to protect the childrens' inheritance.
That does not deal with those who don't have sufficient savings nor does it deal with the very real difficulties faced by family carers who need specialist nursing/medical help and/or some respite from the burdens involved in looking after elderly/sick people.
The first step though is to understand that looking after elderly people is a valuable job and one which needs to be paid for properly. That means proper funding, whether centrally or locally, and higher taxes and/or diversion of current monies to this. Trying to do something as important as this on the cheap won't work.
I have 3 experiences which may be relevant:
(a) my mother needed some assistance in her later years - even though she was in full command of her faculties. We paid for a personal carer to look after her and she lived with my brother. Plus we were lucky enough to live close by (though it was not perhaps quite so much luck as closeness
(c) The issue of care is not just about the elderly. Specialist health/social care is needed for children and young adults with long-term conditions. Mental health is even less well resourced than social care - even if politicians and royals are now talking about it. It will not win any popularity contests. Its lack can be terminal. And the pressures it places on families and parents are equally tremendous. There is little support for them either.
In the end, good health/social care needs to be paid for. And we will need to take far more responsibility for our own families. And understand that savings need to be used for this and not just for holidays and other nice things. Being old and frail are the "rainy days" all that saving was for.
Finally, an excellent thread header from @Stodge. Thank you.
If people took out insurance for social care and NI was increased to pay for it then there would not need to be sales of family homes etc (of course the government is capping at £75 000 the amount needed to be paid from savings for care before the local authority assists)
I see no reason why the state should be the first resort of elderly care. I would love to leave all my filthy lucre to my daughter, but if my health dictates otherwise, so be it.
Longer term NI may need to be increased to pay for social care as well encouragement given to take out an annuity
Is it time we had a royal commission on all this and then get a cross-party agreement on its findings?
Much as I instinctively recoil against these kind of proposals as undemocratic (which they are), something needs to be done to ween the public off their current expectations and a Royal Commission that the parties sign up to in advance might be the way to do it. That said, the NHS is so central to Labour's sense of identity, I find it difficult to believe that they'd sign up to anything that might be criticised a 'privatisation' (which is a very catch-all term for left-wing critics), particularly under its current leadership.
I
Such a commission could consider the issue of private vs public. Social care, as in care homes, is mainly privately provided unless I am much mistaken. Indeed, one of the nightmare issues at the moment is they do not make enough money to continue functioning, leaving huge gaps in provision.
Compulsory insurance (perhaps run by the private insurance industry), changes to scale of NI, and a tax on all death estates of say 10% might be other things to consider.
I would want a commission that had ruled nothing in or out before it started, other than it wouldn't spend years and years on the issue and that it would come up with a solution rather than a menu of endlessly flexible options. We need a Beveridge report for social care.
Now is an ideal time. The Tories have nothing to fear from the Opposition even if the Commission came up with something that the Daily Mail could portray as 'the end of the world as we know it' (i.e. some of their readers might have to pay towards it), the Tories would still win in 2020 and could enact the report conclusions.
It shouldn't be impossible. People generally enter care homes for the last 2-3 years of their lives (although a few live many years longer) so a mixed private-state insurance scheme seems eminently sensible where the state "insures" for living beyond the 3 year point, and at a cost of £35k per year you pay for the first £105k, unless you are very poor indeed.
The truth is that too many of us think looking after granny is the State's problem not ours.
If people have houses and savings then care in old age is exactly what they should be used for. It is absurd to expect the State to pay for care just so as to protect the childrens' inheritance.
That does not deal with those who don't have sufficient savings nor does it deal with the very real difficulties faced by family carers who need specialist nursing/medical help and/or some respite from the burdens involved in looking after elderly/sick people.
The first step though is to understand that looking after elderly people is a valuable job and one which needs to be paid for properly. That means proper funding, whether centrally or locally, and higher taxes and/or diversion of current monies to this. Trying to do something as important as this on the cheap won't work.
I have 3 experiences which may be relevant:
(a) my mother needed some assistance in her later years - even though she was in full command of her faculties. We paid for a personal carer to look after her and she lived with my brother. Plus we were lucky enough to live close by (though it was not perhaps quite so much luck as closeness
(c) The issue of care is not just about the elderly. Specialist health/social care is needed for children and young adults with long-term conditions. Mental health is even less well resourced than social care - even if politicians and royals are now talking about it. It will not win any popularity contests. Its lack can be terminal. And the pressures it places on families and parents are equally tremendous. There is little support for them either.
In the end, good health/social care needs to be paid for. And we will need to take far more responsibility for our own families. And understand that savings need to be used for this and not just for holidays and other nice things. Being old and frail are the "rainy days" all that saving was for.
Finally, an excellent thread header from @Stodge. Thank you.
If people took out insurance for social care and NI was increased to pay for it then there would not need to be sales of family homes etc (of course the government is capping at £75 000 the amount needed to be paid from savings for care before the local authority assists)
True. But why should the family home be sacrosanct? It's a large part of people's wealth and if it is no longer needed because the elderly person needs care then it should be sold and used to pay for that.
Longer term NI may need to be increased to pay for social care as well encouragement given to take out an annuity
Is it time we had a royal commission on all this and then get a cross-party agreement on its findings?
Much as I instinctively recoil against these kind of proposals as undemocratic (which they are), something needs to be done to ween the public off their current expectations and a Royal Commission that the parties sign up to in advance might be the way to do it. That said, the NHS is so central to Labour's sense of identity, I find it difficult to believe that they'd sign up to anything that might be criticised a 'privatisation' (which is a very catch-all term for left-wing critics), particularly under its current leadership.
I
Such a commission could consider the issue of private vs public. Social care, as in care homes, is mainly privately provided unless I am much mistaken. Indeed, one of the nightmare issues at the moment is they do not make enough money to continue functioning, leaving huge gaps in provision.
Compulsory insurance (perhaps run by the private insurance industry), changes to scale of NI, and a tax on all death estates of say 10% might be other things to consider.
I would want a commission that had ruled nothing in or out before it started, other than it wouldn't spend years and years on the issue and that it would come up with a solution rather than a menu of endlessly flexible options. We need a Beveridge report for social care.
Now is an ideal time. The Tories have nothing to fear from the Opposition even if the Commission came up with something that the Daily Mail could portray as 'the end of the world as we know it' (i.e. some of their readers might have to pay towards it), the Tories would still win in 2020 and could enact the report conclusions.
It shouldn't be impossible. People generally enter care homes for the last 2-3 years of their lives (although a few live many years longer) so a mixed private-state insurance scheme seems eminently sensible where the state "insures" for living beyond the 3 year point, and at a cost of £35k per year you pay for the first £105k, unless you are very poor indeed.
PS. You could also deduct this from the estate when the person passes on, rather than pay upfront, which would add a little bit to the PSBR but not much.
Longer term NI may need to be increased to pay for social care as well encouragement given to take out an annuity
Is it time we had a royal commission on all this and then get a cross-party agreement on its findings?
Much as I instinctively recoil against these kind of proposals as undemocratic (which they are), something needs to be done to ween the public off their current expectations and a Royal Commission that the parties sign up to in advance might be the way to do it. That said, the NHS is so central to Labour's sense of identity, I find it difficult to believe that they'd sign up to anything that might be criticised a 'privatisation' (which is a very catch-all term for left-wing critics), particularly under its current leadership.
I tend to agree, but we cannot go on as we are for very much longer. The NHS is in permanent crisis and the social care problem has been kicked down the road by successive governments. Furthermore, the present system of successive governments introducing reforms to the NHS which are then overturned by another set of reforms sometimes by the same government is absolutely crackers.
A royal Commission, which would probably take two or three years to come up with a long term plan for the way forward, is probably our best hope of ever getting out of the crisis loop and getting a health and care system suitable for the 21st century.
Such a commission could consider the issue of private vs public. Social care, as in care homes, is mainly privately provided unless I am much mistaken. Indeed, one of the nightmare issues at the moment is they do not make enough money to continue functioning, leaving huge gaps in provision.
snip Now is an ideal time. The Tories have nothing to fear from the Opposition even if the Commission came up with something that the Daily Mail could portray as 'the end of the world as we know it' (i.e. some of their readers might have to pay towards it), the Tories would still win in 2020 and could enact the report conclusions.
Royal Commissions generally take several years to report.
Given them two years. end of 2017 to end of 2019. GE in May 2020. Some of the work has already been done by Dilnott commission.
It would probably not report until the next Parliament.
Comments
'The American elections and British EU referendum degenerated into the most ignoble and repetitive exchanges of insults in living memory. They demonstrated that accusing your opponent of lying is worse than useless.'
But, that could take 30 years or so to play out.
As for another candidate, Lucie Jones, the night Simon Cowell saved Jedward over her is possibly the greatest moment in X Factor history:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOSA0yZdMyA
There is a process in the WTO that allows the UK to submit new schedules. But they can only be adopted – or certified – and thus replace our existing EU schedules if none of the WTO’s other 163 members object to them.
One can all but guarantee a loss for the UK this year. Possibly bottom of the table.
Not even Malta, Ireland or Cyprus will be tempted to give us points.
Isn't it better to back the UK for a bottom 3 or 5 finish? (worked for me last year)
If she has any sense she'll refuse to play ball.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/special-bets/market/1.128015040
I'll do my usual Eurovision thread this year.
People had a life expectancy of about 5 years when the pension was first introduced, and died long before they needed any sort of care. Modern health improvements have fundamentally changed the equation and we've just tinkered round the edges raising the pension age by a few years. I've put my ideas downthread, normally a gov't wouldn't have the political capital to do such a thing but domestically Brexit is GIVING May capital, and with Corbyn having the Labour party in such a weak state May may have the room for this one.
Surrey's referendum will be lost but the question they raise is one for all of us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit
Cited in recent research into "pseudo profound" bullshit (are you listening Mr Trump) published in the Journal of Judgement and Decision Making.
http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.html
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/17/the-euref-might-be-more-like-the-av-referendum-and-not-the-indyref/
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/david-cameron/news/82595/lord-ashcroft-begin-donating
Given Brexit, we may get nul points.
Obviously the explanation is intellectual insecurity.
Minimum £60,000 pa for a nursing home place. More in the South East.
I am green on whole thing, except for Melenchon, which seems a good place to be.
https://youtu.be/JImsCI1olNQ
The recommendation is:
"the best approach to Trump, and even the best way to embarrass him, is to take him seriously. We should examine his plans for more infrastructure, or less immigration, or a revival of American manufacturing, and agree or disagree with him on a case by case basis."
I read plenty of stuff about taking seriously his plan to scrap Obamacare, build a wall, to ban Muslims, to invest massively in infrastructure, to cut taxes for the wealthiest... I'm not convinced any of that cut through.
One thing that strikes me though is very often the media and Clinton herself used kind of weasel words to describe lying. They are called falsehoods... Or not accurate... or even controversial statements...
Whereas Trump was happy to just call her a world class liar, say she should be in jail etc...
Tories prefer the long grass, shamefully.
I imagine a sizable portion of Trump voters knew he was a liar and that his proposals were unlikely to work but didn't care and still voted for him.
Trump's appeal is that people think he is on their side or that at least he will distress and discombobulate the people they themselves dislike/hate, while not actively making life any worse for them.
When I lived in London I seem to recall Livingstone encouraging tube drivers to strike because they had the wrong sort of boiler to use to make their tea.
"They also demanded urns for hot water, even though London Underground provides kettles and free tea and coffee.
If the company refused to supply urns, union leaders wanted a written commitment that drivers would be excused being late for work, delaying trains, if they were waiting for the kettle to boil."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1337609/Unions-threaten-Tube-strike-over-cup-of-tea.html
Nearly three-quarters of headteachers believe their budgets will be untenable by 2019 as the number of schools that slumped into deficit doubled in a year, research has shown.
A survey of school leaders has revealed that schools are being forced to make drastic savings such as reducing teaching hours and cutting back on buying equipment to balance their budgets.
According to the findings, 72 per cent of heads do not think their funding will be sufficient to meet the needs of their pupils within just two years.
https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/education/school-budgets-untenable-2019/
https://t.co/vVVQQBMxss
Another thing I note the papers are doing - they'll say its too close to call in Copeland then head straight into Stoke "Nuttall set to take the fight to Labour there", there's a certain amount of deliberate confusion between both by-elections in articles in the press.
You could argue that he was a victim of his own success; I don't think he expected an outright majority and was then hoist by his own referendum petard.
The same level of self-assurance as 'obviously the explanation is'.
But...near zero interest rates wipe out savings and the incentive to save. And therefore old age security.
Maybe we should run a thread on Gordon Brown and what a wonderful thing he was for our pensions industry and bank regulation. Bonus for anyone who mentions Advance Corporation Tax and the flow of dividends to pension funds.
A royal Commission, which would probably take two or three years to come up with a long term plan for the way forward, is probably our best hope of ever getting out of the crisis loop and getting a health and care system suitable for the 21st century.
I suspect this will all prove very good practice for 2020. When expectations are going to have to be managed yugely,
Con gain Bootle might become JWiseCorbyn's mantra...
Read more at: http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/brian-monteith-nicola-sturgeon-caught-in-her-own-groundhog-day-1-4346024
The tories are loading the costs of brexit onto the young and the poor.
Shameful.
That does not deal with those who don't have sufficient savings nor does it deal with the very real difficulties faced by family carers who need specialist nursing/medical help and/or some respite from the burdens involved in looking after elderly/sick people.
The first step though is to understand that looking after elderly people is a valuable job and one which needs to be paid for properly. That means proper funding, whether centrally or locally, and higher taxes and/or diversion of current monies to this. Trying to do something as important as this on the cheap won't work.
I have 3 experiences which may be relevant:
(a) my mother needed some assistance in her later years - even though she was in full command of her faculties. We paid for a personal carer to look after her and she lived with my brother. Plus we were lucky enough to live close by (though it was not perhaps quite so much luck as closeness to my mother was one of the factors which weighed in the balance when we bought our house) and saw her every week (minimum).
(b) Our very elderly neighbours (one died at 100 - she had dementia - and the other at 98) were able to stay in their home with regular care from the local council. But we also kept an eye on them - I had a key and was called on to assist at various times (falls/getting locked out etc). They were such a lovely couple that it was no burden and even my children helped when there were issues. But their own family were not very visible and I was dismayed to find that the grandchildren only turned up for the first time after their death. I appreciate that care may not have been possible but not even a visit?
(c) The issue of care is not just about the elderly. Specialist health/social care is needed for children and young adults with long-term conditions. Mental health is even less well resourced than social care - even if politicians and royals are now talking about it. It will not win any popularity contests. Its lack can be terminal. And the pressures it places on families and parents are equally tremendous. There is little support for them either.
In the end, good health/social care needs to be paid for. And we will need to take far more responsibility for our own families. And understand that savings need to be used for this and not just for holidays and other nice things. Being old and frail are the "rainy days" all that saving was for.
Finally, an excellent thread header from @Stodge. Thank you.
That also meant he struggled to understand why anyone would put principles above loyalty, because he had no particularly strong ones himself and so never would.
Compulsory insurance (perhaps run by the private insurance industry), changes to scale of NI, and a tax on all death estates of say 10% might be other things to consider.
I would want a commission that had ruled nothing in or out before it started, other than it wouldn't spend years and years on the issue and that it would come up with a solution rather than a menu of endlessly flexible options. We need a Beveridge report for social care.
Now is an ideal time. The Tories have nothing to fear from the Opposition even if the Commission came up with something that the Daily Mail could portray as 'the end of the world as we know it' (i.e. some of their readers might have to pay towards it), the Tories would still win in 2020 and could enact the report conclusions.
I'll have to look in later for a response as I have to get back to marching with the makers towards the trillion pound 2020 export target.
We are at a stage where we can move from measuring outcomes to managing data (a parallel is the shift in cardiovascular therapy from measuring heart attacks to managing blood pressure/cholesterol, etc).
Disease modifying combination vaccines are the way forward in my view. It'll probably be 5+ years before they are on the market, but for anyone at or about the age of 60-65 when they launch, I'd hope that Alzheimer's will be a thing of the past.
(the fact that I am a small shareholder in the best company in this field has in no way influenced my post)
He clearly had a lot of respect for Hague, as well as an excellent working partnership with Osborne.
Your point on the political timing is well made.
"If people have houses and savings then care in old age is exactly what they should be used for. It is absurd to expect the State to pay for care just so as to protect the childrens' inheritance"
Couldn't agree more.. and if the children are so desperate for the inheritance then take in the parents and look after them as they did you. What a nicer place the world would be
So rather than care being "24/7", the state would look after or help with care for an elderly person 9-6 Monday-Friday, whilst the adults are working, who would then be expected to look after them as part of their families during evenings and weekends, unless they paid extra, with call outs for medical support only included.
That would probably be better both ethically and financially, and halve the bill, although a lot more work for the adults looking after them.
Bookmaker Paddy Power Betfair is counting the cost of the US election result after Donald Trump's surprise victory cost it £5m.