Tory manifesto commits to withdrawing from the 1964 London Convention on fisheries.That's reclaiming territorial waters.
Now we need a massive increase to the Royal Navy's budget so they can be policed ...
Well, that is not going to happen. Quite the reverse. There was an announcement slipped out a couple of weeks back that at least one of the current OPVs (the sort of vessel needed for fisheries protection) is to be decommissioned. I fully expect all of the batch 1 River class vessels to be sold off as the Batch 2 ships (the ones that were ordered simply to give the yards something to do) come into service.
The couples children in the Manchester suburbs will pay the government Up to ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND PONDS! Where as before they didn't pay anything.
Er, no. The children are not paying £130K 'to the government'. Their parents are using £130K of their own wealth to pay for part, but not all, of their own care. There's good news and bad news on this for the children. The good news is that at present, they might end up with just £23K, whereas under the new proposals they will be left with at least £100K with the taxpayer forking out the difference. The bad news is that under the new proposals the same rules apply whether the care is provided in a residential home or in the parents' own home.
On balance, it seems pretty reasonable, given that someone has to pay.
Surely also the good news is that their parents are getting the care they need if more money is going to social care?
Ok, I'm putting this out now. I predict the social care changes will either be a) a f***** disaster for the Tories when the full extend of what's proposes dawns on people or b) will not survive contact with backbenchers as a Bill.
The main reason being they have abandoned the total lifetime cap on charges.
So:
* If you are lucky and don't need social care - your kids win up to a £1m house - tax free.
* If you are unlucky and need several years of care at maybe £1000 a week. Your kids get zilch.
This is poll tax on zimmer frame wheels level of policy.
Most people do not expect to inherit houses worth a million, because most people do not live in London or the SE.
As I said, this is a manifesto aimed at the regions. She's going for Labour heartlands
But is it the right way to taget them? Someone please help me, see if I understand this:
Imagine you are a 65 year old couple in the Manchester suburbs, your house is worth £230,000. BUT you have only £20,000 total savings. CURRENTLY you don't have to pay for social care if you grow old and have care in your own home. AND you can leave the house to your children, all of it.
What she is proposing is to inclusde the value of their home into the calculations, BANG suddenly I will have to pay for my care, and this cost will come from my childrens inheritance. The govenment now can take the whole inheritance except £100,000.
The couples children in the Manchester suburbs will pay the government Up to ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND PONDS! Where as before they didn't pay anything.
This policy is NOT for the regions.
surely it's £100k each though, so your numbers are out, and you only have to pay £50k.
Wait you only have to pay £50k capped? I thought rottenbourgh said it is changing to an unlimited amount?
The only 'cap' is the £100k you will be left with in your property - if your house is £105,000 or £1,100,000 - you will be in for the difference - so, this will disproportionately affect the south and London.
Surely its you will be left with a minimum of £100,000 on death. If your house is £1.1million and you receive £50,000 of care you would be left with £1.05 million after the care is paid for,,,
The couples children in the Manchester suburbs will pay the government Up to ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND PONDS! Where as before they didn't pay anything.
Er, no. The children are not paying £130K 'to the government'. Their parents are using £130K of their own wealth to pay for part, but not all, of their own care. There's good news and bad news on this for the children. The good news is that at present, they might end up with just £23K, whereas under the new proposals they will be left with at least £100K with the taxpayer forking out the difference. The bad news is that under the new proposals the same rules apply whether the care is provided in a residential home or in the parents' own home.
On balance, it seems pretty reasonable, given that someone has to pay.
Surely also the good news is that their parents are getting the care they need if more money is going to social care?
There are fairly easy ways, under a modest capital layout, to protect houses. the bleating rich will be fine, the poorest protected and noone has to pay during their lifetime. Seems reasonable to me. Still not voting for her though!
The government will work with train companies and employees to agree minimum service levels during periods of dispute. If voluntary agreement isn't reached, legislation will be enacted.
Ok, I'm putting this out now. I predict the social care changes will either be a) a f***** disaster for the Tories when the full extend of what's proposes dawns on people or b) will not survive contact with backbenchers as a Bill.
The main reason being they have abandoned the total lifetime cap on charges.
So:
* If you are lucky and don't need social care - your kids win up to a £1m house - tax free.
* If you are unlucky and need several years of care at maybe £1000 a week. Your kids get zilch.
This is poll tax on zimmer frame wheels level of policy.
Most people do not expect to inherit houses worth a million, because most people do not live in London or the SE.
As I said, this is a manifesto aimed at the regions. She's going for Labour heartlands
But is it the right way to taget them? Someone please help me, see if I understand this:
Imagine you are a 65 year old couple in the Manchester suburbs, your house is worth £230,000. BUT you have only £20,000 total savings. CURRENTLY you don't have to pay for social care if you grow old and have care in your own home. AND you can leave the house to your children, all of it.
What she is proposing is to inclusde the value of their home into the calculations, BANG suddenly I will have to pay for my care, and this cost will come from my childrens inheritance. The govenment now can take the whole inheritance except £100,000.
The couples children in the Manchester suburbs will pay the government Up to ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND PONDS! Where as before they didn't pay anything.
This policy is NOT for the regions.
surely it's £100k each though, so your numbers are out, and you only have to pay £50k.
Wait you only have to pay £50k capped? I thought rottenbourgh said it is changing to an unlimited amount?
The only 'cap' is the £100k you will be left with in your property - if your house is £105,000 or £1,100,000 - you will be in for the difference - so, this will disproportionately affect the south and London.
Surely its you will be left with a minimum of £100,000 on death. If your house is £1.1million and you receive £50,000 of care you would be left with £1.05 million after the care is paid for,,,
Yes - but it was argued earlier that this would disproportionately affect the North - it won't - housing wealth is concentrated in the south.....
@NickPalmer ""Corbyn would be a disaster as PM" meme is running out of steam."
There's a big head of steam in a 2:1 margin...
Not really. The thing to watch is the Labour score compared with the Corbyn score - the difference is people who are voting Labour but holding their noses, and thus potentially seduceable by Tory demonisation of Corbyn. The Tory lead is all about eating UKIP (are they really down to 2%?), and there's not a lot Labour under any leader can do about that.
What critics of Corbyn can argue is that under hypothetical wonder-leader from the centre, we would be gaining votes from the left of the Tories while they snuggle up to UKIP. Whether that's true to a large extent is debatable, cf. the poll two days ago showing Labour doing much worse if Tony Blair was leading. I think we're seeing some genuine polarisation here.
But he should not have agreed to the election ! At the very least Corbyn should have forced May down the Vote of No Confidence route which quite a few constitutional commentators believe could have made him PM in a 'caretaker' capacity.
It just wasn't credible. Before Corbyn even had a chance to reply the media had moved on to election mode. It is utterly delusional to think that he could play silly buggers and be made PM in any form of capacity.
The media in its ignorance could say what it liked - though at the time of the announcement there was speculation as to Corbyn's likely response. His failure to block May effectively made the issue a non-issue but that was far from inevitable. The views of RodCrosby and David Herdson are very clost to my own regarding May being obliged to resign had she been forced down the No Confidence Vote road.
Except you miss the fact that she could not be forced down the No Confidence Vote road. She could just keep repeating the vote on having an early election and have Labour repeatedly vote against an early election. Every time Labour rejected an early election they would be more humiliated.
This is a well-balanced and clearly-written article on the manifesto and especially the changes on care for the elderly by Torsten Bell of the leftish Resolution Foundation:
I think its quite brave of May to take on the southern pensioner rich and their heirs.....not that she'll get any thanks for it!
It has to be done. Us baby-boomers and London property-owners have it too easy, the young Millennials and Generation Rent are suffering. About the only person who would dare to rebalance things is a centrist Tory PM assured of a huge majority.
One thing is clear: if Mrs May wins a convincing majority on the 8th, she will have done it the hard way. It will be an emphatic mandate to push through these kind of changes that previous governments have funked.
As a dry Tory, I'm a little nervous about some of this, but you have to give her this, she's got balls.
Having initially failed to react either to last night's YouGov or this morning's Ipsos MORI polls, the two main spreadbetting firms have at last succumbed to the latest findings - or perhaps it's to the Tory manifesto .... who knows?
Anyway, Sporting's current seat quotes are:
Con ....... 392 - 398 Lab ........ 159 - 165
Spreadex meanwhile goes somewhat stronger on Labour:
Con ....... 393 - 399 Lab ....... 162 - 168
So in both cases, the spreads have reduced by around 4 seats for the Tories and increased to the same extent in terms of Labour seats. Not a huge movement it has to be said, but sufficient for me to cover the 6 seat spreads involved. Am I exiting at break-even now given the chance? Er .... no!
The State Pension Triple Lock remains until 2020, to be replaced by a Double Lock with links to average earnings or inflation from then on.
Trying to contain the costs of pensions for the ever-growing pensioner population is unavoidable, but the irony is that, as we move into a higher-inflation economic environment, dropping the numerical underpin to the inflation figure post-2020 may not save the future government a single penny. The lock to inflation will prove crippling in itself, particularly if average earnings (and hence tax receipts) fail to keep pace.
@NickPalmer ""Corbyn would be a disaster as PM" meme is running out of steam."
There's a big head of steam in a 2:1 margin...
Not really. The thing to watch is the Labour score compared with the Corbyn score - the difference is people who are voting Labour but holding their noses, and thus potentially seduceable by Tory demonisation of Corbyn. The Tory lead is all about eating UKIP (are they really down to 2%?), and there's not a lot Labour under any leader can do about that.
What critics of Corbyn can argue is that under hypothetical wonder-leader from the centre, we would be gaining votes from the left of the Tories while they snuggle up to UKIP. Whether that's true to a large extent is debatable, cf. the poll two days ago showing Labour doing much worse if Tony Blair was leading. I think we're seeing some genuine polarisation here.
But he should not have agreed to the election ! At the very least Corbyn should have forced May down the Vote of No Confidence route which quite a few constitutional commentators believe could have made him PM in a 'caretaker' capacity.
It just wasn't credible. Before Corbyn even had a chance to reply the media had moved on to election mode. It is utterly delusional to think that he could play silly buggers and be made PM in any form of capacity.
The media in its ignorance could say what it liked - though at the time of the announcement there was speculation as to Corbyn's likely response. His failure to block May effectively made the issue a non-issue but that was far from inevitable. The views of RodCrosby and David Herdson are very clost to my own regarding May being obliged to resign had she been forced down the No Confidence Vote road.
Except you miss the fact that she could not be forced down the No Confidence Vote road. She could just keep repeating the vote on having an early election and have Labour repeatedly vote against an early election. Every time Labour rejected an early election they would be more humiliated.
Maybe - but at some point the polls might have made the option more attracive to Labour. By mid-2018 the Tory poll lead might have fallen to 5% or so , and when faced with that scenario Corbyn could have said 'OK then - let's have an election!' - but it made no sense at all for him to agree to an election at a time of maximum disadvantage to the party he pretends to lead. It was effectively an act of malevolent betrayal of the membership of his party for which he deserves to be severely judged.
The Tory party manifesto provisions on Social Care and Winter Fuel strike me as very brave. Cameron and Osborne would never have done this, recognising how important the grey vote is to their party's success. The astonishing lead that the Tories have with the older generation is about to be tested.
There is going to be a huge amount of squawking about this. There is no way it could have been put through without an election and Manifesto commitment. Personally, it strikes me as the right thing to do. It is time to recognise that so many of our retired are better off and have considerably more disposable income than those still in work paying taxes. Doesn't mean it is not electorally foolish of course.
Ok, I'm putting this out now. I predict the social care changes will either be a) a f***** disaster for the Tories when the full extend of what's proposes dawns on people or b) will not survive contact with backbenchers as a Bill.
The main reason being they have abandoned the total lifetime cap on charges.
So:
* If you are lucky and don't need social care - your kids win up to a £1m house - tax free.
* If you are unlucky and need several years of care at maybe £1000 a week. Your kids get zilch.
This is poll tax on zimmer frame wheels level of policy.
Most people do not expect to inherit houses worth a million, because most people do not live in London or the SE.
As I said, this is a manifesto aimed at the regions. She's going for Labour heartlands
But is it the right way to taget them? Someone please help me, see if I understand this:
Imagine you are a 65 year old couple in the Manchester suburbs, your house is worth £230,000. BUT you have only £20,000 total savings. CURRENTLY you don't have to pay for social care if you grow old and have care in your own home. AND you can leave the house to your children, all of it.
What she is proposing is to inclusde the value of their home into the calculations, BANG suddenly I will have to pay for my care, and this cost will come from my childrens inheritance. The govenment now can take the whole inheritance except £100,000.
The couples children in the Manchester suburbs will pay the government Up to ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND PONDS! Where as before they didn't pay anything.
This policy is NOT for the regions.
Bingo! When the time comes I'll get a share of a 100k estate rather than a 300k estate (father having care at home, mobility issues rather than dementia). Assuming he doesn't die shortly.
Comments
The Conservatives are focussing on issues such as social care and intergenerational fairness because they expect to be in power for a long time.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/18/mays-manifesto-is-birth-of-third-way-conservatism?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
the bleating rich will be fine, the poorest protected and noone has to pay during their lifetime.
Seems reasonable to me. Still not voting for her though!
NEW THREAD
As a dry Tory, I'm a little nervous about some of this, but you have to give her this, she's got balls.
Anyway, Sporting's current seat quotes are:
Con ....... 392 - 398
Lab ........ 159 - 165
Spreadex meanwhile goes somewhat stronger on Labour:
Con ....... 393 - 399
Lab ....... 162 - 168
So in both cases, the spreads have reduced by around 4 seats for the Tories and increased to the same extent in terms of Labour seats. Not a huge movement it has to be said, but sufficient for me to cover the 6 seat spreads involved. Am I exiting at break-even now given the chance? Er .... no!
There is going to be a huge amount of squawking about this. There is no way it could have been put through without an election and Manifesto commitment. Personally, it strikes me as the right thing to do. It is time to recognise that so many of our retired are better off and have considerably more disposable income than those still in work paying taxes. Doesn't mean it is not electorally foolish of course.