May appears to be gambling that she can poke the over 65s very hard and they still turn out for her in order to shore up the WWC vote. This is Blairite territory she's moving into, this is a centrist manifesto, she's banking on the right flank holding for 3 weeks.
Where else do they go - and to be honest guaranteeing £100,000 estate up from £23,250 is for many a big improvement
Indeed. She has concluded they have no option, and that this age group do not, ever, sit on their hands at election time. She's probably right.
It'd be hilarious if Corbyn's Labour beats Miliband's vote share from GE2015.
Hilarious, and quite telling. It would also clear the way for Labour to become even more left wing, and it would be interesting to see how the Blairite moderates react.
May appears to be gambling that she can poke the over 65s very hard and they still turn out for her in order to shore up the WWC vote. This is Blairite territory she's moving into, this is a centrist manifesto, she's banking on the right flank holding for 3 weeks.
Where else do they go - and to be honest guaranteeing £100,000 estate up from £23,250 is for many a big improvement
Except they now take your house even if you are receiving care at home like Mrs BJ
Wonder if being tenants in common will still offer protection
"On Sky News Adam Boulton says he has seen the set from the hall in Halifax, where the Tory manifesto is being launched at 11.15. He says there is no mention of Theresa May or “strong and stable leadership” on the branding, which he says represents a new approach."
Just a thought, is Teresa not coming across as well as expected? With 3 weeks to go are the voters going to get fed up with her and perhaps stay at home?
Phase I was Theresa Phase II will be Conservatives Phase III will be the hit job on Corbyn.
Probably "Forward Together" which is the manifesto message . Phase 1 was designed to hook anti Corbyn labourites to May brand, avoiding any anti Tory feeling and this phase gives them lefties sounding policies to seal the deal.
I guess I am not being very scientific, in not believing polls. But personally I cannot see Labour getting above 25. No way on God's green earth.
One explanation is possibly that voters are disregarding Corbyn as they know he will not be PM and so are starting to be persuaded by their local Lab MP saying - "I'm a decent guy, I've done good things, don't blame me for Corbyn' etc etc.
The other (and the one I am inclined to go for) is that the polls are (obviously) just telling us what people might do. When faced with an actual ballot box and the prospect of Corbyn then they will desert on masse. A bit like '92.
Mind you I was completely wrong on Trump and Le Pen so DYOR :-)
There are therefore plenty of people arguing from dawn to dusk how crap Corbyn is and how badly Labour are going to do. It becomes an echo chamber for those either hoping or wanting Labour to do badly. If that's a view you hold, you can come on here and soon find posts to re-enforce that view.
That's why it's good to head over to CiF; a substantial minority have exactly the same view of Jezza as is overwhelmingly to be found on here. And as on here, the most vituperative comments are from Lab supporters.
CiF is hilarious. Commentators are either hailing Corbyn as the messiah or supporting Le Pen.
Still, the Spectator comments section is also something else.
Try OrderOrder. Beyond belief sometimes how sweary, angry and nasty some people can get when online. Just about everyone vaguely 'left' or even one nation tory is a total c*** who should be shot etc etc. Do they behave like this down the pub?
That's a good shout. I had forgotten about OrderOrder, as the last time I read the comments section there was years ago.
The people on that site aren't even interested in any form of discussion. I think that they are all just trolling and saying these kinds of statements for shock value.
It'd be hilarious if Corbyn's Labour beats Miliband's vote share from GE2015.
Hilarious, and quite telling. It would also clear the way for Labour to become even more left wing, and it would be interesting to see how the Blairite moderates react.
I'm confused on this house asset for social care. I was under the impression that anyone with a house that was a potential asset for care costs purposes could already opt to have a 'charge' put on it and pay the council when they die and it was sold in probate.
Was I wrong? Or has actually nothing been changed at all except the 23k threshold?
The Bow Group have called the Tory manifesto the biggest stealth tax increases in history.
Brexit has to be paid for somehow.
You sound like Tim Farron, how are things for him at the moment?
The lonely dumped husbands are still at the bar of the local telling anyone who'll listen
"You wait til she cant afford go to the Algarve this year and doesn't get those nice shoes for Christmas.. then she'll love me again and wish she'd never left"
Car crash Brexit will be good for the Conservatives, though disastrous for the country.
At least the Conservatives are proposing to make those who voted for this disaster pay, which is a start of sorts.
While I'm chuckling at you perhaps you can outline this "disaster"
It'd be hilarious if Corbyn's Labour beats Miliband's vote share from GE2015.
Hilarious, and quite telling. It would also clear the way for Labour to become even more left wing, and it would be interesting to see how the Blairite moderates react.
I don't know about that. Corbyn may or may not beat Miliband's share but he's going to end up with less seats than Ed. Under FPTP, that's a pretty bad look.
Then again no matter how Corbyn does his supporters will spin it in his favour.
May appears to be gambling that she can poke the over 65s very hard and they still turn out for her in order to shore up the WWC vote. This is Blairite territory she's moving into, this is a centrist manifesto, she's banking on the right flank holding for 3 weeks.
Where else do they go - and to be honest guaranteeing £100,000 estate up from £23,250 is for many a big improvement
Except they now take your house even if you are receiving care at home like Mrs BJ
Wonder if being tenants in common will still offer protection
The proposal appears to be that the house doesn't have to be sold to fund ongoing care, rather that there will be a charge put on it (backed by the government) until after death. This seems more sensible to me than the current system, but let's wait for the detail in the manifesto.
It'd be hilarious if Corbyn's Labour beats Miliband's vote share from GE2015.
Hilarious, and quite telling. It would also clear the way for Labour to become even more left wing, and it would be interesting to see how the Blairite moderates react.
It would also beat Brown 2010 wouldn't it?
I think that's right, thanks. Under Miliband vote share went up, but seats went down.
So he'd also have done better than Brown. Chortles.
That might indicate that the Blairite moderates are the ones that are out of touch, not the Corbynites.
The Bow Group have called the Tory manifesto the biggest stealth tax increases in history.
Brexit has to be paid for somehow.
You sound like Tim Farron, how are things for him at the moment?
The lonely dumped husbands are still at the bar of the local telling anyone who'll listen
"You wait til she cant afford go to the Algarve this year and doesn't get those nice shoes for Christmas.. then she'll love me again and wish she'd never left"
Car crash Brexit will be good for the Conservatives, though disastrous for the country.
At least the Conservatives are proposing to make those who voted for this disaster pay, which is a start of sorts.
While I'm chuckling at you perhaps you can outline this "disaster"
The country gets more insular, more hostile to foreigners, less attractive to outside investors as a result, drifts as globalisation gathers pace and becomes a low growth backwater dominated by incoherent populism. A decade or more of being absorbed by the implications of Brexit as a whole host of other more pressing problems go unconsidered won't exactly help much either.
On the plus side, immigration won't be a problem for long because the brightest and best will want to go to countries that actually are pleasant to foreigners.
May appears to be gambling that she can poke the over 65s very hard and they still turn out for her in order to shore up the WWC vote. This is Blairite territory she's moving into, this is a centrist manifesto, she's banking on the right flank holding for 3 weeks.
Where else do they go - and to be honest guaranteeing £100,000 estate up from £23,250 is for many a big improvement
Indeed. She has concluded they have no option, and that this age group do not, ever, sit on their hands at election time. She's probably right.
Well for all of them who need care at home which far exceeds those in care homes. This is a new house theft.
In other news... Parcels' up FTSE's down. Sterling's up. Burberry's down. Retail's up. Buy-to-let's down Obscure Swedish retailer creating 1300 new jobs in Britain. All because of / in spite of / regardless of Brexit. La la how the life goes on
This Forum is for example predominantly pro-Conservative...There are therefore plenty of people arguing from dawn to dusk how crap Corbyn is and how badly Labour are going to do.
That isn't a Conservative position, though. It is broadly everybody's position.
So your view of the site's leaning may well be accurate, of course, but that particular observation is not the best to choose in support of it. I.e. you need not be a Conservative to think Corbyn is crap or that Labour are doing badly. Most Labour voters think so too; ditto LD, SNP, etc etc.
The Bow Group have called the Tory manifesto the biggest stealth tax increases in history.
Brexit has to be paid for somehow.
You sound like Tim Farron, how are things for him at the moment?
The lonely dumped husbands are still at the bar of the local telling anyone who'll listen
"You wait til she cant afford go to the Algarve this year and doesn't get those nice shoes for Christmas.. then she'll love me again and wish she'd never left"
Car crash Brexit will be good for the Conservatives, though disastrous for the country.
At least the Conservatives are proposing to make those who voted for this disaster pay, which is a start of sorts.
While I'm chuckling at you perhaps you can outline this "disaster"
The country gets more insular, more hostile to foreigners, less attractive to outside investors as a result, drifts as globalisation gathers pace and becomes a low growth backwater dominated by incoherent populism. A decade or more of being absorbed by the implications of Brexit as a whole host of other more pressing problems go unconsidered won't exactly help much either.
On the plus side, immigration won't be a problem for long because the brightest and best will want to go to countries that actually are pleasant to foreigners.
Any hostility that exists to foreigners is usually a result of them being imported, en masse, to depreciate the wages of the poorest & change the demographic of peoples hometowns overnight.
If the immigration policy had only allowed immigration to those who had a job lined up at a minimum of say £25kpa, immigrants would be mixing in the nicer parts of the country rather than competing with the least well off on many different levels which causes tension and dislike.
It'd be hilarious if Corbyn's Labour beats Miliband's vote share from GE2015.
Hilarious, and quite telling. It would also clear the way for Labour to become even more left wing, and it would be interesting to see how the Blairite moderates react.
I don't know about that. Corbyn may or may not beat Miliband's share but he's going to end up with less seats than Ed. Under FPTP, that's a pretty bad look.
Then again no matter how Corbyn does his supporters will spin it in his favour.
I am far from being a Corbyn supporter, but *if* he was to get a higher percentage of the vote than either Miliband or Brown then he'll have done very well regardless of the situation under FPTP. It'd be hard for them to get rid of him.
If May's miscalculated then where do pensioner votes go?
As a pensioner I always expected to have to pay for care if needed right down to £23,250. So to increase that to £100,000 seems a fair deal to me and no doubt my children
I guess I am not being very scientific, in not believing polls. But personally I cannot see Labour getting above 25. No way on God's green earth.
One explanation is possibly that voters are disregarding Corbyn as they know he will not be PM and so are starting to be persuaded by their local Lab MP saying - "I'm a decent guy, I've done good things, don't blame me for Corbyn' etc etc.
The other (and the one I am inclined to go for) is that the polls are (obviously) just telling us what people might do. When faced with an actual ballot box and the prospect of Corbyn then they will desert on masse. A bit like '92.
Mind you I was completely wrong on Trump and Le Pen so DYOR :-)
There are therefore plenty of people arguing from dawn to dusk how crap Corbyn is and how badly Labour are going to do. It becomes an echo chamber for those either hoping or wanting Labour to do badly. If that's a view you hold, you can come on here and soon find posts to re-enforce that view.
That's why it's good to head over to CiF; a substantial minority have exactly the same view of Jezza as is overwhelmingly to be found on here. And as on here, the most vituperative comments are from Lab supporters.
CiF is hilarious. Commentators are either hailing Corbyn as the messiah or supporting Le Pen.
Still, the Spectator comments section is also something else.
Try OrderOrder. Beyond belief sometimes how sweary, angry and nasty some people can get when online. Just about everyone vaguely 'left' or even one nation tory is a total c*** who should be shot etc etc. Do they behave like this down the pub?
The Bow Group have called the Tory manifesto the biggest stealth tax increases in history.
Brexit has to be paid for somehow.
You sound like Tim Farron, how are things for him at the moment?
The lonely dumped husbands are still at the bar of the local telling anyone who'll listen
"You wait til she cant afford go to the Algarve this year and doesn't get those nice shoes for Christmas.. then she'll love me again and wish she'd never left"
Car crash Brexit will be good for the Conservatives, though disastrous for the country.
At least the Conservatives are proposing to make those who voted for this disaster pay, which is a start of sorts.
While I'm chuckling at you perhaps you can outline this "disaster"
The country gets more insular, more hostile to foreigners, less attractive to outside investors as a result, drifts as globalisation gathers pace and becomes a low growth backwater dominated by incoherent populism. A decade or more of being absorbed by the implications of Brexit as a whole host of other more pressing problems go unconsidered won't exactly help much either.
On the plus side, immigration won't be a problem for long because the brightest and best will want to go to countries that actually are pleasant to foreigners.
Well that's a view, there is no evidence to support it but ho hum.
You see, you lost the argument last June and it is becoming increasingly tedious, if funny, a bit like the comedy shows on Dave.
The country gets more insular, more hostile to foreigners, less attractive to outside investors as a result, drifts as globalisation gathers pace and becomes a low growth backwater dominated by incoherent populism.
How much of what you say is actually true, rather then your own prejudices on display again?
Surveys show Brits aren't particularly "hostile to foreigners", in fact we tend to be relatively more welcoming than many other European countries. Nor do we have a great deal of anti-immigrant abuse or crime.
The policy of the party leading in the polls is simply to return immigration levels to those seen in the 1990s, and to have controls on a par with such "hostile to foreigners" hell-holes like Canada.
The most "hostile to foreigners" political party is seeing its vote share plummet, and even UKIP isn't that hostile compared to many parties elsewhere in the EU.
You really need to get over Brexit, and realise that the country didn't dramatically change on June 23rd. We haven't suddenly become a lot worse, or better.
It'd be hilarious if Corbyn's Labour beats Miliband's vote share from GE2015.
Hilarious, and quite telling. It would also clear the way for Labour to become even more left wing, and it would be interesting to see how the Blairite moderates react.
I don't know about that. Corbyn may or may not beat Miliband's share but he's going to end up with less seats than Ed. Under FPTP, that's a pretty bad look.
Then again no matter how Corbyn does his supporters will spin it in his favour.
I am far from being a Corbyn supporter, but *if* he was to get a higher percentage of the vote than either Miliband or Brown then he'll have done very well regardless of the situation under FPTP. It'd be hard for them to get rid of him.
Although that's a mighty big conditional.
Isn't that changing the standards we'd usually expect of an opposition leader?
Realistically, the expectations for opposition leaders are to win more seats in GEs and get closer to the magic 326 number. Corbyn isn't really doing well if he's piling up votes in safe seats.
It will be hard getting rid of Corbyn either way. His supporters are determined to turn the Labour Party into a cult designed to worship him as opposed to an organisation centred around advocating social democracy designed for a post 2008 crash, post Brexit world.
The Bow Group have called the Tory manifesto the biggest stealth tax increases in history.
Brexit has to be paid for somehow.
You sound like Tim Farron, how are things for him at the moment?
The lonely dumped husbands are still at the bar of the local telling anyone who'll listen
"You wait til she cant afford go to the Algarve this year and doesn't get those nice shoes for Christmas.. then she'll love me again and wish she'd never left"
Car crash Brexit will be good for the Conservatives, though disastrous for the country.
At least the Conservatives are proposing to make those who voted for this disaster pay, which is a start of sorts.
While I'm chuckling at you perhaps you can outline this "disaster"
The country gets more insular, more hostile to foreigners, less attractive to outside investors as a result, drifts as globalisation gathers pace and becomes a low growth backwater dominated by incoherent populism. A decade or more of being absorbed by the implications of Brexit as a whole host of other more pressing problems go unconsidered won't exactly help much either.
On the plus side, immigration won't be a problem for long because the brightest and best will want to go to countries that actually are pleasant to foreigners.
Well that's a view, there is no evidence to support it but ho hum.
You see, you lost the argument last June and it is becoming increasingly tedious, if funny, a bit like the comedy shows on Dave.
The referendum was an expression of people's views at a moment in time; it was not a definitive judgement of an argument that must stand for evermore.
The Bow Group have called the Tory manifesto the biggest stealth tax increases in history.
Brexit has to be paid for somehow.
You sound like Tim Farron, how are things for him at the moment?
The lonely dumped husbands are still at the bar of the local telling anyone who'll listen
"You wait til she cant afford go to the Algarve this year and doesn't get those nice shoes for Christmas.. then she'll love me again and wish she'd never left"
Car crash Brexit will be good for the Conservatives, though disastrous for the country.
At least the Conservatives are proposing to make those who voted for this disaster pay, which is a start of sorts.
While I'm chuckling at you perhaps you can outline this "disaster"
The country gets more insular, more hostile to foreigners, less attractive to outside investors as a result, drifts as globalisation gathers pace and becomes a low growth backwater dominated by incoherent populism. A decade or more of being absorbed by the implications of Brexit as a whole host of other more pressing problems go unconsidered won't exactly help much either.
On the plus side, immigration won't be a problem for long because the brightest and best will want to go to countries that actually are pleasant to foreigners.
Well that's a view, there is no evidence to support it but ho hum.
You see, you lost the argument last June and it is becoming increasingly tedious, if funny, a bit like the comedy shows on Dave.
The disaster of Brexit is unfolding. The country has already become more divided, more unhappy and more racist.
If you think that people are going to stop talking about the disaster just because there was a vote on it last year, you're deranged. We are going to be living under the shadow of this mountain for many years to come.
Try OrderOrder. Beyond belief sometimes how sweary, angry and nasty some people can get when online. Just about everyone vaguely 'left' or even one nation tory is a total c*** who should be shot etc etc. Do they behave like this down the pub?
I have no idea how Guido is allowed to keep his Google ad's with the comments you get on that site.
I assume he must bring in a LOT of money for Google but it's another scandal waiting to happen there if the Guardian or someone else picks up on which brands are appearing next to those comments...
The Bow Group have called the Tory manifesto the biggest stealth tax increases in history.
Brexit has to be paid for somehow.
You sound like Tim Farron, how are things for him at the moment?
The lonely dumped husbands are still at the bar of the local telling anyone who'll listen
"You wait til she cant afford go to the Algarve this year and doesn't get those nice shoes for Christmas.. then she'll love me again and wish she'd never left"
Car crash Brexit will be good for the Conservatives, though disastrous for the country.
At least the Conservatives are proposing to make those who voted for this disaster pay, which is a start of sorts.
While I'm chuckling at you perhaps you can outline this "disaster"
The country gets more insular, more hostile to foreigners, less attractive to outside investors as a result, drifts as globalisation gathers pace and becomes a low growth backwater dominated by incoherent populism. A decade or more of being absorbed by the implications of Brexit as a whole host of other more pressing problems go unconsidered won't exactly help much either.
On the plus side, immigration won't be a problem for long because the brightest and best will want to go to countries that actually are pleasant to foreigners.
Well that's a view, there is no evidence to support it but ho hum.
You see, you lost the argument last June and it is becoming increasingly tedious, if funny, a bit like the comedy shows on Dave.
The disaster of Brexit is unfolding. The country has already become more divided, more unhappy and more racist.
If you think that people are going to stop talking about the disaster just because there was a vote on it last year, you're deranged. We are going to be living under the shadow of this mountain for many years to come.
Yep, tens of thousands queuing up to come to this disaster of a country, its awful.
The Bow Group have called the Tory manifesto the biggest stealth tax increases in history.
Brexit has to be paid for somehow.
You sound like Tim Farron, how are things for him at the moment?
The lonely dumped husbands are still at the bar of the local telling anyone who'll listen
"You wait til she cant afford go to the Algarve this year and doesn't get those nice shoes for Christmas.. then she'll love me again and wish she'd never left"
Car crash Brexit will be good for the Conservatives, though disastrous for the country.
At least the Conservatives are proposing to make those who voted for this disaster pay, which is a start of sorts.
While I'm chuckling at you perhaps you can outline this "disaster"
The country gets more insular, more hostile to foreigners, less attractive to outside investors as a result, drifts as globalisation gathers pace and becomes a low growth backwater dominated by incoherent populism. A decade or more of being absorbed by the implications of Brexit as a whole host of other more pressing problems go unconsidered won't exactly help much either.
On the plus side, immigration won't be a problem for long because the brightest and best will want to go to countries that actually are pleasant to foreigners.
Well that's a view, there is no evidence to support it but ho hum.
You see, you lost the argument last June and it is becoming increasingly tedious, if funny, a bit like the comedy shows on Dave.
The disaster of Brexit is unfolding. The country has already become more divided, more unhappy and more racist.
If you think that people are going to stop talking about the disaster just because there was a vote on it last year, you're deranged. We are going to be living under the shadow of this mountain for many years to come.
I was shocked to see how many people wanted Le Pen to win/thought she'd be good for UK in that YouGov poll.
Try OrderOrder. Beyond belief sometimes how sweary, angry and nasty some people can get when online. Just about everyone vaguely 'left' or even one nation tory is a total c*** who should be shot etc etc. Do they behave like this down the pub?
I have no idea how Guido is allowed to keep his Google ad's with the comments you get on that site.
I assume he must bring in a LOT of money for Google but it's another scandal waiting to happen there if the Guardian or someone else picks up on which brands are appearing next to those comments...
Surely its the views on the site itself that matter to advertisers? All sites have their nutters posting underneath (cough...)
The Bow Group have called the Tory manifesto the biggest stealth tax increases in history.
Brexit has to be paid for somehow.
You sound like Tim Farron, how are things for him at the moment?
The lonely dumped husbands are still at the bar of the local telling anyone who'll listen
"You wait til she cant afford go to the Algarve this year and doesn't get those nice shoes for Christmas.. then she'll love me again and wish she'd never left"
Car crash Brexit will be good for the Conservatives, though disastrous for the country.
At least the Conservatives are proposing to make those who voted for this disaster pay, which is a start of sorts.
While I'm chuckling at you perhaps you can outline this "disaster"
The country gets more insular, more hostile to foreigners, less attractive to outside investors as a result, drifts as globalisation gathers pace and becomes a low growth backwater dominated by incoherent populism. A decade or more of being absorbed by the implications of Brexit as a whole host of other more pressing problems go unconsidered won't exactly help much either.
On the plus side, immigration won't be a problem for long because the brightest and best will want to go to countries that actually are pleasant to foreigners.
Well that's a view, there is no evidence to support it but ho hum.
You see, you lost the argument last June and it is becoming increasingly tedious, if funny, a bit like the comedy shows on Dave.
The disaster of Brexit is unfolding. The country has already become more divided, more unhappy and more racist.
If you think that people are going to stop talking about the disaster just because there was a vote on it last year, you're deranged. We are going to be living under the shadow of this mountain for many years to come.
I was shocked to see how many people wanted Le Pen to win/thought she'd be good for UK in that YouGov poll.
Oh don't go there. Leavers get hysterical if you point out that more than eight out of ten Leavers who expressed a preference thought a Le Pen win would be best for Britain.
It'd be hilarious if Corbyn's Labour beats Miliband's vote share from GE2015.
Hilarious, and quite telling. It would also clear the way for Labour to become even more left wing, and it would be interesting to see how the Blairite moderates react.
I don't know about that. Corbyn may or may not beat Miliband's share but he's going to end up with less seats than Ed. Under FPTP, that's a pretty bad look.
Then again no matter how Corbyn does his supporters will spin it in his favour.
I am far from being a Corbyn supporter, but *if* he was to get a higher percentage of the vote than either Miliband or Brown then he'll have done very well regardless of the situation under FPTP. It'd be hard for them to get rid of him.
Although that's a mighty big conditional.
Isn't that changing the standards we'd usually expect of an opposition leader?
Realistically, the expectations for opposition leaders are to win more seats in GEs and get closer to the magic 326 number. Corbyn isn't really doing well if he's piling up votes in safe seats.
It will be hard getting rid of Corbyn either way. His supporters are determined to turn the Labour Party into a cult designed to worship him as opposed to an organisation centred around advocating social democracy designed for a post 2008, post Brexit world.
Yes, but there are two factors. Firstly is the fact he'll be fighting against FPTP, the Lib Dem's low score, and the SNP's high. The second is that he'll be fighting expectations, which in his case have been set very, very low. If he scores that well then he can just point at his detractors, laugh, and say how wrong they were.
More importantly for Corbyn and the hard left, it would show that there is a big market for their policies (if not big enough), and more so than Blairite policies under Brown or more centrist ones under Miliband. That would be something they think they could build upon.
I'm confused on this house asset for social care. I was under the impression that anyone with a house that was a potential asset for care costs purposes could already opt to have a 'charge' put on it and pay the council when they die and it was sold in probate.
Was I wrong? Or has actually nothing been changed at all except the 23k threshold?
I was confused too. But as I understand it, it's currently an option, but councils are not compelled to offer it. If I've got it right, the changes are:
1. At present, if one partner goes into care then the council CAN (but usually doesn't) insist that the home be sold, rather than imposing a charge, and that MIGHT (but not necessarily) mean that the other partner needs to move out rather than staying on as a tenant. So the change reduces uncertainty, which is good, though the actual outcome is probably much the same. 2. At present, if you need care at home, the value of your home is disregarded in deciding if you need to pay for it. This will no longer be the case. So home-owners needing care will nearly always need to pay for the care, but it will only be levied on death (see point 1). In that respect it does resemble a "death tax" (trademark Con 2015). 3. At present, if you go into care, £23K is disregarded. That will become £100K, so if you go into a home, your estate will be £100K, not £23K.
So the plan effectively punishes estates of people needing care, benefits estates of people going into homes, and reduces some residual uncertainty. As lots more people need care at home than go into care homes, the net effect is probably to save the authorities money.
The country gets more insular, more hostile to foreigners, less attractive to outside investors as a result, drifts as globalisation gathers pace and becomes a low growth backwater dominated by incoherent populism.
How much of what you say is actually true, rather then your own prejudices on display again?
Surveys show Brits aren't particularly "hostile to foreigners", in fact we tend to be relatively more welcoming than many other European countries. Nor do we have a great deal of anti-immigrant abuse or crime.
The policy of the party leading in the polls is simply to return immigration levels to those seen in the 1990s, and to have controls on a par with such "hostile to foreigners" hell-holes like Canada.
The most "hostile to foreigners" political party is seeing its vote share plummet, and even UKIP isn't that hostile compared to many parties elsewhere in the EU.
You really need to get over Brexit, and realise that the country didn't dramatically change on June 23rd. We haven't suddenly become a lot worse, or better.
The people that won it for leave, the poorer people in society, aren't hostile to foreigners because they dislike foreigners. They are hostile to their wages decreasing, hours increasing and neighbourhoods changing overnight. The fact that this happens because of mass immigration is the reason they voted to Leave the EU.
The Remainers, the richer people in the UK, aren't welcoming to foreigners because they want to live in a diverse multi national society; they enjoy exploiting them as a supply of cheap labour. They don't live with the EU migrants, they are numbers on a spreadsheet that come to work for them then go back to Barking at night. If the govt concocted a scheme where rich foreign business owners were given a competitive advantage in the market over them, which made every aspect of their lives worse as a result, they would be suddenly become "hostile to foreigners" no doubt about it.
If May's miscalculated then where do pensioner votes go?
As a pensioner I always expected to have to pay for care if needed right down to £23,250. So to increase that to £100,000 seems a fair deal to me and no doubt my children
I haven't seen the detail yet but I agree with you in principle.
Many people on this site continue to misunderstand the motivations of those richer in years. My experience is that most pensioners are more concerned with the future of the children and grandchildren far more than they are for themselves. Therefore comments like that from Mr. Dancer above are based on a false reading of why pensioners vote the way they do. I doubt the Conservatives will lose more than a trivial number of votes by abolishing the triple lock, winter fuel payments or any other universal pensioner freebies. That said I would place the caveat that other policies must address the future of said offspring and must also take care of those, genuinely, hard-up pensioners).
What might upset quite a few people in rural areas is the withdrawal of the bus pass. That is the only thing that keeps many rural bus services going. It is as much a subsidy to the bus company as it is to the pensioners. It also acts a social service as it makes it easier for the elderly to get about, visit the local town and adjacent villages, with knock on effects to businesses in those places.
I'm confused on this house asset for social care. I was under the impression that anyone with a house that was a potential asset for care costs purposes could already opt to have a 'charge' put on it and pay the council when they die and it was sold in probate.
Was I wrong? Or has actually nothing been changed at all except the 23k threshold?
I was confused too. But as I understand it, it's currently an option, but councils are not compelled to offer it. If I've got it right, the changes are:
1. At present, if one partner goes into care then the council CAN (but usually doesn't) insist that the home be sold, rather than imposing a charge, and that MIGHT (but not necessarily) mean that the other partner needs to move out rather than staying on as a tenant. So the change reduces uncertainty, which is good, though the actual outcome is probably much the same. 2. At present, if you need care at home, the value of your home is disregarded in deciding if you need to pay for it. This will no longer be the case. So home-owners needing care will nearly always need to pay for the care, but it will only be levied on death (see point 1). In that respect it does resemble a "death tax" (trademark Con 2015). 3. At present, if you go into care, £23K is disregarded. That will become £100K, so if you go into a home, your estate will be £100K, not £23K.
So the plan effectively punishes estates of people needing care, benefits estates of people going into homes, and reduces some residual uncertainty. As lots more people need care at home than go into care homes, the net effect is probably to save the authorities money.
Interesting that HYUFD thinks the Labour members would reelect Corbyn in the face of an 80+ Tory majority yet even BigJohnOwls – one of the most leftwing Corbynites on here – says he would not reelect him. Perhaps HYUFD is not quite the sage of Labour members that he thinks he is!!
Ed Miliband was fighting against all of those factors as well two years ago and I didn't read or hear of any suggestions of him staying on if he didn't win that May. All Labour leaders have had to fight FPTP, and I'm not sure why the LDs would be an issue for Corbyn, given as you say their low position. Local Elections from about 2011 onwards made it evidently clear that Ed M was also up against an SNP high.
I don't doubt that they'll try pull out 'we did better than the low expectations' argument. They've done it before, whether it be Wales in regard to the locals this year, or the Oldham by-election. They change the standard for him, so that Corbyn achieving the basic minimum of that we'd expect of an opposition leader can be caricatured as some kind of success.
I also don't think that either Brown or Miliband really pursued Blairite polices overall. As Andrew Rawnsley had noted, Corbyn's manifesto is essentially 'Miliband re-microwaved.' I think the one thing Corbyn supporters have successfully done is created an illusion that Labour had a binary choice between Far Left politics or Blairism. In reality both are unelectable variants of politics in the context of actually winning a majority, and both are old, outdated ideologies which not only do not reflect the centre in politics nowadays, but do not offer solutions to the issues affecting people in this country.
Initial thoughts on MORI - two party system in play, Labour are going to get absolutely humped in their seats where the Libs are moribund and the Tories second, but hold up very well in areas of Liberal relative strength and in Tory free areas. Also suggests they might be mopping up the well off bohemian vote - London and general southerners which will not gain them much.
The country gets more insular, more hostile to foreigners, less attractive to outside investors as a result, drifts as globalisation gathers pace and becomes a low growth backwater dominated by incoherent populism.
How much of what you say is actually true, rather then your own prejudices on display again?
Surveys show Brits aren't particularly "hostile to foreigners", in fact we tend to be relatively more welcoming than many other European countries. Nor do we have a great deal of anti-immigrant abuse or crime.
The policy of the party leading in the polls is simply to return immigration levels to those seen in the 1990s, and to have controls on a par with such "hostile to foreigners" hell-holes like Canada.
The most "hostile to foreigners" political party is seeing its vote share plummet, and even UKIP isn't that hostile compared to many parties elsewhere in the EU.
You really need to get over Brexit, and realise that the country didn't dramatically change on June 23rd. We haven't suddenly become a lot worse, or better.
As someone who actually deals with the WWC every day in his job I can assure you that the good folk of the West Sussex coast( particularly but not exclusively the elderly) whilst not hostile to foreign individuals are and were mighty disturbed by the amount of immigration in the area. That hasn't changed since June.
What has altered is they believe Brexit will address the problems. It may or not be relevant that many of them are retirees from London and its suburbs. Many of them aren't particularly complementary about the areas they moved from and the demographic changes that led to their flight.
They are bitterly opposed to immigration and very anti London and metropolitan areas ( and it's not hard to understand why) If Mrs May backtracks on immigration they won't be happy.
It's easy for people to label them racist (in a few cases they are) but sneering at them and ignoring their concerns is what led to Brexit.
That's a 15pt lead for the Tories who are scooping up nearly half the electorate. So what? That's a devastating defeat for Labour. What we would expect.
I'm confused on this house asset for social care. I was under the impression that anyone with a house that was a potential asset for care costs purposes could already opt to have a 'charge' put on it and pay the council when they die and it was sold in probate.
Was I wrong? Or has actually nothing been changed at all except the 23k threshold?
I was confused too. But as I understand it, it's currently an option, but councils are not compelled to offer it. If I've got it right, the changes are:
1. At present, if one partner goes into care then the council CAN (but usually doesn't) insist that the home be sold, rather than imposing a charge, and that MIGHT (but not necessarily) mean that the other partner needs to move out rather than staying on as a tenant. So the change reduces uncertainty, which is good, though the actual outcome is probably much the same. 2. At present, if you need care at home, the value of your home is disregarded in deciding if you need to pay for it. This will no longer be the case. So home-owners needing care will nearly always need to pay for the care, but it will only be levied on death (see point 1). In that respect it does resemble a "death tax" (trademark Con 2015). 3. At present, if you go into care, £23K is disregarded. That will become £100K, so if you go into a home, your estate will be £100K, not £23K.
So the plan effectively punishes estates of people needing care, benefits estates of people going into homes, and reduces some residual uncertainty. As lots more people need care at home than go into care homes, the net effect is probably to save the authorities money.
Is that a fair summary?
And your view on it all, Nick?
Thanks Nick. It seems I was half-right. Councils can and do put on a charge. But it is an option and this will make it a right.
For various reasons I wont go into, I could do with the certainty that this appears to suggest.
“The focus on their [Labour's] manifesto may have helped them this week, but on many fundamentals such as leadership the public still puts them a long way behind the Conservatives, and their vote is much softer, with one in six of their supporters considering voting for Theresa May’s party.
It is starting to look like the Lib Dems have completely screwed up their campaign. Rather than make hay with Remainers and have some sort of leave friendly position they have managed to pick a position that even many Remain voters don't want, and end up talking about issues they would rather that nobody mentioned. If the Lib Dems do as badly as the polls imply I can't see how Farron would hang on.
One of the most striking comments during the Brexit campaign was Steve Hilton saying 'it's harder for a South Korean astrophysicist to get into the UK, than it is a Romanian manual worker'...
And now Theresa May looks as though she's gonna make it even harder.
We need to get the net migration numbers down (for social reasons, not racial) whilst also attracting the very, very best.
I'm not sure May's migrant stance is striking the right notes.
Comments
Hilarious, and quite telling. It would also clear the way for Labour to become even more left wing, and it would be interesting to see how the Blairite moderates react.
Wonder if being tenants in common will still offer protection
The people on that site aren't even interested in any form of discussion. I think that they are all just trolling and saying these kinds of statements for shock value.
Was I wrong? Or has actually nothing been changed at all except the 23k threshold?
Then again no matter how Corbyn does his supporters will spin it in his favour.
So he'd also have done better than Brown. Chortles.
That might indicate that the Blairite moderates are the ones that are out of touch, not the Corbynites.
If Corbyn gets more than 30-odd%, that is ...
a) keep Rolf Harris in prison but let say a prolific burglar stay out or
b) free Rolf Harris and jail the prolific burglar or
c) raise taxes during an election campaign to build more prisons?
Who'd be a politician?
https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/864947595403251712
On the plus side, immigration won't be a problem for long because the brightest and best will want to go to countries that actually are pleasant to foreigners.
Yeah, I wouldn't describe 19th century Democrats as 'liberal.'
Parcels' up
FTSE's down.
Sterling's up.
Burberry's down.
Retail's up.
Buy-to-let's down
Obscure Swedish retailer creating 1300 new jobs in Britain.
All because of / in spite of / regardless of Brexit.
La la how the life goes on
So your view of the site's leaning may well be accurate, of course, but that particular observation is not the best to choose in support of it. I.e. you need not be a Conservative to think Corbyn is crap or that Labour are doing badly. Most Labour voters think so too; ditto LD, SNP, etc etc.
If the immigration policy had only allowed immigration to those who had a job lined up at a minimum of say £25kpa, immigrants would be mixing in the nicer parts of the country rather than competing with the least well off on many different levels which causes tension and dislike.
Although that's a mighty big conditional.
You see, you lost the argument last June and it is becoming increasingly tedious, if funny, a bit like the comedy shows on Dave.
Surveys show Brits aren't particularly "hostile to foreigners", in fact we tend to be relatively more welcoming than many other European countries. Nor do we have a great deal of anti-immigrant abuse or crime.
The policy of the party leading in the polls is simply to return immigration levels to those seen in the 1990s, and to have controls on a par with such "hostile to foreigners" hell-holes like Canada.
The most "hostile to foreigners" political party is seeing its vote share plummet, and even UKIP isn't that hostile compared to many parties elsewhere in the EU.
You really need to get over Brexit, and realise that the country didn't dramatically change on June 23rd. We haven't suddenly become a lot worse, or better.
Realistically, the expectations for opposition leaders are to win more seats in GEs and get closer to the magic 326 number. Corbyn isn't really doing well if he's piling up votes in safe seats.
It will be hard getting rid of Corbyn either way. His supporters are determined to turn the Labour Party into a cult designed to worship him as opposed to an organisation centred around advocating social democracy designed for a post 2008 crash, post Brexit world.
If you think that people are going to stop talking about the disaster just because there was a vote on it last year, you're deranged. We are going to be living under the shadow of this mountain for many years to come.
I assume he must bring in a LOT of money for Google but it's another scandal waiting to happen there if the Guardian or someone else picks up on which brands are appearing next to those comments...
More importantly for Corbyn and the hard left, it would show that there is a big market for their policies (if not big enough), and more so than Blairite policies under Brown or more centrist ones under Miliband. That would be something they think they could build upon.
https://twitter.com/VictoriaPeckham/status/865122925443207168
1. At present, if one partner goes into care then the council CAN (but usually doesn't) insist that the home be sold, rather than imposing a charge, and that MIGHT (but not necessarily) mean that the other partner needs to move out rather than staying on as a tenant. So the change reduces uncertainty, which is good, though the actual outcome is probably much the same.
2. At present, if you need care at home, the value of your home is disregarded in deciding if you need to pay for it. This will no longer be the case. So home-owners needing care will nearly always need to pay for the care, but it will only be levied on death (see point 1). In that respect it does resemble a "death tax" (trademark Con 2015).
3. At present, if you go into care, £23K is disregarded. That will become £100K, so if you go into a home, your estate will be £100K, not £23K.
So the plan effectively punishes estates of people needing care, benefits estates of people going into homes, and reduces some residual uncertainty. As lots more people need care at home than go into care homes, the net effect is probably to save the authorities money.
Is that a fair summary?
The Remainers, the richer people in the UK, aren't welcoming to foreigners because they want to live in a diverse multi national society; they enjoy exploiting them as a supply of cheap labour. They don't live with the EU migrants, they are numbers on a spreadsheet that come to work for them then go back to Barking at night. If the govt concocted a scheme where rich foreign business owners were given a competitive advantage in the market over them, which made every aspect of their lives worse as a result, they would be suddenly become "hostile to foreigners" no doubt about it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681154/Nonchalant-Rolf-Harris-bizarre-river-trip-court-Shamed-paedophile-entertainer-delivers-one-insult-tormented-victims.html
Bit of a joke. What pub can hold 3000 party goers?
Many people on this site continue to misunderstand the motivations of those richer in years. My experience is that most pensioners are more concerned with the future of the children and grandchildren far more than they are for themselves. Therefore comments like that from Mr. Dancer above are based on a false reading of why pensioners vote the way they do. I doubt the Conservatives will lose more than a trivial number of votes by abolishing the triple lock, winter fuel payments or any other universal pensioner freebies. That said I would place the caveat that other policies must address the future of said offspring and must also take care of those, genuinely, hard-up pensioners).
What might upset quite a few people in rural areas is the withdrawal of the bus pass. That is the only thing that keeps many rural bus services going. It is as much a subsidy to the bus company as it is to the pensioners. It also acts a social service as it makes it easier for the elderly to get about, visit the local town and adjacent villages, with knock on effects to businesses in those places.
Con 49 (nc) Lab 34 (+8) LD 7 (-7) Greens 3 (+2) UKIP 2 (-2)
https://twitter.com/SirDavidButler/status/864942480160116740
Ed Miliband was fighting against all of those factors as well two years ago and I didn't read or hear of any suggestions of him staying on if he didn't win that May. All Labour leaders have had to fight FPTP, and I'm not sure why the LDs would be an issue for Corbyn, given as you say their low position. Local Elections from about 2011 onwards made it evidently clear that Ed M was also up against an SNP high.
I don't doubt that they'll try pull out 'we did better than the low expectations' argument. They've done it before, whether it be Wales in regard to the locals this year, or the Oldham by-election. They change the standard for him, so that Corbyn achieving the basic minimum of that we'd expect of an opposition leader can be caricatured as some kind of success.
I also don't think that either Brown or Miliband really pursued Blairite polices overall. As Andrew Rawnsley had noted, Corbyn's manifesto is essentially 'Miliband re-microwaved.' I think the one thing Corbyn supporters have successfully done is created an illusion that Labour had a binary choice between Far Left politics or Blairism. In reality both are unelectable variants of politics in the context of actually winning a majority, and both are old, outdated ideologies which not only do not reflect the centre in politics nowadays, but do not offer solutions to the issues affecting people in this country.
What has altered is they believe Brexit will address the problems. It may or not be relevant that many of them are retirees from London and its suburbs. Many of them aren't particularly complementary about the areas they moved from and the demographic changes that led to their flight.
They are bitterly opposed to immigration and very anti London and metropolitan areas ( and it's not hard to understand why) If Mrs May backtracks on immigration they won't be happy.
It's easy for people to label them racist (in a few cases they are) but sneering at them and ignoring their concerns is what led to Brexit.
I have them as 13 on 25th April
That's a 15pt lead for the Tories who are scooping up nearly half the electorate. So what? That's a devastating defeat for Labour. What we would expect.
For various reasons I wont go into, I could do with the certainty that this appears to suggest.
Conservatives 371
Labour 204
Lib Dems 4
Ukip 0
Green 1
SNP 49
Plaid 3
NI 18
Tory majority of 92.
Yes. A sound analysis.
“The focus on their [Labour's] manifesto may have helped them this week, but on many fundamentals such as leadership the public still puts them a long way behind the Conservatives, and their vote is much softer, with one in six of their supporters considering voting for Theresa May’s party.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/uk-general-election-poll-jeremy-corbyns-labour-makes-major-eight-point-gain-on-tories-after-a3542256.html
Just waiting for the charts and tables to go up
And now Theresa May looks as though she's gonna make it even harder.
We need to get the net migration numbers down (for social reasons, not racial) whilst also attracting the very, very best.
I'm not sure May's migrant stance is striking the right notes.