Israeli footballer who played for Liverpool, and had the worst open goal miss in the history of football. Away at Villa maybe, went round the keeper, open net and he hit the bar
The danger for the Conservatives is that their social care announcement will be twisted in the media by Labour and the Lib Dems to make them out as the nasty party and the dementia tax label could be as toxic as the pasty tax was for Osborne. The question is how many votes will this lose ? the Tories have a become too complacent because of the large lead and whilst I agree that something had to be done about social care could not this of been sorted mid Parliament rather than making it a general election issue when Brexit is the main issue? seems a high risk strategy to me
Theresa must have taken this decision herself.
The manifesto could've said something completely beige like "we'll set up a royal commission to examine all social care funding models with implementation of it's recommendations within a year, etc...)
I'm sure Lynton would've told her not to touch this stuff with a barge poll...
I would guess that Theresa and her peer group are of an age where they are experiencing first hand the stresses of dealing with oldies....at least she is trying to move the debate forward rather than just stick her head into the ground....
I agree... It's the "right" thing to do for the country... But doesn't mean it's the "right" thing to do in the middle of a general election campaign - Especially when the focus is supposed to be on Brexit and leadership.
I cannot understand why the NHS free at point of use is sacrosanct but we hammer our oldies when they are at their most vulnerable...
I would much rather introduce sensible charging across the NHS, combined with some kind of compulsory insurance system that people have to pay into for old age.....
WOW! A leftie arguing for NHS charging and compulsory health insurance... Has someone hacked Tyson's account?
I know that the present system is untenable, and that forcing oldies to pay huge costs at the end of life is just cruel....
FPT rural_voter said "Er, Wales is the 5th. poorest nation in the EU. Send it to Anglesey or Milford Haven."
I was thinking more in terms of punishment for C4 rather than prize for recipient location.
In which case I would suggest Towyn (Tywyn) as a suitable location. It is in Wales so tick box for supporting the poorest region but it is also the most boring, rainy place I have ever lived in. It is also jolly hard to get to. An ideal place for TV folk.
On topic, that final comment is key. Will currently-intending-to-be-Labour voters come out on the day? If they do, will they support Labour?
The Tory campaign has been surprising subdued so far. I can't imagine that that will remain the case with Labour polling well into the 30s. Of course, just going negative isn't a guarantee that it'll work but there's plenty to go on. "Would you trust this man to negotiation for Britain with Putin?", for example.
All parties have leaders that their 2015 voters like less than the 2015 leader
In Pop Band terms...
Labour are Peter Green era Fleetwood Mac - The REAL Mac, but not what people brought up on "Rumours" & "Tango In The Night" expect when they buy tickets for a reunion gig
UKIP are "From The Jam" ft Bruce Foxton and Rick Buckler along with some bloke that's not Paul Weller
Lib Dems are Bronski Beat sans Jimmy Sommerville
The Conservatives are Pink Floyd w Nasty Roger Waters back in charge after a moderately successful spell with "Nice Dave" Gilmour fronting them as 'Conservatives' who were "very facile, but a quite clever forgery"
Actually the analogy falls down w The Greens because they have a better leader!
I think this may be anti tory tactical voting coming into effect. May has clearly made great strides among voters but there will always be a significant chunk of voters unable to vote Conservative just like there was still a chunk of voters unable to vote Labour even in Blair's 97 landslide. In this election, with the LDs having such a low base, 90% of people thinking of tactical voting will be voting Labour. Unlike in recent elections, anyone with a vague anti-tory leaning is going to be looking at that coming landslide and will put aside most other considerations.
I still think Labour will perform worse on the night (I have them on 25-30%), but the trend is clear, and I'm not sure minor events like Farron's gay sex comments would be moving the needle enough to explain this.
I think that's right. LibDem voters who I canvass don't say they've stopped being LibDem, they say they can't really afford to vote LibDem when the main choice is so stark. Seemingly, if the choice is perceived as being between hard right and hard left, centrists don't feel "oh, I'll vote centrist then", but rather "I must help stop the ..." (whichever they dislike more).
In my experience, they then break evenly Con/Lab, so either my experience is atypical or something else is happening than just a LD->Lab shift. Possibly some ex-Lab Kippers are coming back.
FPT rural_voter said "Er, Wales is the 5th. poorest nation in the EU. Send it to Anglesey or Milford Haven."
I was thinking more in terms of punishment for C4 rather than prize for recipient location.
In which case I would suggest Towyn (Tywyn) as a suitable location. It is in Wales so tick box for supporting the poorest region but it is also the most boring, rainy place I have ever lived in. It is also jolly hard to get to. An ideal place for TV folk.
C4 doesn't broadcast in Wales so its very cruel to move them there. To be honest I half expect them to end up in Amersham / High Wycombe where Talkback Thames and others have their outside M25 offices....
Its the tale of two manifesto disasters. Labour produce a balanced costed investment budget, then someone in the senior team does a Columbo Close on the deal and we announce we're going to buy the likes of Thames Water.
Then just as you think its an open goal for the Tories up pops MaggieT's less talented impressionist with her Dementia Tax. The one nailed on vote they had was the pensioners and they've just told them "you can keep living in your home but if its worth more than £100k we'll take it from your kids in back tax when you die".
Israeli footballer who played for Liverpool, and had the worst open goal miss in the history of football. Away at Villa maybe, went round the keeper, open net and he hit the bar
Except Labour had almost exclusive coverage from Thursday last week to Tuesday on their manifesto, and there are now three weeks to demolish it.
They have fired their bolt.
It's down to campaigning now, most of which will matter from Tuesday 30th May, and the press not finding too much to grumble about in the Tory manifesto.
I cannot understand why the NHS free at point of use is sacrosanct but we hammer our oldies when they are at their most vulnerable...
I would much rather introduce sensible charging across the NHS, combined with some kind of compulsory insurance system that people have to pay into for old age.....
Indeed - but the hysterical reaction on the left would be a sight to behold. The NHS religion is the greatest blight on the land - and appears to be untouchable.
I cannot understand why the NHS free at point of use is sacrosanct but we hammer our oldies when they are at their most vulnerable...
I would much rather introduce sensible charging across the NHS, combined with some kind of compulsory insurance system that people have to pay into for old age.....
WOW! A leftie arguing for NHS charging and compulsory health insurance... Has someone hacked Tyson's account?
I know that the present system is untenable, and that forcing oldies to pay huge costs at the end of life is just cruel....
They could always, you know, die earlier. Give their families tax breaks if they convince the nutty old dear to pop off to Dignitas....
If we are to remove 4-5% from the big two, and the others are as crap as the polls suggest, surely the betting move is....
Any guesses as to what I think?
OK!
Surely sell turnout?
Though the stark choice on offer may boost turnout. Afterall one can't say why bother voting they're all the same.
My view is that the public are bored of elections.. this is the 3rd in three years. Also I think many die hard Labour voters who cant have Jezza will abstain rather than vote Tory, although I am pretty much basing this on my parents, who agree w May but wont vote Tory as they feel they are letting down their parents!
The Have Your Say comments at bottom of main BBC web article - May getting lots of positives but also a lot of negatives - but positive votes are generally outscoring the negatives on the highest voted comments.
In contrast - with Corbyn it was between 2:1 and 3:1 against him on all highest voted comments.
Link - load comments at bottom and sort by highest rated.
Israeli footballer who played for Liverpool, and had the worst open goal miss in the history of football. Away at Villa maybe, went round the keeper, open net and he hit the bar
If we are to remove 4-5% from the big two, and the others are as crap as the polls suggest, surely the betting move is....
Any guesses as to what I think?
OK!
Surely sell turnout?
Though the stark choice on offer may boost turnout. Afterall one can't say why bother voting they're all the same.
My view is that the public are bored of elections.. this is the 3rd in three years. Also I think many die hard Labour voters who cant have Jezza will abstain rather than vote Tory, although I am pretty much basing this on my parents, who agree w May but wont vote Tory as they feel they are letting down their parents!
The 'bored of elections' angle is one that been aired little on PB, Sure, we're all interested in it here but in the real out there (which I visit occasionally) there's a definite sense of 'oh no, not again.'
I'm wondering if the political rule of the counter intuitive will come into play now. I'm thinking the social care proposals will be roundly criticised and misrepresented to an extent (dementia tax etc) BUT will it be seen as the blues offering sensible, realistic proposals to deal with the world as it is and gain support for being the only practical option in Town?
Depends on how many MPs are left standing. One reason the Lib Dems are in the mess they are is the requirement (or at the very least, the universal expectation - I can't remember the precise rules) that their leader be an MP. What if the Lib Dems do end up on only 3 or 4?
I cannot understand why the NHS free at point of use is sacrosanct but we hammer our oldies when they are at their most vulnerable...
I would much rather introduce sensible charging across the NHS, combined with some kind of compulsory insurance system that people have to pay into for old age.....
WOW! A leftie arguing for NHS charging and compulsory health insurance... Has someone hacked Tyson's account?
I know that the present system is untenable, and that forcing oldies to pay huge costs at the end of life is just cruel....
the O/U line is still 13.5. I don't think they'll get that but I do think their vote might do OK where they're competing but crumble where they're a distant 3rd or worse.
The Have Your Say comments at bottom of main BBC web article - May getting lots of positives but also a lot of negatives - but positive votes are generally outscoring the negatives on the highest voted comments.
In contrast - with Corbyn it was between 2:1 and 3:1 against him on all highest voted comments.
Link - load comments at bottom and sort by highest rated.
Depends on how many MPs are left standing. One reason the Lib Dems are in the mess they are is the requirement (or at the very least, the universal expectation - I can't remember the precise rules) that their leader be an MP. What if the Lib Dems do end up on only 3 or 4?
Right now, the only safe LD seat is Orkney & Shetland. If these Ipsos MORI numbers are correct, they will likely lose every one of their English seats. And it's entirely possible they lose Ceredgion too.
(Amusingly, I could still see the LDs making gains in Scotland on these figures, simply because tactical voting is so ingrained there, and because the Holyrood elections last year make it very clear who unionists should vote for.)
I cannot understand why the NHS free at point of use is sacrosanct but we hammer our oldies when they are at their most vulnerable...
I would much rather introduce sensible charging across the NHS, combined with some kind of compulsory insurance system that people have to pay into for old age.....
Why have a new separate compulsory insurance system? We already have a taxation system. Why duplicate?
Also there are good reasons for free at point of use - risk sharing, not discouraging people from seeking medical care when they need it, fairer to the poor, more efficient financing system etc...
Its the tale of two manifesto disasters. Labour produce a balanced costed investment budget, then someone in the senior team does a Columbo Close on the deal and we announce we're going to buy the likes of Thames Water.
Then just as you think its an open goal for the Tories up pops MaggieT's less talented impressionist with her Dementia Tax. The one nailed on vote they had was the pensioners and they've just told them "you can keep living in your home but if its worth more than £100k we'll take it from your kids in back tax when you die".
Yes it is hard to defend , I am sure the PB Tories on here will tell us how good it is.Taking houses of people who have worked all their lives to pay for it is macabre .Can you imagine the reaction if Labour had proposed this last week on here.
If we are to remove 4-5% from the big two, and the others are as crap as the polls suggest, surely the betting move is....
Any guesses as to what I think?
OK!
Surely sell turnout?
Though the stark choice on offer may boost turnout. Afterall one can't say why bother voting they're all the same.
My view is that the public are bored of elections.. this is the 3rd in three years. Also I think many die hard Labour voters who cant have Jezza will abstain rather than vote Tory, although I am pretty much basing this on my parents, who agree w May but wont vote Tory as they feel they are letting down their parents!
The 'bored of elections' angle is one that been aired little on PB, Sure, we're all interested in it here but in the real out there (which I visit occasionally) there's a definite sense of 'oh no, not again.'
I think turnout will be very low.
What was the turnout like in the Local Elections compared to normal?
I'm wondering if the political rule of the counter intuitive will come into play now. I'm thinking the social care proposals will be roundly criticised and misrepresented to an extent (dementia tax etc) BUT will it be seen as the blues offering sensible, realistic proposals to deal with the world as it is and gain support for being the only practical option in Town?
I wondered that.
Firstly, how many people are there of a more mature vintage who are not already aware of the local authority wanting to claim their home if they have real care needs?
Secondly, £100,000 protection sounds like a pittance in London and the South East, but in many parts of the country it's close to the full value of a home.
Thirdly, like inheritance, is it something that can be planned for?
Surely Westmorland and Lonsdale will have declared by then?
Yep I've just added Labour Cambridge to the portfolio for all the 12.50 Skybet would allow. And I'm lumped on the blues in the Southwest now
It's not just this poll the core retention even in the 10 or 11 polls is horrible
Leeds North West?
3 way marginal...
Are The Yorkshire Party in with a chance then?
Incidentally, I don't know why Labour members are being encouraged to waste time campaigning in Leeds Central etc. that are safe as houses when we should be getting stuck in to the Lib Dem next door.
I cannot understand why the NHS free at point of use is sacrosanct but we hammer our oldies when they are at their most vulnerable...
I would much rather introduce sensible charging across the NHS, combined with some kind of compulsory insurance system that people have to pay into for old age.....
WOW! A leftie arguing for NHS charging and compulsory health insurance... Has someone hacked Tyson's account?
I know that the present system is untenable, and that forcing oldies to pay huge costs at the end of life is just cruel....
They could always, you know, die earlier. Give their families tax breaks if they convince the nutty old dear to pop off to Dignitas....
Who knows, perhaps as the baby boomers age there will be more pressure for elective euthanasia without going to Switzerland. From the boomers as well as their offspring.
Its the tale of two manifesto disasters. Labour produce a balanced costed investment budget, then someone in the senior team does a Columbo Close on the deal and we announce we're going to buy the likes of Thames Water.
Then just as you think its an open goal for the Tories up pops MaggieT's less talented impressionist with her Dementia Tax. The one nailed on vote they had was the pensioners and they've just told them "you can keep living in your home but if its worth more than £100k we'll take it from your kids in back tax when you die".
Yes it is hard to defend , I am sure the PB Tories on here will tell us how good it is.Taking houses of people who have worked all their lives to pay for it is macabre .Can you imagine the reaction if Labour had proposed this last week on here.
But do homeowners 'deserve' the massive increases in wealth they have accumulated from house prices rising? I can quite see the emotional argument and instinctively hate the idea of elderly people having to sell their home to pay for care.
Surely Westmorland and Lonsdale will have declared by then?
Yep I've just added Labour Cambridge to the portfolio for all the 12.50 Skybet would allow. And I'm lumped on the blues in the Southwest now
It's not just this poll the core retention even in the 10 or 11 polls is horrible
Leeds North West?
3 way marginal...
Are The Yorkshire Party in with a chance then?
Incidentally, I don't know why Labour members are being encouraged to waste time campaigning in Leeds Central etc. that are safe as houses when we should be getting stuck in to the Lib Dem next door.
Are we sure this isn't part of a Corbyn/Momentum plot to oust Hillary Benn?
Surely Westmorland and Lonsdale will have declared by then?
Yep I've just added Labour Cambridge to the portfolio for all the 12.50 Skybet would allow. And I'm lumped on the blues in the Southwest now
It's not just this poll the core retention even in the 10 or 11 polls is horrible
Leeds North West?
3 way marginal...
Are The Yorkshire Party in with a chance then?
Incidentally, I don't know why Labour members are being encouraged to waste time campaigning in Leeds Central etc. that are safe as houses when we should be getting stuck in to the Lib Dem next door.
Its the tale of two manifesto disasters. Labour produce a balanced costed investment budget, then someone in the senior team does a Columbo Close on the deal and we announce we're going to buy the likes of Thames Water.
Then just as you think its an open goal for the Tories up pops MaggieT's less talented impressionist with her Dementia Tax. The one nailed on vote they had was the pensioners and they've just told them "you can keep living in your home but if its worth more than £100k we'll take it from your kids in back tax when you die".
Yes it is hard to defend , I am sure the PB Tories on here will tell us how good it is.Taking houses of people who have worked all their lives to pay for it is macabre .Can you imagine the reaction if Labour had proposed this last week on here.
"Dementia Tax" is a powerful phrase. Even if the details aren't as brutal as suggested, this could play very badly for TMay. Feels like an own goal.
I agree with others that the Tories should simply have announced a second commission to report within six months, and this was one of three possibilities blah blah
Hmm.
Quite right. A bizarre piece of thinking from May Day.
Its the tale of two manifesto disasters. Labour produce a balanced costed investment budget, then someone in the senior team does a Columbo Close on the deal and we announce we're going to buy the likes of Thames Water.
Then just as you think its an open goal for the Tories up pops MaggieT's less talented impressionist with her Dementia Tax. The one nailed on vote they had was the pensioners and they've just told them "you can keep living in your home but if its worth more than £100k we'll take it from your kids in back tax when you die".
Yes it is hard to defend , I am sure the PB Tories on here will tell us how good it is.Taking houses of people who have worked all their lives to pay for it is macabre .Can you imagine the reaction if Labour had proposed this last week on here.
But do homeowners 'deserve' the massive increases in wealth they have accumulated from house prices rising? I can quite see the emotional argument and instinctively hate the idea of elderly people having to sell their home to pay for care
Worth remembering we've often seen polling boosts during / just after Party Conferences when one side gets two or three days solid publicity.
Could be similar this time with Labour.
Yes, I think that was Peak Labour for now, and the Tories should get a little boost too, though I think their manifesto will be harder to remember in detail. Polarisation will continue, though - or do you feel the LibDem manifesto will give them a boost too?
I wonder what proportion of serious pot-smokers register to vote.
Surely Westmorland and Lonsdale will have declared by then?
Yep I've just added Labour Cambridge to the portfolio for all the 12.50 Skybet would allow. And I'm lumped on the blues in the Southwest now
It's not just this poll the core retention even in the 10 or 11 polls is horrible
Actually, the core retention is the thing you shouldn't worry about. LibDem core retention - whether in 2001, 2005, and 2010 - is always horrible. This time is no different.
What they should be petrified about is the fact that their marquee strategy (which seemed designed solely for Horney & Wood Green, Richmond Park and Twickenham) of making it all about the EU, has gone down like a lead balloon.
In all seriousness, having been one of the most negative about the LDs on here a couple of weeks ago, I do think the predictions of total wipeout are a bit overdone.
For a start, Farron is safe as houses in Westmorland I reckon. ALL leaders get a boost in their own seat; even total flops like Miliband and Hague got better voteshare increases in their own seats than their parties did in other similar seats.
North Norfolk and Carshalton are probably 90% gonners to the Tories. Southport a bit more uncertain because, judging by the Mersey mayor results, the Tories are still a bit toxic in this part of the world, and there's a chunky Labour vote to squeeze there too. I'd lean towards a Tory gain but only just.
I think Leeds NW is a likely Labour gain. I'd expect Clegg to hold on in Sheffield Hallam just because, even with Corbyn possibly outperforming Miliband among the "liberal intelligentsia" demographic, Clegg himself has surely passed Peak Toxic and there will be a bit of unwind from the Labour vote last time. Ceredigion is possibly the most idiosyncratic seat anywhere in the UK, so I've got no idea with that one.
Against all that, I do still think Twickenham and Kingston are likely LD gains -- I'm expecting the Labour vote to tactically go over to the LDs, and those two seats are basically the only ones where a Lab->LD tactical shift would overwhelm a mass UKIP->Con defection. Richmond Park probably a narrow Tory regain. And I do think they should be on for 2, possibly 3 gains, from the SNP, as well as a comfortable hold in Orkney & Shetland.
I cannot understand why the NHS free at point of use is sacrosanct but we hammer our oldies when they are at their most vulnerable...
I would much rather introduce sensible charging across the NHS, combined with some kind of compulsory insurance system that people have to pay into for old age.....
Why have a new separate compulsory insurance system? We already have a taxation system. Why duplicate?
Also there are good reasons for free at point of use - risk sharing, not discouraging people from seeking medical care when they need it, fairer to the poor, more efficient financing system etc...
The benefit of risk sharing is huge, especially the 'tail' which even insurers struggle with and have to reinsure.
In the US, the biggest cause of bankruptcy is illness.
I think LauraK is already on Momentum’s hit list – In for a penny, in for a pound...
Regardless of her biased reporting, her entire grandstanding style is just bloody irritating. That all said, BJO is right about her biases. Great example posted by him.
I'm wondering if the political rule of the counter intuitive will come into play now. I'm thinking the social care proposals will be roundly criticised and misrepresented to an extent (dementia tax etc) BUT will it be seen as the blues offering sensible, realistic proposals to deal with the world as it is and gain support for being the only practical option in Town?
I wondered that.
Firstly, how many people are there of a more mature vintage who are not already aware of the local authority wanting to claim their home if they have real care needs?
Secondly, £100,000 protection sounds like a pittance in London and the South East, but in many parts of the country it's close to the full value of a home.
Thirdly, like inheritance, is it something that can be planned for?
Quite. The key is not forcing people to sell their homes whilst alive nor have to degrade their savings. It's up to them if, in earlier times, they wish to protect their estates.
I don't believe Labour will get 34% but nor do I believe the Tories will get 49%.
Knock 3-5 points off each for the result?
Time to dust off my initial prediction of an 80-100 seat Tory maj,
I think you are about right there. My current prediction is 95. Won't bet until the eve of poll (and even then only if value).
That's a nightmare result for Labour. A very solid Tory majority, probably giving them a decade in power, but just enough signs of Labour resilience for Corbyn to cling on, at least until his favoured replacement is ready.
Indeed - if that occurs the verdict on both LAB and LD is similar. I think the electorate could then be quite receptive to a new left of centre party that is neither of those, as they were 35 years ago to the SDP. Although why that would not also be infiltrated by the SWP is unclear.
I suppose the way the Tories will spin this manifesto is to argue that reducing pensioner benefits is not left-wing envy, but right-wing pursuit of sound public finances.
How much does in-home care actually cost on average?
If you are billed for it after you die, how much would that bill actually be?
It would surely be only a tiny proportion of the value of the home?
eg house worth £300k, you've had some in-home care in last few years of your life at a cost of say maybe £20k to £30k - so kids inherit £270k to £280k net - is it really a big deal?
Whereas residential care is an absolute fortune in comparison.
Worth remembering we've often seen polling boosts during / just after Party Conferences when one side gets two or three days solid publicity.
Could be similar this time with Labour.
I don't know whose theory it is, but the view that after all the malarkey of the entire campaign the result tends to be as indicated by the polls at the very beginning seems to me very believable.
On topic, that final comment is key. Will currently-intending-to-be-Labour voters come out on the day? If they do, will they support Labour?
The Tory campaign has been surprising subdued so far. I can't imagine that that will remain the case with Labour polling well into the 30s. Of course, just going negative isn't a guarantee that it'll work but there's plenty to go on. "Would you trust this man to negotiation for Britain with Putin?", for example.
My theory is that intending to vote Labour voters will not turn out on the day resulting in big polling miss.
I'm wondering if the political rule of the counter intuitive will come into play now. I'm thinking the social care proposals will be roundly criticised and misrepresented to an extent (dementia tax etc) BUT will it be seen as the blues offering sensible, realistic proposals to deal with the world as it is and gain support for being the only practical option in Town?
I wondered that.
Firstly, how many people are there of a more mature vintage who are not already aware of the local authority wanting to claim their home if they have real care needs?
Secondly, £100,000 protection sounds like a pittance in London and the South East, but in many parts of the country it's close to the full value of a home.
Thirdly, like inheritance, is it something that can be planned for?
Quite. The key is not forcing people to sell their homes whilst alive nor have to degrade their savings. It's up to them if, in earlier times, they wish to protect their estates.
I don't really see that. You need a house to live in, and you can either give it away or live in it, not both - except by gift-and-loan-back setups which are easily defeated by anti-avoidance clauses.
I think LauraK is already on Momentum’s hit list – In for a penny, in for a pound...
Regardless of her biased reporting, her entire grandstanding style is just bloody irritating. That all said, BJO is right about her biases. Great example posted by him.
For everyone thinking the Tories will get, say, 45, unless they lose ground in the next 3 weeks the polling has to be overstating them, a very rare phenomena and no reason to think it isn't this time. The polling suggests they will indeed get 46-49 area or maybe above if the usual understatement is in play. Please do not mistake my reading of the situation as a wish. I merely foretell.
When parties have in the past commanded 22% poll leads 4/5 weeks before an election what did they then actually achieve? 12 to 15%? Still emphatic, but not 22%.
I agree with whoever above said knock 4 to 5% off each. Lab 30, Con 44. If Corbyn can show he's increased poll share, he will surely tough it out.
If we are to remove 4-5% from the big two, and the others are as crap as the polls suggest, surely the betting move is....
Any guesses as to what I think?
OK!
Surely sell turnout?
Though the stark choice on offer may boost turnout. Afterall one can't say why bother voting they're all the same.
My view is that the public are bored of elections.. this is the 3rd in three years. Also I think many die hard Labour voters who cant have Jezza will abstain rather than vote Tory, although I am pretty much basing this on my parents, who agree w May but wont vote Tory as they feel they are letting down their parents!
The 'bored of elections' angle is one that been aired little on PB, Sure, we're all interested in it here but in the real out there (which I visit occasionally) there's a definite sense of 'oh no, not again.'
I think turnout will be very low.
What was the turnout like in the Local Elections compared to normal?
Couldn't tell you offhand, Phil, but this is different, isn't it? The locals were part of the normal cycle whereas this one is a bit unnecessary. I know the reasons she gave but it's really being done for Party advantage and that's unlikely to energise the great unwashed.
How much does in-home care actually cost on average?
If you are billed for it after you die, how much would that bill actually be?
It would surely be only a tiny proportion of the value of the home?
eg house worth £300k, you've had some in-home care in last few years of your life at a cost of say maybe £20k to £30k - so kids inherit £270k to £280k net - is it really a big deal?
Whereas residential care is an absolute fortune in comparison.
Yes, that's right and that's why I don't think that once implemented it'll be a big deal. People are already obliged to use the money from their home to pay for residential care, if necessary, and the retainable amount there is being substantially increased. The cost of even frequent home care visits will be small by comparison. Indeed, it's possible that the policy change might mean that more people are able to stay in their own home as people could afford more intense homecare if it's being funded by them against the value of their home, hence they wouldn't need to move into a care home, or not as quickly.
Except Labour had almost exclusive coverage from Thursday last week to Tuesday on their manifesto, and there are now three weeks to demolish it.
They have fired their bolt.
It's down to campaigning now, most of which will matter from Tuesday 30th May, and the press not finding too much to grumble about in the Tory manifesto.
By May 30th most postal votes will have been cast...
Interesting observation from Damian Carrington on the Guardian live blog:
Whilst the Conservative manifesto includes the easing of fracking rules and the capping of household energy bills there is a very significant omission - no mention at all of the fleet of new nuclear power stations the party has always previously backed.
The 2015 Tory manifesto promised “a significant expansion in new nuclear”. The new one promises nothing at all.
I'm wondering if the political rule of the counter intuitive will come into play now. I'm thinking the social care proposals will be roundly criticised and misrepresented to an extent (dementia tax etc) BUT will it be seen as the blues offering sensible, realistic proposals to deal with the world as it is and gain support for being the only practical option in Town?
I wondered that.
Firstly, how many people are there of a more mature vintage who are not already aware of the local authority wanting to claim their home if they have real care needs?
Secondly, £100,000 protection sounds like a pittance in London and the South East, but in many parts of the country it's close to the full value of a home.
Thirdly, like inheritance, is it something that can be planned for?
Quite. The key is not forcing people to sell their homes whilst alive nor have to degrade their savings. It's up to them if, in earlier times, they wish to protect their estates.
I don't really see that. You need a house to live in, and you can either give it away or live in it, not both - except by gift-and-loan-back setups which are easily defeated by anti-avoidance clauses.
You can put it into trust for your beneficiaries with the absolute right to live in it during your lifetime. It no longer belongs to you.
Labour do seem to be getting a lot of air time. I keep turning on the TV and Gordon Brown is on BBC parliament getting more exposure than in 2010. This does look like a smaller parties squeeze and the Liberal Democrats are having a shocking campaign. They need to give propel a reason to turn to them as an alternative opposition after all, if you expect the Tories to win big and you want an alternative opposition then you will be just as safe getting moderate labour MPs elected who may run either remove Corbyn or form their own group. Essentially we are a small c conservative country and respect to Labour they have put out a reasonably small c conservative policy platform. Remember the so called 35% strategy that Milliband had? Well this looks like 32% strategy. It could work and pick up some bonus votes and get 34-35%. It may of course go the other way if discipline goes and the Tories and press turn on the big fire power. So Labour look like anything between 28- 35 %
I'm wondering if the political rule of the counter intuitive will come into play now. I'm thinking the social care proposals will be roundly criticised and misrepresented to an extent (dementia tax etc) BUT will it be seen as the blues offering sensible, realistic proposals to deal with the world as it is and gain support for being the only practical option in Town?
I wondered that.
Firstly, how many people are there of a more mature vintage who are not already aware of the local authority wanting to claim their home if they have real care needs?
Secondly, £100,000 protection sounds like a pittance in London and the South East, but in many parts of the country it's close to the full value of a home.
Thirdly, like inheritance, is it something that can be planned for?
Quite. The key is not forcing people to sell their homes whilst alive nor have to degrade their savings. It's up to them if, in earlier times, they wish to protect their estates.
I don't really see that. You need a house to live in, and you can either give it away or live in it, not both - except by gift-and-loan-back setups which are easily defeated by anti-avoidance clauses.
You can take a loan out against it, though, and pass the proceeds to the next generation. Estate = asset less liability.
Couldn't tell you offhand, Phil, but this is different, isn't it? The locals were part of the normal cycle whereas this one is a bit unnecessary. I know the reasons she gave but it's really being done for Party advantage and that's unlikely to energise the great unwashed.
I think turnout will be quite high, simply because there seems to be a higher level of political engagement now than is usually the case.
How much does in-home care actually cost on average?
If you are billed for it after you die, how much would that bill actually be?
It would surely be only a tiny proportion of the value of the home?
eg house worth £300k, you've had some in-home care in last few years of your life at a cost of say maybe £20k to £30k - so kids inherit £270k to £280k net - is it really a big deal?
Whereas residential care is an absolute fortune in comparison.
I don't know the answer but I could foresee a situation where families decide to take more direct control of home care arrangements.
I know a few people who have been through this and having power of attorney in advance seems to be the way to go.
If we are to remove 4-5% from the big two, and the others are as crap as the polls suggest, surely the betting move is....
Any guesses as to what I think?
OK!
Surely sell turnout?
Though the stark choice on offer may boost turnout. Afterall one can't say why bother voting they're all the same.
My view is that the public are bored of elections.. this is the 3rd in three years. Also I think many die hard Labour voters who cant have Jezza will abstain rather than vote Tory, although I am pretty much basing this on my parents, who agree w May but wont vote Tory as they feel they are letting down their parents!
The 'bored of elections' angle is one that been aired little on PB, Sure, we're all interested in it here but in the real out there (which I visit occasionally) there's a definite sense of 'oh no, not again.'
I think turnout will be very low.
What was the turnout like in the Local Elections compared to normal?
Couldn't tell you offhand, Phil, but this is different, isn't it? The locals were part of the normal cycle whereas this one is a bit unnecessary. I know the reasons she gave but it's really being done for Party advantage and that's unlikely to energise the great unwashed.
I'm not sure whether the "great unwashed" care why the vote is happening, just that it is happening and if they back [or oppose] an option on the ballot.
While there's talk of being bored of politics the fact is that in the last few elections people have become more engaged with politics. Turnout in 2015 was up. Turnout in 2016 was highest in decades. Far from disengaging, people are getting in the habit of voting.
The one thing I would say though is that anyone who didn't vote in either 2015 or 2016 unless they're 18 will not be voting this year either.
I think LauraK is already on Momentum’s hit list – In for a penny, in for a pound...
Regardless of her biased reporting, her entire grandstanding style is just bloody irritating. That all said, BJO is right about her biases. Great example posted by him.
There are a number of other political reporters who I think become infected by illusions of greatness - Peston and Robinson come to mind. Perhaps it comes with the territory.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/video/2016/nov/22/fk-lokomotiv-djuricic-serbian-open-goal-video
We shall see what happens...
The Tory campaign has been surprising subdued so far. I can't imagine that that will remain the case with Labour polling well into the 30s. Of course, just going negative isn't a guarantee that it'll work but there's plenty to go on. "Would you trust this man to negotiation for Britain with Putin?", for example.
In Pop Band terms...
Labour are Peter Green era Fleetwood Mac - The REAL Mac, but not what people brought up on "Rumours" & "Tango In The Night" expect when they buy tickets for a reunion gig
UKIP are "From The Jam" ft Bruce Foxton and Rick Buckler along with some bloke that's not Paul Weller
Lib Dems are Bronski Beat sans Jimmy Sommerville
The Conservatives are Pink Floyd w Nasty Roger Waters back in charge after a moderately successful spell with "Nice Dave" Gilmour fronting them as 'Conservatives' who were "very facile, but a quite clever forgery"
Actually the analogy falls down w The Greens because they have a better leader!
In my experience, they then break evenly Con/Lab, so either my experience is atypical or something else is happening than just a LD->Lab shift. Possibly some ex-Lab Kippers are coming back.
Surely sell turnout?
Then just as you think its an open goal for the Tories up pops MaggieT's less talented impressionist with her Dementia Tax. The one nailed on vote they had was the pensioners and they've just told them "you can keep living in your home but if its worth more than £100k we'll take it from your kids in back tax when you die".
sum of votes from 'gbpredshare' is 100.5%,
However Baxter will take it if I reduce the tories to 48. In which case Sheffield Hallam falls to labour.
Had to have a cheeky fiver on that at 9/1. Tip of the week?
Where on earth do you keep finding these idiots?
Do you spend your entire day looking for tweets from Remoaners?
They have fired their bolt.
It's down to campaigning now, most of which will matter from Tuesday 30th May, and the press not finding too much to grumble about in the Tory manifesto.
Cool graphic comparing party manifestos.
Lots of territory grabbing going on but also real difference between the parties too.
In contrast - with Corbyn it was between 2:1 and 3:1 against him on all highest voted comments.
Link - load comments at bottom and sort by highest rated.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39956541
And I'm lumped on the blues in the Southwest now
It's not just this poll the core retention even in the 10 or 11 polls is horrible
I think turnout will be very low.
(Amusingly, I could still see the LDs making gains in Scotland on these figures, simply because tactical voting is so ingrained there, and because the Holyrood elections last year make it very clear who unionists should vote for.)
Also there are good reasons for free at point of use - risk sharing, not discouraging people from seeking medical care when they need it, fairer to the poor, more efficient financing system etc...
*innocent face*
Firstly, how many people are there of a more mature vintage who are not already aware of the local authority wanting to claim their home if they have real care needs?
Secondly, £100,000 protection sounds like a pittance in London and the South East, but in many parts of the country it's close to the full value of a home.
Thirdly, like inheritance, is it something that can be planned for?
Could be similar this time with Labour.
Incidentally, I don't know why Labour members are being encouraged to waste time campaigning in Leeds Central etc. that are safe as houses when we should be getting stuck in to the Lib Dem next door.
https://twitter.com/skington/status/865215013404979203
I wonder what proportion of serious pot-smokers register to vote.
https://twitter.com/GrayInGlasgow/status/865191127057563648
What they should be petrified about is the fact that their marquee strategy (which seemed designed solely for Horney & Wood Green, Richmond Park and Twickenham) of making it all about the EU, has gone down like a lead balloon.
For a start, Farron is safe as houses in Westmorland I reckon. ALL leaders get a boost in their own seat; even total flops like Miliband and Hague got better voteshare increases in their own seats than their parties did in other similar seats.
North Norfolk and Carshalton are probably 90% gonners to the Tories. Southport a bit more uncertain because, judging by the Mersey mayor results, the Tories are still a bit toxic in this part of the world, and there's a chunky Labour vote to squeeze there too. I'd lean towards a Tory gain but only just.
I think Leeds NW is a likely Labour gain. I'd expect Clegg to hold on in Sheffield Hallam just because, even with Corbyn possibly outperforming Miliband among the "liberal intelligentsia" demographic, Clegg himself has surely passed Peak Toxic and there will be a bit of unwind from the Labour vote last time. Ceredigion is possibly the most idiosyncratic seat anywhere in the UK, so I've got no idea with that one.
Against all that, I do still think Twickenham and Kingston are likely LD gains -- I'm expecting the Labour vote to tactically go over to the LDs, and those two seats are basically the only ones where a Lab->LD tactical shift would overwhelm a mass UKIP->Con defection. Richmond Park probably a narrow Tory regain. And I do think they should be on for 2, possibly 3 gains, from the SNP, as well as a comfortable hold in Orkney & Shetland.
I'd say 8-10 seats overall for them.
In the US, the biggest cause of bankruptcy is illness.
Regardless of her biased reporting, her entire grandstanding style is just bloody irritating. That all said, BJO is right about her biases. Great example posted by him.
I suppose the way the Tories will spin this manifesto is to argue that reducing pensioner benefits is not left-wing envy, but right-wing pursuit of sound public finances.
If you are billed for it after you die, how much would that bill actually be?
It would surely be only a tiny proportion of the value of the home?
eg house worth £300k, you've had some in-home care in last few years of your life at a cost of say maybe £20k to £30k - so kids inherit £270k to £280k net - is it really a big deal?
Whereas residential care is an absolute fortune in comparison.
I agree with whoever above said knock 4 to 5% off each. Lab 30, Con 44. If Corbyn can show he's increased poll share, he will surely tough it out.
Whilst the Conservative manifesto includes the easing of fracking rules and the capping of household energy bills there is a very significant omission - no mention at all of the fleet of new nuclear power stations the party has always previously backed.
The 2015 Tory manifesto promised “a significant expansion in new nuclear”. The new one promises nothing at all.
The older voters are not going to like this.
I know a few people who have been through this and having power of attorney in advance seems to be the way to go.
I think they will need to address the cross-subsidies by family payers to Council payers.
While there's talk of being bored of politics the fact is that in the last few elections people have become more engaged with politics. Turnout in 2015 was up. Turnout in 2016 was highest in decades. Far from disengaging, people are getting in the habit of voting.
The one thing I would say though is that anyone who didn't vote in either 2015 or 2016 unless they're 18 will not be voting this year either.
Also, what's to stop someone gifting their home to a spouse or child?