Well of course he'd say that! Mrs May, along with everyone else, knows he's too good to be on the back benches. He has served his penance of a year's silence admirably.
Too much history between Gove and Mrs May and her staff for him to come back.
I really can't imagine he'll just spend the next five years being a good constituency MP for Camberley, with a bit of journalism on the side.
If there's one person Mrs May should extend a hand to, it's Mr Gove. I'd either put him back at Justice, or at DEFRA, both departments massively affected by Brexit that need a serious brain heading them up.
I'm still of the opinion this will affect voting intentions counter intuitively. The 'I don't like it, but I have to go along with it' urge will be strong. Dose of reality versus unfunded pie in the sky. That's what people will conclude.
On Winter Fuel, they haven't said where means test will fall.
Thus nobody knows whether they'll be affected or not.
Result: Less impact on voters as less clear-cut - nobody has been told they are losing it for sure.
Flawed analysis i think. Everyone will fear they MAY lose out
Yes. The Tories have managed to inject huge amounts of doubt and anxiety - and needlessly. Lots of people who WON'T be affected will, nonetheless, freak out that they MIGHT be affected.
Clueless imbeciles. A massive unforced error.
Is it unforced? Surely funds have to be raised somehow?
Its better surely to announce plans today and implement them afterwards with a mandate than to announce nothing today and then surprise with this in the autumn budget?
Well of course he'd say that! Mrs May, along with everyone else, knows he's too good to be on the back benches. He has served his penance of a year's silence admirably.
Too much history between Gove and Mrs May and her staff for him to come back.
I really can't imagine he'll just spend the next five years being a good constituency MP for Camberley, with a bit of journalism on the side.
If there's one person Mrs May should extend a hand to, it's Mr Gove. I'd either put him back at Justice, or at DEFRA, both departments massively affected by Brexit that need a serious brain working heading them up.
Mrs May and her staff hold grudges.
Remember her current Joint Chief of Staff was sacked/forced to resign for leaking/smearing Gove when Mrs May and Gove clashed a few years ago.
I'm still of the opinion this will affect voting intentions counter intuitively. The 'I don't like it, but I have to go along with it' urge will be strong. Dose of reality versus unfunded pie in the sky. That's what people will conclude.
Unfortunately, I agree with this.
The most I could see is MAYBE a tiny uptick in UKIP support because of a few grumpy pensioners leaving the Cons.
I've been thinking about the social care thing. It does mean that I stand to inherit a share of a 100k estate instead of a 300k estate (tiny violin, I know but it means a lot to my father). He has significant mobility issues rather than dementia and pays c2k pm for carers at home. Under the existing system his house is outside the asset definition and once his cash savings come down to 23k he wouldn't have to pay for care.
You can see the rationale in the current asset assessment. In most cases you'd expect disabled old people to do better living independently if this is possible. By definition, you don't need your house if you have to go into residential care. But having reflected on it today the charge (or whatever mechanism eventually employed) on the house owned by someone in receipt of care services at home, payable by the estate (with interest it seems) is, however you look at it, some species of tax, even if not branded as such.
Some other points occur. If my father keels over tomorrow I will be better off financially. It will take about a decade at this rate for his notional assets for this purpose to be depleted to 100k).
And the financial advisers down thread are quite right. There is a massive market failure here. If some enterprising insurance underwriter wants to take a punt you could easily see how a useful insurance product could be designed. It would be a lot easier if there was some state pump-priming. If they can lend 600m to NEST why not the same sort of intervention here? They are hardly unrelated areas
Andrew Dilnot (who reviewed social care for coalition) quoted on r4 as saying insurance just ain't available. That is not likely to be a lack of enterprise on the part of underwriters, more a judgment that it can't be done at a profit.
r4 also saying there was a brief moment when it looked as if Jez would do the itv debate tonight, then re-wavered. I think he should have gone for it what with the wave he is riding atm.
The big picture is that while Lab has climbed significantly, Con has been rock solid and has also edged up about one point in the last week.
LD and UKIP have fallen to such a degree that they surely can't have much further to fall - which means if Lab is to climb further it is going to have to come from Con.
But is anyone switching drirectly from Con to Lab - NickP has suggested not.
On Winter Fuel, they haven't said where means test will fall.
Thus nobody knows whether they'll be affected or not.
Result: Less impact on voters as less clear-cut - nobody has been told they are losing it for sure.
Flawed analysis i think. Everyone will fear they MAY lose out
And anyone could. That's why pooled risk is the better option. By putting her proposals on the table, May has made it much more palatable. A sensible Labour party would recognise that and seize the opportunity.
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
Spot on.
The age of massive, state subsidised inheritances from the baby boomer generation is over before it really got going.
I've been thinking about the social care thing. It does mean that I stand to inherit a share of a 100k estate instead of a 300k estate (tiny violin, I know but it means a lot to my father). He has significant mobility issues rather than dementia and pays c2k pm for carers at home. Under the existing system his house is outside the asset definition and once his cash savings come down to 23k he wouldn't have to pay for care.
You can see the rationale in the current asset assessment. In most cases you'd expect disabled old people to do better living independently if this is possible. By definition, you don't need your house if you have to go into residential care. But having reflected on it today the charge (or whatever mechanism eventually employed) on the house owned by someone in receipt of care services at home, payable by the estate (with interest it seems) is, however you look at it, some species of tax, even if not branded as such.
Some other points occur. If my father keels over tomorrow I will be better off financially. It will take about a decade at this rate for his notional assets for this purpose to be depleted to 100k).
And the financial advisers down thread are quite right. There is a massive market failure here. If some enterprising insurance underwriter wants to take a punt you could easily see how a useful insurance product could be designed. It would be a lot easier if there was some state pump-priming. If they can lend 600m to NEST why not the same sort of intervention here? They are hardly unrelated areas
Andrew Dilnot (who reviewed social care for coalition) quoted on r4 as saying insurance just ain't available. That is not likely to be a lack of enterprise on the part of underwriters, more a judgment that it can't be done at a profit.
r4 also saying there was a brief moment when it looked as if Jez would do the itv debate tonight, then re-wavered. I think he should have gone for it what with the wave he is riding atm.
I think the shared risk idea is to just pay for it out of general taxation?
I'm still of the opinion this will affect voting intentions counter intuitively. The 'I don't like it, but I have to go along with it' urge will be strong. Dose of reality versus unfunded pie in the sky. That's what people will conclude.
I think that will be the end outcome because the alternatives are even more unpalatable to pensioners in one way or another.
One side point about the £100,000 - most families have more than 1 child.
If you are one of four, you are down to £25,000.
I don
It is potentially a game-changer. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Where was Crosby when they dreamed this up?
I reckon the Tories got cocky and complacent, looking at the polls, and thought Let's propose something bold, rather than the usual, Let's propose a Commission and THEN do something bold when we're safely in power.
Trouble is, the bold thing they've proposed looks bad, and smells bad, even if it might be quite sensible in the long run. Idiotic.
They will surely still win, but this could potentially lose them 2-4 points in the polls, maybe more.
Yeah thinking about it, the inheritance which now disappears will for a lot of people be the difference between owning a house, and not ever owning one, because it's their one shot at getting a deposit together. A blow at the tories' natural constituency. Which doesn't make it wrong, but makes it brave.
Absolutely. I've got friends whose only hope of owning a house is inheriting from their parents. It shouldn't be like that, but there it is. This policy threatens that precious dream - or, at least, it can be sold that way - as a dream-killer - if Labour get their act together.
It is fucking dumb, incompetent politics, setting aside the dubious economic justification.
Southam is right: Labour's pooled death tax is fairer, and an easier sell, however imperfect.
DUHHHHHHH
Where do these friends live if I may ask ?
Any policy which brings into question the madness of basing the economy on ever increasing house prices is good.
Well of course he'd say that! Mrs May, along with everyone else, knows he's too good to be on the back benches. He has served his penance of a year's silence admirably.
Too much history between Gove and Mrs May and her staff for him to come back.
I really can't imagine he'll just spend the next five years being a good constituency MP for Camberley, with a bit of journalism on the side.
If there's one person Mrs May should extend a hand to, it's Mr Gove. I'd either put him back at Justice, or at DEFRA, both departments massively affected by Brexit that need a serious brain working heading them up.
Mrs May and her staff hold grudges.
Remember her current Joint Chief of Staff was sacked/forced to resign for leaking/smearing Gove when Mrs May and Gove clashed a few years ago.
Ah yes, just remembered that one. The "Trojan Horse" Islamic schools in Birmingham that they had a massive falling out over. Maybe tricky to forgive and forget.
I've been thinking about the social care thing. It does mean that I stand to inherit a share of a 100k estate instead of a 300k estate (tiny violin, I know but it means a lot to my father). He has significant mobility issues rather than dementia and pays c2k pm for carers at home. Under the existing system his house is outside the asset definition and once his cash savings come down to 23k he wouldn't have to pay for care.
You can see the rationale in the current asset assessment. In most cases you'd expect disabled old people to do better living independently if this is possible. By definition, you don't need your house if you have to go into residential care. But having reflected on it today the charge (or whatever mechanism eventually employed) on the house owned by someone in receipt of care services at home, payable by the estate (with interest it seems) is, however you look at it, some species of tax, even if not branded as such.
Some other points occur. If my father keels over tomorrow I will be better off financially. It will take about a decade at this rate for his notional assets for this purpose to be depleted to 100k).
And the financial advisers down thread are quite right. There is a massive market failure here. If some enterprising insurance underwriter wants to take a punt you could easily see how a useful insurance product could be designed. It would be a lot easier if there was some state pump-priming. If they can lend 600m to NEST why not the same sort of intervention here? They are hardly unrelated areas
Andrew Dilnot (who reviewed social care for coalition) quoted on r4 as saying insurance just ain't available. That is not likely to be a lack of enterprise on the part of underwriters, more a judgment that it can't be done at a profit.
r4 also saying there was a brief moment when it looked as if Jez would do the itv debate tonight, then re-wavered. I think he should have gone for it what with the wave he is riding atm.
I think the shared risk idea is to just pay for it out of general taxation?
The argument for that is certainly stronger if insurance isn't privately available.
Have you ever driven in New York? I live here and the standard of driving is shocking, but not surprising given how easy the driving test is. And I can't see terrorists attacking anywhere in Staten Island when there's so many more prominent places they could try.
I'm still of the opinion this will affect voting intentions counter intuitively. The 'I don't like it, but I have to go along with it' urge will be strong. Dose of reality versus unfunded pie in the sky. That's what people will conclude.
I think this will knock 2 or even 3 points off Tories which will go straight back to Labour. That's not an insignificant narrowing.
Well we will see by the weekend I guess! I think it will see make little difference, nothing will now that isn't black and Swan shaped.
Well of course he'd say that! Mrs May, along with everyone else, knows he's too good to be on the back benches. He has served his penance of a year's silence admirably.
Too much history between Gove and Mrs May and her staff for him to come back.
I really can't imagine he'll just spend the next five years being a good constituency MP for Camberley, with a bit of journalism on the side.
If there's one person Mrs May should extend a hand to, it's Mr Gove. I'd either put him back at Justice, or at DEFRA, both departments massively affected by Brexit that need a serious brain working heading them up.
Mrs May and her staff hold grudges.
Remember her current Joint Chief of Staff was sacked/forced to resign for leaking/smearing Gove when Mrs May and Gove clashed a few years ago.
Ah yes, just remembered that one. The "Trojan Horse" Islamic schools in Birmingham that they had a massive falling out over. Maybe tricky to forgive and forget.
Plus at heart, deep down Gove is a fiscal/economic Thatcherite, Mrs May's policies don't appeal to him.
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
Spot on.
The age of massive, state subsidised inheritances from the baby boomer generation is over before it really got going.
Good.
No, it's not. It is over for those whose parents are unlucky enough to get a debilitative disease, not for anyone else. Alternatively, everyone could pay something.
I've been thinking about the social care thing. It does mean that I stand to inherit a share of a 100k estate instead of a 300k estate (tiny violin, I know but it means a lot to my father). He has significant mobility issues rather than dementia and pays c2k pm for carers at home. Under the existing system his house is outside the asset definition and once his cash savings come down to 23k he wouldn't have to pay for care.
You can see the rationale in the current asset assessment. In most cases you'd expect disabled old people to do better living independently if this is possible. By definition, you don't need your house if you have to go into residential care. But having reflected on it today the charge (or whatever mechanism eventually employed) on the house owned by someone in receipt of care services at home, payable by the estate (with interest it seems) is, however you look at it, some species of tax, even if not branded as such.
Some other points occur. If my father keels over tomorrow I will be better off financially. It will take about a decade at this rate for his notional assets for this purpose to be depleted to 100k).
And the financial advisers down thread are quite right. There is a massive market failure here. If some enterprising insurance underwriter wants to take a punt you could easily see how a useful insurance product could be designed. It would be a lot easier if there was some state pump-priming. If they can lend 600m to NEST why not the same sort of intervention here? They are hardly unrelated areas
Andrew Dilnot (who reviewed social care for coalition) quoted on r4 as saying insurance just ain't available. That is not likely to be a lack of enterprise on the part of underwriters, more a judgment that it can't be done at a profit.
r4 also saying there was a brief moment when it looked as if Jez would do the itv debate tonight, then re-wavered. I think he should have gone for it what with the wave he is riding atm.
Yeah, I know. But, in principle, what are the blocks? X% of the population will require care from y age. With fairly predictible variation as to projected claims. The data is extensive and increasingly sophisticated. More dangerous risks get insured every day. I'd guess the answer is lack of capital in face of the scale
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
Spot on.
The age of massive, state subsidised inheritances from the baby boomer generation is over before it really got going.
Good.
But the overwhelming majority of boomers will leave a massive fortune to their prosperous middle-aged "children". A random sample of them will be reduced to beggary though care costs. There seems to be a mistaken idea afoot today that expensive end-of-life care is inevitable. It is not, and most people do not expect to need it.
I am doubtful that many of the latest converts to the Conservative cause are going to be put off by anything with a £100,000 longstop. Conservative support might well decline a bit south of the Severn and the Wash, but they have quite a cushion there. North of that line the impact should be more muted, I'd have thought.
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
Spot on.
The age of massive, state subsidised inheritances from the baby boomer generation is over before it really got going.
Good.
But the overwhelming majority of boomers will leave a massive fortune to their prosperous middle-aged "children". A random sample of them will be reduced to beggary though care costs. There seems to be a mistaken idea afoot today that expensive end-of-life care is inevitable. It is not, and most people do not expect to need it.
I have one statistic to hand. Three living parents in their 80s. One requires care.
One side point about the £100,000 - most families have more than 1 child.
If you are one of four, you are down to £25,000.
I don't think the Tories have thought this through, in terms of presentation. Yes it has a kind of logic, but even the most inept Opposition could make it look horrendous - a dementia tax, the state seizing mummy's home just because she's gaga. The upsides are hard to grasp, because they're complex; the downsides are obvious, therefore much more dangerous.
It is potentially a game-changer. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Where was Crosby when they dreamed this up?
It's not a game-changer. Corbyn ensures that. But when the Tories introduce this it does free up a Labour party returned to sense to come up with its own policy based on pooled risk. I don't like May's solution, but she has made it easier to come up with a good one. We should all welcome that.
Sure, TMay will still win, but she might have just lost her chance of a three figure majority. Depends how much focus this gets over the next few days. How will it play on TV?
It would be hilarious if we get into hung parliament territory - unlikely to happen but would be a devastating judgement on the wooden hapless leader that Theresa May is.
Wishful Lefty thinking.
I'm on the verge of giving up trying to understand what's happening with these wacky polls. It's getting to the point where one can believe practically any outcome is possible, *IF* the stranger ones are correct.
Certainly if Labour does manage to finish on 35% (or better, for all I know) then, even if I did once have some understanding of this country, I'm not sure that I shall do anymore. The numbers are becoming incomprehensible.
Voters value leadership, economic competence and united parties. The Conservatives have all, Labour none of these traits. Yet the gap between the two is, according not to all but a great many of the polls at least, closing? It's incomprehensible.
Perhaps the British mindset has simply changed and promises of "free pony, now, and City stockbrokers are going to pay for it" are enough to win elections - or at least get bloody close to doing it? If so then we're all fucked.
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
Spot on.
The age of massive, state subsidised inheritances from the baby boomer generation is over before it really got going.
Good.
But the overwhelming majority of boomers will leave a massive fortune to their prosperous middle-aged "children". A random sample of them will be reduced to beggary though care costs. There seems to be a mistaken idea afoot today that expensive end-of-life care is inevitable. It is not, and most people do not expect to need it.
I have no data to back this up, but I reckon the proportion of people that end up needing it will be going up. Historically a lot of people (mostly men) snuffed it before they got to the point where they needed care because they had done tough manual jobs. That's changed now and more and more will end up needing care.
Well of course he'd say that! Mrs May, along with everyone else, knows he's too good to be on the back benches. He has served his penance of a year's silence admirably.
Too much history between Gove and Mrs May and her staff for him to come back.
I really can't imagine he'll just spend the next five years being a good constituency MP for Camberley, with a bit of journalism on the side.
If there's one person Mrs May should extend a hand to, it's Mr Gove. I'd either put him back at Justice, or at DEFRA, both departments massively affected by Brexit that need a serious brain working heading them up.
Mrs May and her staff hold grudges.
Remember her current Joint Chief of Staff was sacked/forced to resign for leaking/smearing Gove when Mrs May and Gove clashed a few years ago.
Ah yes, just remembered that one. The "Trojan Horse" Islamic schools in Birmingham that they had a massive falling out over. Maybe tricky to forgive and forget.
Plus at heart, deep down Gove is a fiscal/economic Thatcherite, Mrs May's policies don't appeal to him.
I still just can't see him keeping the back benches warm. I'm sure he'll find something useful to keep him occupied though, much as IDS did when he got kicked out.
My god that is a terrible poll for the LDs. The public will, without doubt it seems, go for Jeremy Corbyn rather than consider voting for you as an anti-Tory alternative. Outside of mass polling disaster, the election campaign has confirmed that people do not hate Corbyn enough to ditch Labour, and are not interested in alternate options when the Tories are riding so high.
Time to close down the party, and join Labour. Ain't nobody defecting to a new party if Corbyn does even close to that well.
I am doubtful that many of the latest converts to the Conservative cause are going to be put off by anything with a £100,000 longstop. Conservative support might well decline a bit south of the Severn and the Wash, but they have quite a cushion there. North of that line the impact should be more muted, I'd have thought.
Well of course he'd say that! Mrs May, along with everyone else, knows he's too good to be on the back benches. He has served his penance of a year's silence admirably.
Too much history between Gove and Mrs May and her staff for him to come back.
I really can't imagine he'll just spend the next five years being a good constituency MP for Camberley, with a bit of journalism on the side.
If there's one person Mrs May should extend a hand to, it's Mr Gove. I'd either put him back at Justice, or at DEFRA, both departments massively affected by Brexit that need a serious brain working heading them up.
Mrs May and her staff hold grudges.
Remember her current Joint Chief of Staff was sacked/forced to resign for leaking/smearing Gove when Mrs May and Gove clashed a few years ago.
Ah yes, just remembered that one. The "Trojan Horse" Islamic schools in Birmingham that they had a massive falling out over. Maybe tricky to forgive and forget.
Plus at heart, deep down Gove is a fiscal/economic Thatcherite, Mrs May's policies don't appeal to him.
I still just can't see him keeping the back benches warm. I'm sure he'll find something useful to keep him occupied though, much as IDS did when he got kicked out.
My bold prediction for the next Parliament.
Either Michael Gove or George Osborne will become editor of The Times or The Sunday Times.
One side point about the £100,000 - most families have more than 1 child.
If you are one of four, you are down to £25,000.
I don't think the Tories have thought this through, in terms of presentation. Yes it has a kind of logic, but even the most inept Opposition could make it look horrendous - a dementia tax, the state seizing mummy's home just because she's gaga. The upsides are hard to grasp, because they're complex; the downsides are obvious, therefore much more dangerous.
It is potentially a game-changer. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Where was Crosby when they dreamed this up?
It's not a game-changer. Corbyn ensures that. But when the Tories introduce this it does free up a Labour party returned to sense to come up with its own policy based on pooled risk. I don't like May's solution, but she has made it easier to come up with a good one. We should all welcome that.
Sure, TMay will still win, but she might have just lost her chance of a three figure majority. Depends how much focus this gets over the next few days. How will it play on TV?
It would be hilarious if we get into hung parliament territory - unlikely to happen but would be a devastating judgement on the wooden hapless leader that Theresa May is.
Wishful Lefty thinking.
Voters value leadership, economic competence and united parties. The Conservatives have all, Labour none of these traits. Yet the gap between the two is, according not to all but a great many of the polls at least, closing? It's incomprehensible.
Bizarre, certainly. Evidence says they should be struggling, even if it suggests the LDs would indeed struggle to break through too, but they are surging. Just when I was determined not to overestimate Labour chances, it suddenly looks like I was underestimating them.
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
Spot on.
The age of massive, state subsidised inheritances from the baby boomer generation is over before it really got going.
Good.
But the overwhelming majority of boomers will leave a massive fortune to their prosperous middle-aged "children". A random sample of them will be reduced to beggary though care costs. There seems to be a mistaken idea afoot today that expensive end-of-life care is inevitable. It is not, and most people do not expect to need it.
I have no data to back this up, but I reckon the proportion of people that end up needing it will be going up. Historically a lot of people (mostly men) snuffed it before they got to the point where they needed care because they had done tough manual jobs. That's changed now and more and more will end up needing care.
I have no data either, but data is the key to policy-making. Most people will not need care. Most will get by in their own homes with a modest amount of help. A small number will become seriously demented and need to be institutionalised. It seems unfair that the cost of this random misfortune can't be insured against somehow or other.
I am doubtful that many of the latest converts to the Conservative cause are going to be put off by anything with a £100,000 longstop. Conservative support might well decline a bit south of the Severn and the Wash, but they have quite a cushion there. North of that line the impact should be more muted, I'd have thought.
This is a good point. Average house prices are nearly £500,000 in London and anywhere between about £240,000 and £310,000 in the rest of the Southern regions. However, this falls to more like £175,000 in the Midlands and between about £130,000 and £150,000 in the North and Wales. Those worst affected are also likely to be disproportionately concentrated in safe Conservative seats rather than marginals.
I'm still no longer so certain that "Down with the Dementia Tax, up with Free Ponies for All!" won't fly, though.
I am doubtful that many of the latest converts to the Conservative cause are going to be put off by anything with a £100,000 longstop. Conservative support might well decline a bit south of the Severn and the Wash, but they have quite a cushion there. North of that line the impact should be more muted, I'd have thought.
Given that the average house price in Leeds and Manchester is about 150k I'm not sure that stands up.
One side point about the £100,000 - most families have more than 1 child.
If you are one of four, you are down to £25,000.
I don't think the Tories have thought this through, in terms of presentation. Yes it has a kind of logic, but even the most inept Opposition could make it look horrendous - a dementia tax, the state seizing mummy's home just because she's gaga. The upsides are hard to grasp, because they're complex; the downsides are obvious, therefore much more dangerous.
It is potentially a game-changer. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Where was Crosby when they dreamed this up?
It's not a game-changer. Corbyn ensures that. But when the Tories introduce this it does free up a Labour party returned to sense to come up with its own policy based on pooled risk. I don't like May's solution, but she has made it easier to come up with a good one. We should all welcome that.
Sure, TMay will still win, but she might have just lost her chance of a three figure majority. Depends how much focus this gets over the next few days. How will it play on TV?
It would be hilarious if we get into hung parliament territory - unlikely to happen but would be a devastating judgement on the wooden hapless leader that Theresa May is.
Wishful Lefty thinking.
I'm on the verge of giving up trying to understand what's happening with these wacky polls. It's getting to the point where one can believe practically any outcome is possible, *IF* the stranger ones are correct.
Certainly if Labour does manage to finish on 35% (or better, for all I know) then, even if I did once have some understanding of this country, I'm not sure that I shall do anymore. The numbers are becoming incomprehensible.
Voters value leadership, economic competence and united parties. The Conservatives have all, Labour none of these traits. Yet the gap between the two is, according not to all but a great many of the polls at least, closing? It's incomprehensible.
Perhaps the British mindset has simply changed and promises of "free pony, now, and City stockbrokers are going to pay for it" are enough to win elections - or at least get bloody close to doing it? If so then we're all fucked.
I wonder about the last paragraph. There's always a constituency in favour. We're about to learn just how large that is.
One side point about the £100,000 - most families have more than 1 child.
If you are one of four, you are down to £25,000.
I don't think the Tories have thought this through, in terms of presentation. Yes it has a kind of logic, but even the most inept Opposition could make it look horrendous - a dementia tax, the state seizing mummy's home just because she's gaga. The upsides are hard to grasp, because they're complex; the downsides are obvious, therefore much more dangerous.
It is potentially a game-changer. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Where was Crosby when they dreamed this up?
It's not a game-changer. Corbyn ensures that. But when the Tories introduce this it does free up a Labour party returned to sense to come up with its own policy based on pooled risk. I don't like May's solution, but she has made it easier to come up with a good one. We should all welcome that.
Sure, TMay will still win, but she might have just lost her chance of a three figure majority. Depends how much focus this gets over the next few days. How will it play on TV?
It would be hilarious if we get into hung parliament territory - unlikely to happen but would be a devastating judgement on the wooden hapless leader that Theresa May is.
Wishful Lefty thinking.
I'm on the verge of giving up trying to understand what's happening with these wacky polls. It's getting to the point where one can believe practically any outcome is possible, *IF* the stranger ones are correct.
Certainly if Labour does manage to finish on 35% (or better, for all I know) then, even if I did once have some understanding of this country, I'm not sure that I shall do anymore. The numbers are becoming incomprehensible.
Voters value leadership, economic competence and united parties. The Conservatives have all, Labour none of these traits. Yet the gap between the two is, according not to all but a great many of the polls at least, closing? It's incomprehensible.
Perhaps the British mindset has simply changed and promises of "free pony, now, and City stockbrokers are going to pay for it" are enough to win elections - or at least get bloody close to doing it? If so then we're all fucked.
And the alternative is more of the same - dull as dishwater austerity and erosion of living standards (while the powerful and wealthy continue to plunder). People are quite frankly fed up of this and want a change. The Tories are not offereing anything different, nor anything exciting.
If only Labour had a decent leader, then it ceretainly would be game on.
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
Spot on.
The age of massive, state subsidised inheritances from the baby boomer generation is over before it really got going.
Good.
But the overwhelming majority of boomers will leave a massive fortune to their prosperous middle-aged "children". A random sample of them will be reduced to beggary though care costs. There seems to be a mistaken idea afoot today that expensive end-of-life care is inevitable. It is not, and most people do not expect to need it.
I have no data to back this up, but I reckon the proportion of people that end up needing it will be going up. Historically a lot of people (mostly men) snuffed it before they got to the point where they needed care because they had done tough manual jobs. That's changed now and more and more will end up needing care.
I have no data either, but data is the key to policy-making. Most people will not need care. Most will get by in their own homes with a modest amount of help. A small number will become seriously demented and need to be institutionalised. It seems unfair that the cost of this random misfortune can't be insured against somehow or other.
I wonder if insurance companies will offer policies on this? It could be a new market for them to look at.
Whilst most people don't get dementia, a lot of people become incapacitated in old age and require care at home. My dad says that they will now have to pay for this - is this correct? If so, I don't think people should be calling this a dementia tax.
Voters value leadership, economic competence and united parties. The Conservatives have all, Labour none of these traits. Yet the gap between the two is, according not to all but a great many of the polls at least, closing? It's incomprehensible.
Bizarre, certainly. Evidence says they should be struggling, even if it suggests the LDs would indeed struggle to break through too, but they are surging. Just when I was determined not to overestimate Labour chances, it suddenly looks like I was underestimating them.
Voters now value authenticity, even over competence - look at Trump. They are also ready to take risks when they feel their situation is already so poor they have nothing left to lose - look at Brexit.
The Conservative campaign so far has been robotic at best and full of staged photoshoots and boring talk of stability while still managing several unforced errors - today's 'dementia tax' and last week's fox hunting looking that way now, looking like the old 'nasty party' again.
Corbyn meanwhile may be personally unpopular but things like nationalising the railways and so on are not. And it's those things that have been dominating the news.
Theresa May has so far failed to make a positive case for why she should lead the nation. 'I'm not Corbyn (but I don't mind nicking Ed Miliband's policies)' isn't good enough.
I think this is an election where people want to vote for something, not against someone. Other than not being Corbyn, what does May have to offer?
I wonder if insurance companies will offer policies on this? It could be a new market for them to look at.
Whilst most people don't get dementia, a lot of people become incapacitated in old age and require care at home. My dad says that they will now have to pay for this - is this correct? If so, I don't think people should be calling this a dementia tax.
Insurance companies don't find enough interest from the public in buying such policies.
It's hard enough getting people to invest in pensions, with all the associations of being old and grey and creaky that conjures up. Getting people to think about long term health care, with the associations of dementia and incontinence, is several steps harder.
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
Spot on.
The age of massive, state subsidised inheritances from the baby boomer generation is over before it really got going.
Good.
But the overwhelming majority of boomers will leave a massive fortune to their prosperous middle-aged "children". A random sample of them will be reduced to beggary though care costs. There seems to be a mistaken idea afoot today that expensive end-of-life care is inevitable. It is not, and most people do not expect to need it.
I have one statistic to hand. Three living parents in their 80s. One requires care.
But, with respect, we cannot therefore assume that one-third of people in their 80s will require care. I have no idea what the correct statistic is, or will be in future. All I know is that a lot of 80-year-olds drive to my local supermarket, in seeming good health. Dementia is a random affliction and the cost should be borne by the whole of society and not by the patient's unfortunate family.
And the alternative is more of the same - dull as dishwater austerity and erosion of living standards (while the powerful and wealthy continue to plunder). People are quite frankly fed up of this and want a change.
I wonder if insurance companies will offer policies on this? It could be a new market for them to look at.
Whilst most people don't get dementia, a lot of people become incapacitated in old age and require care at home. My dad says that they will now have to pay for this - is this correct? If so, I don't think people should be calling this a dementia tax.
Insurance companies don't find enough interest from the public in buying such policies.
It's hard enough getting people to invest in pensions, with all the associations of being old and grey and creaky that conjures up. Getting people to think about long term health care, with the associations of dementia and incontinence, is several steps harder.
One way might to merge pensions with personal care insurance and allow people to pass the fund on free of IHT. You can already do this with pensions if wrapped in a certain way.
I am doubtful that many of the latest converts to the Conservative cause are going to be put off by anything with a £100,000 longstop. Conservative support might well decline a bit south of the Severn and the Wash, but they have quite a cushion there. North of that line the impact should be more muted, I'd have thought.
Given that the average house price in Leeds and Manchester is about 150k I'm not sure that stands up.
But, typically, owned by two people so falling outside the proposed limit for an individual. The issue will be for the single elderly, who will, presumably, normally go into a care home if they suffer from dementia and can't care for themselves.
Perhaps the biggest effect of the policy will be a change in the sorts of homes that the elderly buy when they go into retirement (which may not be a bad thing).
And the alternative is more of the same - dull as dishwater austerity and erosion of living standards (while the powerful and wealthy continue to plunder). People are quite frankly fed up of this and want a change.
One side point about the £100,000 - most families have more than 1 child.
If you are one of four, you are down to £25,000.
I don't think the Tories have thought this through, in terms of presentation. Yes it has a kind of logic, but even the most inept Opposition could make it look horrendous - a dementia tax, the state seizing mummy's home just because she's gaga. The upsides are hard to grasp, because they're complex; the downsides are obvious, therefore much more dangerous.
It is potentially a game-changer. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Where was Crosby when they dreamed this up?
It's not a game-changer. Corbyn ensures that. But when the Tories introduce this it does free up a Labour party returned to sense to come up with its own policy based on pooled risk. I don't like May's solution, but she has made it easier to come up with a good one. We should all welcome that.
Sure, TMay will still win, but she might have just lost her chance of a three figure majority. Depends how much focus this gets over the next few days. How will it play on TV?
It would be hilarious if we get into hung parliament territory - unlikely to happen but would be a devastating judgement on the wooden hapless leader that Theresa May is.
Wishful Lefty thinking.
I'm on the verge of giving up trying to understand what's happening with these wacky polls. It's getting to the point where one can believe practically any outcome is possible, *IF* the stranger ones are correct.
Certainly if Labour does manage to finish on 35% (or better, for all I know) then, even if I did once have some understanding of this country, I'm not sure that I shall do anymore. The numbers are becoming incomprehensible.
Voters value leadership, economic competence and united parties. The Conservatives have all, Labour none of these traits. Yet the gap between the two is, according not to all but a great many of the polls at least, closing? It's incomprehensible.
Perhaps the British mindset has simply changed and promises of "free pony, now, and City stockbrokers are going to pay for it" are enough to win elections - or at least get bloody close to doing it? If so then we're all fucked.
Just look across the pond, or the Channel. Populist politics doesn't require the numbers to add up. Nobody believes the numbers any more. Populist politics (whether right wing Brexiteers or left wing rabble rousers) is about emotion not rationality.
May is undoubtably a cold fish, so cannot compete on Populism.
Bizarre, certainly. Evidence says they should be struggling, even if it suggests the LDs would indeed struggle to break through too, but they are surging. Just when I was determined not to overestimate Labour chances, it suddenly looks like I was underestimating them.
Maybe, maybe not. The polls for the last week now read as follows (data shown: Lab VI, Lab deficit vs Con):
We now have a combination of the following: Labour's VI pitching up and down, the Tory lead pitching up and down, Labour catching the Tories and the Tories' support dropping at the same time, Labour catching the Tories but the Tories' share holding firm, and neither party moving at all. It depends whose figures you're looking at: I compared the campaign polls for YouGov and ICM - the two houses with the most frequent and regular surveys - throughout the last couple of months, and found that YouGov's numbers for both parties were wobbling all over the place, whereas ICM's were barely moving at all. As to what the true picture really is, your guess is as good as mine.
Thousands of words were written about the 2015 Election Campaign, how much better Labour's was, and how much more Cameron needed to get stuck in. We then saw the same in the referendum, but in both cases opinions span on a six pence the next morning.
Amazing the way a couple of polls can shift the PB mood music. There is no evidence at all, zero, zilch that May is losing a single supporter from her high 40s position. The manifesto is, imo, unlikely to alter that and might increase it vis a vis 'Brexit and confidence innit'. Mori flatters to deceive, bring me fresh ICM
Just look across the pond, or the Channel. Populist politics doesn't require the numbers to add up. Nobody believes the numbers any more. Populist politics (whether right wing Brexiteers or left wing rabble rousers) is about emotion not rationality.
May is undoubtably a cold fish, so cannot compete on Populism.
It wasn't that many years ago that Labour were demanding the OBR be able to cost manifestos.
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.
My grandmother's house was worth £80k and a third of that was used up in care home bills during the relatively short time she was there.
Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!
The older voters are not going to like this.
As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.
Terrible policy.
Will end in tears mark my words.
To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.
So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
Spot on.
The age of massive, state subsidised inheritances from the baby boomer generation is over before it really got going.
Good.
But the overwhelming majority of boomers will leave a massive fortune to their prosperous middle-aged "children". A random sample of them will be reduced to beggary though care costs. There seems to be a mistaken idea afoot today that expensive end-of-life care is inevitable. It is not, and most people do not expect to need it.
I have one statistic to hand. Three living parents in their 80s. One requires care.
But, with respect, we cannot therefore assume that one-third of people in their 80s will require care. I have no idea what the correct statistic is, or will be in future. All I know is that a lot of 80-year-olds drive to my local supermarket, in seeming good health. Dementia is a random affliction and the cost should be borne by the whole of society and not by the patient's unfortunate family.
Worth noting that this isn't new. My grandmother was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 1993 and Woking Borough Council told my dad to sell her house and give them the money to put her in a home. My mum had been a nurse and hadn't returned to full time work after having kids so they told the council to do one. But I do wonder if they didn't know their rights, should the council have been able to say that to them?
Does anyone have any idea how many people are impacted by this change?
I read some recent YG research which said the vast majority of elderly folk live independently (82%) according to their respondents and the majority of the remainder live either in sheltered accomodation or with family.
Amazing the way a couple of polls can shift the PB mood music. There is no evidence at all, zero, zilch that May is losing a single supporter from her high 40s position. The manifesto is, imo, unlikely to alter that and might increase it vis a vis 'Brexit and confidence innit'. Mori flatters to deceive, bring me fresh ICM
Well we need a few polls after the launch to check on that, although all of the things were heavily trailed.
One side point about the £100,000 - most families have more than 1 child.
If you are one of four, you are down to £25,000.
I don't think the Tories have thought this through, in terms of presentation. Yes it has a kind of logic, but even the most inept Opposition could make it look horrendous - a dementia tax, the state seizing mummy's home just because she's gaga. The upsides are hard to grasp, because they're complex; the downsides are obvious, therefore much more dangerous.
It is potentially a game-changer. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Where was Crosby when they dreamed this up?
I reckon the Tories got cocky and complacent, looking at the polls, and thought Let's propose something bold, rather than the usual, Let's propose a Commission and THEN do something bold when we're safely in power.
Trouble is, the bold thing they've proposed looks bad, and smells bad, even if it might be quite sensible in the long run. Idiotic.
They will surely still win, but this could potentially lose them 2-4 points in the polls, maybe more.
Some good posts by Sean tonight. Credit where it is due.
On Winter Fuel, they haven't said where means test will fall.
Thus nobody knows whether they'll be affected or not.
Result: Less impact on voters as less clear-cut - nobody has been told they are losing it for sure.
Flawed analysis i think. Everyone will fear they MAY lose out
Yes. The Tories have managed to inject huge amounts of doubt and anxiety - and needlessly. Lots of people who WON'T be affected will, nonetheless, freak out that they MIGHT be affected.
Clueless imbeciles. A massive unforced error.
It now gives Labour an open door to talk about their pooled risk policy, which now looks like the easier path given the draconian nature of the Tory measure.
On Winter Fuel, they haven't said where means test will fall.
Thus nobody knows whether they'll be affected or not.
Result: Less impact on voters as less clear-cut - nobody has been told they are losing it for sure.
Flawed analysis i think. Everyone will fear they MAY lose out
Yes. The Tories have managed to inject huge amounts of doubt and anxiety - and needlessly. Lots of people who WON'T be affected will, nonetheless, freak out that they MIGHT be affected.
Clueless imbeciles. A massive unforced error.
It now gives Labour an open door to talk about their pooled risk policy, which now looks like the easier path given the draconian nature of the Tory measure.
Don't worry, the Tories will nick that one in 2022.
Pensioners think the dementia tax is absolute mince but sticking with May.
Phew.
Everyone should pay a Dementia Tax because everyone is equally likely to suffer from it. £5 a week throughout a 40-year working life would raise £10,400 per person plus investment growth. If you had a 5% risk of needing institutional care it would produce a fund of £208,000 plus growth. This would cover most people's needs, given their life expectancy at that age.
The problem with Mrs May's Dementia Tax is that the demented have to pay it while everyone else breathes a sigh of relief.
It now gives Labour an open door to talk about their pooled risk policy, which now looks like the easier path given the draconian nature of the Tory measure.
What 'pooled risk policy'? Or are you suggesting that they should rush out a new manifesto in response to the Conservatives' one?
Amazing the way a couple of polls can shift the PB mood music. There is no evidence at all, zero, zilch that May is losing a single supporter from her high 40s position. The manifesto is, imo, unlikely to alter that and might increase it vis a vis 'Brexit and confidence innit'. Mori flatters to deceive, bring me fresh ICM
Whenever the usual suspects are ridiculously over reacting to every poll I get the image in my minds eye of the contestants in the old tv show 'runaround' jumping from one view to another
I am doubtful that many of the latest converts to the Conservative cause are going to be put off by anything with a £100,000 longstop. Conservative support might well decline a bit south of the Severn and the Wash, but they have quite a cushion there. North of that line the impact should be more muted, I'd have thought.
Given that the average house price in Leeds and Manchester is about 150k I'm not sure that stands up.
It can only be a matter of a few days before postal voting papers start plopping through our letterboxes. Will we once again be treated on PB.com to a matching purpled nailed hand, returning them via a Bedford pillar box?
What's the situation for social/home care (payment) in Scotland like ?
On the police spitting, how utterly disgusting. I'm fully in favour of those hoods - the police need as much protection as we can afford them in my opinion.
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.
I'll probably put mine in trust as it's worth £450 k - funny money, I didn't spend more than £150k to build it - with some to go to distant relatives and some to other beneficiaries or charity.
Not because I'm rich. More because I think this and previous Labour policy is a f*****g shambles.
The most sensible process would be to fund old age care out of general taxation and benefit from the collective security and risk-spreading that the NHS provides. Will you get dementia at 68 and toddle on until you're 91, or will you stay fit and die of a sudden stroke at 101? You have little idea.
The state needs to provide the basics, just as it needs to provide an adequate pension. If you get demented and want luxury old-age accommodation, you're free to pay for it. Or if you have rich friends, go and live in the Ritz like Thatcher did.
You would still have a beneficial interest so the trust would be disregarded as a device for tax avoidance. At present there is the two year disposal rule and that would presumably continue. The issue would be when the house is also the home of another - I have experience of the potential consequences of that.
Pensioners think the dementia tax is absolute mince but sticking with May.
Phew.
£5 a week throughout a 40-year working life would raise £10,400 per person plus investment growth. If you had a 5% risk of needing institutional care it would produce a fund of £208,000 plus growth.
"The great secret about the National Insurance Fund is that there ain't no fund." - ~Nye Bevan
Pensioners think the dementia tax is absolute mince but sticking with May.
Phew.
Everyone should pay a Dementia Tax because everyone is equally likely to suffer from it. £5 a week throughout a 40-year working life would raise £10,400 per person plus investment growth. If you had a 5% risk of needing institutional care it would produce a fund of £208,000 plus growth. This would cover most people's needs, given their life expectancy at that age.
The problem with Mrs May's Dementia Tax is that the demented have to pay it while everyone else breathes a sigh of relief.
It's a lottery. I think your idea is a good one...
I am doubtful that many of the latest converts to the Conservative cause are going to be put off by anything with a £100,000 longstop. Conservative support might well decline a bit south of the Severn and the Wash, but they have quite a cushion there. North of that line the impact should be more muted, I'd have thought.
Given that the average house price in Leeds and Manchester is about 150k I'm not sure that stands up.
On Winter Fuel, they haven't said where means test will fall.
Thus nobody knows whether they'll be affected or not.
Result: Less impact on voters as less clear-cut - nobody has been told they are losing it for sure.
Flawed analysis i think. Everyone will fear they MAY lose out
Yes. The Tories have managed to inject huge amounts of doubt and anxiety - and needlessly. Lots of people who WON'T be affected will, nonetheless, freak out that they MIGHT be affected.
Clueless imbeciles. A massive unforced error.
It now gives Labour an open door to talk about their pooled risk policy, which now looks like the easier path given the draconian nature of the Tory measure.
Which pooled risk policy? There's a big blank space in their manifesto on the subject of social care.
Pensioners think the dementia tax is absolute mince but sticking with May.
Phew.
£5 a week throughout a 40-year working life would raise £10,400 per person plus investment growth. If you had a 5% risk of needing institutional care it would produce a fund of £208,000 plus growth.
"The great secret about the National Insurance Fund is that there ain't no fund." - ~Nye Bevan
Like the News of the World you name the guilty party.
I wonder if insurance companies will offer policies on this? It could be a new market for them to look at.
Whilst most people don't get dementia, a lot of people become incapacitated in old age and require care at home. My dad says that they will now have to pay for this - is this correct? If so, I don't think people should be calling this a dementia tax.
Insurance companies don't find enough interest from the public in buying such policies.
It's hard enough getting people to invest in pensions, with all the associations of being old and grey and creaky that conjures up. Getting people to think about long term health care, with the associations of dementia and incontinence, is several steps harder.
I can see the blocks on the demand side. But still, it looks like a market failure to me.
On Winter Fuel, they haven't said where means test will fall.
Thus nobody knows whether they'll be affected or not.
Result: Less impact on voters as less clear-cut - nobody has been told they are losing it for sure.
Flawed analysis i think. Everyone will fear they MAY lose out
Yes. The Tories have managed to inject huge amounts of doubt and anxiety - and needlessly. Lots of people who WON'T be affected will, nonetheless, freak out that they MIGHT be affected.
Clueless imbeciles. A massive unforced error.
It now gives Labour an open door to talk about their pooled risk policy, which now looks like the easier path given the draconian nature of the Tory measure.
Which pooled risk policy? There's a big blank space in their manifesto on the subject of social care.
What's the situation for social care in Scotland like ?
Roughly, free personal home care up to 5 visits a day. Your assets over c.£26k will all be used to pay for a care home, assets of between £16k-£26k you would need to make a contribution.
What's the situation for social care in Scotland like ?
Roughly, free personal home care up to 5 visits a day. Your assets over c.£26k will all be used to pay for a care home, assets of between £16k-£26k you would need to make a contribution.
Assets excluding your home? Much like the situation as it stands in England, with a slightly higher allowance.
Comments
I think the price might drop, then I'll perhaps back the seat band above or below depending how I feel.
If there's one person Mrs May should extend a hand to, it's Mr Gove. I'd either put him back at Justice, or at DEFRA, both departments massively affected by Brexit that need a serious brain heading them up.
Its better surely to announce plans today and implement them afterwards with a mandate than to announce nothing today and then surprise with this in the autumn budget?
They like clear simple facts to report - this isn't one.
' Theresa May has chosen Halifax to launch the Tory manifesto – the latest in a string of visits to the north-east '
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/may/18/general-election-2017-theresa-may-conservative-manifesto-social-care-politics-live?page=with:block-591d6d19e4b03ddbc8d5a9b7#liveblog-navigation
I dare say its all 'somewhere up north' to her.
Remember her current Joint Chief of Staff was sacked/forced to resign for leaking/smearing Gove when Mrs May and Gove clashed a few years ago.
The most I could see is MAYBE a tiny uptick in UKIP support because of a few grumpy pensioners leaving the Cons.
Clear support for means testing.
r4 also saying there was a brief moment when it looked as if Jez would do the itv debate tonight, then re-wavered. I think he should have gone for it what with the wave he is riding atm.
LD and UKIP have fallen to such a degree that they surely can't have much further to fall - which means if Lab is to climb further it is going to have to come from Con.
But is anyone switching drirectly from Con to Lab - NickP has suggested not.
Edit: old stats, apparently it's over 5000 now, gone up a lot lately because of mobile phone zombies.
The age of massive, state subsidised inheritances from the baby boomer generation is over before it really got going.
Good.
Any policy which brings into question the madness of basing the economy on ever increasing house prices is good.
Certainly if Labour does manage to finish on 35% (or better, for all I know) then, even if I did once have some understanding of this country, I'm not sure that I shall do anymore. The numbers are becoming incomprehensible.
Voters value leadership, economic competence and united parties. The Conservatives have all, Labour none of these traits. Yet the gap between the two is, according not to all but a great many of the polls at least, closing? It's incomprehensible.
Perhaps the British mindset has simply changed and promises of "free pony, now, and City stockbrokers are going to pay for it" are enough to win elections - or at least get bloody close to doing it? If so then we're all fucked.
Time to close down the party, and join Labour. Ain't nobody defecting to a new party if Corbyn does even close to that well.
Either Michael Gove or George Osborne will become editor of The Times or The Sunday Times.
I'm still no longer so certain that "Down with the Dementia Tax, up with Free Ponies for All!" won't fly, though.
https://www.hometrack.com/uk/insight/uk-cities-house-price-index/
If only Labour had a decent leader, then it ceretainly would be game on.
Whilst most people don't get dementia, a lot of people become incapacitated in old age and require care at home. My dad says that they will now have to pay for this - is this correct? If so, I don't think people should be calling this a dementia tax.
The Conservative campaign so far has been robotic at best and full of staged photoshoots and boring talk of stability while still managing several unforced errors - today's 'dementia tax' and last week's fox hunting looking that way now, looking like the old 'nasty party' again.
Corbyn meanwhile may be personally unpopular but things like nationalising the railways and so on are not. And it's those things that have been dominating the news.
Theresa May has so far failed to make a positive case for why she should lead the nation. 'I'm not Corbyn (but I don't mind nicking Ed Miliband's policies)' isn't good enough.
I think this is an election where people want to vote for something, not against someone. Other than not being Corbyn, what does May have to offer?
It's hard enough getting people to invest in pensions, with all the associations of being old and grey and creaky that conjures up. Getting people to think about long term health care, with the associations of dementia and incontinence, is several steps harder.
But, with respect, we cannot therefore assume that one-third of people in their 80s will require care. I have no idea what the correct statistic is, or will be in future. All I know is that a lot of 80-year-olds drive to my local supermarket, in seeming good health. Dementia is a random affliction and the cost should be borne by the whole of society and not by the patient's unfortunate family.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i1nh3pnyqY
Phew.
Perhaps the biggest effect of the policy will be a change in the sorts of homes that the elderly buy when they go into retirement (which may not be a bad thing).
May is undoubtably a cold fish, so cannot compete on Populism.
32%, -14
32%, -15
30%, -18
31%, -18
30%, -18
28%, -20
28%, -20
33%, -14
29%, -18
32%, -13
34%, -15
We now have a combination of the following: Labour's VI pitching up and down, the Tory lead pitching up and down, Labour catching the Tories and the Tories' support dropping at the same time, Labour catching the Tories but the Tories' share holding firm, and neither party moving at all. It depends whose figures you're looking at: I compared the campaign polls for YouGov and ICM - the two houses with the most frequent and regular surveys - throughout the last couple of months, and found that YouGov's numbers for both parties were wobbling all over the place, whereas ICM's were barely moving at all. As to what the true picture really is, your guess is as good as mine.
We shall have to wait and see.
Mori flatters to deceive, bring me fresh ICM
I read some recent YG research which said the vast majority of elderly folk live independently (82%) according to their respondents and the majority of the remainder live either in sheltered accomodation or with family.
How many people are we talking about?
https://twitter.com/HackedOffHugh/status/865255714754895872
The problem with Mrs May's Dementia Tax is that the demented have to pay it while everyone else breathes a sigh of relief.
G--ger-ger-G-ger-ger GO!
https://youtu.be/8YUgVZ-5ymg
Will we once again be treated on PB.com to a matching purpled nailed hand, returning them via a Bedford pillar box?
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/865258189033537538
Even Sean has begun to write sensible posts !
Let's see what the next 3 weeks bring .
On the police spitting, how utterly disgusting. I'm fully in favour of those hoods - the police need as much protection as we can afford them in my opinion.
He is an ourobouros of stool.
May hasn't even made any secret of her meetings with Murdoch, unlike some previous Tories, I think. It's the Maybot's world.