Are they still planning on giving me my right to vote back or have they dropped that one now that Britain is officially against all kinds of foreign things?
The manifesto has a commitment that overseas electors get votes for life.
Thanks. (I should really read the manifesto myself, I know...)
Despite my misgivings about May's ability to deliver what she is promising, I welcome unreservedly her advocacy of the positive state. She is moving the debate into the kind of territory that all those on the moderate left should welcome. Now that there is a general acceptance that intervention is not only possible, but is actually desirable, the debate can move onto how. Proposals that might once have been howled down as extreme can now be properly discussed. That is great news for people with political views like mine. What remains to be seen is whether May's embrace of the state will survive its first brush with negative headlines from the right wing press.
I think you're conflicted between lauding some of May's moves, and attacking them on the partisan basis that runs very thick through your veins.
At least you do it eloquently and politely, though, which is a lot more than can be said for many of your co-travellers on the Left.
Mrs May seems to have accepted that people like me are essentially right in how we see regard the role of the state. Why would I not welcome that? But why would I not question her ability to deliver, given she is proposing to fundamentally re-engineer Conservatism away from the consensus that has prevailed in the party for 40 odd years?
May is clearly making a pitch for centre left votes at this election. it's just tactics. We've have twenty years record to judge her on. She does like the authoritarian state. But is no centrist. And certainly no social democrat, however Crosby might choose to paint her this week.
At the end of the day Nanny knows best! And, for the moment at least, I’m Nanny!
Despite my misgivings about May's ability to deliver what she is promising, I welcome unreservedly her advocacy of the positive state. She is moving the debate into the kind of territory that all those on the moderate left should welcome. Now that there is a general acceptance that intervention is not only possible, but is actually desirable, the debate can move onto how. Proposals that might once have been howled down as extreme can now be properly discussed. That is great news for people with political views like mine. What remains to be seen is whether May's embrace of the state will survive its first brush with negative headlines from the right wing press.
I think you're conflicted between lauding some of May's moves, and attacking them on the partisan basis that runs very thick through your veins.
At least you do it eloquently and politely, though, which is a lot more than can be said for many of your co-travellers on the Left.
Mrs May seems to have accepted that people like me are essentially right in how we see regard the role of the state. Why would I not welcome that? But why would I not question her ability to deliver, given she is proposing to fundamentally re-engineer Conservatism away from the consensus that has prevailed in the party for 40 odd years?
Yes, you want to have it both ways: commend and attack.
FWIW I think the gap here is largely one of rhetoric. May isn't a socialist.
Neither am I.
I am not attacking her, I am doubting her ability to deliver. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. Her approach to Brexit does not seem to be compatible with her promise to improve living standards and eliminate the deficit by 2025. There is also the matter of her re-engineering Conservatism without any debate inside the party having taken place. Once the election has been won, will MPs and the right wing press give her the free hand to intervene and redistribute? We shall see.
Having had time to consume the Conservative manifesto (slow day in the Jacobite rebellion) I must say it's a masterpiece of banal soundbites, political chicanery and motherhood and apple pie and all without any detailed costings.
Fortunately for the Tories enough of the nation seems willing to swallow it whole in the hope that the strong and stable Mrs May will make a decent fist of not putting them personally in the workhouse.
Conservative landslide looms ....
And then delivery will have to begin. That's when it will get interesting.
Indeed. The early election gives her five years and not three.
Having had time to consume the Conservative manifesto (slow day in the Jacobite rebellion) I must say it's a masterpiece of banal soundbites, political chicanery and motherhood and apple pie and all without any detailed costings.
Fortunately for the Tories enough of the nation seems willing to swallow it whole in the hope that the strong and stable Mrs May will make a decent fist of not putting them personally in the workhouse.
Conservative landslide looms ....
From a presentational point of view I particularly liked the fact that the supposedly opposing parties are completely ignored. Labour was full of rants about the Tories. If Labour policies are mentioned in the Tory version I must have missed it.
Why focus on the enemy in a glut of praise and promise to ones self.
Are they still planning on giving me my right to vote back or have they dropped that one now that Britain is officially against all kinds of foreign things?
Britain is now officially in favour of all kinds of foreign things.
Everywhere now - rather than just limited to the horribly white EU.
The moment she entered, the Cabinet shot to their feet, as though just electrocuted in the privates. They burst into frantic applause. Look, miss, I’m clapping as hard as I possibly can. Please don’t sack me! It may not be enough to save Liz Truss and Sajid Javid.
The bit of the manifesto I'm most cynical about is building 1.5 million homes in the next 5 years.
That simply isn't going to happen.
Had there ever been a time when that many houses were built in such a short period? Can't think of one. Macmillan achieved 300,000 houses a year in the early 1950s but didn't keep that up for five years.
Are they still planning on giving me my right to vote back or have they dropped that one now that Britain is officially against all kinds of foreign things?
The manifesto has a commitment that overseas electors get votes for life.
If they have legged it they should lose right to vote pretty damn quick. What the F*** do they have to add to who runs the country when the toerags don't live there. Pathetic.
Possible, but I wouldn't bet too much on it. He's losing the unions.
If he wins more votes than Ed Miliband on their dream manifesto?
No chance. UKIP will be blamed for his defeat, not him.
We'll see. It's possible, but I'd say odds against.
He and his support base will feel vindicated. And it's the membership that votes.
The only way he goes quietly is if he suffers a crushing defeat.
There are no circumstances under which he goes quietly. He has to be defeated. If he loses the unions, or most of them, that becomes much more likely. The stated Unite threshold is 200 seats; the stated Unison and GMB one is victory.
The bit of the manifesto I'm most cynical about is building 1.5 million homes in the next 5 years.
That simply isn't going to happen.
It needs much more coverage - I think it is very, err, ambitious ma'am - but should be shouted front and centre. It needs to happen for the good of the country and the party.
Having had time to consume the Conservative manifesto (slow day in the Jacobite rebellion) I must say it's a masterpiece of banal soundbites, political chicanery and motherhood and apple pie and all without any detailed costings.
Fortunately for the Tories enough of the nation seems willing to swallow it whole in the hope that the strong and stable Mrs May will make a decent fist of not putting them personally in the workhouse.
Conservative landslide looms ....
From a presentational point of view I particularly liked the fact that the supposedly opposing parties are completely ignored. Labour was full of rants about the Tories. If Labour policies are mentioned in the Tory version I must have missed it.
It's more Ed Miliband than Jeremy Corbyn.
It is a step towards the middle taken at the same time as Labour takes several steps to the left. The gap between them has grown as a result.
Yep - May is clearly relying on Corbyn staying in place.
An urban metropolitan liberal professional was highly likely to vote Remain
It is sad that so many of those who do well in life forget their duty to protect the less fortunate
Don't worry, Charles, Brexit will work out fine for you. It's those further down the ladder who are likely to end up being shafted.
They were already being shafted.
Effectively unlimited immigration benefits the aggregate economy (although much less so on a per capita basis) but the benefits accrue largely to the well off and the costs are borne by the semi-skilled and skilled working classes.
That's not just.
It's not true either. There's a case to make that there's a small downside to the unskilled, but even that seems dubious over the medium to long term. The people who see a measurable downside from new immigration are earlier immigrants.
Just to add, what the government is doing on immigration is very specifically punishing British workers on low wages. Rich people are still allowed to marry whoever they like and live in the UK with them. If people on low wages fall in love with someone foreign, they will have to either leave Britain or live apart from them.
Are they still planning on giving me my right to vote back or have they dropped that one now that Britain is officially against all kinds of foreign things?
Page 42: We will legislate for votes for life for British overseas electors.
Originally introduced by the Tories ultimately for 20 years, cut by Blair to 15 years.
No Labour commitment - so Labour voting expats will have to vote for a Tory government first....
He's probably still bitter about being sacked, along with Michael Gove.
I try not to laugh when I think of those two being defenestrated. Almost as funny as the idea of Corbyn coming last in the next Labour leadership election.
Are they still planning on giving me my right to vote back or have they dropped that one now that Britain is officially against all kinds of foreign things?
Britain is now officially in favour of all kinds of foreign things.
Everywhere now - rather than just limited to the horribly white EU.
If that was really true you'd think they could find more than 5 immigration officers to handle a pre-scheduled queue of several thousand non-EU people when they arrive at Terminal 3.
I know "bold, open trading nation" was part of the message in the referendum, but in practice there's no getting around the actual implementation, which is "local shops for local people". TBF, this is what the voters want.
Did anyone watch it? I chose to enjoy Tottenham's silky smooth 6-1 demolition of Leicester City instead. I suspect I made the right choice.
I watched some of it , one thing was apparent , the Tories were too scared to attend as they could not gerrymander the questions and answers, Corbyn as well as he is stupid. At least these parties were willing to debate their positions.
An urban metropolitan liberal professional was highly likely to vote Remain
It is sad that so many of those who do well in life forget their duty to protect the less fortunate
That duty is interpreted differently by different people. Some extremely well-heeled voters opted for Leave in pursuit of an unregulated hard right fantasy. Sadly, we shall all need to live with the consequences of that economic and cultural vandalism for decades to come.
And some didn't. For me it was about standing up for people who have been ignored by the London-centric individuals who have dominated politics for the last 20 years
I could make comments about your wholly self-deceiving altruism, given that the Leave campaign was won by frightening people with xenophobic lies. But instead I invite you to consider that Remain voters strongly believed that Remain would have been in the best interests of the country as a whole and that your initial cheap shot was both irrelevant to the thread and unworthy of you.
Leave has so far completely failed to persuade erstwhile Remain voters that they were wrong. The lack of curiosity among Leavers as to why they have been so unpersuasive in the intervening months is very noticeable.
It wasn't a cheap shot (my objection was more to the second half of the statement). I'm sure they believed what they did deeply - but they mistook their own narrow (not meant perjoratively) life experience for the national interest. What works at the statistical level may well not work got the majority of individuals - it comes down to the difference in GDP growth and GDP per capita growth.
With the majority of the media dominated by a similar world view, and the approach of some high profile irredentists validating rejectionist behaviour how should Brexiteers have got their message across?
It's been said before, but if the erstwhile Remainers had campaigned for soft Brexit rather than resisting the result of the vote they may well have got it.
The bit of the manifesto I'm most cynical about is building 1.5 million homes in the next 5 years.
That simply isn't going to happen.
I wonder whether the Conservative manifesto will outsell SeanT in the fiction list or north of the border in the music section - SCON klaxon overtures.
All other party manifestos in the science fiction remainder pile ....
The bit of the manifesto I'm most cynical about is building 1.5 million homes in the next 5 years.
That simply isn't going to happen.
It needs much more coverage - I think it is very, err, ambitious ma'am - but should be shouted front and centre. It needs to happen for the good of the country and the party.
Homeowners vote Tory....
Just more vapourware for dribbling Tory adherents. Anyone that believes these creeps will build social housing should be in an institution.
An urban metropolitan liberal professional was highly likely to vote Remain
It is sad that so many of those who do well in life forget their duty to protect the less fortunate
That duty is interpreted differently by different people. Some extremely well-heeled voters opted for Leave in pursuit of an unregulated hard right fantasy. Sadly, we shall all need to live with the consequences of that economic and cultural vandalism for decades to come.
And some didn't. For me it was about standing up for people who have been ignored by the London-centric individuals who have dominated politics for the last 20 years
I could make comments about your wholly self-deceiving altruism, given that the Leave campaign was won by frightening people with xenophobic lies. But instead I invite you to consider that Remain voters strongly believed that Remain would have been in the best interests of the country as a whole and that your initial cheap shot was both irrelevant to the thread and unworthy of you.
Leave has so far completely failed to persuade erstwhile Remain voters that they were wrong. The lack of curiosity among Leavers as to why they have been so unpersuasive in the intervening months is very noticeable.
It wasn't a cheap shot (my objection was more to the second half of the statement). I'm sure they believed what they did deeply - but they mistook their own narrow (not meant perjoratively) life experience for the national interest. What works at the statistical level may well not work got the majority of individuals - it comes down to the difference in GDP growth and GDP per capita growth.
With the majority of the media dominated by a similar world view, and the approach of some high profile irredentists validating rejectionist behaviour how should Brexiteers have got their message across?
It's been said before, but if the erstwhile Remainers had campaigned for soft Brexit rather than resisting the result of the vote they may well have got it.
Of course, Brexiteers will blame Remainers for everything!!
An urban metropolitan liberal professional was highly likely to vote Remain
It is sad that so many of those who do well in life forget their duty to protect the less fortunate
Don't worry, Charles, Brexit will work out fine for you. It's those further down the ladder who are likely to end up being shafted.
They were already being shafted.
Effectively unlimited immigration benefits the aggregate economy (although much less so on a per capita basis) but the benefits accrue largely to the well off and the costs are borne by the semi-skilled and skilled working classes.
That's not just.
It's not true either. There's a case to make that there's a small downside to the unskilled, but even that seems dubious over the medium to long term. The people who see a measurable downside from new immigration are earlier immigrants.
And if we have accepted those immigrants then they should be viewed in the same way as any other member of society. Once a commitment is made it is made. Fidelis in Ardua.
An urban metropolitan liberal professional was highly likely to vote Remain
It is sad that so many of those who do well in life forget their duty to protect the less fortunate
Don't worry, Charles, Brexit will work out fine for you. It's those further down the ladder who are likely to end up being shafted.
They were already being shafted.
Effectively unlimited immigration benefits the aggregate economy (although much less so on a per capita basis) but the benefits accrue largely to the well off and the costs are borne by the semi-skilled and skilled working classes.
That's not just.
It's not true either. There's a case to make that there's a small downside to the unskilled, but even that seems dubious over the medium to long term. The people who see a measurable downside from new immigration are earlier immigrants.
And if we have accepted those immigrants then they should be viewed in the same way as any other member of society. Once a commitment is made it is made. Fidelis in Ardua.
Except to EU immigrants, of course. We won't guarantee to honour their rights.
The bit of the manifesto I'm most cynical about is building 1.5 million homes in the next 5 years.
That simply isn't going to happen.
Rumour has it she'll give it to Boris.......
The truth is more likely to be that they will do some combination of loosening the restrictions on local authority house building and further changes to the planning system, then blame local authorities for failing to deliver the target number of new houses.
Whatever happened to Cameron's idea of forcing Housing Associations to sell off their stock? There was an outcry at the time, and some legal issues (forcing a non-government organisation to sell was always *bold*); did it die a quiet death?
An urban metropolitan liberal professional was highly likely to vote Remain
It is sad that so many of those who do well in life forget their duty to protect the less fortunate
Don't worry, Charles, Brexit will work out fine for you. It's those further down the ladder who are likely to end up being shafted.
They were already being shafted.
Effectively unlimited immigration benefits the aggregate economy (although much less so on a per capita basis) but the benefits accrue largely to the well off and the costs are borne by the semi-skilled and skilled working classes.
That's not just.
It's not true either. There's a case to make that there's a small downside to the unskilled, but even that seems dubious over the medium to long term. The people who see a measurable downside from new immigration are earlier immigrants.
And if we have accepted those immigrants then they should be viewed in the same way as any other member of society. Once a commitment is made it is made. Fidelis in Ardua.
Except to EU immigrants, of course. We won't guarantee to honour their rights.
What rights? I don't think anyone is objecting to giving them the same rights as other British Citizens the issue is the EUs request that they have different rights to British Citizens.
Still, the debate itself had passed off as watchably as you might expect given it starred the leaders of parties polling collectively at 14%. There they were behind their five desks: the also-ran Breakfast Club.
An urban metropolitan liberal professional was highly likely to vote Remain
It is sad that so many of those who do well in life forget their duty to protect the less fortunate
Don't worry, Charles, Brexit will work out fine for you. It's those further down the ladder who are likely to end up being shafted.
They were already being shafted.
Effectively unlimited immigration benefits the aggregate economy (although much less so on a per capita basis) but the benefits accrue largely to the well off and the costs are borne by the semi-skilled and skilled working classes.
That's not just.
It's not true either. There's a case to make that there's a small downside to the unskilled, but even that seems dubious over the medium to long term. The people who see a measurable downside from new immigration are earlier immigrants.
And if we have accepted those immigrants then they should be viewed in the same way as any other member of society. Once a commitment is made it is made. Fidelis in Ardua.
Fair enough, but I think it's relevant to this discussion that the people who, according to your story, are being unjustly treated: 1) Have already benefited themselves from the ability to do the thing you're talking about denying to other people. 2) Wouldn't generally agree with you that they're being unjustly treated by letting more people like them in.
It's been said before, but if the erstwhile Remainers had campaigned for soft Brexit rather than resisting the result of the vote they may well have got it.
And soft Brexit (in the single market) would change precisely nothing in the economic circumstances of the less fortunate whose interests you affect to be championing.
My God, Theresa May is a dullard. What new hell will the queen of the curtain-twitchers visit upon us today to advance the march of her provincial meddling upon the nation?
Labour holding Hove is a good bet, in fact I think May could actually make a small net loss relative to Cameron in the South East and South West, losing Lewes, Oxford West and Abingdon, Bath and Cheltenham to the LDs and picking up Bristol East and Southampton Test from Labour and only very small net gains in London, picking up a few Labour suburban seats they won in 2015 but losing seats in South West London to the LDs. However in the Midlands, the North and Wales I expect May will make big gains from Labour in seats Cameron did not take and she will also do better than Cameron in Scotland winning up to 10 seats from the SNP
The key is affluent Remainers are less likely to vote for May than Cameron but working class and lower middle class Leavers are more likely to vote for May than Cameron while in Scotland the Tories will win close to a third of the vote on an anti indyref2 ticket
My God, Theresa May is a dullard. What new hell will the queen of the curtain-twitchers visit upon us today to advance the march of her provincial meddling upon the nation?
You forgot to mention 'mile wide, inch deep' again.
Still, the debate itself had passed off as watchably as you might expect given it starred the leaders of parties polling collectively at 14%. There they were behind their five desks: the also-ran Breakfast Club.
Mr. Observer, it's a bit odd. Like the NI increase.
There's an obvious line against it. Get cancer, your treatment's paid for by the state, get Alzheimer's, you have to pay for the care (albeit deferred).
There is a serious problem with care funding, but this doesn't seem wise and gives a very easy stick to beat the Conservatives with to their opponents.
There's a weird sort of financial blind spot, it seems. Complacency? Hubris? Might Hammond/May be a bit rubbish?
An urban metropolitan liberal professional was highly likely to vote Remain
It is sad that so many of those who do well in life forget their duty to protect the less fortunate
Don't worry, Charles, Brexit will work out fine for you. It's those further down the ladder who are likely to end up being shafted.
They were already being shafted.
Effectively unlimited immigration benefits the aggregate economy (although much less so on a per capita basis) but the benefits accrue largely to the well off and the costs are borne by the semi-skilled and skilled working classes.
That's not just.
It's not true either. There's a case to make that there's a small downside to the unskilled, but even that seems dubious over the medium to long term. The people who see a measurable downside from new immigration are earlier immigrants.
And if we have accepted those immigrants then they should be viewed in the same way as any other member of society. Once a commitment is made it is made. Fidelis in Ardua.
Except to EU immigrants, of course. We won't guarantee to honour their rights.
What rights? I don't think anyone is objecting to giving them the same rights as other British Citizens the issue is the EUs request that they have different rights to British Citizens.
The EU would be perfectly happy for us to extend equal treatment to British citizens. It's the UK government that is set on taking those rights away.
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
Under the existing scheme, she could lose £299,999!
I make it 49/8/1/1 seats on Baxter with those Scottish figures. Moray still going blue; LD and Lab keep what they have.
Ian Murray hangs on by about 600 votes over the Tories, becomes a tight 3-way marginal (34/33/28%).
I would have agreed that Ian Murray was a dead cert to hang onto his seat forty eight hours ago, but that was before Kezia Dugdale suspended those Labour Aberdeen City councillors who have formed a coalition with a resurgent Conservative grouping. Be in no doubt that the political optics of her decision to punish them in this way while allowing Labour councillors to form a coalition with the SNP in Fife looks terrible up here when her candidates in seats like Murray's are relying heavily on tactical voting from Scottish Conservative voters.
Yes that seems an odd one. No reason SLAB shouldn't be able to form either an SNP or Tory coalition depending on local circumstance. Only an idiot rules those out particularly at a local level.
Kezia Dugdale is a fool. No Scottish council can operate without coalitions.
Apparently it is because of the specific deal that was penned, and because the national party needs to sign off on any local deal, which is just silly when a PR system requires deals, probably with those you don't like.
Still, the debate itself had passed off as watchably as you might expect given it starred the leaders of parties polling collectively at 14%. There they were behind their five desks: the also-ran Breakfast Club.
Having had time to consume the Conservative manifesto (slow day in the Jacobite rebellion) I must say it's a masterpiece of banal soundbites, political chicanery and motherhood and apple pie and all without any detailed costings.
Fortunately for the Tories enough of the nation seems willing to swallow it whole in the hope that the strong and stable Mrs May will make a decent fist of not putting them personally in the workhouse.
Conservative landslide looms ....
One non-banal soundbite that caught my eye... "We will repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act."
I put that under political chicanery. The Prime Minister should not have the ability to call an election for party advantage. Sounds familiar ....
Now it's been shown to be a paper tiger, I don't frankly think it's worth keeping in its current form. The only way such an act would be foolproof is if a majority of all parties in either the Commons or Parliament voted for it, which would almost never happen. So it may as well be got rid of.
It still requires parliament to formally trigger rather than a single person, which is an improvement.
Still, the debate itself had passed off as watchably as you might expect given it starred the leaders of parties polling collectively at 14%. There they were behind their five desks: the also-ran Breakfast Club.
My God, Theresa May is a dullard. What new hell will the queen of the curtain-twitchers visit upon us today to advance the march of her provincial meddling upon the nation?
You forgot to mention 'mile wide, inch deep' again.
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
There are worse fates than inheriting £100,000. I hope to leave something to my heirs, but I've no qualms about using my assets to provide for myself in old age.
The bit of the manifesto I'm most cynical about is building 1.5 million homes in the next 5 years.
That simply isn't going to happen.
It needs much more coverage - I think it is very, err, ambitious ma'am - but should be shouted front and centre. It needs to happen for the good of the country and the party.
Homeowners vote Tory....
And that is how you would square the Brexit circle with reducing agricultural incomes. Will I be allowed to build houses on my farm ? CPRE wouldn't like it. They believe proles should be put in rabbit hutches built on ground too wet for them to want to walk over.
The bit of the manifesto I'm most cynical about is building 1.5 million homes in the next 5 years.
That simply isn't going to happen.
Immigration is not going to be significantly reduced either.
Fallon said so yesterday. "tens of thousands.." not a policy, it is an ambition.
Fallon was all over the place on Newsnight. He's one of the better Tory performers and he could not make a coherent case.
Did we get an answer as to whether this figure would include students?
Universities will go to the wall if it does.
Students will remain in the numbers.
Historically, 5 years on 20% of students remain in the country, so a net immigration of about 50 000 per year, plus dependents. This varies tremendously by country of origin, with Mid Eastern, African and Sub-Continental students most likely to stay and also most likely to bring family. Only about 1% of Chinese or Koreans stay.
This may no longer be the case as rules on postgraduate work have tightened, so the number of net migrants may well have dropped.
Why the figures are still based on the passenger survey rather than more accurate data held by airlines etc is not clear.
The moment she entered, the Cabinet shot to their feet, as though just electrocuted in the privates. They burst into frantic applause. Look, miss, I’m clapping as hard as I possibly can. Please don’t sack me! It may not be enough to save Liz Truss and Sajid Javid.
I would say by recent standards the 2017 manifesto is quite 'original'......
An uncosted set of promises predicated on a good Brexit deal. There's original and there's fantasy. Looks to me like Labour and the Tories are both in the same boat on that front. But only one is going to have to deliver.
I didn't look as though there were many large spending commitments in the Tory manifesto beyond the extra cash for the NHS.
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
Under the existing scheme, she could lose £299,999!
Your reply cleverly ignores the inherent unfairness.
Still, the debate itself had passed off as watchably as you might expect given it starred the leaders of parties polling collectively at 14%. There they were behind their five desks: the also-ran Breakfast Club.
Why do you keep going on about the debate if it was so rubbish? Most normal people ignored it and went down the pub.
It was a very funny article. Carlotta rather misrepresented the spirit of it with her quote. Some wonderful descriptions of Nuttall and UKIP
"...Team Nuttall, on hand in the spin room to explain whose fault it was that the Ukip leader called two of the women on stage with him Natalie. Even though none of the women on stage with him were called Natalie. “Well she kept interrupting him!”
And her descrition of the the Tories "motoring down to Salford to tell everyone how unimportant it was" and possibly a new one for the next Oxford Dictionary of Quotations 'The spin-doctors have filtered it through their ARSEOISIE'
The Conservatives will have to find almost £40 billion from further tax rises or spending cuts after producing an uncosted manifesto committed to eliminating the budget deficit by 2025.
Senior Conservatives were scrambling to play down the prospect of post-election tax rises after Theresa May scrapped a promise not to raise income tax or national insurance.
Experts warned that a new Tory government was likely to raise national insurance for the self-employed and to remove deductions on income tax and corporation tax as well as potentially broadening the base of products that qualify for 20 per cent VAT.
Good morning all. Been giving some thought to the implications of the social care proposals. Firstly, I think we might be a bit guilty of the wish being father of the thought in terms of possible vote impact- betting wise we are looking for things that might move the market and open up opportunities. In terms of the actuality, well I'm not so sure it will shift voting intentions much. Aside from the potential impact on those needing home care for long term illness, the situation has been improved markedly for those who have to go into care homes with a much higher cap. Also, the threat of having to sell your home has been taken away. That will be a big relief to many older voters. Also, nobody 'expects' to become ill or get dementia. The negative impact on votes will come when people have experienced the effect, not so much in fear of it. I think winter fuel and kids lunches will shift more votes than care.
An urban metropolitan liberal professional was highly likely to vote Remain
It is sad that so many of those who do well in life forget their duty to protect the less fortunate
That duty is interpreted differently by different people. Some extremely well-heeled voters opted for Leave in pursuit of an unregulated hard right fantasy. Sadly, we shall all need to live with the consequences of that economic and cultural vandalism for decades to come.
And some didn't. For me it was about standing up for people who have been ignored by the London-centric individuals who have dominated politics for the last 20 years
I could make comments about your wholly self-deceiving altruism, given that the Leave campaign was won by frightening people with xenophobic lies. But instead I invite you to consider that Remain voters strongly believed that Remain would have been in the best interests of the country as a whole and that your initial cheap shot was both irrelevant to the thread and unworthy of you.
Leave has so far completely failed to persuade erstwhile Remain voters that they were wrong. The lack of curiosity among Leavers as to why they have been so unpersuasive in the intervening months is very noticeable.
It wasn't a cheap shot (my objection was more to the second half of the statement). I'm sure they believed what they did deeply - but they mistook their own narrow (not meant perjoratively) life experience for the national interest. What works at the statistical level may well not work got the majority of individuals - it comes down to the difference in GDP growth and GDP per capita growth.
With the majority of the media dominated by a similar world view, and the approach of some high profile irredentists validating rejectionist behaviour how should Brexiteers have got their message across?
It's been said before, but if the erstwhile Remainers had campaigned for soft Brexit rather than resisting the result of the vote they may well have got it.
Of course, Brexiteers will blame Remainers for everything!!
Just some friendly advice about picking your battles
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
That actually sounds pretty fair to me. People save for a rainy day, and that seems to be pretty wet.
And a bit of stick if their Lordships prove troublesome:
Although comprehensive reform is not a priority we will ensure that the House of Lords continues to fulfil its constitutional role as a revising and scrutinising chamber which respects the primacy of the House of Commons. We have already undertaken reform to allow the retirement of peers and the expulsion of members for poor conduct and will continue to ensure the work of the House of Lords remains relevant and effective by addressing issues such as its size.
Life peers have a maximum time in the house of, say, 20 years before they retire from the House?
[Assuming most life peers are in their 50s or 60s, that means they will retire between 70 and 80, which is not unreasonable. Any benefit from the fact that peers appointed from 1997 onwards would begin to retire shortly is entirely coincidental]
Maximum period of service set. No member of Commons can join within 15 years of service. Retired from house if they have not shown up to a certain number if votes in last 4 years.
It gets rid of those not contributing, MPs who want to use it as retirement right away and controls the numbers, without yet getting into reforming composition or operation.
An urban metropolitan liberal professional was highly likely to vote Remain
It is sad that so many of those who do well in life forget their duty to protect the less fortunate
Don't worry, Charles, Brexit will work out fine for you. It's those further down the ladder who are likely to end up being shafted.
They were already being shafted.
Effectively unlimited immigration benefits the aggregate economy (although much less so on a per capita basis) but the benefits accrue largely to the well off and the costs are borne by the semi-skilled and skilled working classes.
That's not just.
It's not true either. There's a case to make that there's a small downside to the unskilled, but even that seems dubious over the medium to long term. The people who see a measurable downside from new immigration are earlier immigrants.
And if we have accepted those immigrants then they should be viewed in the same way as any other member of society. Once a commitment is made it is made. Fidelis in Ardua.
Except to EU immigrants, of course. We won't guarantee to honour their rights.
What rights? I don't think anyone is objecting to giving them the same rights as other British Citizens the issue is the EUs request that they have different rights to British Citizens.
As a UK citizen I can leave the UK for any period of time and return to settle at any time. Will the government guarantee that right for EU citizens?
An urban metropolitan liberal professional was highly likely to vote Remain
It is sad that so many of those who do well in life forget their duty to protect the less fortunate
Don't worry, Charles, Brexit will work out fine for you. It's those further down the ladder who are likely to end up being shafted.
They were already being shafted.
Effectively unlimited immigration benefits the aggregate economy (although much less so on a per capita basis) but the benefits accrue largely to the well off and the costs are borne by the semi-skilled and skilled working classes.
That's not just.
It's not true either. There's a case to make that there's a small downside to the unskilled, but even that seems dubious over the medium to long term. The people who see a measurable downside from new immigration are earlier immigrants.
And if we have accepted those immigrants then they should be viewed in the same way as any other member of society. Once a commitment is made it is made. Fidelis in Ardua.
Except to EU immigrants, of course. We won't guarantee to honour their rights.
What rights? I don't think anyone is objecting to giving them the same rights as other British Citizens the issue is the EUs request that they have different rights to British Citizens.
As a UK citizen I can leave the UK for any period of time and return to settle at any time. Will the government guarantee that right for EU citizens?
Nothing stopping them becoming a UK citizen to enjoy such rights.
An urban metropolitan liberal professional was highly likely to vote Remain
It is sad that so many of those who do well in life forget their duty to protect the less fortunate
Don't worry, Charles, Brexit will work out fine for you. It's those further down the ladder who are likely to end up being shafted.
They were already being shafted.
Effectively unlimited immigration benefits the aggregate economy (although much less so on a per capita basis) but the benefits accrue largely to the well off and the costs are borne by the semi-skilled and skilled working classes.
That's not just.
It's not true either. There's a case to make that there's a small downside to the unskilled, but even that seems dubious over the medium to long term. The people who see a measurable downside from new immigration are earlier immigrants.
And if we have accepted those immigrants then they should be viewed in the same way as any other member of society. Once a commitment is made it is made. Fidelis in Ardua.
Except to EU immigrants, of course. We won't guarantee to honour their rights.
If the EU will, we will
Also a difference between those with permanent right to remain and those who have chosen to utilise a more temporary arrangement based on an agreement between states
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
Under the existing scheme, she could lose £299,999!
Your reply cleverly ignores the inherent unfairness.
It's a difficult one.
Clearly we do have parity of financial provision for the person who needs chemo, compared to the one that doesn't. But what happens if they can no longer work? The state defaults back to providing a minimum financial settlement, not parity. The one with dementia is back-stopped by the state in a broadly similar way.
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
That actually sounds pretty fair to me. People save for a rainy day, and that seems to be pretty wet.
How about the same scenario - under current rules - with the same two widows except that one rents her home and has the £322,000 all in the bank?
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
Aren't you just saying that life affects different people differently. I'm unclear why the state should be compensating the estate beneficiaries in this case. If she lost all her money in a bad investment one might offer a sympathetic shrug but sadly life deals some people good, and some people bad, hands. The state's role in helping out is for those who really suffer at the lower end, not those who lose out on hundreds of thousands.
An urban metropolitan liberal professional was highly likely to vote Remain
It is sad that so many of those who do well in life forget their duty to protect the less fortunate
Don't worry, Charles, Brexit will work out fine for you. It's those further down the ladder who are likely to end up being shafted.
They were already being shafted.
Effectively unlimited immigration benefits the aggregate economy (although much less so on a per capita basis) but the benefits accrue largely to the well off and the costs are borne by the semi-skilled and skilled working classes.
That's not just.
It's not true either. There's a case to make that there's a small downside to the unskilled, but even that seems dubious over the medium to long term. The people who see a measurable downside from new immigration are earlier immigrants.
And if we have accepted those immigrants then they should be viewed in the same way as any other member of society. Once a commitment is made it is made. Fidelis in Ardua.
Except to EU immigrants, of course. We won't guarantee to honour their rights.
What rights? I don't think anyone is objecting to giving them the same rights as other British Citizens the issue is the EUs request that they have different rights to British Citizens.
As a UK citizen I can leave the UK for any period of time and return to settle at any time. Will the government guarantee that right for EU citizens?
Nothing stopping them becoming a UK citizen to enjoy such rights.
Are you suggesting an expedited process for Europeans to obtain UK citizenship?
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
That actually sounds pretty fair to me. People save for a rainy day, and that seems to be pretty wet.
An urban metropolitan liberal professional was highly likely to vote Remain
It is sad that so many of those who do well in life forget their duty to protect the less fortunate
Don't worry, Charles, Brexit will work out fine for you. It's those further down the ladder who are likely to end up being shafted.
They were already being shafted.
Effectively unlimited immigration benefits the aggregate economy (although much less so on a per capita basis) but the benefits accrue largely to the well off and the costs are borne by the semi-skilled and skilled working classes.
That's not just.
It's not true either. There's a case to make that there's a small downside to the unskilled, but even that seems dubious over the medium to long term. The people who see a measurable downside from new immigration are earlier immigrants.
And if we have accepted those immigrants then they should be viewed in the same way as any other member of society. Once a commitment is made it is made. Fidelis in Ardua.
Except to EU immigrants, of course. We won't guarantee to honour their rights.
What rights? I don't think anyone is objecting to giving them the same rights as other British Citizens the issue is the EUs request that they have different rights to British Citizens.
As a UK citizen I can leave the UK for any period of time and return to settle at any time. Will the government guarantee that right for EU citizens?
Nothing stopping them becoming a UK citizen to enjoy such rights.
Are you suggesting an expedited process for Europeans to obtain UK citizenship?
An urban metropolitan liberal professional was highly likely to vote Remain
It is sad that so many of those who do well in life forget their duty to protect the less fortunate
Don't worry, Charles, Brexit will work out fine for you. It's those further down the ladder who are likely to end up being shafted.
They were already being shafted.
Effectively unlimited immigration benefits the aggregate economy (although much less so on a per capita basis) but the benefits accrue largely to the well off and the costs are borne by the semi-skilled and skilled working classes.
That's not just.
It's not true either. There's a case to make that there's a small downside to the unskilled, but even that seems dubious over the medium to long term. The people who see a measurable downside from new immigration are earlier immigrants.
And if we have accepted those immigrants then they should be viewed in the same way as any other member of society. Once a commitment is made it is made. Fidelis in Ardua.
Except to EU immigrants, of course. We won't guarantee to honour their rights.
What rights? I don't think anyone is objecting to giving them the same rights as other British Citizens the issue is the EUs request that they have different rights to British Citizens.
As a UK citizen I can leave the UK for any period of time and return to settle at any time. Will the government guarantee that right for EU citizens?
Nothing stopping them becoming a UK citizen to enjoy such rights.
The process is actually quite difficult, particularly as EU citizens need to provide evidence of private health insurance, etc, despite being covered by the NHS. It is ironic that friends of mine are now struggling to prove that they had private health cover to work in the NHS.
It is in our interest to have a more straightforward process for people such as this.
An urban metropolitan liberal professional was highly likely to vote Remain
It is sad that so many of those who do well in life forget their duty to protect the less fortunate
Don't worry, Charles, Brexit will work out fine for you. It's those further down the ladder who are likely to end up being shafted.
They were already being shafted.
Effectively unlimited immigration benefits the aggregate economy (although much less so on a per capita basis) but the benefits accrue largely to the well off and the costs are borne by the semi-skilled and skilled working classes.
That's not just.
It's not true either. There's a case to make that there's a small downside to the unskilled, but even that seems dubious over the medium to long term. The people who see a measurable downside from new immigration are earlier immigrants.
And if we have accepted those immigrants then they should be viewed in the same way as any other member of society. Once a commitment is made it is made. Fidelis in Ardua.
Except to EU immigrants, of course. We won't guarantee to honour their rights.
What rights? I don't think anyone is objecting to giving them the same rights as other British Citizens the issue is the EUs request that they have different rights to British Citizens.
As a UK citizen I can leave the UK for any period of time and return to settle at any time. Will the government guarantee that right for EU citizens?
Nothing stopping them becoming a UK citizen to enjoy such rights.
Are you suggesting an expedited process for Europeans to obtain UK citizenship?
Perhaps for the small subset that arrived after five years prior to the end of the transitional arrangements.
Interesting to see what happens when people start realising what this means.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
She's going to need that care and that cost of it no matter what, surely it's better to actually provide that care and it be good quality. The money has to come from somewhere, so either pay it when you need you, or higher overall taxation on everyone regardless of it they need it or not.
If it improves and properly funds social care in a better way, then it has to be at least a reasonable plan.
The Conservatives will have to find almost £40 billion from further tax rises or spending cuts after producing an uncosted manifesto committed to eliminating the budget deficit by 2025.
Senior Conservatives were scrambling to play down the prospect of post-election tax rises after Theresa May scrapped a promise not to raise income tax or national insurance.
Experts warned that a new Tory government was likely to raise national insurance for the self-employed and to remove deductions on income tax and corporation tax as well as potentially broadening the base of products that qualify for 20 per cent VAT.
Eliminating the deficit isn't "uncosted". We know precisely how much it will "cost" (i.e. need in savings).
In any case they're saying it'll take nearly 10 years so hardly a priority.
Nevertheless this can only happen if the Tories manage to increase government income (or cut spending - which is getting towards pretty much impossible given pressure and promises) by an amount equivalent to the deficit, over the ten year period. This clearly points to further tax rises (for example Hammond's wheeze with self employed NI reappears) that aren't spelled out in the manifesto.
Comments
That’s what comes across to me as May’s attitude.
That simply isn't going to happen.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-election-funding-idUKKCN18F0GK
I am not attacking her, I am doubting her ability to deliver. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. Her approach to Brexit does not seem to be compatible with her promise to improve living standards and eliminate the deficit by 2025. There is also the matter of her re-engineering Conservatism without any debate inside the party having taken place. Once the election has been won, will MPs and the right wing press give her the free hand to intervene and redistribute? We shall see.
Everywhere now - rather than just limited to the horribly white EU.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/conservative-manifesto-10-million-pensioners-to-lose-winter-fuel-payments-a3543051.html
Homeowners vote Tory....
Originally introduced by the Tories ultimately for 20 years, cut by Blair to 15 years.
No Labour commitment - so Labour voting expats will have to vote for a Tory government first....
I try not to laugh when I think of those two being defenestrated. Almost as funny as the idea of Corbyn coming last in the next Labour leadership election.
Rumour has it she'll give it to Boris.......
I know "bold, open trading nation" was part of the message in the referendum, but in practice there's no getting around the actual implementation, which is "local shops for local people". TBF, this is what the voters want.
With the majority of the media dominated by a similar world view, and the approach of some high profile irredentists validating rejectionist behaviour how should Brexiteers have got their message across?
It's been said before, but if the erstwhile Remainers had campaigned for soft Brexit rather than resisting the result of the vote they may well have got it.
All other party manifestos in the science fiction remainder pile ....
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/tory-dementia-tax-backfire-theresa-may/
300 thousand a year
6000 a week from day one.
Nope.
And this time no Labour owls ....
Whatever happened to Cameron's idea of forcing Housing Associations to sell off their stock? There was an outcry at the time, and some legal issues (forcing a non-government organisation to sell was always *bold*); did it die a quiet death?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/18/itv-debate-election-paul-nuttall-tim-farron-spin-room-marina-hyde?CMP=share_btn_tw
1) Have already benefited themselves from the ability to do the thing you're talking about denying to other people.
2) Wouldn't generally agree with you that they're being unjustly treated by letting more people like them in.
Universities will go to the wall if it does.
The key is affluent Remainers are less likely to vote for May than Cameron but working class and lower middle class Leavers are more likely to vote for May than Cameron while in Scotland the Tories will win close to a third of the vote on an anti indyref2 ticket
There's an obvious line against it. Get cancer, your treatment's paid for by the state, get Alzheimer's, you have to pay for the care (albeit deferred).
There is a serious problem with care funding, but this doesn't seem wise and gives a very easy stick to beat the Conservatives with to their opponents.
There's a weird sort of financial blind spot, it seems. Complacency? Hubris? Might Hammond/May be a bit rubbish?
And yet the alternative is Corbyn.
"Let’s imagine two 80-year-old widows who live next-door to each other somewhere in the south of England. Their properties are both worth £312,000 and they have another £10,000 in other assets, so a total of £322,000 each. Happily, they both live till 95. Unhappily, one of them suffers dementia for 10 years, and soon needs round-the-clock care. The other widow is healthy and reasonably active until the very end of her life.
Under the new Conservative plans, the one who is healthy until the end of her life will leave her estate completely intact to her loved ones. The one who needs all that care, however, will be billed up to £222,000. "
This is an f-ing disaster for May and will have to be altered or dropped at some point.
Historically, 5 years on 20% of students remain in the country, so a net immigration of about 50 000 per year, plus dependents. This varies tremendously by country of origin, with Mid Eastern, African and Sub-Continental students most likely to stay and also most likely to bring family. Only about 1% of Chinese or Koreans stay.
This may no longer be the case as rules on postgraduate work have tightened, so the number of net migrants may well have dropped.
Why the figures are still based on the passenger survey rather than more accurate data held by airlines etc is not clear.
"...Team Nuttall, on hand in the spin room to explain whose fault it was that the Ukip leader called two of the women on stage with him Natalie. Even though none of the women on stage with him were called Natalie. “Well she kept interrupting him!”
And her descrition of the the Tories "motoring down to Salford to tell everyone how unimportant it was" and possibly a new one for the next Oxford Dictionary of Quotations 'The spin-doctors have filtered it through their ARSEOISIE'
In terms of the actuality, well I'm not so sure it will shift voting intentions much. Aside from the potential impact on those needing home care for long term illness, the situation has been improved markedly for those who have to go into care homes with a much higher cap. Also, the threat of having to sell your home has been taken away. That will be a big relief to many older voters. Also, nobody 'expects' to become ill or get dementia. The negative impact on votes will come when people have experienced the effect, not so much in fear of it.
I think winter fuel and kids lunches will shift more votes than care.
No member of Commons can join within 15 years of service.
Retired from house if they have not shown up to a certain number if votes in last 4 years.
It gets rid of those not contributing, MPs who want to use it as retirement right away and controls the numbers, without yet getting into reforming composition or operation.
Also a difference between those with permanent right to remain and those who have chosen to utilise a more temporary arrangement based on an agreement between states
Clearly we do have parity of financial provision for the person who needs chemo, compared to the one that doesn't. But what happens if they can no longer work? The state defaults back to providing a minimum financial settlement, not parity. The one with dementia is back-stopped by the state in a broadly similar way.
It is in our interest to have a more straightforward process for people such as this.
If it improves and properly funds social care in a better way, then it has to be at least a reasonable plan.